Mel (and all list members),
        I have been following the Puzzles & Paradoxes for some time now,
and have relished the debate, even though I had yet to contribute to the
discussions they generated (as a P.T. student, I've just been reading in
awe!); thanks, Mel, for prodding our intellects, and now you've come to a
topic I can discuss somewhat intelligently, having participated in the
endless American Battle of the Bulge (forgive me, European historians).

>All of us are aware that there are major differences in size, structure and
>body proportion between different races, yet most of the tables are based on
>statistics gathered from largely 'Caucasian' urban populations. Are we
>justified in assuming equal validity of these tables among Caucasian
>populations in different nations (e.g. USA, UK, France, Italy and Germany? Are
>we justified in assuming great homogeneity of race even within the same
>'Caucasian' group?

        A thoroughly valid observation. My lineage includes numerous
Native Americans, and whether or not you believe in the Bering Strait
migration theory (whereby Native Americans would likely fall into a
somewhat modified Asian racial category), there are certainly some
structural variations which could affect any determinations of "ideal"
physical proportions for individuals with mixed Native American/European
ancestry, who are legion in this country. At the risk of having my words
confused with elitist "biological" exclusionism a la "The Bell Curve," I'm
sure similar physical variations occurred after African/European
intermarriages.

>Does this all imply that most anthropometric measures are of such limited
>value in modern populations that their use should be discontinued? Can we
>really refer to 'ideal' or average bodymass, or typical examples of such and
>such an ethnic group or population? Do such measures create an unnecessary
>neurosis about desirable bodymass and appearance or do they genuinely offer
>specific benefits in our analysis of the human form?

        Indeed. I am 6'2" (~1.88 m), and five years ago, I weighed an
unhealthy (and unsightly) 256 lbs (~116 kg). Upon undertaking a diet and
exercise regimen, I proceeded to lose 46 lbs (~20.9 kg). I felt and looked
great, even though the "ideal weight" tables (established by life insurance
companies, by the way...does that set off farce alarms for anyone else?)
told me that I was still between 15 - 30 lbs (~6.8 - 13.6 kg) overweight.
Maybe by their standards I was...but does that justify the level of
discouragement that might be caused by such a declaration? When someone
has made such a change in their lifestyle (I have maintained most of those
habits, and kept most of the weight off), perhaps the combination of the
decreased physiological stresses of obesity and the increased sense of
well-being stemming from improved self-image are more important than the
simple loss of weight.
        Not to say that anthropometry is completely worthless...indeed,
they are more objective and individual than any tables, but they must be
used prudently, and possibly the only useful mode of comparison is previous
measurements of the same individual. The aforementioned difficulties
obscure the worth of anthropometric measurements when comparisons are based
on inappropriate "population" norms.
        Just my two cents' (~one pence) worth on the subject.... Thanks
again, Mel, and by the way, welcome to the United States! :-)

Rod Bain
Student Physical Therapist
Temple University
Philadelphia, PA, USA

p.s. I wasn't terribly scientific about my quest...weight was my only
measure, as one
        might expect, based on Mel's assertions about typical Western
attitudes toward
        this topic. -RB







%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%