The ideal figure

Post by EllaRose on 27 March 2012 21:33

Tue, 27 Mar 2012 21:33:53 GMT

gerryquiff

Ella, have you considered surgery....taken from your legs, and the worst you'd have is scars that look like sock marks

Considered it very briefly... for about -1 second... :) Sock marks: every photographer's dream!

Post by rsweir91 on 27 March 2012 14:23

Tue, 27 Mar 2012 14:23:11 GMT

Well it seems i am an inch sort of the perfect 1930s womans figure!

Post by katierust on 27 March 2012 14:17

Tue, 27 Mar 2012 14:17:05 GMT

[love6]

Hmmm the ideal figure of a woman??

Im guessing what ever takes your fancy and what you go for!!

Im quiet happy with mine.
maybe needs a bit of work but over all im happy.
:)

So girls im saying you all have the ideal figure for you!!

[happy1]

Post by gerryquiff on 27 March 2012 11:33

Tue, 27 Mar 2012 11:33:24 GMT

EllaRose

It seems the ideal 1930s figure is almost the same as mine (except height) - that's pleasantly surprising, as I thought it would have been quite a bit smaller. ...And hip-to-waist ratio 0.70 here!

P.S. I love that it is specified that a woman should have 'EYES'.

Ella, have you considered surgery....taken from your legs, and the worst you'd have is scars that look like sock marks

Post by Hugh on 27 March 2012 11:06

Tue, 27 Mar 2012 11:06:50 GMT

There's not much doubt about the waist/hip ratio and health - male or female.

Post by PhilWinterbourne on 27 March 2012 11:03

Tue, 27 Mar 2012 11:03:18 GMT

beauvoir

Hugh, that has nothing to do with the original image or the concept of the ideal body.

While you are probably right... it does make me think.

If certain body shapes correlate to healthiness and therefore suvivability. Isn't it likely that finding those shapes attractive would tend to be a positive evolutionary trait?

Post by Hugh on 27 March 2012 09:16

Tue, 27 Mar 2012 09:16:13 GMT

beauvoir
Hugh, that has nothing to do with the original image or the concept of the ideal body.

OK, sorry - misunderstood you.

[happy6]

Post by beauvoir on 27 March 2012 08:21

Tue, 27 Mar 2012 08:21:04 GMT

Hugh, that has nothing to do with the original image or the concept of the ideal body.

Post by EllaRose on 27 March 2012 07:47

Tue, 27 Mar 2012 07:47:23 GMT

It seems the ideal 1930s figure is almost the same as mine (except height) - that's pleasantly surprising, as I thought it would have been quite a bit smaller. ...And hip-to-waist ratio 0.70 here! [winking1]

P.S. I love that it is specified that a woman should have 'EYES'.

Post by Hugh on 27 March 2012 06:52

Tue, 27 Mar 2012 06:52:12 GMT

beauvoir
Things like this are sponsored and endorsed by cosmetic, fashion and plastic surgery companies.

Stop being stupid.

Read and learn:

"Waist circumference, waist–hip ratio and body mass index and their correlation with cardiovascular disease risk factors in Australian adults" Journal of Internal Medicine http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2796.2003.01229.x/full

" Waist circumference, BMI and WHR identified different proportions of the population, as measured by both prevalence of obesity and cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors. Whilst WHR had the strongest correlations with CVD risk factors before adjustment for age, the three obesity measures performed similarly after adjustment for age. Given the difficulty of using age-adjusted associations in the clinical setting, these results suggest that given appropriate cut-off points, [b] WHR is the most useful measure of obesity to use to identify individuals with CVD risk factors[/b]."

****************************************************************************

"Waist circumference as the best predictor of noninsulin dependent diabetes mellitus (NIDDM) compared to body mass index, waist/hip ratio and other anthropometric measurements in Mexican Americans--a 7-year prospective study."
Obesity Research [1997, 5(1):16-23]

"the distribution of body fat, especially abdominal localization, is a more important determinant than the total amount of body fat of the development of NIDDM in Mexican Americans."

*****************************************************************************

"Weight, shape, and mortality risk in older persons: elevated waist-hip ratio, not high body mass index, is associated with a greater risk of death"

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 84, No. 2, 449-460, August 2006

http://www.ajcn.org/content/84/2/449.short

******************************************************************************

"Fat and female fecundity: prospective study of effect of body fat distribution on conception rates."

http://www.bmj.com/content/306/6876/484.abstract

-Increasing waist-hip ratio is negatively associated with the probability of conception per cycle, before and after adjustment for confounding factors. Body fat distribution in women of reproductive age seems to have more impact on fertility than age or obesity.

