About the average american woman

jadedone
jadedone Posts: 2,446 Member
in Chit-Chat
So one thing that has been puzzling me for a while, is the stats on the "average" american woman.

Let's recap:
Height: 63.8 inches (just under 5'4")
Weight: 166 pounds
Waist Size: 34**
Clothing Size: 14

** Lots of conflicting stuff out there on measurements. But I am just going to use this stat for "white women" for reference sake: 41-34-43. The averages for Latinas, Black Women and Asian women vary a bit. But all are within an inch or 2 in each dimension. Some of the waist estimates are as high as 37. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/01/us/sizing-up-america-signs-of-expansion-from-head-to-toe.html

But herein lies my question. For all intensive purposes, I am the size of the "Average" american. And reading the threads, many of you are as well. I am a little over 5'4." My measurements are about 42-34-45 (so not too far off the the average). Yet I am around 50 pounds over that "average" weight. And last summer, I did get to those average (my waist was a little smaller, but similar enough) measurements. And I was 40 pounds heavier than the "average woman" who is supposed to have my measurements. The only thing that is certain, If I was "average" weight, my measurements would not be "average." They'd be significanly smaller.

So what's the deal? Is the average woman's scale lying? Or is it something else all together. Body composition? Some other explanation?

Has anyone else compared themselves to the "average woman?"
«1

Replies

  • airwagn
    airwagn Posts: 21
    I have thought the same thing. I believe that it might be helpful to think of all of those categories as classed separately. For example, as a whole, the American woman, regardless of weight, height, etc. has a waist size of 34. Or, disregarding everything else, the average size is 14. It is difficult to lump these all together into a fair representation, when so many women (from the posts I've seen before) don't seem to fit the bill of what is supposedly "average." For example, I am a size 10/12, with a 30" waist, under the "average" size, but I am 164 pounds, close to the average weight. Maybe the categories all put together don't necessarily represent a prototype of a good chunk of American women.

    Or maybe I'm completely off...
  • NormInv
    NormInv Posts: 3,303 Member
    Never met an 'average' American woman in my life.
  • rml_16
    rml_16 Posts: 16,414 Member
    An average is a bunch of numbers added together and divided by the number of numbers that were added together.

    There will be outliers -- some way higher and some way lower.

    Ex: 20+50+70+10+30+150=330

    The average of those numbers is 55.
  • 1ConcreteGirl
    1ConcreteGirl Posts: 3,677 Member
    Body composition and skewed sampling.

    Pretty sure the closest response center to me was in the parking lot of the Compton Wal Mart, which is why I didn't show up.
  • jonnythan
    jonnythan Posts: 10,161 Member
    Weight is not determined by 3 measurements.

    By the way, it's "intents and purposes" not "intensive purposes."
  • xvxCelticWandererxvx
    xvxCelticWandererxvx Posts: 2,890 Member
    Average is so average! Bleh! :huh: Embrace YOU!
  • NormInv
    NormInv Posts: 3,303 Member
    An average is a bunch of numbers added together and divided by the number of numbers that were added together.

    There will be outliers -- some way higher and some way lower.

    Ex: 20+50+70+10+30+150=330

    The average of those numbers is 55.

    what you mean to say is, look at mode or median, not the mean. Your welcome!
  • dirtnap63
    dirtnap63 Posts: 1,387 Member
    An average is a bunch of numbers added together and divided by the number of numbers that were added together.

    There will be outliers -- some way higher and some way lower.

    Ex: 20+50+70+10+30+150=330

    The average of those numbers is 55.

    what you mean to say is, look at mode or median, not the mean. Your welcome!

    We've discussed this ad nauseum. Nobody is being mean. Sheesh!
  • brower47
    brower47 Posts: 16,356 Member
    You might be the average weight of the nation but when you refer to being X lbs over the "average weight", that "average weight" is the average weight within a healthy weight range.

