or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Standardizing our heights and weights when discussing gear
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Standardizing our heights and weights when discussing gear

post #1 of 49
Thread Starter 

Hello all - I've noticed that one of the problems we have when describing ourselves is that words like "big," or "heavy," or "tall" are used ten different ways by 10 different members. Nor do actual heights and weights help much out of context. Eg, is 5' 10" "tall" or "average?" So here are the latest CDC heights and weights collected 2007-2010, in inches and lbs, for the 5th, 25th, 50th (the median, or value with half above and half below), 75th, and 95th percentiles of all Americans aged 30-39. If you're numbers oriented, it's Series 11, #252. I chose 30-39 years because I have a hunch it's the largest single decade membership. If you're older, add 2 lbs per decade for each percentile and subtract about a 1/2 inch. Finally, I've rounded to either .5 or the next whole value up or down, depending on what the tenths decimal is closest to. 

 

I propose that when categorizing ourselves for purposes of seeking gear, we call 5th to 25th percentile for weight as "light," 25th to 50th as "light-average," 50th to 75th as "average-heavy," and 75th to 95th as "heavy." For height, we could do 5th to 25th as "short," 25th to 50th as "short-average," 50th to 75th as "average-tall," and 75th to 95th as "tall." Open to suggestions for other adjectives; they don't matter as long as we all know what we're talking about. Also, having four categories helps with a fit to the typical four ski lengths a maker offers, but nothing magical about the increments. And there are no smaller or larger percentiles offered than 5th and 95th, so some compression relative to the 25 percent range of the others. 

 

Here are the numbers:

 

Females' Weight: 5th 112 lbs; 25th 137 lbs; 50th 160 lbs; 75th 194 lbs; 95th 254 lbs

Males' Weight: 5th 139.5 lbs; 25th 166 lbs; 50th 191 lbs; 75th 223 lbs; 95th 282 lbs

 

Females' Height: 5th 60 in; 25th 62 in; 50th 64 in; 75th 66 in; 95th 69 in

Males' Height: 5th 64 in; 25th 68 in; 50th 69.5 in; 75th 71.5 in; 95th 74 in

 

Now keep in mind that you could be heavy for your height or light, for example. The easiest way to see is to compare percentiles. But the ski flex doesn't care how tall you are, although its tip may notice. 


Edited by beyond - 6/3/13 at 9:29pm
post #2 of 49

Personally, I'm light for my weight and tall for my height.

post #3 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by JJQIV View Post

Personally, I'm light for my weight and tall for my height.

 

Beyond, you know this is what you're going to get, in June, right? Break time!

 

But I like the idea. And it confirms my hunch that I have trouble comparing experiences, at, um, "super-light" in weight (see, you didn't even make a category for me) and "short" in height, by your definitions.

post #4 of 49
Thread Starter 

^^^^ Yeah, nothing else to do coming off five days of near record heat. But gives me something to leverage next fall. wink.gif The new numbers freaked me out, way heavier than I expected.To a point where someone like you, who I don't consider off-the-charts light, is well, off-the-charts light. But that means you'll live to be 127 and die trying to bank off a Norwegian Spruce onto a big pillow...biggrin.gif

post #5 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post

Hello all - I've noticed that one of the problems we have when describing ourselves is that words like "big," or "heavy," or "tall" are used ten different ways by 10 different members. Nor do actual heights and weights help much out of context. Eg, is 5' 10" "tall" or "average?" So here are the latest CDC heights and weights collected 2007-2010, in inches and lbs, for the 5th, 25th, 50th (the median, or value with half above and half below), 75th, and 95th percentiles of all Americans aged 30-39. If you're numbers oriented, it's Series 11, #252. I chose 30-39 years because I have a hunch it's the largest single decade membership. If you're older, add 2 lbs per decade for each percentile and subtract about a 1/2 inch. Finally, I've rounded to either .5 or the next whole value up or down, depending on what the tenths decimal is closest to. 

 

I propose that when categorizing ourselves for purposes of seeking gear, we call 5th to 25th percentile for weight as "light," 25th to 50th as "light-average," 50th to 75th as "average-heavy," and 75th to 95th as "heavy." For height, we could do 5th to 25th as "short," 25th to 50th as "short-average," 50th to 75th as "average-tall," and 75th to 95th as "tall." Open to suggestions for other adjectives; they don't matter as long as we all know what we're talking about. Also, having four categories helps with a fit to the typical four ski lengths a maker offers, but nothing magical about the increments. And there are no smaller or larger percentiles offered than 5th and 95th, so some compression relative to the 25 percent range of the others. 

 

Here are the numbers:

 

Females' Weight: 5th 112 lbs; 25th 137 lbs; 50th 160 lbs; 75th 194 lbs; 95th 254 lbs

Males' Weight: 5th 139.5 lbs; 25th 166 lbs; 50th 191 lbs; 75th 223 lbs; 95th 282 lbs

 

Females' Height: 5th 60 in; 25th 62 in; 50th 64 in; 75th 66 in; 95th 69 in

Males' Height: 5th 64 in; 25th 68 in; 50th 69.5 in; 75th 71.5 in; 95th 69 in

 

Now keep in mind that you could be heavy for your height or light, for example. The easiest way to see is to compare percentiles. But the ski flex doesn't care how tall you are, although its tip may notice. 

