For those few people who are reading this, please watch the video:
Thank you.
Wednesday, September 02, 2009
Car park in Japan
In Japan, there are automatic car parks that store, retrieve, and even turn the car around for you so that you are facing the correct direction in order to leave. (The whole thing seems like it would be a little "fumigated" by the end of the day, though, what with there not being a lot of visible air circulation going on...)
This one sort of slides the car sideways.
Meanwhile, in the US, things haven't changed too much from this Seinfeld episode:
This one sort of slides the car sideways.
Meanwhile, in the US, things haven't changed too much from this Seinfeld episode:
Tuesday, September 01, 2009
Vermont now marrying same-sex couples
Via various news sources this morning: Vermont is now providing marriages for same-sex couples. Huzzah! Apparently, there were no massive rushes for marriage licenses that we saw in San Francisco (during that brief period in which same-sex marriage licenses were allowed).
Some might think that is not a good thing, but I think that the fact that same-sex couples feel that they have the luxury of time to make their plans and have it "done right" (as it were) is a good thing, since it provides a sense of permanence to the whole institution. In other words, if the fifth New England state's allowance of same-sex marriage was met with throngs and throngs of people, it could also be seen as being similar to the bread lines of post-Soviet Russia: people lining up for the desperate hope of getting a scarce commodity that can run out at any time.
Furthermore, as the rest of New England starts issuing marriage licenses, there will be less of a "need" to go to Vermont in order to get married. The fact that so many New Englanders are feeling comfortable enough to wait for it to inevitably come to them is IMHO a good thing.
However, a blogger at Queerty - as well as NPR's marketplace - makes an interesting point: that this low turn out may be due to many couples wanting to get married on the anniversary of their previous civil union. (Civil unions were allowed in the state since 2000.)
Some might think that is not a good thing, but I think that the fact that same-sex couples feel that they have the luxury of time to make their plans and have it "done right" (as it were) is a good thing, since it provides a sense of permanence to the whole institution. In other words, if the fifth New England state's allowance of same-sex marriage was met with throngs and throngs of people, it could also be seen as being similar to the bread lines of post-Soviet Russia: people lining up for the desperate hope of getting a scarce commodity that can run out at any time.
Furthermore, as the rest of New England starts issuing marriage licenses, there will be less of a "need" to go to Vermont in order to get married. The fact that so many New Englanders are feeling comfortable enough to wait for it to inevitably come to them is IMHO a good thing.
However, a blogger at Queerty - as well as NPR's marketplace - makes an interesting point: that this low turn out may be due to many couples wanting to get married on the anniversary of their previous civil union. (Civil unions were allowed in the state since 2000.)
Friday, August 28, 2009
I don't think I can handle Hamburger Helper anymore.
Anyway, as a person who doesn't want to see things go to waste, I decided to cook up some of the stuff yesterday, using some frozen ground turkey instead of beef. The taste was as expected - artificial (as it says on the box) - and wasn't really satisfying. However, late that night, I had to make a run to the toilet... Several times...
I suppose that my stomach is just no longer used to powdered foodstuffs cooked up in a pan. I've been having too much of the "good stuff" (i.e., farm-fresh vegetables, home-cooked meals, etc.) for Hamburger Helper. (Strangely, though, I still off the 99-cent menu at Wendy's on occasion, and those grease-bombs don't seem to hurt me any).
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Carying an axe in my pannier
I wanted to split some wood for winter firewood, but the axe was in serious need of sharpening. Without a car, though, it was going to be difficult to get it to the farmers' market for sharpening.
However, with a bit of rope and the help of my panniers I was able to get the axe over to the blade sharpener's at the market. I wonder, though, what people were thinking as they drove past me on the road.
The axe is nice and sharp now, and log splitting is quite easy, at least for the softwoods. I'll have to get a wedge for splitting the hardwoods, though. ... and if I'm going to get a splitter wedge, I'll also have to get a sledgehammer, I suppose.
However, with a bit of rope and the help of my panniers I was able to get the axe over to the blade sharpener's at the market. I wonder, though, what people were thinking as they drove past me on the road.
The axe is nice and sharp now, and log splitting is quite easy, at least for the softwoods. I'll have to get a wedge for splitting the hardwoods, though. ... and if I'm going to get a splitter wedge, I'll also have to get a sledgehammer, I suppose.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
No romance in candle-lit fish dinners
Based on two stories from PhysOrg, we learn that pretty much all fish has got mercury in it - not quite the beneficial nutrient. We also learn that the candles we normally purchase is a source of indoor air pollution.
What does this mean if we want to have a candle-lit fish supper? Well, we can use beeswax candles and Pacific fishes...
What does this mean if we want to have a candle-lit fish supper? Well, we can use beeswax candles and Pacific fishes...
How not to engage at a town hall
I saw this over at Crooks and Liars:
What he says and how he says it are both correct. The woman doesn't actually want to talk about the issues at hand, yet feels a desire to derail it with hyperbole. Not only that, but the type of hyperbole is - as Frank says - "vile and contemptible." It compares Barack Obama - a person who was voted in by a massive popular vote of the entire country - directly to Adolf Hitler - a person who effectively usurped power and installed himself through force of arms.
