[rtpoe]

Quote:
Ive just realised that because shes only 18....is the whole chart calculated to 25 year olds?

One can presume that at younger than 25, a woman can still be growing and changing, so all standards are off. And over 55 or so would be well after menopause when the body starts going to heck.

rtpoe

[MasterDragonfly]

Nimrod, I appreciate the effort you've put in regarding this.  I mean, I really do.

Just one problem.  How do I read the chart?

So I look at the left side of the chart and pick a height, such as 5'4".  I follow the dotted line and it connects with 36" on the right.  Does this mean every 5'4" woman has a 36" bandeau?  Or conversely, if I find a woman wearing a 36" bandeau, I can conclude that she's 5'4" tall?  I say this not because I believe this, but because it goes contrary to experience.  

Also, when factoring in BMI, do the mesomorphs and endomorphs get equal treatment?  (Imagine a female bodybuilder here.)

If you've already explained the point that I seem to be missing, my apologies.  There are times when numbers presented in a certain format just... well, think ADD, and you'll have an idea of the way my brain's thrashing at the moment.  Present them as algebraic equations, and I might have a chance.  (I guess if I could sit still for a couple hours I'd sort it out, but then I might be missing out on some quality boobies.   )

Sorry for being so dense.  

[Nimrod]

RTP: You are correct. Because the BMI index breaks from height rather quickly below the age of 22 and above 53-54.

MD: I almost did not put the band index down the right side. Just ignore it if you know the woman's weight - that will allow you to confirm her BMI.

ONLY USE THE RIGHT SIDE BAND SIZE if you do not know her BMI. The 36" band sits on the 5'-4" line because they share the same % of the female population for this age range, nothing more. That is why the band sizes start to clump up at the top and bottom of the chart, they are following a bit of a bell curve. But remember - this is less accurate because you can not account for build without her BMI on this chart using the band only method.

If you have her BMI and it is below 29, just use height and cup and you can get the % point. Ignore band size if you have her BMI (just cover the numbers up they are part of the BMI)

Also, Yes the chart will allow for the "body builder" effect. These people have a BMI that is not reflective of their "health", however it still  will return the right % point if you shift the grid.

For Example: I found a body builder to have a BMI of almost 33 (32.86) The grid would need to shift right by 2 cups. That is not because the chart is wrong, but because the person in question is more rare to start with. But it is related back to cup size in the end. It would show if that woman is rare even with that muscle or fat. Remember that for BMI's below 21 shift the grid left on cup.

All this shifting for BMI was to save me from printing a chart for each BMI range. I may still do this just to help everyone. I may even make a band size alone chart to remove confusion.

[CyberPlainsDrifter]

Y'all gotta realize--BMI doesn't mean shit.  Its an average.  What it means is except for a tiny slice of the population, no one fits the BMI charts.  You are either above average or below average.  You could be completely buffed, 7% body fat & still be considered overweight by the BMI chart, b/c it fails to account for lean body mass.  It simply ASSUMES you are fat b/c you weigh more than average for your height.

Throw in the fact that a woman w/ large breasts is gonna be automatically assumed to be fat by the BMI chart.  Why?  B/c the extra weight in her boobs throws off the average.

Personally I think the BMI should be thrown out or redone so that it reflects body type so it is more accurate.

A woman w/ really large breasts & still fitting the BMI chart would actually be under weight b/c the weight of her breasts again throws her off the average, that's assuming (yet again) the rest of her body was average for her height.

[collared_cherri]

That's not the only thing you have to take into account.  You also need to calculate for the body frame size.  Body frame size is determined by a person's wrist circumference in relation to his/her height.  Women who are the same height don't necessarily have the same frame size.  Some are built sturdier than others.  And sturdier doesn't always mean fatter

cherri

[CyberPlainsDrifter]

Yeah... some moron tried to tell my wife she should weigh 135 lbs--based on her height.  She'd have to go beyond anorexia to shear starvation to achieve it.  Her boobs weigh 25 lbs alone.

[MasterDragonfly]

Nimrod:  I'd appreciate it if you could post at least 2 other examples of your chart with the BMI variances you're describing.  I still don't get it.

I guess another way of saying this would be:  If you could provide the algebraic notation for this, then I should be able to take the variables and substitute values and arrive at the appropriate datapoint.  Or?