************************************************************
Cross-cultural consensus for waist–hipratio and women's attractiveness

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1090513809000889

"In women of reproductive age, a gynoid body fat distribution as measured by the size of waist–hipratio (WHR) is a reliable indicator of their sex hormone profile, greater success in pregnancy and less risk for major diseases. "

Post by beauvoir on 26 March 2012 22:51

Mon, 26 Mar 2012 22:51:10 GMT

Things like this are sponsored and endorsed by cosmetic, fashion and plastic surgery companies.

Stop being stupid.

Post by Hugh on 26 March 2012 20:01

Mon, 26 Mar 2012 20:01:23 GMT

Waist to hip ratio has quite a strong relationship to fertility and health (risk of heart attack).
About 0.7 ideal for europeans.

More than actual weight or BMI.

Post by Tansy_Blue on 26 March 2012 15:51

Mon, 26 Mar 2012 15:51:27 GMT

I doubt height has too much to do with it; modern sex symbols have had a wide range of heights, there doesn't seem to be too much preference. It does seem likely that extremes of height would be widely viewed as unattractive (because extremes of anything are normally seen as unattractive), but by that I mean a woman over 7 foot or under 4 foot.

I'm still pushing W2H ratio as an important indicator. The woman in the OP has a W2H ratio of 7.2; the women I talked about have W2H ratios of 0.65 - 0.7. Small range on that data so probably reliable. Not sure what other conclusions to draw though.

Mine, by the way, is 0.675. Hell yeah!

(-cue calculating by every female reading this post-)

Post by patiencepending on 26 March 2012 15:43

Mon, 26 Mar 2012 15:43:47 GMT

I guess a lot depends on height too...

Post by Tansy_Blue on 26 March 2012 15:40

Mon, 26 Mar 2012 15:40:46 GMT

River
I guess, like Tansy said, you'd have to look into which women are voted 'Best looking' or 'Sexiest'. But then again, would it be a fair test due to the type of man who would be voting in these 'competitions'? Do their decisions represent the whole male population of today?

Good question.
I have no idea. o.o

I think ethnicity might play a part - I read a piece in New Scientist a while back saying that a woman's hip-to-waist ratio plays a large part in how attractive she's perceived to be by men, but which hip-to-waist is most ideal varies by ethnicity, with ~0.7 being preferred by European men, ~0.6 by African men, and ~0.8 by Chinese men. So for a magazine like FHM, the magazine's demographic might influence its competition results.

Post by River on 26 March 2012 15:15

Mon, 26 Mar 2012 15:15:25 GMT

I guess, like Tansy said, you'd have to look into which women are voted 'Best looking' or 'Sexiest'. But then again, would it be a fair test due to the type of man who would be voting in these 'competitions'? Do their decisions represent the whole male population of today?

Post by Tansy_Blue on 26 March 2012 15:11

Mon, 26 Mar 2012 15:11:19 GMT

Cheryl Cole is 34-23-33 according to a webpage I Googled right this minute now. Megan Fox 34-22-32 according to the same method. :P

I suspect the "ideal" waist and hip measurements would be a little smaller these days. Heidi Klum, for instance, is 34-24-34, Lara Stone 33-24-35, Rosie Jones 30-25-35, Vikki Blows 30-22-34 (according to their respective agencies). Those and women like them are the ones showing up in magazines, adverts, films, and FHM's "100 Sexist"; they're all at least a size down from the woman presented above.

Post by Lisaliz on 26 March 2012 14:40

Mon, 26 Mar 2012 14:40:02 GMT

Some very interesting statistics here!

Well, the average female figure has changed over that period to become taller and heavier. So one would imagine that the ideal figure will have changed too.

Clearly the concept of the ideal figure has to have a subjective element. However it does occur to me that these dimensions cannot be far removed from those of say Cheryl Cole, so possibly things have not changed that dramatically over that period?

Post by gerryquiff on 26 March 2012 14:02

Mon, 26 Mar 2012 14:02:18 GMT

The ideal figure............1930s.
How does this compare 80 years on

.