    For simplicity sake, say that the healthy weight range for a 5'4" woman is between 120 and 140. The average of those would be 130. That's the average you are x lbs overweight.
  • sparkle814
    sparkle814 Posts: 78 Member
    Could be that you have a larger frame and more muscle than the average women with those approximate stats? And as someone else also mentioned that those few measurements don't give info on hip/butt/thigh/arm etc size, so maybe that plays into it too. This is so interesting!
  • JustAboutDelicious_wechanged
    JustAboutDelicious_wechanged Posts: 2,486 Member
    My head hurts from this.....me needs hugz and kisses AND :heart:
  • NormInv
    NormInv Posts: 3,303 Member
    You might be the average weight of the nation but when you refer to being X lbs over the "average weight", that "average weight" is the average weight within a healthy weight range.

    For simplicity sake, say that the healthy weight range for a 5'4" woman is between 120 and 140. The average of those would be 130. That's the average you are x lbs overweight.

    you mean standard deviation!
  • weevil66
    weevil66 Posts: 600 Member
    An average is a bunch of numbers added together and divided by the number of numbers that were added together.

    There will be outliers -- some way higher and some way lower.

    Ex: 20+50+70+10+30+150=330

    The average of those numbers is 55.

    what you mean to say is, look at mode or median, not the mean. Your welcome!

    We've discussed this ad nauseum. Nobody is being mean. Sheesh!

    My friend is mean when she eats pancakes.
  • weevil66
    weevil66 Posts: 600 Member

    you mean standard deviation!

    You called?
  • dirtnap63
    dirtnap63 Posts: 1,387 Member
    An average is a bunch of numbers added together and divided by the number of numbers that were added together.

    There will be outliers -- some way higher and some way lower.

    Ex: 20+50+70+10+30+150=330

    The average of those numbers is 55.

    what you mean to say is, look at mode or median, not the mean. Your welcome!

    We've discussed this ad nauseum. Nobody is being mean. Sheesh!

    My friend is mean when she eats pancakes.

    Your friend should be feeding you a five fingered sandwich for making such a random accusation.
  • weevil66
    weevil66 Posts: 600 Member
    An average is a bunch of numbers added together and divided by the number of numbers that were added together.

    There will be outliers -- some way higher and some way lower.

    Ex: 20+50+70+10+30+150=330

    The average of those numbers is 55.

    what you mean to say is, look at mode or median, not the mean. Your welcome!

    We've discussed this ad nauseum. Nobody is being mean. Sheesh!

    My friend is mean when she eats pancakes.

    Your friend should be feeding you a five fingered sandwich for making such a random accusation.

    I am going to buy her a pancake tomorrow to see what happens. If I am absent tomorrow that means she shoved that pancake in my face.
  • jadedone
    jadedone Posts: 2,446 Member
    I think weight is a useless measure of health. Just find it interesting about these "averages". It is a little weird.

    My own goals are not weight related. I have a goal weight neighborhood. But if it turns out I hit my goal measurements/body fat percentage before the weight it is not an issue. The scale isn't motivating. It is more import is to make health behaviors permanent habits.

    Luckily for me I don't have any major health issues to deal with, things like blood pressure, blood sugar and cholesterol are normal to low.
  • mustang289
    mustang289 Posts: 299 Member
    Weight is not determined by 3 measurements.

    By the way, it's "intents and purposes" not "intensive purposes."

    Glad you said it before me....I thought those purposes must be really intense!
  • mustang289
    mustang289 Posts: 299 Member
    I think weight is a useless measure of health. Just find it interesting about these "averages". It is a little weird.

    My own goals are not weight related. I have a goal weight neighborhood. But if it turns out I hit my goal measurements/body fat percentage before the weight it is not an issue. The scale isn't motivating. It is more import is to make health behaviors permanent habits.

    Luckily for me I don't have any major health issues to deal with, things like blood pressure, blood sugar and cholesterol are normal to low.

