Where does Joseph Fleming fit into the equation?

[Sally]

Not if Fleming came from Islay, but otherwise yes...

All the best

Dave

Impossible. The records show that he came from the East End; and as we all know, the records never lie.

The fact that he was commonly known as 'Whisky Joe' is neither here nor there...

[Fisherman]

Funny, that, Ben - when I looked last, it said that anorexia was basically the same thing as underweight, and therefore anybody ranging in the underweight area - under 18,5, just as you say or thereabouts - could be potentially anorectic. Iīll supply you with the information you either missed or chose not to publish, here it is, once again according to the WHO:

"According to the World Health Organization, normal weight is considered to be a BMI of 18.5 to 24.99. A BMI of 17 to 18.49 is consider to be mild thinness, 16 to 16.99 is considered to be moderate thinness, and less than 16 is considered to be severe thinness. Because anorexia is defined as having a below normal body weight for height, a BMI below 18.5 would meet the criteria for anorexia."

There you are, Ben! So you see, you are gravely misleading here. 18.5 is normal weight and 18.4 CAN be a sign of anorexia. We of course know quite well that people at 18.4 - or 18.0, 17.5, 17.0 etcetera - need not be sickly and anorectic, but the border for anorexia is nevertheless the same as the border for underweight: below 18.5.

It is slightly disingenious to quote, as you do, that people with anorexia generally have a BMI below 17.5. It would be strange if they generally had a BMI OVER 17.5, would it not? However, although those who are anorectic generally have a BMI below 17.5, it does not follow that ALL people below 17.5 are anorectic. And those at 17.3, mildly thin as per the WHO, are of course normally not anorectic at all.

The argument is simply that there is more than one questionable "6" in the document. I'm not pretending to have all the answers, but it is rightly considered unusual.

YOU find it questionable. I donīt. I donīt find any mildly thin people at all freaks of nature. Nor do I think that 201 centimeters would have been too tall to be true - not at all. There would have been hundreds of men, if not thousands, of that height in Britain. Very unusual - but not impossible by any means, though. And it DOES apply that to be of any true relevance, the sixes should have been written by the same man. We cannot suggest that the staff all went crazy and exchanged their fives for sixes when dealing with Evans/Fleming, can we? No, we cant; it is instead a better indicator that the figures are NOT mistakes.

"Yeah, I used to think that Walter Dew's memoirs were a really useful guide to the events of 1888, but then you came along and told me that they were, in fact, "riddled with mistakes" and got lots of things "terribly wrong". You helped me see the light there, for which many thanks."

There are a number of mistakes in it, but the general consensus - you can find it on the boards - is that Dew accomplished a remarkable thing, remembering so very much correctly such a long time afterwards.
Nah, Ben, I was more thinking about other mindsets on your behalf, to be honest.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

More on the BMI thing, Ben:

"You calculate BMI by multiplying your weight in pounds by 703, then dividing the total by your height in inches squared. A healthy BMI level is between 18.5 and 24.9. Higher scores indicate overweight and obesity, while lower scores indicate being underweight. According to Janis and Mazzeo of Virginia Commonwealth University, a BMI of 15 or below indicates a dangerously low body weight as compared to height."

See how it tallies with what the WHO tells us? A BMI of 17 to 18.49 is consider to be mild thinness, 16 to 16.99 is considered to be moderate thinness, and less than 16 is considered to be severe thinness.

So much as a person with a BMI of 17.3 (as per Evans/Fleming) is mildly thin, he would first have to drop 1.3 units to travel through the "moderately thin" space, whereafter he would enter the "severe thinness" area. And THAT is where the health risks are at hand. And once we approach the 15.0 BMI (2.3 units below Evans/FlemingsīBMI), it is time to get in touch with a doctor:

"In the United States, few people are in danger of starving due to lack of access to foods. Rather, a study by Janis and Mazzeo suggests that Americans with abnormally low BMI are often suffering from an eating disorder, most commonly anorexia. Extremely low body weight can also be the result of a handful of medical conditions. Either way, if your body mass index is approaching 15, your best course of action is to see a doctor."

