107* 



THORAX. 



as yet the relation does not appear so regular 

 as that of the height. We are scarcely in a 

 position, at present, safely to say much upon 

 this point. As a general rule we find the weight 

 increases with the height ; so that it is not easy 

 to separate the effect of one from that of the 

 other. Suppose we take two men of the same 

 stature, say 5 feet 8 inches, the one 10 stone, 

 the other 14- stone in weight; one of them 

 above par, the other may be either at, or below 

 par. If 10 stone be considered par, the 14 stone 

 man is 4 stone in excess, or corpulent to 

 40 per cent. This excess weight blocks up 

 the range of mobility, and thus, mechanically, 

 diminishes the vital capacity volume. But 

 let us suppose men of dissimilar heigths, one 

 5 feet 8 inches and the other 6 feet ; the 6 foot 

 man should be heavier than the shorter man ; 

 say 3 stone heavier. This is not excess 

 weight with him, and does not interfere with 

 his thoracic mobility ; therefore there is an 

 inseparable relation between the height and 

 weight. If, in a series of experiments, we 

 sink the height entirely, and keep the mere 

 weight in view, we shall find that the result as 

 to the vital capacity volume is without order. 



TABLE W. Vital Capacity Volume in Relation 

 to Weight. 



From this there is seen to be a rude increase 

 of the vital capacity with the increase of the 

 weight, but it is quite irregular, as 21., 12., 23., 

 &c. We have also found the mean vital capa- 

 city of 147 men of 1 1 stone as 225 cubic inches, 

 and that of 32 men of 14 stone, only 233 cubic 

 inches, an increase of 8 cubic inches for an 

 increase of 42 Ibs., or 3 stone. The over- 

 whelming effect of height disturbs the above 

 observation ; therefore the height must be 

 kept in view. We have calculated the weights 

 in relation to height, with reference to the res- 

 piratory function, upon a number of men at the 

 middle period of life. Besides the three classes 

 mentioned above, we have included 1554 cases 

 of healthy men in the prime of life, oblig- 

 ingly furnished by Mr. Brent, viz. the Oxford 

 and Cambridge rowers, London watermen, 

 cricketers, pedestrians, and gentlemen (TABLE 

 X). The weight now appears more regular, 

 increasing with the height, as from 92 Ibs. to 

 218 Ibs. We may make this progression ap- 

 pear more regular, as in TABLE Y, which 

 is calculated by adding the mean weight, 

 from the last table, of the men from 5 feet to 

 5 feet 2 inches (the mean of which is of course 

 5 ft. 1 in.), together, and taking the mean of 

 that, which will be found J 19'9 Ibs.; and the 



next from 5 feet 1 inch to 5 feet 3 inches, 

 taking their mean as 126-] Ibs., and so on. 



TABLE X. Weight to Height, upon 3000 cases. 



It thence follows, the range of stature from 

 5 feet 1 inch to 5 feet 1 1 inches is 10 inches ; 

 and the weight rises from 1199 Ibs. to 



TABLE Y. Difference of Weight to Stature on 

 2648 males, from the last table. 



174-2 Ibs., or 54'3 Ibs.; or 5'43 Ibs. with 

 every inch of stature. To subdivide the range 

 of height it may be said : 



Ibs. ft. in. ft. in. 



Their rise is 6'2 from 5 1 to 5 4 



3-3 5 4 5 7 



6-5 5 7 5 11 



There is an inequality from 5 feet 4 inches 

 to 5 feet 7 inches in the weight ; but this 

 would in all probability disappear if the ob- 

 servations were more extended ; at present it 

 may be stated generally that the weight in- 

 creases 6'5 Ibs. (or 6i Ibs.) for every inch of 

 stature from 5 feet 7 inches to 6 feet, and 

 6*2 Ibs. for every inch of stature from 5 feet 

 1 inch to 5 feet 4 inches, and 3-3 Ibs. for every 

 inch from 5 feet 4 inches to 5 feet 7 inches. 



At 5 feet 8 inches, or 68 inches of stature, 

 the weight is 155'2 Ibs., or nearly 11 stone ; 