    You have some good points, but I think weight is still useful. It can be an indicator of how much lean mass your body has versus how much fat it has. It would be difficult to image a 300 pound 5'4" woman that was all muscle, so in this example weighing 300 pounds is a sign of less than ideal health. Too much fat and a person will start to develop those health issues which fortunately you currently do not have.
  • paintlisapurple
    paintlisapurple Posts: 982 Member
    Good question! I suppose it has to do with body composition. I mean, like you (though I'm a "white woman" LOL) my measurements are 41/31/41 but...I weigh about ten pounds more than the "average" white women that you speak of. I also suppose that its a good thing there are all different shapes and sizes or the world would be a truly boring place in which we live! :heart:
  • jadedone
    jadedone Posts: 2,446 Member
    I think weight is a useless measure of health. Just find it interesting about these "averages". It is a little weird.

    My own goals are not weight related. I have a goal weight neighborhood. But if it turns out I hit my goal measurements/body fat percentage before the weight it is not an issue. The scale isn't motivating. It is more import is to make health behaviors permanent habits.

    Luckily for me I don't have any major health issues to deal with, things like blood pressure, blood sugar and cholesterol are normal to low.

    You have some good points, but I think weight is still useful. It can be an indicator of how much lean mass your body has versus how much fat it has. It would be difficult to image a 300 pound 5'4" woman that was all muscle, so in this example weighing 300 pounds is a sign of less than ideal health. Too much fat and a person will start to develop those health issues which fortunately you currently do not have.

    Sure, the odds of being a 300 pound 5'4" woman, and having 25% body fat percentage are pretty low. But a 160 pound 5'4" BF percentage? Definitely possible. Unfortunately, I think we have been conditioned to think (by society) that weight X is automatically "fat" and weight "Y" is automatically "attractive." There is a lot of grey there. So many women work really really hard just to hit that X, no matter what the health consequences are.
  • jadedone
    jadedone Posts: 2,446 Member
    Weight is not determined by 3 measurements.

    By the way, it's "intents and purposes" not "intensive purposes."

    Thanks.
  • SerenaFisher
    SerenaFisher Posts: 2,170 Member
    I have to say the average means nothing.
  • BeckyAnne4
    BeckyAnne4 Posts: 143 Member
    wait, did someone say pancakes???
  • BinaryPulsar
    BinaryPulsar Posts: 8,927 Member
    Well, it was an interesting article. I am much smaller than that "average". And it seems the point of the article is that Americans are getting heavier.
  • LMT2012
    LMT2012 Posts: 697 Member
    Here's my proof it's "average". Walk up to any clothing rack in any store. Try to find a 12 or 14. Yeah. They are often sold out. Kinda like size 8 shoes.
  • DatMurse
    DatMurse Posts: 1,501 Member
    Here's my proof it's "average". Walk up to any clothing rack in any store. Try to find a 12 or 14. Yeah. They are often sold out. Kinda like size 8 shoes.
    UmpOi.gif
    mind=blown
  • healthyandfitgirl14
    healthyandfitgirl14 Posts: 413 Member
    luckily i'm not average. i'm a special snowflake. :bigsmile:
  • catrinaHwechanged
    catrinaHwechanged Posts: 4,907 Member
    Here's my proof it's "average". Walk up to any clothing rack in any store. Try to find a 12 or 14. Yeah. They are often sold out. Kinda like size 8 shoes.
    UmpOi.gif
    mind=blown

    Lol!!
  • meshashesha2012
    meshashesha2012 Posts: 8,329 Member
    wasnt this based on a survey? would you honestly believe women to be truthful about their weights, measurements and clothing sizes? it's very possible that the "average" data looks weird because most of the data is incorrect.
    Here's my proof it's "average". Walk up to any clothing rack in any store. Try to find a 12 or 14. Yeah. They are often sold out. Kinda like size 8 shoes.

    that's not proof. your assumption is that stores order the same amounts of the all sizes, which many times even the same chain store will get more stock of a certain size than a different location. for instance, at my local express, they get very few size 14's in but tons of 2,4,6,8. just because the few size 14s get sold out quicker than the dozens of smaller sizes in no way means there are more people who are size 14 shopping there

Categories