Definition of H/W proportionate

Hi all, I hope this isn't a rerun of an old post as I don't have time to go back and read them all. I have read in many personal ads the requirement for height/weight proportionate? One in particular I just read sounds like a great invite to a party in our area BUT the H/W proportionate was thrown out there so many times and so solidly that I don't think I would dare to go or ask to go. Now I know the technical definition of H/W Prop. would be to go by your doctor's chart of your expected weight. Mine is about 170 lbs+/- a few @5'8" 45 yo., I have to say that if I weighed 170 lbs I would look like death warmed over or a returning POW at best. I currently weigh 220 and do have a belly, but I do not look fat. I have no double chin, I am just a thick solid guy. I am not an overeater or a beer drinker. I am at "my" normal weight (which means to me that I eat normal portions and am active, I feel good). I do feel I could lose a few lbs though. What I would love to hear from all of you are your opinions on what is h/w proportionate and what is accepted? Thanks for taking the time. P & L

[robel12550]

(NOTICE: This is NOT in any way a "judgemental" message. It is based on what current American health care professionals have been talking about for the last several years. The writer can indeed talk because he is well within the "normal" range despite his embarking on a weight reduction program himself.)

There's a thing called "BMI" (Body Mass Index) which is the latest tool the health profession is using to calculate what your weight should be. Punching in a 45 yo male/220 lbs/5 ft 8 in, your BMI is 33.4 which is classifed as "Obese". The ranges for the index are:

Below 18.5 Underweight
18.5–24.9 Normal
25.0–29.9 Overweight
30.0 and Above Obese

(By the way, these calculators can be found by Googling or Yahooing "BMI". The CDC has one, which is where this infomation basically comes from.)

To get to the "Normal" range, you would need to lose 57 lbs to get to 163 lbs.

If you "feel" normal, then so be it, but effectively the health profession doesn't view your situation as normal and would advise on actions to circumvent the possibility of heart disease along with various other problems your physical state could put you at risk for. (Take into account the unmentioned possibility of either smoking or heavy alcohol or drug intake and matters could be viewed even worse.)

In a sense (and some consider a sad sense), you are "normal" since it's no secret that in America (and I don't know where the poster is from) has become a country of overweight citizens.

One thing I would like to quickly point out is that this measurement ideally should be taken when you are buck naked! If you have clothes on and another several pounds of junk in your pockets (like my wife always complains to be about), then the numbers can get skewed. Nevertheless, it wouldn't account for a 57 pound difference unless you got on the scale with your backpack loaded with laptop, bottled water, and several good books.

To put this in perspective, I'm now around 140 lbs at 5 ft 8 in. "I" don't feel "normal" because I know I have more stamina and pep when I'm weighing between 130 to 135 pounds. Yet I am classified as "normal". I went into an LA Weight Loss place and the lady behind the counter said I looked great and what the hell was I doing there. (They lost the deal on another issue, but I have started a modified SlimFast diet and have slowly lost around 7 to 10 pounds already with another 5 to 10 to go.)

Other people will see what they want to see. If they like you, you could be 300 pounds and it won't matter. If they don't, you could be 5 pounds over what would be classified as "normal" and they'd say you're not "HWP". As far as the party goes, ask them for an invite. An invite to a party doesn't automatically state you're going to have sex with everyone in attendance. Your personality and attitude might win over the couple folks who are borderline judgemental with regard to weight. The worst they could say is "No". They didn't kill you. If you decide that those are the type of people you want to be involved with, then you may need to do more to change your numbers.

On the other hand, personally for your own health, it would be advisable to contact a professional (doctor) to review your overall health status and determine whether a weight loss/toning regime is necessary. (From numbers alone, I wouldn't be the one to say one way or another.)

Best of luck to you!

[LICouple4u]

I wouldn't look at BMI because it doesn't factor in muscle or those with a larger structure.

My husband is 5'5". Right now he's overweight, but in the past he's weighed 150lbs. According to BMI that puts him as overweight. He's got lots of leg muscle and a larger frame, so going down below 150 would make him look awful.

When I think of HWP, I think that they don't want someone who is 'flabby' or has a gut (not just a little extra belly from baby or something) or is plain fat.

[Chicup]

BMI = craptastic

I'm 6'1" 210 and I show ribs, I could stand to lose a couple more pounds, but at 180 where my BMI puts me I'd be a stick.

HWP is PC talk for 'no fatties' but average is ok, in profile. On the other hand 'fit' in profiles means flat tummys on the women and some visible muslces on the guys.

[LikeMinds321]

Originally Posted by Chicup

BMI = craptastic

My view exactly.

We're talking about swinging here, not a search for the fittest people based on some medical chart.

Swingers are searching for play mates they find attractive. There is so much room in the word "attractive" for so many physical body types that are appealing.

I have seen slim guys who look like hell. I've seen big guys - who are thick around the middle - who are as sexy as all get out. It's not what the scale says, but how your 'look' all comes together.

And don't forget about your personality assets...they play a bigger role in swinging than newbies realize.

Go to that party!

LM

[graygo98]

Do you remember Tom Cruise in MI-1? That scene where he was hanging by one hand from a rock overhang? Probably about 8% body fat and, love him or hate him, a physique to die for. At 206 lbs he also had a BMI of over 31.... grossly obese.

BMI is in the process of being discredited as "old think". It came out of research in the 50s by a Met Life actuary that was methodologically unsound. In fact, more recent data have shown that people that qualify as moderately obese under BMI have higher life expectancies than people in the under 20 category.

