Something I do not
get. Why the
complicated instructions for users of
inferior units? It's not like the numbers
18.5,
20 and
25 have some
intrinsic meaning; they're just the way these ratios come out when you have
height in
metres and
weight in
kilgrams. And
every time you see the BMI in
English-language press, they always use
metric constants and tell you how to apply the conversions.
So the logical thing to do would be to tell Yanks to do it all with lbs and inches, and convert the 3 magic numbers once and for all. In fact, I have performed this unique feat.
Divide your weight (in lbs) by your height (in inches) squared.
- Between 0.026 and 0.028
- possibly underweight
- Between 0.028 and 0.036
- just right
- Between 0.036 and 0.043
- overweight
- Above 0.043
- obese
There!
That wasn't so bad, was it?
Of course, people stick with this triple-conversion mania for much the same reasons that they stick to a measuring system based on the width of some king's nose -- a mantic awe of numbers.