To quote @iceheart08, Yikes. Apologies to @Ron Munson, because I didn't realize it was this bad. 40" is average? Wow.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/body-measurements.htm
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/body-measurements.htm
Diet thread got me wondering...what is "average"...
- Thread starter southerncaltiger
- Start date
197lbs with a 40 inch waste at 5'9 doesn't seem average to me.
Seems to me if you are 5'9 with a 40 inch waste you probably should weigh 230 to 240...
Yeah...its terrible. I read somewhere in the 40s, the average male waist was 30" or something.
I suspect a true 40 waist is something like a 35 in pants due to widespread vanity sizing. Still not great, but not as bad as the shock of seeing a 40” is “average.”
People in the US are fat, not exactly earth shattering news
I think part of this is how they measure. I had some measurements done a while back and was surprised how I came out. I wear 32s, but 31s fit better when I can find them. That's what they call a hip measurement right around the top of the pelvis, the narrowest point. The waist is a little higher and is IMO a belly measurement. I don't recall exactly, but I was over 34, maybe even 35. I'm 5-8 165. In my avatar picture, I'm maybe 5-6 lbs lighter.
And getting worse..."In 2015–2016, the age adjusted mean waist circumference in men was 102.1 cm (40.2 in), up from 99.l cm (39.0 in) in 1999–2000. Among women, the age-adjusted mean waist circumference was 98.0 cm (38.6 in) in 2015–2016, up from 92.2 cm (36.3 in) in 1999–2000."
The other thing that caused me to dig this up is that I'm doing some on-line research on the Risk-Based Concentration of PFOA in Soils (yeah, we have a site with this stuff in the soil) and laughed to myself when the "Maintenance Worker" scenario used the typical modeling default value of 70 kg (154.3 lbs.) for the worker. No maintenance worker I've ever encountered weighed that little, so I know the RBC is conservative.
Men were, overall, physically smaller then. Food, as most know it today, didn't exist. The Great Depression also was still taking its toll. And WWII was in full swing with rations of all kinds, and an extremely large part of the population of our younger men were serving in our Armed Forces. Lots going on then.
Every time I go to get pants the shelf is stocked with 40x32 and bigger. Never know if the people my size just cleaned the place out or if the average male looks like George Costanza.
Am i only one more concerned that the women average is 39"???
I know people, on average, are pretty hefty, but it always seems like the size 30 and 31 waists sell out the quickest. Maybe they're just not stocking many of those because everybody is so fat.
5'10", 180 here.
5'10", 180 here.
It’s awful.
What may be worse is how retailers use marketing techniques to make buyers feel better. I saw a pair of 46x32 jeans last week labeled as “Athletic Fit.” Sorry, but that’s laughable.
What may be worse is how retailers use marketing techniques to make buyers feel better. I saw a pair of 46x32 jeans last week labeled as “Athletic Fit.” Sorry, but that’s laughable.
Just got back from lunch; sitting in office choking because I'm laughing so hard at "Athletic Fit".
I'm far from a statistician but I would think the fellas that are really large skew the data to the high side.
I finally made it back to a 34 after 10+ years of 36 at 41 years old (humble brag). I can tell you 36X34 or 36x32 pants are very difficult to find in stores. If i could find one, wear it for at least a day to make sure I like them, and then order more of the exact cut online.
I hear you & congrats!. Got so fed up late last year (5'10", 217, 34") with jeans sizes at stores that I went M Tailor. Never going back to regular jeans. The App is easy & the fit is so much more comfortable because they're sized specifically for me.
Can confirm, used to be damn near 250 at 5’8” and 40 inch waist was squeezing it. Down to 149 now and wear 30 inch
I cant decide if 34x32 is a popular size or odd size because I have a hard time finding it. In reality, 33x31 is my ideal fit, but I can only get that in tailored suits.
Lmao yeah, it’s about a 22-23 on the BMI scale for my height. Best shape I’ve ever been in
149 is about where most 5'8" guys should be, I'd imagine. I'd like to get down to that size. 5'8.5", 167 here. I'm very skinny fat.
I wear a 40. Now before you make fun, I used to wear a 48. The 40s are getting a little loose, hoping to jump down to a 38 soon.
I have a hard time envisioning what 5'8", 220, with a 34" waist looks like, unless you have a massive chest and shoulders. I have a 33" waist, and I am 6', 190 lbs.
My work is offering a preventative health program (basically paying for a diet and exercise program). They, the workout people, showed us the numbers they wanted to get their patients realistically UNDER. It was like a 42" waist, 28 BMI, 130 over 70 BP.... I was pretty shocked that these were "goals".
My 13 year old wears a 34×34, is almost 6'3" and weighs 190lbs. If he continues to grow, the length will become hard to find.
Happy to poke fun at some things, including myself, but the fact that you are making a true effort to slim down is nothing to poke fun at--you should be proud.
Baby steps, I guess. Better than setting no goals at all. Submitted my online paperwork just yesterday for the $400 annual amount ($200 for employee + $200 for spouse/partner) I can get.
I got measured for a physical the other day and they took my waist measurement around my stomach, not my hips where I would wear pants. I wear a 40 waist and I am 6'0'' weighing 235. I am fat. My stomach hangs over my pants some, not terribly, but there ain't no flat washboard in sight. Most people who are shorter than me that weigh over 225 are gonna have some overhang. Not saying the poster above does, but in general.
Well done. At one point in my life I wore as high as a 50. Now at 42 in dress pants with jeans that are 40.
I went from a 48 to a 30 and now I hover between a 34/36.
I'm 6'1" and need 34" pants when I'm over 210lbs or so. When I stay in the 190-200lb range, I wear a belt with 32" pants. I suspect it has a lot to do with how we're proportioned.
Latest
-
01
Tiger Illustrated
The most important thing we still don't know after two weeks of camp in Clemson
-
02
Tiger Illustrated
PART 2: The most important thing we've learned in Clemson this month
-
03
On3
Clemson DT Vic Burley suspended indefinitely following arrest
-
04
Tiger Illustrated
The most important thing we've learned in Clemson this month
-
05
Tiger Illustrated
Inside the contrast in styles between how Clemson and LSU are handling practices this month