Sizing Survey Finds Americans Getting Larger

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
55,703
13,454
146
Sizing Up America: Signs of Expansion

By KATE ZERNIKE
NY Times
Published: March 1, 2004

For the first time since World War II, a national survey has sized up the average American body, not just by weight and height or even the standard chest-waist-hip routine, but in more than 240 measurements tip to toe.

The results confirm what other statistics have shown: that Americans have grown. In their sheer detail, the measurements also show just how and where ? an intimate portrait of the national body with all its Lycra-ed love handles, sucked-in stomachs and fashionably disguised spare tires.

The survey ? called SizeUSA and sponsored by clothing and textile companies, the Army, Navy and several universities ? measured more than 10,000 people in 13 cities nationwide using a light-pulsing 3-D scanner.

Among the findings: older men have trimmer thighs than younger men. Black women are larger than other women, but they are also most likely to have the classic hourglass figure. Sixty-four percent of women are pear-shaped, and 30 percent are "straight," meaning they had little perceptible waist.

Nineteen percent of men are "portly," and another 19 percent have "lower front waists," meaning, the researchers said, they had to look under a belly to find the waist. Men over 45 are most likely to have potbellies, women over 36, bigger hips (though black women older than 55 have smaller hips than those 46 to 55).

Over all, the new measurements shake up what have long been considered the average outlines of the American body. 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 ? 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 ? 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 ? 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.

"This is a landmark deal," said William Dillard III, vice president for replenishment at Dillard's department stores, a sponsor. "You wouldn't believe how many decisions get made off those standards."

Britain did a similar study in 2001, and France and Mexico, too, are in different stages of sizing surveys.

SizeUSA surveyed people at department stores and corporate office buildings, at a trade show, an outlet mall, and on university and college campuses. Researchers weighted their sample according to a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study of average height and weight to make sure they did not count too many people who were especially heavy or light, short or tall.

When the C.D.C. completed its study, in 1994, the median weight for women was 144 pounds, for men, 176 pounds. The SizeUSA median height remained the same (5 feet 4 inches for women, 5 feet 9 inches for men), but the median weight increased by four pounds for each sex.

But the numbers suggested that people have not simply gotten bigger; they have gotten rounder in the middle. Women whose busts fit a standard size 8 were 2 inches bigger than the standard in the waist, and an inch bigger in the hips. Women who fit a size 16 in the waist were 2 inches smaller than the standard in the hips and 1.5 inches smaller in the bust.

Measurements did not differ much by region or by education ? the average weight of the men and women combined was about 155 pounds whether people had less than a high school diploma or more than a college degree. People who earned up to $25,000 a year weighed an average of 152 pounds ? 8 pounds less than the average for those who earned $50,000-$75,000, but about the same as people who earned more than $75,000.

The real differences were between race and ethnicities, and age groups. White women were most likely to have a protruding stomach, sticking out an inch or more from the waist ? what Mr. Lovejoy called "a little bit of a tummy." Eleven percent of white women were labeled thus, compared with 3 percent of Hispanic women, 4 percent of black women, and 7 percent of those classified "other." Twenty percent of Hispanic women had "full waists" compared with 10 percent of white women, and 15 percent of black.

Among men ages 18 to 25, 5 percent of blacks and 9 percent of all other groups were labeled portly, meaning they needed extra room in the front half of a jacket, shirt or sweater. But that gap narrowed or even reversed among men 55 to 65, where 42 percent of blacks, 32 percent of whites, 44 percent of Hispanics and 30 percent of others were considered portly. Eleven percent of men overall had a "prominent seat," but that ranged from 24 percent among black men to 9 percent among whites, 8 percent among Hispanics and 6 percent among "others."

"We didn't find any regional variations that couldn't be explained as ethnic variations," Mr. Lovejoy said.

The sample divided the country into three regions. About 60 percent of those surveyed earn less than $49,000 a year, and 20 percent more than $75,000. About 44 percent of the women and 38 percent of the men were married, and 45 percent had at least a college degree. Asked for their profession, 30 percent said professional or managerial, 17 percent sales or service, 19 percent students. Sixteen percent of men described themselves as craftsmen or laborers, and 15 percent of women identified themselves as office or clerical workers.

Asked for their perception of how much they weighed, 51 percent of men and 38 percent of women said they were "about the right weight." Ten percent of men said they were "quite a bit overweight"; among women, 21 percent said the same.


 

fizmeister

Senior member
Oct 29, 2002
416
0
0
I need to get fatter then, to keep up. It seems my 29-inch waist isn't cutting it, nor is my 31/32-inch chest.

Good post, though. Interesting read.
 

jfall

Diamond Member
Oct 31, 2000
5,975
2
0
Am I the only one who is sick of people doing these stupid studies every week and telling us how to eat, what causes cancer and what doesn't blah blah blah.. it changes so often and they always seem to end up contradicting themselves some how
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
55,703
13,454
146
This is the first comprehensive sizing study since 1941.