Trying to argue with her (and those like her) are exactly like Frank said: "it's like trying to argue with a dining room table." It's pointless, and - as recent psychological studies have shown - doing so only serves to imprint the person's message in the minds of the audience. (Basically, the study showed that arguing the counterfactual to a lie by just saying, "Not X," only makes people remember "X," thus keeping the lie "alive" in the minds of the audience.)
This, and the statement from over the weekend of "facts vs. Beck" was also the right way to do this.
Of course, opponents are likely going to latch on to these two cases to try and show how congressmen are "talking down" to "real Americans." However, these stations are likely already preaching to the choir -- people who have already come to that conclusion, and will likely only agree vociferously with the voice coming out of the electronic box that supports their own pre-determined position.
Finally, is it just me, or does it seem like there are fewer cases of "storming the townhall" than there were before? If so, then does it mean that the stormers are on vacation, have started to realize the hyperbole is false, or something else? Or does it mean that more reasonable people are starting to go to townhall meetings in order to try and actually find out what's going on - rather than listen to people yelling on the TV?
What he says and how he says it are both correct. The woman doesn't actually want to talk about the issues at hand, yet feels a desire to derail it with hyperbole. Not only that, but the type of hyperbole is - as Frank says - "vile and contemptible." It compares Barack Obama - a person who was voted in by a massive popular vote of the entire country - directly to Adolf Hitler - a person who effectively usurped power and installed himself through force of arms.
Trying to argue with her (and those like her) are exactly like Frank said: "it's like trying to argue with a dining room table." It's pointless, and - as recent psychological studies have shown - doing so only serves to imprint the person's message in the minds of the audience. (Basically, the study showed that arguing the counterfactual to a lie by just saying, "Not X," only makes people remember "X," thus keeping the lie "alive" in the minds of the audience.)
This, and the statement from over the weekend of "facts vs. Beck" was also the right way to do this.
Of course, opponents are likely going to latch on to these two cases to try and show how congressmen are "talking down" to "real Americans." However, these stations are likely already preaching to the choir -- people who have already come to that conclusion, and will likely only agree vociferously with the voice coming out of the electronic box that supports their own pre-determined position.
Finally, is it just me, or does it seem like there are fewer cases of "storming the townhall" than there were before? If so, then does it mean that the stormers are on vacation, have started to realize the hyperbole is false, or something else? Or does it mean that more reasonable people are starting to go to townhall meetings in order to try and actually find out what's going on - rather than listen to people yelling on the TV?
Homes pollute the water
Via PhysOrg:
You also know that people use pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers in their gardens and their lawns. True, not all places are subject to the same cycles of a Californian wet and dry season, nor do all places have the same surficial geology as found in the research area. However, irrigation (i.e., watering your lawn) continues throughout the summer months, and the desire for verdant lawns means that there is a market for fertilizer and pesticide use, and these get into the groundwater.
Now, this article also makes it seem like there are problems with the previous models, and that may well have been the case. However, I don't know that the problem was in the model, but in the groundtruthing of the model, as it was applied to a region outside where it was developed, and why not? Well, I'm assuming that the model was developed a couple (or more) decades ago -- before companies like ChemLawn came into the forefront of "lawncare". They were also probably made before the production of suburbs with massive lawns were included in the "city". In the time when the models were made, therefore, the only major source groundwater recharge came from rain, since people didn't water their lawns (so much) and (might even) have left it to go brown (or grown climate-adapted grass). In this condition, the addition of home-scale lawn chemicals wasn't at all significant, and was therefore left out of the equation.
Skip forward to today, where we live with a California with large ChemGreen lawns (nothing against ChemGreen, but it seems to be the major "lawncare" company in the Ann Arbor region.) that need constant watering (since the lawns aren't made up of climate-adapted grasses) as well as doses of pesticide and herbicide. (Thus, you have warnings of not allowing children or pets on the grass after an application by ChemLawn.) It's not surprising that this new reality in which we live needs to be considered in a different light than the reality in which the model was developed: the physical conditions have changed, and the models representing those physical conditions should also change.
... especially if we will be living in a world in which we want to use science and engineering to make policy and management choices about physical world issues. Especially, too, as we learn the various ways in which we cumulatively impact our surroundings, including those regions that we cannot directly see (e.g., groundwater). Especially, further, if we wish to have predictive capabilities for future management action and being able to incorporate the changes we will see not only form an altered climate, but also from increased population demands on the land, air, and (in this case) water.
They say there's no place like home. But scientists are reporting some unsettling news about homes in the residential areas of California. The typical house there — and probably elsewhere in the country — is an alarming and probably underestimated source of water pollution, according to a new study reported today at the 238th National Meeting of the American Chemical Society.
In the study, Lorence Oki, Darren Haver and colleagues explain that runoff results from rainfall and watering of lawns and gardens, which winds up in municipal storm drains. The runoff washes fertilizers, pesticides and other contaminants into storm drains, and they eventually appear in rivers, lakes and other bodies of water.
"Results from our sampling and monitoring study revealed high detection frequencies of pollutants such as pesticides and pathogen indicators at all sites," Oki says of their study of eight residential areas in Sacramento and Orange Counties in California.
