Do you round up or down?

JenAndSome
JenAndSome Posts: 1,893 Member
in Chit-Chat
I'm 5' 4 1/2" and I always say it just like that. On here and my HRM it doesn't allow for half inches so my question is, do other people round up or down? I've always rounded down, but I'm thinking of changing it. It would be nice to be able to say I'm 5' 5" and not feel like a liar.
«1

Replies

  • _noob_
    _noob_ Posts: 3,306 Member
    Science rounds to nearest even number...
  • nauticaboo
    nauticaboo Posts: 38 Member
    In this case I'd keep rounding down so that you don't overestimate your calorie burn.
  • billsica
    billsica Posts: 4,741 Member
    You can call yourself 5'5" .. liar.
  • _SABOTEUR_
    _SABOTEUR_ Posts: 6,833 Member
    Can't you change the settings to cm, which is a more accurate measurement?
  • seths_milf
    seths_milf Posts: 56 Member
    I'm the same height, I just say/use 5'5, it's easier and hasn't made a difference :smile:
  • jdad1
    jdad1 Posts: 1,899 Member
    Who cares. It is so unimportant. Move on to more relevant matters.
  • maiaroman18
    maiaroman18 Posts: 460 Member
    I'm about 5'9.5" but I've said 5'9" for years; being 69" tall just entertains me more.

    If you've always done it one way, I wouldn't change it.
  • fitnessclare
    fitnessclare Posts: 5
    In accounts if its anything .5 and over then you round up so I'd do the same :bigsmile:
  • JenAndSome
    JenAndSome Posts: 1,893 Member
    Who cares. It is so unimportant. Move on to more relevant matters.

    Can you please tell me what is more relevant that I should move on to? I didn't say it was a big deal. That's why I posted in "Chit-Chat, Fun and Games" not the "General Diet and Weight Loss" forum. But hey thanks for taking time out of your day to comment on such an unimportant question to tell me it's unimportant.
  • JenAndSome
    JenAndSome Posts: 1,893 Member
    I'm about 5'9.5" but I've said 5'9" for years; being 69" tall just entertains me more.

    If you've always done it one way, I wouldn't change it.

    Lol, I don't blame you.
  • Susan_fessler
    Susan_fessler Posts: 56 Member
    I round uo I am 5' 1/2" but for things like this I say 5'1". I base it on math/science rules that your round up if it's .5 or more
  • xBethanyJadex
    xBethanyJadex Posts: 37
    Who cares. It is so unimportant. Move on to more relevant matters.

    If you don't care then why bother posting on this topic. Rude!!!
  • laserturkey
    laserturkey Posts: 1,680 Member
    My doctor's office has always rounded my height UP, so that works for me.
  • xBethanyJadex
    xBethanyJadex Posts: 37
    In accounts if its anything .5 and over then you round up so I'd do the same :bigsmile:

    I agree with fitnessclare! :)
  • DesireeAshley90
    DesireeAshley90 Posts: 137 Member
    Yes I'm 5'6 and 1/2 and I always round down! It's better to underestimate calorie burn rather than overestimate!
  • murphy612
    murphy612 Posts: 734 Member
    Who cares. It is so unimportant. Move on to more relevant matters.

    Actually it can be, so I care! For example, 1/2 inch meant the difference between my BMI being healthy vs. overweight. If I just rounded down to 5' 7" like I usually do I wouldn't have received my healthy weight bonus ($$$) at work. So, it can be relevant :tongue:
  • ncl1313
    ncl1313 Posts: 237 Member
    Yes I'm 5'6 and 1/2 and I always round down! It's better to underestimate calorie burn rather than overestimate!

    Agreed! I'm 5'3 1/2" and I round down to 5'3 here, but round up to 5'4 whenever anyone asks.
  • EmilyOfTheSun
    EmilyOfTheSun Posts: 1,548 Member
    In this case I'd keep rounding down so that you don't overestimate your calorie burn.

    This. Though I don't think a 1/2 inch would make much of a difference at all.

