antimonysarah

200 for men (150 for women) used to be the Clyde/Athena thresholds. They were upped by USTA at some point; I don't know the story there or exactly when it happened, but if you find old discussions or articles, you'll see the old numbers.

WonderMonkey

The average man is overweight. No need to change anything just because the average is getting fatter and in worse shape. I would only reconsider a standard if the original thoughts were in error.

Rollfast

It's a real, tangible and thrilling goal for us. Don't move the goal posts please. It also reminds all of us where our beloved Tom Stormcrowe's struggles came from and that he too triumphed.

radroad

This data is badly outdated. Data was from 2011 to 2014. Entering 2019, 200 and 170 are safe bets. LOL at 38" average waist for women. The ideal is closer to 24."

Ragel

+1 This

radroad

200 pounds is seriously overweight for a 5'9" man in most cases. I am 5'9" and 170 and I am approximately 20 pounds overweight.

The thing is, I can still fit into my 30" jeans. I measured them. The actual measurement is 35".

bobwysiwyg

bobwysiwyg

KraneXL

There's a reason SUVs are replacing sedan in the U.S.

WonderMonkey

It's almost like saying we need to change test scores because over a period of time more people are failing the test.

WonderMonkey

Here is the thing..... given my body composition if I was to ever drop below 200 lbs I'd be at a seriously low bodyfat %. However, it's a state of mind. If anybody were to make a sliding scale and make it to 220 lbs, that would be slightly overweight for me, and very overweight for others. How many people would NOT be overweight at 200 lbs, with typical bodyfat %? Not very many. So even though I'd never be "not a clyde" I say keep it the original value, because that's what someone came up with here on the forums way back.

KraneXL

Change doesn't inherently indicate a bad thing. Sometimes the test can be changed to become more difficulty. Take the medial industry for example.

Recall that there was a time when anybody could call themselves a doctor. Now, due to competition, practicing medicine had been made both extremely difficulty and expensive. That's done purely limit the entrance and thereby control the value of the profession.

In the case of the weight scale, it changed because they weren't doing it right in the first place. Again, that's a good thing.

Rollfast

Since I'm a fat tub of goo at 255 with a BMI that ASCAP would sue, I'd love to be that studly, although the cat wouldn't have a comfy place to perch when i held her anymore.

zowie

OMG, Toughskins . . .

zjrog

From the age of 14 till I was 21, I weighed 150 lbs. Despite growing 6 inches. When I joined the Navy at 18 and 6'3", there was a bit of concern for my low weight. At 19, I was measured at 4% bodyfat. I was already a Clydesdale, despite my low weight... Fast forward to now, earlier this year I hit 378 BMI 40... I lost 22 pounds before having weight loss surgery in October, and 64 pounds since then. Now I am 292. I have no idea how low I will go, I don't have a set goal. I do know that the 2 times I've been under 200 once I gained weight, I was not comfortable.

I think 200 is still a good point of reference for us. I am barely 6'2" now, due to age, gravity and a back injury. So no matter what I weigh, I will still be a Clyde... The 6' 20# reference is much older than this forum. Why change it now...

KraneXL

As a comparison I weighed 150 @ 6'2 when I was 14. That's the first time I can remember ever being weighted. My heaviest weight ever was 250 about a decade ago. Today, I weight 193. Weight alone is a poor indicator of fitness. Why? Because it doesn't include a fat to lean body mass. A better measurement would be your fat percentage which would reveal a lot more about your fitness.

The only place weight alone would be used is in competitive sports and only because we don't have anything else to replace it.

bgraham111

I remember "Husky" sized jeans.... and I didn't wear them. In fact, my Mom had to buy me the "Slim" sized jeans. Then I hit middle school, discovered food, and fixed that problem....

You know... if the average American male is 195.7, then 200 is still above average. (Or, just because everyone is overweight doesn't make it right.)

mstateglfr 

because the acceptance and embracement of the hatch is about the most useful thing in car design advancement over the last 30 years for many families?

radroad

That data is from 2011 - 2014. It's a fair bet 200 lbs is the actual average at this point.

With the proliferation of smartphones (circa 2008), laptops, video game consoles, fast food, and with suburban sprawl, not to mention most public parks turning into homeless encampments, there's no way any trends point to a lighter, fitter population.

KraneXL

Utility is one thing, the every expanding waistline of the typical American is something totally different. Besides, station wagons were very utilitarian but hip/shoulder space was identical to the sedan.

daviddavieboy

mstateglfr 

Yes the Blazer and Cherokee were around before 30 years ago, but I consider the start of the 90s and the Ford Explorer to be when the modern SUV boom began. Before that, both the Blazer and Cherokee were really more utility intended than the vehicles we call SUVs are now. From the early 90s onward, the vehicle segment has steadily increased in cost, size, and luxury appointments.
This is like saying the existence of the VW van means minivans were around before the mid-80s.

Anyways, the forest is being missed for the trees here. The point was that while yes we as a society may be getting larger around the waist, embracing SUVs is hardly only due to that. SUVs, as well as minivans, are incredibly convenient for the common lifestyles right now- be it active single, working parent, stay at home parent, etc.


SUVs come in all sizes. Compact SUVs based on compact/midsize car platforms, are extremely popular.
Station wagons were very utilitarian and very limiting. 2 kids sitting backwards in the way back was, in retrospect, totally dumb.
The flexibility of a modern midsized SUV with 3 rows is why we have one. Honda Pilot- 3 rows that can fit 7 comfortably and 8 if there are a few kids. Back seats fold down for more than enough room to load groceries and weekend errands. 4 wheel drive for poor cold weather. middle seats can fold flat for even more room to hold weekend construction project materials or entire bicycles. Hitch up high for towing and carrying bikes.

Take a late 80s Plymouth Reliant wagon and a mid 80s Ford Country Squire LTD wagon then compare to a 2015 Honda Pilot.
Uh oh- that doesnt support your view at all. The Pilot, which has 3 rows of seating and ample room for me at 6'5 230#, is right in the middle of these old wagons for size. Its in the middle for length, in the middle for wheelbase, and the same width as the Ford.
Now obviously there are large SUVs(Tahoe, Suburban, and larger) that are clearly bigger than any wagon back then. But both of those were also in existence back in the 80s and quite large then too.

I simply disagree that as a society, SUVs are popular because people are larger. It could be one reason, but its hardly the reason and I dont think its even a predominant reason.
- if there were a direct relationship between the size of people and car size, then petite moms wouldnt drive Tahoes and Suburbans.
- we are an active family with 2 girls and 2 dogs. Carrying bikes in a car or even getting both girls and dogs home at the end of a day is overload in a sedan( i know, i had one and experienced it).
- fuel efficiency has improved to allow vehicle size to grow without an effective penalty. As a result, there is no real downside to have a larger vehicle and if given the choice, most will choose to not be cramped.





That was a long rant, i know, but I often hear this all too common claim that vehicles are bigger because people are bigger and have never accepted it because that is, to me, too simplistic an explanation for why vehicles are larger.

KraneXL

You're either not paying attention or being intransigent. I don't "make up stuff." Those claims come from the auto industry reports. And yes, American are getting fatter. All you need do is look around as proof of that.

daviddavieboy

Right off the top of my head I can name many vehicles from the late 70's early 80's (and remember the tv commercials) that today would be called a SUV. They were not marketed for their utilitarian use for for the family who wanted to get out and play and run the kids around afterward. I think you are correct though that their popularity has nothing to do with the growing size of the individual.

Mainiac

I'm 6'7" and 200lbs. What little fat I have is on my 35" waist. If I weighed less than 195, I'd probably not have the strength to ride.