Preliminary results of the study suggest that current models may underestimate the amount of pollution contributed by homes by up to 50 percent. That's because past estimates focused on rain-based runoff during the wet season. "Use of pesticides, however, increases noticeably during the dry season due to gardening, and our data contains greater resolution than previous studies," Oki says.
I wonder if this will be something that will be studied by urban planners, architects, and landscape architects. I mean, if you ever watched a sewer system being repaired, you know that there are leaks. If you ever had power cut off water distribution to your house, you have probably heard the public announcements warning residents to not drink the water for a few days -- indicating that water distribution systems leak (but that the normal positive pressure keeps the contaminants found in the ground out of the drinking water).Pollutants detected in outdoor runoff included ant-control pesticide products. Previous surveys have shown that the majority of pesticides purchased by homeowners are used to control ants. To encourage pollutant reduction, the researchers initiated community outreach programs centered on improving both irrigation control and pest management.
You also know that people use pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers in their gardens and their lawns. True, not all places are subject to the same cycles of a Californian wet and dry season, nor do all places have the same surficial geology as found in the research area. However, irrigation (i.e., watering your lawn) continues throughout the summer months, and the desire for verdant lawns means that there is a market for fertilizer and pesticide use, and these get into the groundwater.
Now, this article also makes it seem like there are problems with the previous models, and that may well have been the case. However, I don't know that the problem was in the model, but in the groundtruthing of the model, as it was applied to a region outside where it was developed, and why not? Well, I'm assuming that the model was developed a couple (or more) decades ago -- before companies like ChemLawn came into the forefront of "lawncare". They were also probably made before the production of suburbs with massive lawns were included in the "city". In the time when the models were made, therefore, the only major source groundwater recharge came from rain, since people didn't water their lawns (so much) and (might even) have left it to go brown (or grown climate-adapted grass). In this condition, the addition of home-scale lawn chemicals wasn't at all significant, and was therefore left out of the equation.
Skip forward to today, where we live with a California with large ChemGreen lawns (nothing against ChemGreen, but it seems to be the major "lawncare" company in the Ann Arbor region.) that need constant watering (since the lawns aren't made up of climate-adapted grasses) as well as doses of pesticide and herbicide. (Thus, you have warnings of not allowing children or pets on the grass after an application by ChemLawn.) It's not surprising that this new reality in which we live needs to be considered in a different light than the reality in which the model was developed: the physical conditions have changed, and the models representing those physical conditions should also change.
... especially if we will be living in a world in which we want to use science and engineering to make policy and management choices about physical world issues. Especially, too, as we learn the various ways in which we cumulatively impact our surroundings, including those regions that we cannot directly see (e.g., groundwater). Especially, further, if we wish to have predictive capabilities for future management action and being able to incorporate the changes we will see not only form an altered climate, but also from increased population demands on the land, air, and (in this case) water.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
SSA conference 2009 presentation
A short (for an academic) presentation by PZ Myers to the Student Secular Alliance conference (2009).
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Monday, August 10, 2009
New bike-parking trial in Ann Arbor
The basic idea is - I think - a good one: provide more places for bikes to park that isn't impeding foot traffic, thus making it more desirable to walk and bike to the "downtown" area. This bike parking structure is only temporary, and I don't know if there are any more around town. However, it's sponsored (if that's the right word) by the Downtown Development Authority, so I would hope that one (or more) of these show up downtown.
I don't know, though, if blue is the best color to paint these, since - apart from some reflective tape - it's not highly visible even during the day. Furthermore, people aren't expecting to see something like it, so taken together with its limited visibility (especially when not in use), it's likely that drivers will complain that it's a road hazard.
However, if you've seen the bike rack and want to provide the city with your own feedback (it apparently really helped with the issue of installing the LED streetlights), then I encourage you to call in:
UPDATE: Looking at the DDA website story on this, there are two more bike rack stations: one in front of the People's Food Co-Op and the other in front of Arbor Brewing Company. Three in total... they do target places that are high-bike traffic areas, but I think there could be more penetration; for example putting one on at William and Main, to get "both ends" of Main Street by complementing the one in front of Arbor Brewing Co.
Sunday, August 02, 2009
Cycled to Dexter
Today I decided to take a trip out to Dexter. My main reason was to take an updated photo of the Mill Creek outlet, since someone wrote to me, saying that the bridge was almost completed, and I thought, "Hm... I should go out there and see what it looks like, and see if I can look at the amount of erosion (through the back-sedimentation) taking place."
One problem with my trip, though, is that - unlike when I was living in town - I could not easily get over to Huron River Drive to cycle along the river back and forth from Dexter, and the quickest way to get there is to take Dexter-Ann Arbor Road. Of course, I decided not to follow the directions given online, so instead of taking Dexter-Ann Arbor Road, I went the extra bit and took Miller instead. (Stupid choice, since both roads intersect anyway as one goes toward Dexter.)
I stopped in for lunch at the Lighthouse Cafe - eggs benedict with hashbrowns - and then stopped to watch the Dexter fire department put out a fire at the drugstore (ooh, exciting!) before getting some coffee and cycling back home along Huron River Drive.