    I'm 5'10 and 3/4"....I always say that because I HATE being tall lol. I refuse to be 5' 11" :laugh:
  • diodelcibo
    diodelcibo Posts: 2,564 Member
    Round down or give exact measurement in metres.
  • bumblebums
    bumblebums Posts: 2,181 Member
    Just give your height in metric units. You are 1 m 64 cm. Own it.
  • Calliope610
    Calliope610 Posts: 3,783 Member
    Science rounds to nearest even number...

    I think you mean "nearest WHOLE number".
  • HealthyBodySickMind
    HealthyBodySickMind Posts: 1,207 Member
    Science rounds to nearest even number...

    I am a scientist and I disagree. 4.5 rounds to 5 not 4.
  • baneboy
    baneboy Posts: 65
    iam 5.6 1/2ft but always say 5.7, but I think most guys would rnd up! lol
  • jdad1
    jdad1 Posts: 1,899 Member
    Who cares. It is so unimportant. Move on to more relevant matters.

    Actually it can be, so I care! For example, 1/2 inch meant the difference between my BMI being healthy vs. overweight. If I just rounded down to 5' 7" like I usually do I wouldn't have received my healthy weight bonus ($$$) at work. So, it can be relevant :tongue:


    in that case it makes all the difference in the world. lol.....can i bum some money?
  • bethlaf
    bethlaf Posts: 954 Member
    5 ft 5 , cuz lets face it that makes you the bigger person :D lol
    calorie wise , we are looking at maybe , 10-15cal difference
  • bumblebums
    bumblebums Posts: 2,181 Member
    Science rounds to nearest even number...

    I am a scientist and I disagree. 4.5 rounds to 5 not 4.

    I couldn't even interpret the post you're quoting :) I think that person must mean "even = whole", and there is also ambiguity as to whether "rounds to" means "rounds up to" or "rounds down to". I've never seen any convention in science of rounding to an even number as opposed to odd--though who knows, maybe that happens. In typical scientific usage, .5 is rounded up, not down.
  • baneboy
    baneboy Posts: 65
    :laugh: could somebody plz tell me how u reply to another's post! iam have'in no luck! lol thanx
  • HealthyBodySickMind
    HealthyBodySickMind Posts: 1,207 Member
    Science rounds to nearest even number...

    I am a scientist and I disagree. 4.5 rounds to 5 not 4.

    I couldn't even interpret the post you're quoting :) I think that person must mean "even = whole", and there is also ambiguity as to whether "rounds to" means "rounds up to" or "rounds down to". I've never seen any convention in science of rounding to an even number as opposed to odd--though who knows, maybe that happens. In typical scientific usage, .5 is rounded up, not down.

    It actually may be some obscure convention. Where I work, all the older chemists (like didn't even have computers when they got their degrees old) have some odd conventions they adhere to that are completely different from what I was taught. I don't remember an "even" number convention being one of them, but that doesn't mean that some odd discipline doesn't use it. It's wrong to say that "science" does it though, as the wider scientific community would round .5 up.
  • HealthyBodySickMind
    HealthyBodySickMind Posts: 1,207 Member
    :laugh: could somebody plz tell me how u reply to another's post! iam have'in no luck! lol thanx

    Hit the quote button instead of reply.
  • bumblebums
    bumblebums Posts: 2,181 Member
    Science rounds to nearest even number...

    I am a scientist and I disagree. 4.5 rounds to 5 not 4.

    I couldn't even interpret the post you're quoting :) I think that person must mean "even = whole", and there is also ambiguity as to whether "rounds to" means "rounds up to" or "rounds down to". I've never seen any convention in science of rounding to an even number as opposed to odd--though who knows, maybe that happens. In typical scientific usage, .5 is rounded up, not down.

    It actually may be some obscure convention. Where I work, all the older chemists (like didn't even have computers when they got their degrees old) have some odd conventions they adhere to that are completely different from what I was taught. I don't remember an "even" number convention being one of them, but that doesn't mean that some odd discipline doesn't use it. It's wrong to say that "science" does it though, as the wider scientific community would round .5 up.

    Totally agree. If there is such a convention, it is not in wide use. Normal refereed journals will have you round up from .5 if you are not reporting to, say, two decimal pts (which is more likely anyway).

Categories