You're wrong, it's broken as designed, the exponent of 2 on height assumes an incorrect scaling and means that being taller you're automatically considered more overweight.
I like my girls abit fuller, that size 14 model is the dogs knees. Cold morning in bed which one would you want a cuddle off ?
1950 – Marylin Monroe (Size 14)
[URL="http://www.blisstree.com/healthbolt/a-short-history-of-the-ideal-female-body/"]here[/URL][/QUOTE]
read on though
"1950 – Marylin Monroe (Size 14)
Update: MAM885 says
I’ve read in a couple very reliable sources (women’s fitness magazines) that Monroe’s “size 14″ is comparable to a size 8 today, due to vanity sizing and such."
It was devised sometime in the early 1800s, it is probably applicable to a much smaller % of the population now than then. Additionally a generalised scale that is known to be weighted at one end (small people can be proportionally fatter and not classed as overweight) will badly skew any averages you create with it and rather negates it's use for assessing populations.Ok, let's say the scaling is incorrect, it still gives broadly applicable results for a large percentage of the population - that's what it was designed to do. People at the ends of almost any generalised scale tend to be the more problematic by the very nature of having a generalised scale. I've already pointed out that it isn't designed to replace an individual assessment of the physical condition of a person.
My girlfriend is 6' 3" and is a size 12.
Not too skinny as she actually has meat on her! She eats almost as much as me too!

[TW]Fox;15651164 said:How do you measure bone density?

Are you sure you're not confusing 'average healthy' with 'average'?Like it or not I think in reality it's 14.
12, because I don't want to be crushedI like my girls abit fuller, that size 14 model is the dogs knees. Cold morning in bed which one would you want a cuddle off ?