CPD:  This was my point about BMI.  If a woman is 200 lbs and 5'6", her BMI would be a little on the high side.  Even if the woman in question were seriously lean and a serious bodybuilder, as soon as her doctor took her weight and her height, based on that trivial bit of logic he could say, "You need to lose weight."  Which is ludicrous.  And has cherri pointed out, it also doesn't account for the person's frame.  Granted, the percentage of serious FBBs in this range is probably small enough to be statistically insignificant.  *shrug*

At any rate, I look forward to seeing more charts and graphs.  And maybe some algebraic notation.  

 

[Nimrod]

Yes!

What has just been said of BMI is correct.

It does ignore unique or rare builds.
It does return odd values for the very fit, thin, stocky, etc. (again more rare persons)
It does make assumptions about health.

However, I did three things to adjust for this:
1) I centered the chart on the "average" woman. Thereby making the graph fit the widest swath of the population. (44% of all women in fact at the dot)
2) I then allow for high or low BMI's (weight) along any one height with the chart shift for every BMI shift of 4 (the actual value was 4.2)
3) The chart is not working toward telling you anything about health, or if that person is over or under weight, or even if they are she-hulk - it relates that woman's height, weight (thru BMI), and cup size back to the percentage population of that same group.

The arguments (actually anecdotes) that have been raised are precisely the examples I was trying to grapple with back when I started. How can you possibly relate all the builds of women? I use BMI as a factor that implies build but only within a range of BMI. The fact that there are some women out at the edge of the population that do not fit the average is exactly what the chart will tell you. The body-builder example actually is confirmed by the chart. Ignore that the BMI of that athlete may be 33, possibly the same as a plump or fat gal. The chart shifts because you are considering a population group further from the average.

What came of my work was surprising in some cases. Like, band size being independent of cup when considering the "largeness" of a woman. It all comes down to cup at that height at that weight with BMI acting as a filter for build and adjusting for how far off of average in build you are considering..

MD: I agree that the chart should be graphically simplified along the BMI ranges.
I plan to redraw them. Making an algebraic version of the chart is possible - just hang tight for a bit.

Also - I did consider some of the other body index  methods, like the wrist circumference, but found the best charts and the strongest relationships with BMI.

Thanks for the scholarly review.  

[MasterDragonfly]

Cool beans.  I look forward to whatever you have to throw our way.  

I know that when cherri and I looked at the original description, we both ran off into the same ditch.  The whole shift left-right and shift up-down was a bit confounding, because when we tried it, the results seemed counter-intuitive.  Which is what prompted me to ask for examples of the alternate graphs.

Also, perhaps you could provide more examples?  I'll suggest a few, just to get the ball rolling, although my examples may be misrepresentative, given that I don't fully understand what it is I'm dealing with yet.  

- BMI 25, 5'4", therefore bra size is...?
- BMI 35, 5'6", therefore bra size is...?
- BMI 21, 5'11", therefore bra size is...?

Possibly I'm going about this wrong, and need to do something like:

- BMI 25, bra size 36G, therefore height is...?
- BMI 35, bra size 34A, therefore height is...?  (I realize this one might be impossible)

I guess on some level I'm hoping to input one or more values and spit out one more more values.  I just don't know what that relationship is as yet.  Whether it's an algebraic formula, a buncha charts, or some pseudocode.  Or some Python/Perl if that's what you're working with.  A spreadsheet, perhaps?

Cheers.

[Duck_n_Cover]

even adjusted for BMI, my girlfriend is in at least the 99th percentile of cup sizes.
i <3 my life.

[Nimrod]

Quote:
Cool beans.  I look forward to whatever you have to throw our way.  
...
I guess on some level I'm hoping to input one or more values and spit out one more more values.  I just don't know what that relationship is as yet.  Whether it's an algebraic formula, a buncha charts, or some pseudocode...
Cheers.

Did you say a formula?
Here is my revised work and some newer insight into the concept of what is big.


 

[Nimrod]

 Part Two - The Chart  
The chart has been improved to show actual % and I have removed any reference to physique or band size which was simply confusing readers.

These are the rounded up % points from the formula in the previous post.

 

[ZoD]

What we all have to realise is that AVERAGE does not neccesarily mean the most common. Average is merely a median of a range of numbers, rather than the specific ideal Height/weight etc.

[Tux]

Right, average tends to relate to the "mean" (which is usually achieved by adding all numbers in a set, then dividing the result by the number of numers in the set).  The most common value in a set would be the "mode".

Interestingly, it would appear that the height versus bust size trend runs one way for B cups and smaller and then change when you reach C cups.