Obesity skews the national average in weight

[Legendary]

In the USA, the average male is 5'9 and 195 pounds. Obviously this is the national average so it includes all of the obese people, which drives the number up. If we were to take extreme variables like obesity and or anorexia, what would the true number be?

I would say the average joe minus obesity is 5'8-5'10, and 165-175?

 

[corpse]

heavyweight strongman, powerlifters and bodybuilders destroy the national bmi

 

[TheFakeMacoy]

So you want an average that really isn't an average? You may be better off looking at the median height and weight. Here's a link to the CDC's data. It breaks it down into percentiles and age brackets. Per the CDC, 37.9% of people Age 20 and older have obesity, so I would say that it's fair to include them in measurements for the "average joe."

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/body-measurements.htm

 

[LatFlare]

Depends on the shape of the distribution; you'd have to compare the median with the average.

 

[Dream Evil]

This is why I think it's funny that a lot of guys call lightweights "manlets."

Most guys who are 190 pounds would only be 155 if they were in shape.

 

[Samuel Reynoso]

I know what you're really asking...
The correct size for a human male is 5'10" and 150lbs. That's what you'd want your army filled with, or your crew of ditch diggers. I've thought about it, and it seems to me that being bigger than that is a niche. As a case study, if you've ever worked with a shovel or a sledgehammer you'll know to let the tool do the work, get yourself into a rhythm, and that 'normal' size guys get that shit done just fine. And I'm talking as a 195lbs guy.

 

[beat...people...up?]

5'10'' and 150 seems a little on the light side to me... that's like my old distance runner buddies and they were great on endurance but weak AF and usually didn't lift weights.

 

[Samuel Reynoso]

Yeah, I don't know how much people weigh. I was imagining an 18 year old on the first day of WWII. I remember being 175 at 16 and I was plenty strong with my 225x2.5 bench.

 

[j123]

That's a lot of whales

 

[JauntyAngle]

I know what you're really asking...
The correct size for a human male is 5'10" and 150lbs. That's what you'd want your army filled with, or your crew of ditch diggers. I've thought about it, and it seems to me that being bigger than that is a niche. As a case study, if you've ever worked with a shovel or a sledgehammer you'll know to let the tool do the work, get yourself into a rhythm, and that 'normal' size guys get that shit done just fine. And I'm talking as a 195lbs guy.

I think that's a bit extreme.

As the guy above me said, 5' 10" and 150lbs is a lanky marathon runner type. They are good for running long distances but not much else- by definition. I'm 5' 9" and about 170 when I am around 10-12% body fat. That's barely shorter than your guy but maybe 17lbs more muscle, something like that? And I am not muscular compared to any kind of serious lifter- I just look like I do some kind of exercise quite a bit. So I think there's plenty of room for the optimal sized guy to be bigger.

 

[TheeFaulted]

What do you mean by "average"? Are you asking for a mean, median or mode?

 

[TheeFaulted]

5'10"/150 for me was underweight. I'm 5'10" and when I wrestled in high school I generally wrestled at 152 and even occasionally at 145, and was severly underweight. I was weak, and saw huge drop in strength levels during wrestling season. After high school wrestling I settled around 175 for boxing, and was much healthier and stronger.

 

[SMillard]

the problem with your question TS is that obesity in this country isn't an extreme variable, it's become a norm. I'd say you'd be better off doing it by region. I live in South Florida and while I tend to think we have a fair share of fatties I went up to central Florida about a month ago and almost felt anorexic looking at all the people there.

If you are looking for an acceptable range for yourself you'll have to figure that out for yourself with your bodyfat %. I'm 5' 8" and currently running about 185 lbs but I have large legs for my height, trying to cut back to about 175 lbs. If I buy regular jeans I have to buy 33" waist so my thighs can fit in them, if it weren't for my thighs I could get away with 32" or even 31" pants.

If I were to cut to 155 lbs I'd be hungry and pissed off all the time.

 

[beat...people...up?]

5'10"/150 for me was underweight. I'm 5'10" and when I wrestled in high school I generally wrestled at 152 and even occasionally at 145, and was severly underweight. I was weak, and saw huge drop in strength levels during wrestling season. After high school wrestling I settled around 175 for boxing, and was much healthier and stronger.

Ah yes wrestling, a sport famous for encouraging practitioners to maintain their healthy, natural weights. -_-

Probably the only sport I can think of with a HIGHER incidence of disordered eating (I think 80% of wrestlers are bulimic in-season) than distance running.

I weighed 120-125 at 5'6'' as a distance runner and was constantly under pressure to lose more weight. Wasn't really built for that. Now in BJJ I feel comfortable and effective at 145. A lot stronger, too.