The trip back from Dexter was a leisurely 45 minutes. The total distance was 27.9 km, and I was back before 2PM. The new bike works well, but the only thing I would like aerobars (or additions) to allow me to lean down to cycle with a little less wind resistance than my current more-upright position gives... or maybe some dropbars instead.
One problem with my trip, though, is that - unlike when I was living in town - I could not easily get over to Huron River Drive to cycle along the river back and forth from Dexter, and the quickest way to get there is to take Dexter-Ann Arbor Road. Of course, I decided not to follow the directions given online, so instead of taking Dexter-Ann Arbor Road, I went the extra bit and took Miller instead. (Stupid choice, since both roads intersect anyway as one goes toward Dexter.)
I stopped in for lunch at the Lighthouse Cafe - eggs benedict with hashbrowns - and then stopped to watch the Dexter fire department put out a fire at the drugstore (ooh, exciting!) before getting some coffee and cycling back home along Huron River Drive.
The trip back from Dexter was a leisurely 45 minutes. The total distance was 27.9 km, and I was back before 2PM. The new bike works well, but the only thing I would like aerobars (or additions) to allow me to lean down to cycle with a little less wind resistance than my current more-upright position gives... or maybe some dropbars instead.
Friday, July 31, 2009
Old Man River
The song Old Man River is one of my favorite songs. Lawrence Beaman recently sang Old Man River to riotous applause on America's Got Talent:
The version from the 1936 film version of Show Boat:
Julie Garland's version is considered by some to be a classic:
Another rendition by Screamin' Jay Hawkins:
Of course, the song is also popular in other parts of the world. The late Azerbaijani operatic and pop singer Muslim Magomayev gives us this operatic version:
Also, from Norway (methinks), there is this version:
The version from the 1936 film version of Show Boat:
Julie Garland's version is considered by some to be a classic:
Another rendition by Screamin' Jay Hawkins:
Of course, the song is also popular in other parts of the world. The late Azerbaijani operatic and pop singer Muslim Magomayev gives us this operatic version:
Also, from Norway (methinks), there is this version:
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Moody skies over Art Fair
Art Fair finished last Saturday, and I'm only now uploading photos...
![]()
http://www.flickr.com/photos/60809206@N00/3744428982
![]()
http://www.flickr.com/photos/60809206@N00/3744427962
(Sorry... I don't know how to hide the labels...)
(Sorry... I don't know how to hide the labels...)
Monday, July 20, 2009
On BMI
I have a rough BMI of 30. What does this mean? It means that I'm in the "Obese" category, as defined by the CDC. There is no category above mine.
But wait, am I obese? I don't think so... I cycle 8 miles each day, do manual labor, and eat (relatively) healthily. I haven't checked my resting heart rate recently, but I'm guessing that it's between 60 and 70. I have a 36" waist, and 48" shoulders. I can benchpress 200 pounds, easily leg press 500 pounds, and do calf extensions at 250 pounds per side. How is this obese?
Recently, Devlin's Angle did a piece on BMI - the history, and stupidity of it. On the one hand, the usage of the BMI to indicate a single person's relative health is a good example of misuing a [simplistic] formula meant to determine population level characteristics, not individual ones. On another hand, this is also a story of how numbers and scientific wrappings seem to hold social significance. On yet another hand (this is turning into a Vishnu-statue of "other hands"), the BMI is a major tool in looking at trends in obesity. Finally, on the remaining hand (of Vishnu), it's completely meaningless, mathematically speaking.
Here's the equation:
Devlin's Angle goes on to explain where the 703 comes from, and ponders the question of why the height is squared...
Devlin's Angle outlines two reasons why the BMI is useless as a individual measure: it's a population-based measure, and populations are made up of sedentary individuals (not atheletes) and it was derived at an early time in the statistic-ization of sociology. On the first point, the formula assumes that all "extra" weight on an individual is from fat. On the second point, the formula is derived to measure the trend of the majority of the population.
I would like to outline two other reasons why the BMI sucks for people like me: height and body proportion. Devlin's Angle points out that the BMI was derived in the early 1900s in Belgium. Looking at Wikipedia's entry on human height, one finds that in the mid-nineteenth century the average height in the Netherlands and France (they don't list Belgium) was164 cm and 165 cm, respectively. Looking at these measures "today", one sees a "slight" difference: 182 cm (169.7 cm) and 177 cm (164.6 cm), respectively (female heights in parenthesis). I assume that female heights weren't included in the mid-nineteenth century measurements, but we see that after 150 years, Dutch females are taller (males much taller) and French females as tall (males much taller) than their ancestors. What is so important about this? Well, remember that the equation for BMI was based on the average person. The average person being (among males) as much as 12-18 cm taller than the people measured to derive the BMI.
Let's try and make two individuals who matches the criteria of different BMI groupings; one from the mid-nineteenth century, and one from today. Since BMI is only a relationship between height and weight, this shouldn't be difficult to figure out. Therefore, a mid-nineteenth century Dutchman of average height (roughly 65 inches), would have the following BMI table:
Underweight (below 18.5): below 110 lbs.