 

Ok, that was freaking me out. I assume it is supposed to be 79 in.

post #6 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by segbrown View Post

 

Ok, that was freaking me out. I assume it is supposed to be 79 in.

That can't be right either ... 

 

(one more edit ... I looked it up, should be 74)

post #7 of 49

My height is somewhere out in La La Land!

post #8 of 49

I think I need some calculus to plot that graph

post #9 of 49

I refuse to discuss weight.

 

(diet has hit a plateau) mad.gifhissyfit.gif
 

post #10 of 49
Thread Starter 

Sorry, Segbrown, yep should be 74. Changed original above. Thanks. 

post #11 of 49

So I guess being close to the 25th percentile in weight (at 170 lbs) and above the 95th percentile in height (at 77") puts me in freak territory. I am indeed a tall skinny guy.

post #12 of 49

I like this standard better:  Height in Feet, Inches, Weight in lbs

 

Myself for example: 5'11" 180lbs

post #13 of 49

The most important thing to standardize is this...

 

When a ski is supposed to come up to your nose, is that in ski boots or barefoot?

post #14 of 49

LOL... no chance of using the units of measure used by the rest of the World..... seem to manage for ski dimentions......... just seems strange to say for example I'm 6' ... get something around head height....whats that...... yeah, um, ah.... you could try something around 185cm........

post #15 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taxman View Post

LOL... no chance of using the units of measure used by the rest of the World..... seem to manage for ski dimentions......... just seems strange to say for example I'm 6' ... get something around head height....whats that...... yeah, um, ah.... you could try something around 185cm........

 

It's our diversity of units of measure!  I'm off to run a 10K at 8:00 minutes/mile. smile.gif  

post #16 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taxman View Post

LOL... no chance of using the units of measure used by the rest of the World..... seem to manage for ski dimentions......... just seems strange to say for example I'm 6' ... get something around head height....whats that...... yeah, um, ah.... you could try something around 185cm........

 

In primary school, in the early 70s, we all learned the metric system because "everything was going to go metric within a few years." Wouldn't that have been nice? Apparently it made too much sense or something. In another thread recently someone used the phrase "American exceptionalism." Well, here it is in all its, um, glory. frown.gif

post #17 of 49
Thread Starter 

Agree about metric, but most people know their own stats in lbs and inches, skis in cm. Here's the link, so you can peruse metric charts too, as well as arm length and other stuff: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_11/sr11_252.pdf

post #18 of 49
Well lets see at light average/ average tall not in ski boots i still like my 165 cm fischers... but i usually only ski 500` verticals in Michigan.... that seemed tough to type out lol

Sent from my Transformer Prime TF201 using Xparent BlueTapatalk 2
post #19 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by qcanoe View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taxman View Post

LOL... no chance of using the units of measure used by the rest of the World..... seem to manage for ski dimentions......... just seems strange to say for example I'm 6' ... get something around head height....whats that...... yeah, um, ah.... you could try something around 185cm........

 

In primary school, in the early 70s, we all learned the metric system because "everything was going to go metric within a few years." Wouldn't that have been nice? Apparently it made too much sense or something.

 

Yeh, about as much sense as getting rid of  .pdfs  on the Internet.

post #20 of 49
This percentile thingy... Are your numbers universal, or specific to N.A? Problem is/was, I'm large by certain country's standards, and unremarkable here. Holland I'm probably a dwarf.
post #21 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by markojp View Post

This percentile thingy... Are your numbers universal, or specific to N.A? Problem is/was, I'm large by certain country's standards, and unremarkable here. Holland I'm probably a dwarf.

from post 1: "So here are the latest CDC heights and weights collected 2007-2010, in inches and lbs, for the 5th, 25th, 50th (the median, or value with half above and half below), 75th, and 95th percentiles of all Americans aged 30-39."

post #22 of 49
I am glad we aren't over thinking this too much. Someone get Beyond some ice t or even something...stronger? smile.gif
post #23 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by segbrown View Post

from post 1: "So here are the latest CDC heights and weights collected 2007-2010, in inches and lbs, for the 5th, 25th, 50th (the median, or value with half above and half below), 75th, and 95th percentiles of all Americans aged 30-39."

 

Homer 'Dooooh!' here.  smile.gif  

post #24 of 49

Wish I had never mentioned rocket science in the other thread.......nonono2.gif

post #25 of 49

Well, I like these statistics, even though they're probably useless. 

 

I'm the same percentile in both height and weight, (and I'm 59) so I must be perfect!yahoo.gifroflmao.gifROTF.gif tongue.gif   rolleyes.gif

post #26 of 49
This whole thing is beyond me.
Hey our units make sense. Your foot is...roughly a foot if they're large. Or have shoes on.
Index finger -1st knuckle to second is an inch.

