Height to weight chart

http://www.cockeyed.com/photos/bodie...htweight.shtml

Found this interesting It shows people at certain heights in comparison with weight.

Well a fellow engineer buddy of mine from east coast had a calculation of weight / height that I have used for years when finding my desired phyiscal attration in a lady, and it goes as:


Each person has a desired factor window that they want or desire....

The calculation:
Weight divided by height in inches....

For me instance...

1.74 to 1.94 window (Preferred for Woody)

Take a woman that weights 120# and is 5'0' (60") her factor would be 2.0
Take a woman at 105# and is 5'0" and her factor would be 1.75
Take a woman at 115# and is 5'4" and her factor would be 1.79
Take a woman at 125# and is 5'7" and her factor would be 1.86
Take a woman at 150# and is 5'3" and her factor would be 2.38 (I would be running)
Take a woman at 135# and is 5'10" and her factor would be 1.92 (Inside of window)

Works on all ranges of height and weight caparisons....one just has to find want factor window he or she likes..

I know, I know, just the engineer in me coming out.....just only a portion of what attracts me personally to a person, but definitely is part of the equation.

Woody, I like that. Similar to the "Rule of 100". Now if we could just get the providers to give honest ht & wt. I know many times I've seen providers based on their description and when she opens the door it's like WFT. Also, many hobbyist have a hard time being honest in the description. That can be from several factors. 1. Unable to accurately guess the ht & wt. 2. Doesn't want to hurt the providers feelings. 3. Had such a good time that their judgement is clouded.

I'm no engineer, and I didn't get very far in math at all, but I'm also not dumb and my intuition tells me that Woody's formula doesn't make sense. Forgive me because I don't know the correct mathematical terms but I'll do my best to explain what I mean.

It seems like a linear equation -- but the human body is not linear. It's not as if you add inches of height without adding much more in all 3 dimensions.

A woman who is 5'10" is not simply 10" inches taller than a woman who is 5'0". She has broader shoulders, thicker bones, longer arms, wider hips, more muscle to support an overall larger body. The larger the lean body frame, the more weight for each additional unit of height. If you were to subtract the lean body mass from a woman who is 5'2" and a woman who is 5'0" (assuming they have similar frames in and muscle tone proportion to their bodies), the amount of extra bone and muscle would be less than the difference between a similarly framed & muscled woman who is 5'8" and 5'10".

The woman in Woody's example who is 5'10" and 135 lbs would be considered to be underweight by most people unless she had very little muscle tone and very thin bones. A woman who is 5'0" and 105 lbs would have to have a lot of muscle and really thick bones to equal the same body fat percentage as the 5'10", 135 lb woman. Yet the 5'0" girl gets the lower number?

Body fat percentage is hard to measure accurately but it is really the only fair way to judge these things. Still, I think an equation could be devised that took into account these factors to give a better estimate.

Any math guys want to take a crack at it?

Woody, I like that. Similar to the "Rule of 100". Now if we could just get the providers to give honest ht & wt. I know many times I've seen providers based on their description and when she opens the door it's like WFT. Also, many hobbyist have a hard time being honest in the description. That can be from several factors. 1. Unable to accurately guess the ht & wt. 2. Doesn't want to hurt the providers feelings. 3. Had such a good time that their judgement is clouded. Originally Posted by Budman

Judging height and weight is really impossible for most people -- especially men. I had a guy write a review of me that said I was 100 lbs when I was probably about 135 at the time. I had another guy claim I was a spinner and I'm 5'8". I've also had guys claim I was anywhere from 5'6" to 6 ft tall.

Also, some might consider my weight misleading because I am not very muscular and I have smallish to medium bones. And we all know that muscle and bones are much heavier than fat, so me at 130 is probably very much like other women at 145. Still, I've been trying to do my best to keep my weight up to date on my site so people who rely on that measurement can have as accurate a gauge as possible.

Sophia, you may be right as far as some guys have trouble guessing wt but ht should not be a problem. I'm 5'10" and 170 lbs so if I'm w/ a provider that comes up to my chin I can get her ht within an inch or two. As for the wt I bet I could guess a providers wt within 10 lbs. My reference point is my wife and my ex wife. One was 5'3 and 118 and the other was 5'8 and 130. Using these references I'm not going to be off much with the type of providers I see. Now when you get into the larger girls the wt is more difficult to guess.

