From their analysis, they found that for each 1cm (0.4 inches) increase in calf circumference, the risk of death was reduced by five percent.
In another study, led by researchers at the Catholic University of Sacred Heart in Italy, scientists discovered that calf circumference was directly linked to strength elsewhere in the body.
Not to deter from this undoubtedly sound study, but isn’t the risk of death always 100 percent?
Unless I am wrong, I am pretty sure there is a 100 percent chance that we will all die and I do not think anyone has been able to reduce that number yet.
I think they should define where calf stops and cankle begins..... if not, it would likely skew the numbers.
"The censorship method ... is that of handing the job over to some frail and erring mortal man, and making him omnipotent on the assumption that his official status will make him infallible and omniscient."
George Bernard Shaw
OK, against my better judgment, I read it. The metric seems captures two risk factors without helping distinguish between them. It would have been more interesting if they followed up on those who died and tried to separate out the causes. How many died of belly-too-big vs. calves-too-small? Frailty is a real danger, but my money is on visceral fat taking a higher toll.
Oh no! Even though I've been doing 20+ mile/5000+ AEG day hikes for decades my waist-to-calf ratio is 2.5 and the study says that only ratios 2.4 or lower are considered healthy! Plus I'm 60 now, sarcopenia is accelerating, and probably cognitive impairment too! I'm doomed
Route Editor
Route Scout