Ideal (18.5 to 24.9): 110 lbs. to 148 lbs.
Overweight (25.0 to 29.9): 148 lbs. to 178 lbs.
Obese (30.0 and above): 178 lbs. and above.
We can imagine the "average build" 5'5" person and think, "Okay, that works." However, now let's look at what the BMI chart would mean for the average height Duchman of 6'0":
Underweight (below 18.5): below 135 lbs.
Ideal (18.5 to 24.9): 135 lbs. to 183 lbs.
Overweight (25.0 to 29.9): 183 lbs. to 219 lbs.
Obese (30.0 and above): 219 lbs. and above.
That man would have to be one skinny person. Imagine a person who is 6'0" and 135 lbs. Jim Carrey - someone we might think of as tall and skinny - is according to this site - 6'1" and 180 lbs. That's on the upper end of "ideal". President Barack Obama is - according to this site - 6'1.5" and 180 lbs. (Which, strangely, gives him a slightly higher BMI of 23.4 compared to John Kerry's 22.5, even though I would say that Obama's more atheltic now than Kerry was in 2004).
So, height is a determinant. Therefore, BMI was a good measure of estimating the height/weight relationship of early 1900s Belgians, not necessarily early 21st century Americans.
Also, there is body proportion. Having a relatively long torso, I have been blessed with not having to worry about too little leg room on aircrafts (yet), but I am annoyed at how low the backs of seats cut me (usually well below the shoulder, even on "tall" chairs). There are trends on body proportions, both in terms of proportions of height (i.e., long torso vs. long legs) and width (e.g., hip-to-waist ratios). Neither of these are included in the BMI. True: certain regions have slightly different cut-off points for BMI measurements, such as in SE Asia where there is a relatively consistent height body proportion, however, in the United States - where there is such a wide range of different height and width body proportions that BMI loses its meaning even faster. But why?
Well, take me for example. I have a long torso. What does that mean, though. Well, a single inch of height that is comprised of torso has more mass than an inch of height comprised of leg; there are more organs, more girth, and more water in the torso than in the leg. Therefore, if someone has a relatively short torso compared to me (i.e., they are my height, but have much longer legs than me), having a 240 lbs. somewhat athetic build would mean that individual would have legs even more massive than mine (or a torso that was gigantic). In other words, body proportions will have a direct bearing on the amount of mass you are carrying around (and therefore, your weight), irregardless of how much muscle or fat you have.
Related to the issue of body proportion is the issue of amputation. If you amputated a leg, you could lower your total body weight by 20-40 pounds (depending, obviously, on the weight of your legs). If I cut off legs, then my BMI would drop to about 25 (still "overweight", but not "obese"). However, if you had both your legs amputated (or weren't born with both legs), then you could shorten your height by 27" (plus or minus) and your weight by 40-80 lbs. However, due to the formula, my BMI would actually increase to 44 if that happened to me.
What to do? Well, I have a novel idea of doing a BMI survey of a cohort of incoming students, combined with a number of other measures that will give an indication of body proportion, muscle mass, and fitness. Then, look at doing statistics on the whole set to see what sort of relationship one would get for "modern" BMI cut-offs, and determine if there is any easier way of determining a general figure of fitness that can be used by an individual (as opposed to being a proxy for an entire population, mostly made up of sedentary individuals).
But wait, am I obese? I don't think so... I cycle 8 miles each day, do manual labor, and eat (relatively) healthily. I haven't checked my resting heart rate recently, but I'm guessing that it's between 60 and 70. I have a 36" waist, and 48" shoulders. I can benchpress 200 pounds, easily leg press 500 pounds, and do calf extensions at 250 pounds per side. How is this obese?
Recently, Devlin's Angle did a piece on BMI - the history, and stupidity of it. On the one hand, the usage of the BMI to indicate a single person's relative health is a good example of misuing a [simplistic] formula meant to determine population level characteristics, not individual ones. On another hand, this is also a story of how numbers and scientific wrappings seem to hold social significance. On yet another hand (this is turning into a Vishnu-statue of "other hands"), the BMI is a major tool in looking at trends in obesity. Finally, on the remaining hand (of Vishnu), it's completely meaningless, mathematically speaking.
Here's the equation:
BMI = weight in pounds/(height in inches^2) x 703
Devlin's Angle goes on to explain where the 703 comes from, and ponders the question of why the height is squared...
Devlin's Angle outlines two reasons why the BMI is useless as a individual measure: it's a population-based measure, and populations are made up of sedentary individuals (not atheletes) and it was derived at an early time in the statistic-ization of sociology. On the first point, the formula assumes that all "extra" weight on an individual is from fat. On the second point, the formula is derived to measure the trend of the majority of the population.
I would like to outline two other reasons why the BMI sucks for people like me: height and body proportion. Devlin's Angle points out that the BMI was derived in the early 1900s in Belgium. Looking at Wikipedia's entry on human height, one finds that in the mid-nineteenth century the average height in the Netherlands and France (they don't list Belgium) was164 cm and 165 cm, respectively. Looking at these measures "today", one sees a "slight" difference: 182 cm (169.7 cm) and 177 cm (164.6 cm), respectively (female heights in parenthesis). I assume that female heights weren't included in the mid-nineteenth century measurements, but we see that after 150 years, Dutch females are taller (males much taller) and French females as tall (males much taller) than their ancestors. What is so important about this? Well, remember that the equation for BMI was based on the average person. The average person being (among males) as much as 12-18 cm taller than the people measured to derive the BMI.
