| |
Main
Date: 02 May 2007 19:28:38
From: Phil Holman
Subject: Fatty Masters Results
|
Test 1
Ho - rbr is made up of equal numbers of open category riders (under 35)
and masters riders (35 and over).
Ha - rbr is made up of mostly masters riders (35 or over).
Volunteers
Open catergory (under 35) = 0
Masters (35 and over) = 13.
This was almost a no brainer; the probability of getting 13 out of 13
masters riders if the population proportion is 50% is .5^13 = .0001.
This is statistically significant so we can reject the null (duhhhhh).We
would need a masters proportion of .8 for this not to be statistically
significant.
Conclusion: At the 95% confidence level, we can say that rbr is made up
of at least 80% masters.
There are a couple of masters who ride open category but my
determination is age based.
Test 2
Ho - there is no difference in the mean weight of rbr open category
riders (under 35) compared to rbr masters (35 or over).
Ha - rbr masters (35 and over) are significantly heavier than rbr open
category riders (under 35).
I'm 10 open category riders short of conducting this test, however, here
are the stats on the volunteers who did submit their data.
Weight(lb) Max=216, min=129, mean=167, sd=21.35
Height(in) Max=75, min=66, mean=70.65, sd=2.78
I did omit one outlier from the data. Comparing these stats to the
general population, they are in the 25th to 30th percentile of weight
and not statistically different in height. A best fit regression of
weight versus height came up with weight = .0714height^1.82 (r=.57) and
weight = -154.28+4.5473height (r=.59). Omitting the data point with the
largest residual resulted in weight =.0016height^2.7 (r=.73).
Thanks to those who sent in their data.
Phil H
|
|
| |
Date: 03 May 2007 08:00:34
From:
Subject: Re: Fatty Masters Results
|
On May 2, 10:36 pm, "Phil Holman" <piholmanc@yourservice > wrote:
> "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in messagenews:Rzc_h.3063$296.1514@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Phil Holman" <piholmanc@yourservice> wrote in message
> >news:a86dnZCrH51F1aTbnZ2dnUVZ_q6vnZ2d@comcast.com...
> >> Weight(lb) Max=216, min=129, mean=167, sd=21.35
> >> Height(in) Max=75, min=66, mean=70.65, sd=2.78
>
> >> I did omit one outlier from the data. Comparing these stats to the
> >> general population, they are in the 25th to 30th percentile of weight
> >> and not statistically different in height. A best fit regression of
> >> weight versus height came up with weight = .0714height^1.82 (r=.57)
> >> and
> >> weight = -154.28+4.5473height (r=.59). Omitting the data point with
> >> the
> >> largest residual resulted in weight =.0016height^2.7 (r=.73).
>
> > Uhh, Phil, can you put that in English?
>
> > It appears that rbr masters are typically closer to ideal weight that
> > the general population?
>
> Yes, it's about the 25th percentile of the general population.
>
> What the data says is that the sample is at ideal weight which is not
> overly due to any height factor, i.e. a short sample (sample height is
> very representative of the spread in the general population). One would
> expect weight (volume) to increase roughly with the cube of height
> (length) change. It was close to this when I removed one of the data
> points. Weight is only moderately correlated with height (r = .57) for
> this sample. This means that only 32% (.57^2) of variation in weight is
> explained by variation in height.
>
> Try this equation on yourself to see how well it predicts your weight.
> weight =.0016*height^2.7
>
> If I input my own height of 74 inches, my weight comes out to
> .0016*74^2.7 = 178 lb which is fairly close.
That's pretty surprising - I'm about 76 inches now at 62 years old and
my present weight as if this morning is 196.6 lbs. I usually put on a
little weight over the winter and take it off over the summer only to
put it back on after October. Your formula give 191 as my ideal weight
though when I'm riding I've discovered that I can climb like a snail
at my present weight and like an angel after I hit 188.
|
| |
Date: 03 May 2007 10:47:17
From: Simon Brooke
Subject: Re: Fatty Masters Results
|
in message <a86dnZCrH51F1aTbnZ2dnUVZ_q6vnZ2d@comcast.com >, Phil Holman
('piholmanc@yourservice') wrote:
> I'm 10 open category riders short of conducting this test, however, here
> are the stats on the volunteers who did submit their data.
>
> Weight(lb) Max=216, min=129, mean=167, sd=21.35
> Height(in) Max=75, min=66, mean=70.65, sd=2.78
>
> I did omit one outlier from the data. Comparing these stats to the
> general population, they are in the 25th to 30th percentile of weight
> and not statistically different in height. A best fit regression of
> weight versus height came up with weight = .0714height^1.82 (r=.57) and
> weight = -154.28+4.5473height (r=.59). Omitting the data point with the
> largest residual resulted in weight =.0016height^2.7 (r=.73).
Ah! So even among the masters fattie I am a master relatively fatty. This
gives me great comfort.
--
simon@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
Morning had broken, and there was nothing we could do but wait
patiently for the RAC to arrive.
|
| |
Date: 03 May 2007 03:22:25
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Fatty Masters Results
|
"Phil Holman" <piholmanc@yourservice > wrote in message
news:a86dnZCrH51F1aTbnZ2dnUVZ_q6vnZ2d@comcast.com...
> Weight(lb) Max=216, min=129, mean=167, sd=21.35
> Height(in) Max=75, min=66, mean=70.65, sd=2.78
>
> I did omit one outlier from the data. Comparing these stats to the
> general population, they are in the 25th to 30th percentile of weight
> and not statistically different in height. A best fit regression of
> weight versus height came up with weight = .0714height^1.82 (r=.57) and
> weight = -154.28+4.5473height (r=.59). Omitting the data point with the
> largest residual resulted in weight =.0016height^2.7 (r=.73).
Uhh, Phil, can you put that in English?
It appears that rbr masters are typically closer to ideal weight that the
general population?
|
| | |
Date: 02 May 2007 22:36:12
From: Phil Holman
Subject: Re: Fatty Masters Results
|
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote in message
news:Rzc_h.3063$296.1514@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> "Phil Holman" <piholmanc@yourservice> wrote in message
> news:a86dnZCrH51F1aTbnZ2dnUVZ_q6vnZ2d@comcast.com...
>> Weight(lb) Max=216, min=129, mean=167, sd=21.35
>> Height(in) Max=75, min=66, mean=70.65, sd=2.78
>>
>> I did omit one outlier from the data. Comparing these stats to the
>> general population, they are in the 25th to 30th percentile of weight
>> and not statistically different in height. A best fit regression of
>> weight versus height came up with weight = .0714height^1.82 (r=.57)
>> and
>> weight = -154.28+4.5473height (r=.59). Omitting the data point with
>> the
>> largest residual resulted in weight =.0016height^2.7 (r=.73).
>
> Uhh, Phil, can you put that in English?
>
> It appears that rbr masters are typically closer to ideal weight that
> the general population?
Yes, it's about the 25th percentile of the general population.
What the data says is that the sample is at ideal weight which is not
overly due to any height factor, i.e. a short sample (sample height is
very representative of the spread in the general population). One would
expect weight (volume) to increase roughly with the cube of height
(length) change. It was close to this when I removed one of the data
points. Weight is only moderately correlated with height (r = .57) for
this sample. This means that only 32% (.57^2) of variation in weight is
explained by variation in height.
Try this equation on yourself to see how well it predicts your weight.
weight =.0016*height^2.7
If I input my own height of 74 inches, my weight comes out to
.0016*74^2.7 = 178 lb which is fairly close.
Phil H
|
|
