498 



HEIGHT AND WEIGHT IN RELATION TO BUILD 



Harris and Benedict (1919), in a publication on metabolism now in press, the 

 proof sheets of which have been kindly sent me, give an extensive discussion of 

 available data on surface area. They point out two sources of error in the Meeh 

 formula, variation in body form and variation in specific gravity. From the 

 standpoint of prediction of metabolism, the Du Bois height-weight chart was found 

 to have the greatest value, next came Meeh's formula?, and finally body-weight. 

 Prediction from two direct measurements stature and body-weight give, however, 

 more accurate results than the method of calculation from surface-area by the Du 

 Bois height-weight chart. Still greater accuracy is obtained by including an age 

 factor. 



We have referred above to the work of Benedict (1916) on estimation of 

 cutaneous area from silhouette area. He gives data on height and weight for each 

 of the 20 cases studied. By use of 1.275 for K in the formula I have given above 

 one can obtain values for surface-area which are practically as close to the Du Bois 

 data as the values obtained by Benedict from his silhouette method. For females 

 K = 1.295 gives closer results than K = 1.275. 



The use of the formula here proposed, based on height and weight, therefore 

 gives results closer to observed data than the Meeh formula and nearly if not quite 

 as close as the more elaborate linear and silhouette methods of Du Bois and Du Bois 

 and of Benedict. Du Bois and Du Bois (1916) give another formula for estimating 

 surface-area from height and weight and a chart based on this formula. 



The relative regional distribution of the surface-area may be illustrated by 

 means of data from Meeh (1879), Du Bois and Du Bois (1915), and Sawyer, Stone, 

 and Du Bois (1916). Meeh gives data on regional cutaneous area in the 16 cases 

 he studied, the other investigators in all of their cases. So far as I am aware, no 

 investigator has studied regional distribution of surface-area in relation to the 

 volume of the various parts of the body. It is therefore of interest to compare the 

 relative volume of individuals studied by Meeh for volume (1895) with individuals 

 of similar bodily proportions studied for surface-area. I have selected the following 

 individuals to illustrate the relations of relative regional distribution to total sur- 

 face-area and relative surface-area to relative volume: 



TABLE 6. 