Let's try and make two individuals who matches the criteria of different BMI groupings; one from the mid-nineteenth century, and one from today. Since BMI is only a relationship between height and weight, this shouldn't be difficult to figure out. Therefore, a mid-nineteenth century Dutchman of average height (roughly 65 inches), would have the following BMI table:
Underweight (below 18.5): below 110 lbs.
Ideal (18.5 to 24.9): 110 lbs. to 148 lbs.
Overweight (25.0 to 29.9): 148 lbs. to 178 lbs.
Obese (30.0 and above): 178 lbs. and above.
We can imagine the "average build" 5'5" person and think, "Okay, that works." However, now let's look at what the BMI chart would mean for the average height Duchman of 6'0":
Underweight (below 18.5): below 135 lbs.
Ideal (18.5 to 24.9): 135 lbs. to 183 lbs.
Overweight (25.0 to 29.9): 183 lbs. to 219 lbs.
Obese (30.0 and above): 219 lbs. and above.
That man would have to be one skinny person. Imagine a person who is 6'0" and 135 lbs. Jim Carrey - someone we might think of as tall and skinny - is according to this site - 6'1" and 180 lbs. That's on the upper end of "ideal". President Barack Obama is - according to this site - 6'1.5" and 180 lbs. (Which, strangely, gives him a slightly higher BMI of 23.4 compared to John Kerry's 22.5, even though I would say that Obama's more atheltic now than Kerry was in 2004).
So, height is a determinant. Therefore, BMI was a good measure of estimating the height/weight relationship of early 1900s Belgians, not necessarily early 21st century Americans.
Also, there is body proportion. Having a relatively long torso, I have been blessed with not having to worry about too little leg room on aircrafts (yet), but I am annoyed at how low the backs of seats cut me (usually well below the shoulder, even on "tall" chairs). There are trends on body proportions, both in terms of proportions of height (i.e., long torso vs. long legs) and width (e.g., hip-to-waist ratios). Neither of these are included in the BMI. True: certain regions have slightly different cut-off points for BMI measurements, such as in SE Asia where there is a relatively consistent height body proportion, however, in the United States - where there is such a wide range of different height and width body proportions that BMI loses its meaning even faster. But why?
Well, take me for example. I have a long torso. What does that mean, though. Well, a single inch of height that is comprised of torso has more mass than an inch of height comprised of leg; there are more organs, more girth, and more water in the torso than in the leg. Therefore, if someone has a relatively short torso compared to me (i.e., they are my height, but have much longer legs than me), having a 240 lbs. somewhat athetic build would mean that individual would have legs even more massive than mine (or a torso that was gigantic). In other words, body proportions will have a direct bearing on the amount of mass you are carrying around (and therefore, your weight), irregardless of how much muscle or fat you have.
Related to the issue of body proportion is the issue of amputation. If you amputated a leg, you could lower your total body weight by 20-40 pounds (depending, obviously, on the weight of your legs). If I cut off legs, then my BMI would drop to about 25 (still "overweight", but not "obese"). However, if you had both your legs amputated (or weren't born with both legs), then you could shorten your height by 27" (plus or minus) and your weight by 40-80 lbs. However, due to the formula, my BMI would actually increase to 44 if that happened to me.
What to do? Well, I have a novel idea of doing a BMI survey of a cohort of incoming students, combined with a number of other measures that will give an indication of body proportion, muscle mass, and fitness. Then, look at doing statistics on the whole set to see what sort of relationship one would get for "modern" BMI cut-offs, and determine if there is any easier way of determining a general figure of fitness that can be used by an individual (as opposed to being a proxy for an entire population, mostly made up of sedentary individuals).
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Friends Like These
Before traveling to Britain, I had no idea who Danny Wallace was. Indeed, I didn't know anything about the book until I was making my way back to my friend's R.M.'s house in Charlton (near London): there was a poster of the book plastered on the side of some building (or maybe it was a bus), and I read the subtitle: "How far would YOU go to get the old gang back together?" This subtitle piqued my attention because I felt that - having lived in several different countries, lost touch with some good friends over the years, and having just celebrated by 32nd birthday - the idea of getting the "old gang" back together was something that I could relate to; a yearning that I have had in the past that led me first to Friendster, MySpace, and Bebo, and leading (now) to Facebook, and connecting (even just today) with friends - both close and casual - from different periods of my past.
The book describes in first-person narrative, the travels of Danny Wallace as he goes to find and meet up with the twelve people who were the most important to him growing up. (So important, in fact, that they were the only ones that made it into his special address book.) It's a trip not only of rediscovery, but also of approaching, inevitable adulthood taking him from London to Loughborough, Berlin, LA, Melbourne, Tokyo and Dundee in order to find the people who were the most significant to him.