 

[Legendary]

I know what you're really asking...
The correct size for a human male is 5'10" and 150lbs. That's what you'd want your army filled with, or your crew of ditch diggers. I've thought about it, and it seems to me that being bigger than that is a niche. As a case study, if you've ever worked with a shovel or a sledgehammer you'll know to let the tool do the work, get yourself into a rhythm, and that 'normal' size guys get that shit done just fine. And I'm talking as a 195lbs guy.

5'10- 150 is a little bit on the thin size by average, but you got the point. If people weren't so fat in the USA, then the average dude wouldn't be a whole lot bigger then that.

the problem with your question TS is that obesity in this country isn't an extreme variable, it's become a norm. I'd say you'd be better off doing it by region. I live in South Florida and while I tend to think we have a fair share of fatties I went up to central Florida about a month ago and almost felt anorexic looking at all the people there.

If you are looking for an acceptable range for yourself you'll have to figure that out for yourself with your bodyfat %. I'm 5' 8" and currently running about 185 lbs but I have large legs for my height, trying to cut back to about 175 lbs. If I buy regular jeans I have to buy 33" waist so my thighs can fit in them, if it weren't for my thighs I could get away with 32" or even 31" pants.

If I were to cut to 155 lbs I'd be hungry and pissed off all the time.

Bro I have the same issue. Go buy yourself a nice pair of unsanforized denim and shrink em down to your specs otherwise you are going to have jeans that are too big/ or small in certain areas.

What do you mean by "average"? Are you asking for a mean, median or mode?

Average, not an elite athlete or body builder, but also not a sedentary overweight slouch.

 

[TheeFaulted]

5'10- 150 is a little bit on the thin size by average, but you got the point. If people weren't so fat in the USA, then the average dude wouldn't be a whole lot bigger then that.

If people weren't bigger, the average would be smaller.


Well no shit Sherlock!

 

[TheeFaulted]

Average, not an elite athlete or body builder, but also not a sedentary overweight slouch.

Again, which do you want: the mean, median or mode? They are three different ways of averaging data.

It sounds like you don't understand what the word average means.

 

[beat...people...up?]

Again, which do you want: the mean, median or mode? They are three different ways of averaging data.

It sounds like you don't understand what the word average means.

Mean is the standard interpretation of what "average" means. But in any case, from taking a cursory look at some graphs, weight appears to be normally distributed, so the mean, median, and mode will be quite close together. We could say that maybe it's becoming right-skewed due to the very heavy outliers--those extremely obese people--who outnumber the underweight. So, okay, the mean will be slightly higher than the median and mode in that case. Just slightly because there really aren't THAT many super-obese.

But yeah, basically looks like weight's a normal curve that's been pushed uniformly, more or less, to the higher end so that the average (peak of the graph) now appears to be firmly in the "overweight" category for the data I can see, BMI of roughly 27, up from under 25 a few decades ago.

That isn't all that heavy, by the way. For a muscular male I'd argue 27 is a healthy BMI. I know plenty of people with BMIs that are "overweight" who have body fat under 15%.

 

[Samuel Reynoso]

I guess I was a bit off with the weight. I was kind of thinking of 18 year olds because men naturally gain muscle for a long time after they stop growing taller. And the only practical reason for nation wide population level data would be the draft.

The intellectually curious part of the question is:

1) Why is the average guy with average genetics the optimal size for a hunter gatherer / agrarian life? Why not 6'2"?

2) What are the common effects of incongruous genetics when you randomly grow a fair bit taller? (Like plantar fasciitis, and stuff)

 

[WandySaku2]

I know what you're really asking...
The correct size for a human male is 5'10" and 150lbs. That's what you'd want your army filled with, or your crew of ditch diggers. I've thought about it, and it seems to me that being bigger than that is a niche. As a case study, if you've ever worked with a shovel or a sledgehammer you'll know to let the tool do the work, get yourself into a rhythm, and that 'normal' size guys get that shit done just fine. And I'm talking as a 195lbs guy.

I (perhaps biasedly) agree. I'm 5'11" and fluctuate between 150-160lbs and by no means Superman, but my aim with training is to be as much of a generalist as possible. I "only" DL 335, squat 235, and bench 185 (not that these mean much, but just a reference point), so to true, hardcore lifters, sure that's not much, but I'm also quite fast when sprinting and running middle distance. I have no issues manuvering my body around through space with my feet and hands (pull-ups, muscle-ups, swinging on monkey bars, climbing rope), and have pretty good endurance.

Someone like me isn't going to win any physical singular focused event, but as an all-around representation of what the pure animal form of a human is, I think that's the roundabout size. Just a guess.