Moooo!
The "average" American woman is a size 14! Kate Zernike writes in The New York Times about the personally supersized:
For years, an average woman was thought to be a size 8, although some circles had bumped that up to size 12 in recent years. But even the women who came in on the small side in the SizeUSA survey look more like what the longtime clothing industry standards would consider a size 14 ó the size at which "plus size" clothing begins.Industry standards set a size 8 at a 35-inch bust, a 27-inch waist, and 37.5-inch hip. In the survey, white women ages 18 to 25 came in, on average, 38-32-41, with white women ages 36 to 45 coming in at 41-34-43. (Barbie, long the plastic bane of body image, is said to have measurements that project to about 39-18-33.) In that same age group, black women measure, on average, 43-37-46, Hispanic women 42.5-36-44, and "other" women, which researchers said meant mostly Asian, 41-35-43.
Similarly, most men are larger than the traditional 40 regular, long considered the average. A 40 regular, according to standards, means a 40-inch chest, 34-inch waist, and 40-inch hip, with a 15.5-inch collar. In the survey, white men ages 18 to 25 had, on average, a 41-inch chest, 35-inch waist, 41-inch hips and a 16-inch collar (that is raw neck size ó shirts are generally sized at least a half-inch bigger). From the ages of 36 to 45, white men came in at 44-38-42, black men 43-37-42, Hispanic men 44-38-42 and "other" 42-37-41.
"Waists are the first problem, " said Jim Lovejoy, the director of SizeUSA and a director at TC2, the Cary, N.C., technology firm whose machines did the survey. "The numbers show that we're complex, but we're definitely getting heavier, and it's primarily in the waist ó and the hips follow the waist."
The last national survey was done in 1941, when the United States Department of Agriculture sent out researchers with tape measures to size up the population in anticipation of having to design military uniforms for World War II. Sirvart Mellian, an anthropologist and a member of the board that sets the clothing size standards for the American Society of Testing and Materials, said those numbers were then taken by the mail-order industry to design clothing sizes.
But they measured a population far less diverse than today's. As more Americans have become overweight, A.S.T.M. has increased the measurements for the standard sizes. Clothing companies, too, began using "vanity sizing," putting, say, a size 6 label on a size 10 in the hopes of luring a customer. Even men's sizes, which are considered more accurate because they are labeled in inches, are often "relaxed" to measure an inch bigger than the advertised size.
But until now, no one has gone out and updated the actual measurements. Clothing companies wanted updated information to better design products to fit their customers.
How about a stall in a barn? A lot of women in America act like there's some conspiracy making them fat. What it is, is pretty simple: they go places that serve huge portions of (often tasteless) food, or make themselves huge portions, then eat the whole thing. Then they lie, whale-like, on the sofa, wondering why the pounds aren't melting away.
Granted, the typical American diet is like the typical American lifestyle: Consume More. But setting a 'standard' size as healthy is deceiving. My mom was 5'10". At one point in time, she weighed 175 pounds and wore a size 14 or 16--but if you had looked at her, you would have thought she was anorexic. I have pictures of her that would make you cry--she was gaunt, a bag of bones. She was so tall and had such broad shoulders, long arms and legs that the weight was not enough for her to be healthy.
Peggy C at March 6, 2004 11:51 AM
Today's size 8 was called size 14 in the days when Marilyn Monroe wore a size 14.
Cathy Seipp at March 6, 2004 4:56 PM
Increasingly often, in American women's sizes, I need a "6"...or even a "4"! And I'm 5'9"! I'm not fat, but I'm no Lara Flynn Boyle either. This winter, I ordered an orange wool jacket from the Victoria's Secret catalogue (very attractive, believe it or not), and I thought I was probably making a mistake in ordering a small. I was! I had to return it for an extra small. Insane!
Amy Alkon at March 6, 2004 5:06 PM
Hey, long time reader, first time poster. I'm 5'3" with a large bust and large hips (34" bust with a C cup, 38" hips) and a comparatively smallish waist (27"). So I have a big ass...but I also exercise at least four times a week. My big ass is a fact of life for me, and I've accepted it, and a size 9 thru 12 (depending on the manufacturer) is where I'm at. Personally, I think that women's clothing manufacturers should dispense with the assignation of arbitrary numbers and give sizes in inches. That way, my big ass won't have to spend days in the fitting room.
Kate at March 6, 2004 10:27 PM
I read that according by using the Body Mass Index, Tom Cruise (5foot7 & 202 pounds) would be considered obese.
I think the best gauge is how you feel after taking a couple flights of stairs.
eric at March 7, 2004 10:00 AM
I highly doubt Tom Cruise is 202 pounds. It's not hard to see what obese is. It's all the people who sat in the International House Of Pancakes, when I was last in Michigan, scarfing down the entirety of an omelette that took up the entire plate, that came with a "side" of pancakes, that, for me, would have been a big breakfast in and of itself. What's weirdest of all, is that people in this country shovel down mountains of not very good food. It's often tasteless, filled with chemicals, and not well-presented. Then they lie down and wonder why they're enormous. Hmmm, let's get Einstein on that.
My personal favorites are those who'd blame the media for people's preference for women, especially, who aren't fat or grossly obese. Ask those women if they think really fat people are attractive. Of course they don't. But they'll swear til the death that "men should like women for their personality" (solely). Well, perhaps they "should." But they don't. So, if you want a man, go to the gym and smear on some Revlon, and wear a dress that has a waist.
Amy Alkon at March 7, 2004 10:17 AM
I don't know if he is, but here is the link to the article, which is interesting...
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,111304,00.html
Yes, I know it is Fox news- I googled TOM CRUISE BMI....
ERIC at March 7, 2004 2:06 PM
What what what? Eat Less? Exercise more? What is this heresy? Don't you have to BUY something to make you thin? Isn't there a pill for that? Don't celebrities make pacts with the devil to remain thin and beautiful? "Hello, Beelzebub? About your offer..."
swayframe at March 7, 2004 5:34 PM
A story I love- I was watching Oprah: After the Show once, and someone asked Oprah if it was true she was taking some pill that was making her thin, and if so, what was the pill. Oprah bust out laughing and said, "There is no pill!! If there was a pill, I would OWN it!" If one of the richest women in the world can't buy herself thin, then I guess it proves the rest of us really do have to eat less and exercise more. Crazy!
Kate at March 7, 2004 6:52 PM
Tom is no 202 lbs. But his bodyfat isn't was low as some stars (think Clint Eastwood--for years bodybuilders envied him, as he had something like 1 or 2% BF, like Lance Armstrong.) The BMI is a joke. I do agree that I see a lot of stylish stouts at Costco, but there's a happy medium between looking like a concentration camp survivor and Roseanne Barr. And I don't appreciate pop culture for trying to make me feel insecure at 5'9 and 150 lbs.
KateCoe at March 9, 2004 10:32 AM
Tom Cruise may well have been 202lbs when he was at a slightly hunkier size (around 1999-2000) for films such as Magnolia. His arms were hugely muscled, he had (and always did have) a big muscular chest, and his body generally looks pretty awesome. He's an extremely good (and extremely sexy) example of how stupid the BMI scale really is.
AR at June 28, 2004 11:49 AM