They don't tell you how to eat, or if you're going to get cancer. They are only showing how the "average" size has changed since 1941.
 

fizmeister

Senior member
Oct 29, 2002
416
0
0
Originally posted by: crt1530
31/32 inch chest?

That's what an Adult/Men Small t-shirt is, and that's what I wear, so that's what I assume it is. But I do wear fairly tight shirts, so it's probably more like 34/35. Hell, I know nothing of chest size.
 

Geekbabe

Moderator Emeritus<br>Elite Member
Oct 16, 1999
32,116
2,258
126
www.theshoppinqueen.com
Well this is is one american who's getting smaller and I wish they made more clothing suited to long limbed people with long torso's,finding decently cut tee shirts and such is a pain.
 

0roo0roo

No Lifer
Sep 21, 2002
64,862
84
91
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.

yea i remember something about levi's changing their sizes a bit, making their regulars the slim cut.. etc and the myth that marilyn monroe was big... sizes were different then.
http://www.npr.org/display_pages/features/feature_1385806.html
http://www.jessicaseigel.com/marilyn.shtml
 

ajpa123

Platinum Member
Apr 19, 2003
2,401
1
0
Originally posted by: SampSon
It's all the crap they put in the food.

Yep,
All the chemicals additives/preservatives/coloring.
It's probably speeding up our cancer and related illnesses cases too.
God didn't want us to be ingesting all that crap :(
oh Well.
Drink UP, while you can :beer:
 

beer

Lifer
Jun 27, 2000
11,169
1
0
Originally posted by: ajpa123
Originally posted by: SampSon
It's all the crap they put in the food.

Yep,
All the chemicals additives/preservatives/coloring.
It's probably speeding up our cancer and related illnesses cases too.
God didn't want us to be ingesting all that crap :(
oh Well.
Drink UP, while you can :beer:

We are still living 30 years longer than people 200 years ago. I wouldn't call that anything less than extraordinary.
 

ajpa123

Platinum Member
Apr 19, 2003
2,401
1
0
Originally posted by: beer
Originally posted by: ajpa123
Originally posted by: SampSon
It's all the crap they put in the food.

Yep,
All the chemicals additives/preservatives/coloring.
It's probably speeding up our cancer and related illnesses cases too.
God didn't want us to be ingesting all that crap :(
oh Well.
Drink UP, while you can :beer:

We are still living 30 years longer than people 200 years ago. I wouldn't call that anything less than extraordinary.

I would call it progress.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
55,703
13,454
146
Originally posted by: ajpa123
Originally posted by: SampSon
It's all the crap they put in the food.

Yep,
All the chemicals additives/preservatives/coloring.
It's probably speeding up our cancer and related illnesses cases too.
God didn't want us to be ingesting all that crap :(
oh Well.
Drink UP, while you can :beer:

The major problem is a lack of physical activity in our daily lives. It used to be only the rich could be fat and sedentary. Now nearly everyone can.

The explosion in weight gain in the US directly coincides with the popularity and use of cable/sat TV, video games, and the Internet. Our off time is FAR more sedentary than it used to be.

Notice the older generation is STILL skinnier than the younger generation? This is because fewer of them use video games or the internet as passtimes and are more likely to do physical activities for recreation.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,376
8,186
126
Originally posted by: beer

We are still living 30 years longer than people 200 years ago. I wouldn't call that anything less than extraordinary.

thats because our childhood death rate is far lower, not because the top end went up
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
55,703
13,454
146
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: beer

We are still living 30 years longer than people 200 years ago. I wouldn't call that anything less than extraordinary.

thats because our childhood death rate is far lower, not because the top end went up

I disagree. Medical science is keeping a lot more geezers alive a lot longer than before.
 

Originally posted by: beer
Originally posted by: ajpa123
Originally posted by: SampSon
It's all the crap they put in the food.

Yep,
All the chemicals additives/preservatives/coloring.
It's probably speeding up our cancer and related illnesses cases too.
God didn't want us to be ingesting all that crap :(
oh Well.
Drink UP, while you can :beer:

We are still living 30 years longer than people 200 years ago. I wouldn't call that anything less than extraordinary.
Medical science. Wait until our antibiotics don't work anymore. Then we will be screwed.

The major problem is a lack of physical activity in our daily lives. It used to be only the rich could be fat and sedentary. Now nearly everyone can.

The explosion in weight gain in the US directly coincides with the popularity and use of cable/sat TV, video games, and the Internet. Our off time is FAR more sedentary than it used to be.

Notice the older generation is STILL skinnier than the younger generation? This is because fewer of them use video games or the internet as passtimes and are more likely to do physical activities for recreation.
True. But there are still plenty of fat old people.
 

WinkOsmosis

Banned
Sep 18, 2002
13,990
0
0
Originally posted by: jfall
Am I the only one who is sick of people doing these stupid studies every week and telling us how to eat, what causes cancer and what doesn't blah blah blah.. it changes so often and they always seem to end up contradicting themselves some how

Not me, but I'm not a fatty like you.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY