On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 18:45:36 GMT, Radioactive Man wrote:

On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 21:34:19 -0500, Dally wrote:

Pho Duc wrote:

Did Blair follow over 5,300 people with an average age of around 45 years
for a period ranging from 22 to 26 years? That is what the quoted study
did. That's a significant amount of people over a very significant about
of time. The starting mean age is of particular significance since one
would expect a fair number of deaths over that period of time.

Sadly, the study revolved around BMI rather than BF%. Defining "fat" by
BMI rather than body composition makes the whole thing bull****. IMO.

Dally


Not necessarily. BMI is a function many factors besides body fat,
including bone size/density, muscle mass, fluid retention, etc. Thus,
you cannot say an individual has too much or too little fat tissue
based solely on BMI. The same cannot be said for the BMI of a
population or statistically large enough sample of individuals, since
variations in body fat would be the most probable cause for variations
in BMI between populations or large samples of populations. If you
take a population and divide it into groups based on BMI, what you
really end up with is a probability, not a certainty, that an
individual will be overweight due to excess body fat. If you've got a
BMI of 26, there's a good chance it's due to factors besides body fat.
As you increase BMI, that probability gets smaller and smaller,
eventually reaching zero.

Do you mean to say that someone who is 600 lbs is that way because of
body fat?

Shocking!!
--
kj