All very simple, all very sensible - and totally the opposite way in which you would have it. Sorry, but you canīt. If you call the WHO, they will tell you why.

I wonder if David is going to try to make fun of this too? Or if you, Ben, will stand by your claim that 17.3 is "emphatically not" mild thinness?
If so, one has to ask oneself what area of expertise you will approach to conclude that the WHO are dead wrong, whereas you are right.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Observer]

Not if Fleming came from Islay, but otherwise yes...

All the best

Dave

Hi Dave

Peat did apparently

[Fisherman]

Peat who?

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Why is it that I feel that the internet is being ransacked this very moment to find information that may hint at a BMI of 17,3 being a good cause to invest in a coffin?

Not that it matters - it will not override the WHO.

Fisherman

[Wickerman]

A 6'7" plasterer working in rooms that were 6' high in the main,must have felt as comfortable as a 'miner working the same height drift.Unless they worked sitting or kneeling.Reminds me,I never did see a miner of that height, although I did live for quite some time in a mining district.Never saw a 6'7"plasterer either.Such oddities would surely have attracted some mention,somewhere.

Hello Harry.
6 ft ceilings? surely not, most Victorian houses had 8-10 ft ceilings, 7 ft may have been known but 6 ft is way too low, a door itself was over six feet plus the door frame, so no, the ceilings in main-floor rooms were considerably higher than 6 ft.
The cellar is often the lowest room in the house.


As to the other posts..
The Doctors seem to have been meticulous enough to record his diminishing weight, pound by pound, over successive months, accuracy does not appear to be an issue among the staff.

As the institution weighed him repeatedly on scales, if he was not this distinctive height, they had ample opportunity to correct the record. Over the three years he was under observation at the Infirmary, somebody would have noticed that his actual height was a whole foot shorter than his recorded height.
But of course, no such correction of the record was deemed necessary, and I think most of us know why.

Height and weight are often taken at the same time, and especially when the weight is dropping, a check of the height is taken, just to be sure there is no change - apparently, there was not.
Whether the recorded height is correct or not, it is the official record and it is not impossible, plus, given the above, there are even less grounds to question it.

That said, as is the typical fashion here, those who choose to dismiss an official record and replace it with speculation usually have another axe to grind.

[The Good Michael]

That said, as is the typical fashion here, those who choose to dismiss an official record and replace it with speculation usually have another axe to grind.

By God, my suspect's going to fit if I have to disregard everything...because ...well....it's my suspect.


Mike

[Fisherman]

Wickerman:

6 ft ceilings? surely not, most Victorian houses had 8-10 ft ceilings, 7 ft may have been known but 6 ft is way too low, a door itself was over six feet plus the door frame, so no, the ceilings in main-floor rooms were considerably higher than 6 ft.

Thought so - thanks anyway, Jon. Much appreciated!

... those who choose to dismiss an official record and replace it with speculation usually have another axe to grind.

....and those who manage to present a theory that stays with and respects the official recordings will be the ones who make the best cases. Just saying!

All the best,
Fisherman

[Observer]

Peat who?

Fisherman

Hi Fish

Islay Peat. Dave le Francais has him all over his computer screen

[Fisherman]

Hi Fish

Islay Peat. Dave le Francais has him all over his computer screen

Ah, I see - THAT Peat!

Now, Islay peat, is that not smoke, essentially ...?

The best,
Fisherman

[Wickerman]

....and those who manage to present a theory that stays with and respects the official recordings will be the ones who make the best cases. Just saying!

Yes Christer, after all that is the academic approach, to work with what we have, not to invent what we prefer.

[Observer]

Ah, I see - THAT Peat!

Now, Islay peat, is that not smoke, essentially ...?

The best,
Fisherman

Smoke haha. Then it is well suited here in this forum, it and it's friend mirror hahaha

Regards

Observer

[DVV]

Yes Christer, after all that is the academic approach, to work with what we have, not to invent what we prefer.

Certainly, Jon.

Being dead sure that it's not a mistake when everything suggests otherwise is utterly academic.

Cheers

[DVV]

By God, my suspect's going to fit if I have to disregard everything...because ...well....it's my suspect.
Mike

Mike, please, this is not a Lechmere thread.