But really we should go all Nordica like.
I mean for a boot that's made in Italy, company is also in Austria, they choose for their sizing not Mondo or US shoe size but English shoe size.
What, just to be different than Lange?
I mean I loved Eddie the Eagle but really.

So in honor of Nordica's forward thinking I recommend we go to English weight. That means "Stone" ( the 'd' is invisible and silent).
Now as shocking as it seems, they, those people on that island, really do use Stone for weight. How do I know? People tell me all the time- on YouTube.
Yes, such riveting classics as "Weight Watchers Crisps-How I Lost 5 Stone" , "Vicky Lost 4 Stones", or " My Amazing 7 1/2 Stone Weight Loss Transformation Story....Must Read" (yes it is a video). The first and last just confirming that Vicky used poor grammar and that Stone is Stone, not as in "busting stones".

With that cleared up how much is a Stone?
Well first I'm obligated to say that due to the Weights and Measures Act of 1985, stone, abbrv 'st' is not legal measure for trade. Apparently YouTube didnt see the memo and has no qualms about it. It is the Internet, and by Goreian logic it's correct.

This from an online discussion in 2004:
Quote:
"Nobody in the UK thinks of their weight in pounds. I always have to mentally calculate into stones whenever I hear "the suspect weighs 250 pounds" or something similar in a US film or TV show."
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/archive/index.php/t-263291.html

I should interject at this juncture that we've been duped by the Brits. Really. They've been playing all "pounds" or "kilos", but I can't think of any film, detective series , random drama, comedy, where they mentioned this "stone" business. For that I have to find out on YouTube?? With Vicky's questionable grammar? Truly appalling.

I guess we'll get back at them using terms like "light middle heavyweight" or whatever beyond would have us use. (note "the Pale" is invisible and silent with beyond)

Just makes me wonder what else the Brits have been lying to us about all these years. What the food is really good? They've got gobs of oil not on the garage floor? Mad Cow disease doesn't have to do with cows?

Back to the stone. It is in fact not capitalized. (all cititizens of the UK feel free to (finally) come clean and correct me about all this btw)

Ok, so the value of a stone, the amount, has been agreed upon,( before they reneged in 1985), as 14lbs or 6.35 kg for you fancy types. (don't ask me to convert to beyond's system.)

Note that stone seems simple now, but stone was different for weighing different materials and different towns used their own standard rock so "a stone" varied from 4 to 32 lbs. (that's where the lying started)

So if we use the 25th percentile (questionable term. How is it different than the 75th other than a different direction) of 166 pounds that would be:
166 pounds = 11 stone 12 pound
166= 154 + 12
I think "they" say it "eleven stone twelve" , but since we were never trained (lied to) even by such films as Bridget Jones where she's always going on about weight- nary a mention of the stone.

Well I have gone on way too long and haven't even mentioned the height system. We should of course use "hand" as horses are still (?) measured that way. It goes so well with stone and the plural is the singular.
A hand is 4 inches. Thus our 25th% dude:
68inches= 17 hand

Our 25th% guy is thus: 11 stone 12 pound and 17 hand.
What's that in beyond?
Edited by Tog - 6/5/13 at 1:38am
post #27 of 49
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by markojp View Post

This percentile thingy... Are your numbers universal, or specific to N.A? Problem is/was, I'm large by certain country's standards, and unremarkable here. Holland I'm probably a dwarf.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by segbrown View Post

from post 1: "So here are the latest CDC heights and weights collected 2007-2010, in inches and lbs, for the 5th, 25th, 50th (the median, or value with half above and half below), 75th, and 95th percentiles of all Americans aged 30-39."

Numbers are from the National Health and Examination Survey, run by the CDC, so yep for the United States. A large probability sample of us, about 11,000, is drawn every few years, measurements of various kinds are taken, and the distribution is chopped into percentiles. The sample is reliable, and representative of all citizens or legal green card holders in the U.S. Will have to check if it draws illegals, but I doubt it. Percentiles differ a bit by race, but not as much as you'd think; income is the biggie. 

 

Phil, something stronger than ice, I think. 


Edited by beyond - 6/5/13 at 5:43am
post #28 of 49

Wow.    According to those numbers I'm < 75th pctile in weight (!), somewhat above 75th pctile in height, so "light" for my height.  Weird, considering that according to BMI I'm right at the border of being obese.   Are Americans really that heavy?

 

OTOH, BMI is pretty borked:  according to that metric, Michael Jordan had weight problems when he was in the NBA.  Not that I'm Michael Jordan, but BMI said I was overweight/obese at a point in my life when that was flat-out ridiculous.  These days, there might be more of an argument to be made...

post #29 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tog View Post


Well I have gone on way too long 

Oh, never!

post #30 of 49

I suppose just using your height and weight is too simple? th_dunno-1[1].gif

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Standardizing our heights and weights when discussing gear