I still don't really know much about Danny Wallace, but after reading his book Friends Like These, I think I know more about him. Similar to his mother, I know that mine is holding boxes in the crawlspace in their house full of my "stuff" from school (she has other boxes of my brother's stuff, too). There are yearbooks full of people I haven't seen or really thought about in years (decades in some cases).
The book took place in 2006, and now - three years later - some of the events seem haunting. The recent death of Michael Jackson was juxtaposed quite strangely in my head as I read all the references to MJ in the book, for who could deny that Jackson was a major cultural figure to people born in the late 1970s, like Danny and me. Still, learning about Danny's journeys two weeks after the death of the King of Pop was somewhat haunting, since it seemed like - for a moment - two realities existed simultaneously: the reality of the book (taking place in an indefinite "present") where Danny ends up going to a Michael Jackson concert with one of his old friends (sorry for the spoiler) and the reality of (well) reality.
Another thing that the book did for me was make me start to realize that I, too, am growing older. The book depicts events leading up to Danny's 30th birthday in 2006. It is now 2009, and I just celebrated my 32nd, learning yet more about myself and the connections I have to my own friends from my undergraduate studies in St Andrews. Time flies when you're having fun, and yet (and yet) it is with only a certain few that robust connections - no matter how thin - remain. However, although these connections are thin, their strength allows one to build stronger bridges upon them - a network of connections holding together that social fabric against which we identify ourselves.
This book may not be for everyone. Indeed, I think that Danny's voice is very strong in the book (it is, after all, written in the first person about personal events and personal thoughts), and it may not be for everybody. It might be difficult - for example - to identify with a man who grew up in different parts of the UK and Europe with friends from a similarly diverse background. It might be difficult, too, understand some of the cultural references or significances of certain types of statements about pubs, mates, and display cushions. However, if you are a kind of person who is interested and trying to reconnect with childhood friends (even passively through online "social networking" sites like Facebook), then this book might just be for you.
(Also, as a person who lived in Japan, his chapters about finding his friend in Japan, and his experiences in Tokyo and outside it, had me cracking up with laughter. But then again, most Westerners' takes on the "bizarre" nature of Japan - Tokyo in particular - often seem to be quite humorous to me, since I am able - I believe - to see both sides of that Lost in Translation coin.)
The book describes in first-person narrative, the travels of Danny Wallace as he goes to find and meet up with the twelve people who were the most important to him growing up. (So important, in fact, that they were the only ones that made it into his special address book.) It's a trip not only of rediscovery, but also of approaching, inevitable adulthood taking him from London to Loughborough, Berlin, LA, Melbourne, Tokyo and Dundee in order to find the people who were the most significant to him.I still don't really know much about Danny Wallace, but after reading his book Friends Like These, I think I know more about him. Similar to his mother, I know that mine is holding boxes in the crawlspace in their house full of my "stuff" from school (she has other boxes of my brother's stuff, too). There are yearbooks full of people I haven't seen or really thought about in years (decades in some cases).
The book took place in 2006, and now - three years later - some of the events seem haunting. The recent death of Michael Jackson was juxtaposed quite strangely in my head as I read all the references to MJ in the book, for who could deny that Jackson was a major cultural figure to people born in the late 1970s, like Danny and me. Still, learning about Danny's journeys two weeks after the death of the King of Pop was somewhat haunting, since it seemed like - for a moment - two realities existed simultaneously: the reality of the book (taking place in an indefinite "present") where Danny ends up going to a Michael Jackson concert with one of his old friends (sorry for the spoiler) and the reality of (well) reality.
Another thing that the book did for me was make me start to realize that I, too, am growing older. The book depicts events leading up to Danny's 30th birthday in 2006. It is now 2009, and I just celebrated my 32nd, learning yet more about myself and the connections I have to my own friends from my undergraduate studies in St Andrews. Time flies when you're having fun, and yet (and yet) it is with only a certain few that robust connections - no matter how thin - remain. However, although these connections are thin, their strength allows one to build stronger bridges upon them - a network of connections holding together that social fabric against which we identify ourselves.
This book may not be for everyone. Indeed, I think that Danny's voice is very strong in the book (it is, after all, written in the first person about personal events and personal thoughts), and it may not be for everybody. It might be difficult - for example - to identify with a man who grew up in different parts of the UK and Europe with friends from a similarly diverse background. It might be difficult, too, understand some of the cultural references or significances of certain types of statements about pubs, mates, and display cushions. However, if you are a kind of person who is interested and trying to reconnect with childhood friends (even passively through online "social networking" sites like Facebook), then this book might just be for you.
(Also, as a person who lived in Japan, his chapters about finding his friend in Japan, and his experiences in Tokyo and outside it, had me cracking up with laughter. But then again, most Westerners' takes on the "bizarre" nature of Japan - Tokyo in particular - often seem to be quite humorous to me, since I am able - I believe - to see both sides of that Lost in Translation coin.)
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Back in Ann Arbor... for Art Fair
I'm back in Ann Arbor, and have returned to the start of Art Fair. (Yay?) Although I do understand that Art Fair is a major financial shot in the arm for Ann Arbor's businesses, especially for those along Main Street, Liberty Street, State Street, and South University Street, I still don't have to enjoy the massive throngs of people (expected 500,000 people), the closing off of major streets that I normally take to my work, and the increased traffic load along alternative streets.