I'm no engineer, and I didn't get very far in math at all, but ....

It seems like a linear equation -- but the human body is not linear. It's not as if you add inches of height without adding much more in all 3 dimensions. Originally Posted by Sensual Sophia

Sophia.....as mentioned that there is a window that each and everyone has, and yes this is based on only two dimensional equation, body mast of muscle and fat does make a difference. Its not like we are getting real technical here, its just a base line to work from and only a starting point on the physical aspect, because if the person is the hottest damn thing ever and she opens her mouth and out comes shit or null, then the whole factor equation fell out the window.

Only a baseline....and I am not being rude, its just the natural engineer coming out in me...I can see the whole picture.

Only a baseline....and I am not being rude, its just the natural engineer coming out in me...I can see the whole picture. Originally Posted by Woody of TX

I saw no rudeness. As a natural engineer, you would agree that the equation favors shorter girls right?

Nope I don't think so.....thou I am a spinner lover, but take your dimensions, I think they are pretty damn close to my window....It really depends on how small of an window is ones choice.

I will take Jewel in Las Vegas that I see often, she is estimated to be actually 5'9' and weights probably 130#, (thou website says 5'8", I expect her to say less so she is not conceived to be taller than many men), she fits right in my window of choice. She takes my breath away and gives me the hard-on the moment I see coming down the hallway at the hotel. I would say that 5'9' and even 6'0" play in the factor range equally. Now if she weighted 160# at that height....well ole Woody would not be getting a hard on.

Austin has or had the young lady provider that was 6'0" and fit inside of my window factor. Can't remember her name at present, never saw her personally...

I'm no engineer...
It seems like a linear equation -- but the human body is not linear. It's not as if you add inches of height without adding much more in all 3 dimensions. Originally Posted by Sensual Sophia

Sophia, you got me at "linear equation"...

Any math guys want to take a crack at it? Originally Posted by Sensual Sophia

Sophia = beauty and brains (and a 1.95 on the Woody Scale)

One thing I like to do to judge the voracity of a formula is to look at the extreme cases. The average newborn female is 7.5 lbs and 19.5 inches, which is only a 0.38 on the Woody Scale. A Woody Factor of 1.75 would make that 19.5" newborn weigh 34 pounds.

Anyone willing to give birth to that?

Yao Ming is 7'6" (90") and 310 pounds. He is not female, but that's a Woody of 3.4. For him to get down to a 1.9 Woody, he would either have to be 163 inches tall (that's about 13'6" by the way) or get his weight down to 171 pounds.

Based on these extreme examples, I would have to agree with Sophia that a non-linear approach is required and the linear approach favors shorter women.

However, it is sometimes possible to estimate a non-linear function, operating within a constrained range, using a linear approach. For example, if height is constrained to a range of 5'2" to 5'9", it may be a good estimate.

I would also have to agree with Woody, that watching Jewel of Las Vegas walk down the hallway always gives me a woody. (assuming it is the Jewel from Oklahoma that is now in Vegas)

Body mass index varies with weight and inversely varies with square of height; i = w/hh; seems a better guess than linear. Scale says I weigh 235. I'm 6'. Convert to metric, 107/1.83^2 = ~32, obese. NIH says 18 to 25 is normal, overweight's 25-30, obese is 30-40, and morbidly obese is over 40.

Sensual Sophia's argument that it should vary with the cube of height instead of the square kinda makes sense; I assume you have to be sturdier as you get taller, though.

I have the best equation... just look at her and if you like what you see... bingo!!

I would also have to agree with Woody, that watching Jewel of Las Vegas walk down the hallway always gives me a woody. (assuming it is the Jewel from Oklahoma that is now in Vegas) Originally Posted by Ben There

Yes formerly Tulsa where it all started....

I believe she is try to say that the trend should be exponential. y=weight/(e^height)

Body mass index varies with weight and inversely varies with square of height; i = w/hh; seems a better guess than linear. Scale says I weigh 235. I'm 6'. Convert to metric, 107/1.83^2 = ~32, obese. NIH says 18 to 25 is normal, overweight's 25-30, obese is 30-40, and morbidly obese is over 40. Originally Posted by 78704

The problem I have with using the BMI alone is that it does not take into account body fat. An equal amount of muscle weighs more than an equal amount of fat. So a muscular person's BMI will probably be higher than a non-muscular person of the same height. You have to have both calculations before you can really assess whether a person is obese.