-1
$\begingroup$

I have decided on at least a base scale for a measurement I call the HMI or Humanoid Muscularity Index.

This in my opinion is better than BMI since someone healthy and muscular and someone unhealthy and fat can have the same BMI but they would not have the same HMI.

This base scale goes from -3 to 3.

-3: Very fat

In a famine this is a good thing but in a surplus it is really bad.

Obese man

Obese woman

There is a very high chance of MI and Cirrhosis along with GERD.

-2: Fat

This is better than -3 in a surplus but worse in a famine. MI and cirrhosis rate is much lower but GERD is still very prevalent.

-1: Slightly fat

This is better than -2 in a surplus but worse in a famine. There is a low chance of GERD but it still occurs.

0: Neutral

This is equally good in a surplus and a famine. Not much muscle definition and fat percentage is low. Basically, this is baseline.

1: Slightly muscular

There is a bit of muscle definition here and heart and liver problems are almost nonexistent. It is worse in a famine than in a surplus

2: Muscular

Most muscles show and it is even better in a surplus than 1 but is worse in a famine

3: Very Muscular

Every single muscle shows and because the muscles are so big, the heart hypertrophies and these people get what is called Athletes Heart where you have ventricular hypertrophy, increased stroke volume, and decreased heart rate.

Now in the case of my Kepler Bb humanoids, since they have 2 hearts and 2 blood supplies, there is less hypertrophy per heart but they still hypertrophy.

Now my momma told me that the base scale doesn't take into account people who are both fat and muscular and she is right. It also doesn't take into account difference in distribution of fat and muscle or underweight people.

So how can I improve this measurement to take into account what the base scale doesn't?

$\endgroup$
5
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Your scale ignores people with little muscles and little fat, and ones with a lot of both. $\endgroup$
    – Mołot
    Nov 20 '16 at 22:15
  • $\begingroup$ Note - for political correctness it may be better to say "Least muscular to most muscular" instead of "fat" "less fat" etc $\endgroup$
    – Zxyrra
    Nov 20 '16 at 23:12
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ There is nothing in this standard that has the least indication of scientific rigor. At least BMI uses some physical measurements and has a discrete standard, even if it the BMI statistic it generates isn't particularly meaningful. Your scale has neither measurements not standards. Therefore, you can improve this measurement by using numbers. Or BMI. $\endgroup$
    – kingledion
    Nov 20 '16 at 23:29
  • $\begingroup$ @kingledion Actually, BMI is quite good. not on one patient level, but on national level it's pretty decent statistics. Amounts of false positives and false negatives tends to even out, leaving meaningful info about obesity of a nation. $\endgroup$
    – Mołot
    Nov 21 '16 at 0:03
  • $\begingroup$ It has a lot of scientific rigor that is not obvious. The better or worse in a famine or surplus has a lot of rigor behind it(ketosis and atrophy in times of starvation, fat gain and fast but normal metabolism in times of surplus). The GERD, MI chance, Cirrhosis chance, hypertrophy, etc. is rigorous as well because healthy heart muscle hypertrophy happens in healthy people(who are often muscular) and GERD, MI, and Cirrhosis happen much more often in fat people than muscular people of the same weight and more often in fat people than in people of healthy weight or lower. $\endgroup$
    – Caters
    Nov 25 '16 at 0:30
1
$\begingroup$

Perhaps you give a score for amount of fat and the amount of muscle for the person. An example might be: -2F+1M and that is considered together. Other factors might also be considered, like age and general health.

$\endgroup$

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.