For cardiovascular risk, carrying a bunch of weight around your middle is a much better risk indication than BMI. Percentage body fat and cardio fitness are also good indicators of health. BMI, which as a previous post indicated. ignores factors such as muscle mass and body structure focussing instead on two simplistic variables: height and weight. You could 150 pounds of artery clogging sludge and still have a good BMI... or, Tom Cruise. Tom;s craziness aside, take your pick.

When people say "must be HWP" I think that they usually mean that they are looking for someone in reasonably good shape... no belly hanging over your belt, that sort of thing, rather than someone who necessarily conforms with BMI definitions. Its sorta like what people say about art "I may not know how to describe what I like, but I know it when I see it."

[2jersey]

Our male, using the BMI calculator is borderline 'obese'. He is 6'2" and 230 pounds. His BMI, using this date is 29.5 (the obesity range begins at 30).

In fact, the BMI table suggests he needs to lose 35 pounds just to be at the upper end of his "normal" weight range. If you met him in person, you would realize that there is absolutely no way he is carrying 35 pounds of excess body fat - he is very muscular and rock solid (i.e. a hunk ).

As others have said/implied: the BMI will overestimate body fat in athletes and others who have a muscular build.

There are variations of BMI which require a physical exam to determine precise body fat percentage. In the absence of an accurate body fat data, BMI is rendered somewhat useless as an indicator of HWP.

I believe the latest US census shows that the average female is 5'5" tall and 150 pounds. Using the BMI calculator, the average american woman is overweight. When people consider HWP, they are probably thinking in relative terms. An average woman (5'5" and 150 pounds) is probably considered HWP by many people. (I would say it is 'borderline' HWP.)

[Chicup]

Originally Posted by 2jersey

I believe the latest US census shows that the average female is 5'5" tall and 150 pounds. Using the BMI calculator, the average american woman is overweight. When people consider HWP, they are probably thinking in relative terms. An average woman (5'5" and 150 pounds) is probably considered HWP by many people. (I would say it is 'borderline' HWP.)

For most women 5'5'' 150 is overweight. Not to create controversy here, but the real question (unanswered) is what is healthy. There is going to be a range of healthy and 5'5'' 150 may well be in that range, but in terms of looks if I may use Mrs. Chicup as an example, at 5'7-5'8'' 150 she was unhappy with her looks, and had some good size love handles.

Now the vague area (even more vague than healthy) is was she HWP. I'm sure that some would have said 'hell ya!' while others woulda thought she was fat.

The end result is to her she was fat and she started doing intensive exercising and diet to lower the weight and shape her body better and I've been very proud of her efforts.

So as for HWP in profiles, its almost as meaningless as saying BBW.

[Alura]

Interesting thread!

I've weighed within a pound or two of 134 since I was sixteen. That was fifty years ago.

At 5'3" I have a BMI of 28.7, at the high end of "Normal," 1.3 short of being overweight.

My waist is 31" caused by the roll of fat around my waist. When I weighed the same but was in shape, it was 29".

So,,, Am I HWP? Hell, I don't know, I'm just a hick Okie. Still, my guess is that if someone wants only folks who are HWP, they won't want any short guys either. Besides, I prefer people who measure a person "from the bottom of their hearts to the tops of their minds." —Mrs. Alura

Mr. Alura

[2jersey]

Originally Posted by Chicup

For most women 5'5'' 150 is overweight. Not to create controversy here, but the real question (unanswered) is what is healthy.

The 'real question' is what looks and feels good (to some people).

We have pondered the 'smoker' versus non-smoker' preferences epxressed in online profiles. We assume that people who are opposed to meeting with smokers are not considering the person's health risks, they are considering the prospect of having to smell, inhale and taste smoke.

People looking for HWP, don't care if the person is at high risk for diabetes, heart disease, etc... They care about how the person looks. We assume that people who are looking for HWP are saying that they have an above average standard with respect to their playmates' physical appearance - and physical fitness is an important aspect of assessing appearance.

If someone said (in their profile) they were looking for a BBW, I would not apply (don't qualify). If someone said they were looking for HWP, I would not be deterred. There is wiggle room with respect to the definitions of terms like BBW and HWP - but (for a woman of average height) a size 2 is HWP, and a size 20 is BBW - some things are obvious.

[DGrey]

Originally Posted by 2jersey

but (for a woman of average height) a size 2 is HWP, and a size 20 is BBW - some things are obvious.

I'm of average height...if I wore a size 2, I'd be hooked up to a feeding tube in a hosptial for being anorexic.

E

[Tybee Swing]

I agree with you, Erica. Size 2 is only HWP for a very tiny and petite (short) woman with a small frame.

[Chicup]

If someone could explain to me the mystery of women's sizing, I'd love to hear it.

[DGrey]

Originally Posted by Chicup

If someone could explain to me the mystery of women's sizing, I'd love to hear it.

Me too.

For example's sake, Eva Longoria is a size 0 at 5'2" and 100 pounds.

E

[2jersey]

Originally Posted by Tybee Swing

I agree with you, Erica. Size 2 is only HWP for a very tiny and petite (short) woman with a small frame.

I'm 5'3", certainly not tiny boned and certainly not skinny - I wear a size 4. Yes, I am considered petite (under 5'4"), but the average American woman is 5'5" (skewed by the older population, which is shorter).

Interesting sidebar - the garment industry has been tricking American woman for several years now. A modern size two is much larger than the traditional size two. Here's why: when a woman tries on two well fitting garments, she has a strong propensity to buy the one with the smaller size on the label. The manufactuers/designers are aware of this fact, and they have adopted vanity sizing to boost sales.

My closet used to be full of fours and sizes, it is now fours and twos, and I certainly haven't shrunk any. I am seeing more and more size zeros onthe racks. Women's clothing is getting bigger!