Ah, well, I'll likely be taking photos of the throngs and throngs of people quietly and slowly milling among stalls, looking at pieces of artwork that have been lovingly positioned in booths - many of them being the same things that were on sale last year. Hopefully for these artists, there will be purchasing this year, irregardless of the ongoing recession.
Ah, well, I'll likely be taking photos of the throngs and throngs of people quietly and slowly milling among stalls, looking at pieces of artwork that have been lovingly positioned in booths - many of them being the same things that were on sale last year. Hopefully for these artists, there will be purchasing this year, irregardless of the ongoing recession.
Tuesday, July 07, 2009
le Tour
After a very late start to the day, I went to the pâtisserie to purchase sone pain au chocolat for Rafys as well as find out what time le Tour de France would commence - making its way up the nearby Avenue de l'Ecole de l'Agriculture Gabriel Bouchet. I was met almost immediately on this sourjourn by a lone, bored-looking policeman.
"Well, at least we won't have to go far to see the riders go by," I thought, but at what time zould they actually go by? Stepping into the avenue, I saw many people lining both sides of the street in an expectant air, causing me to quicken my pace as I continued toward the pâtisseri. There, I joined a short queue of people waiting to join the even larger group standing outside eating the various breads and pastries from that particular shop. (I had been coached very thoroughly on the pronunciation of 'pain au chocolat,' and was quite confident of my ability to be understood with that particular order). Unfortunately for me (and my practice), pain au chocolat is a very popular pastry among the French (at least among those waiting for le Tour), so there were none available at 12:20 PM, although I suspect they were making more in the back. Therefore, I decided to bucher the pronunciaction of croissants avec aumandes et chocolat and a brioche (also avec chcolat).
After paying the lady and wishing her bounjour née, I crossed the street to the tabac, and purchased a paper for 1€ after unsuccessfully trying to ask the man what time le Tour was going to pass. I then headed back to Rafys'.
The paper said something about a procession leaving the place de la comedie at 12:45, so I decided to head out to catch it before it passed us by. What I failed to do was read further, for I would have then learned that "procession" didn't mean "race". However, this didn' happen, and out I went to catch the procession.
The procession was a motorcade of the sponsors, with pretty men and women throwing things to the crowds. I collected a few things, including three hats, a bag, gummy bears, newspapers, a mouse pad, and clothes detergent. (I was hoping that Škoda would be giving out cars, but no such luck). At some point, Rafys joined me outside, and we both waited for le Tour to begin. At some point, there was a lull in the procession, and she suggested we moved to a space of grass further up the avenue in order to wait for the riders in a little more comfort.
After our move, and a little more of a wait, eight or nine brightly clad riders with their escort of police and cameramen flew past. After they were gone, there was a lull, which was followed by another group of nine riders and escort about ten minutes later. Had I read the newspaper closely, I would have (possibly) understood that the teams would be riding together in today's stages, each about seven minutes apart. No exciting peleton today, but there continues, even now, to be teams racing the 39 km around Montpellier.
"Well, at least we won't have to go far to see the riders go by," I thought, but at what time zould they actually go by? Stepping into the avenue, I saw many people lining both sides of the street in an expectant air, causing me to quicken my pace as I continued toward the pâtisseri. There, I joined a short queue of people waiting to join the even larger group standing outside eating the various breads and pastries from that particular shop. (I had been coached very thoroughly on the pronunciation of 'pain au chocolat,' and was quite confident of my ability to be understood with that particular order). Unfortunately for me (and my practice), pain au chocolat is a very popular pastry among the French (at least among those waiting for le Tour), so there were none available at 12:20 PM, although I suspect they were making more in the back. Therefore, I decided to bucher the pronunciaction of croissants avec aumandes et chocolat and a brioche (also avec chcolat).
After paying the lady and wishing her bounjour née, I crossed the street to the tabac, and purchased a paper for 1€ after unsuccessfully trying to ask the man what time le Tour was going to pass. I then headed back to Rafys'.
The paper said something about a procession leaving the place de la comedie at 12:45, so I decided to head out to catch it before it passed us by. What I failed to do was read further, for I would have then learned that "procession" didn't mean "race". However, this didn' happen, and out I went to catch the procession.
The procession was a motorcade of the sponsors, with pretty men and women throwing things to the crowds. I collected a few things, including three hats, a bag, gummy bears, newspapers, a mouse pad, and clothes detergent. (I was hoping that Škoda would be giving out cars, but no such luck). At some point, Rafys joined me outside, and we both waited for le Tour to begin. At some point, there was a lull in the procession, and she suggested we moved to a space of grass further up the avenue in order to wait for the riders in a little more comfort.
After our move, and a little more of a wait, eight or nine brightly clad riders with their escort of police and cameramen flew past. After they were gone, there was a lull, which was followed by another group of nine riders and escort about ten minutes later. Had I read the newspaper closely, I would have (possibly) understood that the teams would be riding together in today's stages, each about seven minutes apart. No exciting peleton today, but there continues, even now, to be teams racing the 39 km around Montpellier.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)