Proportions over Pounds?

[taekwondave]

I happened across a website a while back that took a different angle on fitness than most others I had seen. It argued that since it is a LOOK we are all going for, we ought to stop looking at our scales and grab the measuring tape instead to track our physical progress.

Here are the proportions they suggest:

For men: Height/Waist/Shoulder ratios

Take height. Times by .45 to get perfect waist. (For a 6' 0" man, that is 32.4 inches.)

Take perfect waist. Times by 1.62 to get perfect shoulder measurement. (For that same man, that is 52.48 inches.)

For women: Height/Waist/Hips ratio

For perfect waist, take height and times by .35 (For 5' 5" woman that is 22.75".)

For perfect hips, take perfect waist and times by 1.42 (For that same woman you get 32.3".)

Thoughts?

[Slim]

How do you measure your shoulders? Does that include the chest at it's widest point with the arms down?

[DU Ute]

We men do need someone sort of measurement ideal to shoot for. Women have 36-24-36. It's laid right out there for them, makes it very simple. I think women are very fortunate to have it so easy.

[Slim]

This site has a lot of different ways to calculate the "ideal" measurements.

http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/drobson207.htm

[Babs]

We men do need someone sort of measurement ideal to shoot for. Women have 36-24-36.

TKD just said it's 36-22-32.

[DU Ute]

TKD just said it's 36-22-32.

TKD is a fool if he can't appreciate a well-proportioned, curvaceous woman.

[HuskyFreeNorthwest]

TKD just said it's 36-22-32.

TKD needs to learn that the Violent Fems they bring all of their equipment on the bus, and you can't f with the Violent Fems.

[taekwondave]

TKD just said it's 36-22-32.

They actually don't take into consideration the breast size, since the breast size can fluctuate so much on a woman with the other proportions without much change in physical attractiveness apparently.

(I actually think I agree with that. I've never been more attracted to D cups than C cups, it's just the fact that there are boobs there at all that's attractive to me.)

They do take into consideration shoulder size for women, being that it helps create hourglass shape from behind, (think Angelina Jolie in "Wanted") but the way I figure it, that's just gonna probably be a natural result of training anyway, and if you have the other two measurements, you're probably fine there as well.

[taekwondave]

TKD is a fool if he can't appreciate a well-proportioned, curvaceous woman.

My girl is 5' 4" tall. 35-24-34.

I appreciate curves just fine. (I know these numbers as of last Monday. I helped her measure for her brides maid dress for my sister's wedding next month.)

I consider myself a very lucky hombre.

[thesaint258]

This is how I view things. I still weigh myself, but I don't get worked up over fluctuations in weight. I lift a lot, so I build and strengthen muscle. Over the last few months, my weight has stayed about the same, but I've lost inches on my stomach, chest, and thighs. I feel like taking my measurements is a better indication of me losing fat than the scale.

[taekwondave]

How do you measure your shoulders? Does that include the chest at it's widest point with the arms down?

Yes.

[Babs]

TKD is a fool if he can't appreciate a well-proportioned, curvaceous woman.

Actually, I'm rather a fan of the angular, undernourished look.

But here's the thing. I don't know where TKD is pulling those proportions (I noticed he didn't post the link). But probably 98% of 65"-tall women could lose weight til they're down to the double-digits or less, and they're still not going to have a 32" hip. A healthy woman's bone structure (and the propagation of the species) dictate that the circumference be greater than that.

Moreover, the VS and SI models aren't anywhere near that small. So I find it hard to believe that's what society considers to be the ideal ratio.

[taekwondave]

Actually, I'm rather a fan of the angular, undernourished look.

But here's the thing. I don't know where TKD is pulling those proportions (I noticed he didn't post the link). But probably 98% of 65"-tall women could lose weight til they're down to the double-digits or less, and they're still not going to have a 32" hip. A healthy woman's bone structure (and the propagation of the species) dictate that the circumference be greater than that.

Moreover, the VS and SI models aren't anywhere near that small. So I find it hard to believe that's what society considers to be the ideal ratio.

That's interesting. I had a hard time with the female proportions they were giving me, and I might have calculated wrong. But 36-24-36 sounds odd for me for any woman shorter than 5' 6" since the ideal size for a runway model per the organizations themselves is 5' 8" 34-24-34. I wish I could provide a link right now but I'm late for church. I'll get those to you guys later if you wish.

[taekwondave]

But really quickly:

You can't just throw out 36-24-36 and say that's the perfect proportion. It doesn't take height into consideration. You MUST take height into consideration, that much seems obvious.

[taekwondave]

Ah, I hate church

Here's one link.

"The British Association of Model Agents (AMA) says that female models should be around 34-24-34 in (86-61-86 cm) and 5 ft 9 in (1.75 m) tall.[6] The model must be slender and in shape.
The preferred dimensions for a male model are a height of 6 ft 0 in (1.83 m) to 6 ft 2 in (1.88 m), a waist of 28–32 in (71.12–81.28 cm) and a chest measurement of 36–40 in (91.44–101.60 cm).[6] Male runway models have been noted as being skinny and well toned.[7]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_(person)

Now, I agree that far too many female runway models look anorexic and far too many male runway models look like they'd lose a fight to my sister, and as such, I think we need to probably add a little to both for argument's sake. Where that is exactly, I don't know. But I think the numbers I posted above are getting pretty close.