TheGuard13 Posted October 6, 2014 Share Posted October 6, 2014 If she has some curves, she very well could. My fiancée is 5'3 and currently hovering around 140. And she's a little hottie even if she'd like to be 20 pounds lighter. 3 Link to post Share on other sites
ltjg45 Posted October 6, 2014 Share Posted October 6, 2014 It kills me when guys list ideal weights for women. Most of you are completely clueless about how those numbers correspond to height and body composition. I'm 5'9" and at my smallest was 132 & size 4 (aka, "small"). I'm currently 145, with more muscle definition than before and still wear the same size even though I weigh more. Men usually suck at guessing women's weight. They have it in their heads that certain weights = nice body for a woman, and a woman can't be thin and weigh above that. Think again! Tyra Banks (5'10") was 142 when she was on the cover of Sports Illustrated. Lose the numbers. Focus on body type. It is true that I am clueless when it comes to women's weight. After all, I have seen more women that is heavier than me than slimmer so I don't even know what a slik woman would weight unless I see her bones clearly, in which it is safe to say she is under 100 pounds and that's too slim to me. But case in point, if a woman got more blubber in her stomach than I do, I would have to pass. It would take a completely different way of thinking for me to be attracted to such a woman and, even if I did, it isn't fair to her anyway. Link to post Share on other sites
lollipopspot Posted October 6, 2014 Share Posted October 6, 2014 But case in point, if a woman got more blubber in her stomach than I do, I would have to pass. It would take a completely different way of thinking for me to be attracted to such a woman and, even if I did, it isn't fair to her anyway. Most women have more fat in the stomach than most men, and it's hard for most women to get a very flat stomach, even when they're thin. Nature built women with a higher body fat percentage. 2 Link to post Share on other sites
writergal Posted October 6, 2014 Share Posted October 6, 2014 lollipopspot's correct: women, genetically-speaking, have a higher percentage of body fat then men. Mother Nature designed it that way. There is definitely a gender difference in fat storage. The healthy range of body fat for women is between 20-25% and for men is between 10-15%. Hormones, enzymes and the body's metabolism contribute to how well or how poorly fat is stored or released in the body. Age is also a major factor. Once you hit middle age, the body's metabolism slows to a near halt and can contribute to fat storage in the middle. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Xiang Posted October 6, 2014 Share Posted October 6, 2014 (edited) Probably not. Damn the US and their LBS/inches ! xD While using a converter, i have 178 pounds. and 6.03 feet. For that height i slightly got a tummy but i still manage to attract some slim laddies ^^. I can't help myself i like myself a slimmer girl, saw some pretty larger ones, but not OBESE. Wonder what they think when i'm not in shape xD, but if i manage...so should others. But again, me personally? no. Reasons, because i thinnk they look more feminine when slim, and i like to be able to grab her by the hip or something, it feels better to the touch also. :\ ... Edited October 6, 2014 by Xiang 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Author Natsu21 Posted October 7, 2014 Author Share Posted October 7, 2014 I love how big this thread has gotten. Bazinga. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
verhrzn Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 lollipopspot's correct: women, genetically-speaking, have a higher percentage of body fat then men. Mother Nature designed it that way. There is definitely a gender difference in fat storage. The healthy range of body fat for women is between 20-25% and for men is between 10-15%. Hormones, enzymes and the body's metabolism contribute to how well or how poorly fat is stored or released in the body. Age is also a major factor. Once you hit middle age, the body's metabolism slows to a near halt and can contribute to fat storage in the middle. Don't forget pregnancy. It does some bizarre things to women's bodies and hormones. My mother was always a little bigger but had a nice, flat stomach until she had kids. Then she could never get rid of her rounded stomach for anything. Even more interesting, if a woman dips below a certain body fat percentage, she stops menstruating and being able to get pregnant. The female body kind of wants to be chunky, because a nice round middle usually means better fertility. You ever see the body shapes that were worshipped for pretty much all of human history before this century? They all have large hips and rounded, soft tummies. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
verhrzn Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 Being 5'9 and 145 is perfectly fine. Nobody is complaining about that. What is far more common are women that are 5'2 and 145. There is no way that the 5'2 woman has a nice body at that weight. It really depends. If a woman is very built, she could be heavy without appearing heavy. For example, I've gained 10 pounds in the last 6 months, and yet have almost exactly the same measurements. The only measurement that's gotten bigger is my hips. It could be my weight-lifting (I can do heavier weights) but I promise if I showed you a picture of me at 125 and me at 135, you wouldn't be able to guess which is which. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Tayken Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 It kills me when guys list ideal weights for women. Most of you are completely clueless about how those numbers correspond to height and body composition. I'm 5'9" and at my smallest was 132 & size 4 (aka, "small"). I'm currently 145, with more muscle definition than before and still wear the same size even though I weigh more. Men usually suck at guessing women's weight. They have it in their heads that certain weights = nice body for a woman, and a woman can't be thin and weigh above that. Think again! Tyra Banks (5'10") was 142 when she was on the cover of Sports Illustrated. Lose the numbers. Focus on body type. You did say "guys" and NOT men, so it's fair to let that slide. You are preaching to the coverted here, and what you just said to any man with half a brain is not breaking news. I am also 5' 9" and just shy of 160lbs with no gut, a tight bubble bum, solid physique for a non-gym goer, do 5km races in under 20mins, and my Boston qualifying when I was even in my peak performance was 2hr 40 full marathon. I personally don't consider Tyra whatsherface, Gisele, Heidi, and my fellow Londoners Naomi Campbell and Kate Moss to be anything special...never cared for those type of women. You are more likely to have me gawking over Kate Winslet and Helen Mirren to be honest. If a woman's backside is twice the size of mine, and she is carrying a gut whilst not pregnant, can't hike/bicycle/jog without giving me a ear ache...not interested period. I am also NOT into huge mammary glands or fake looks...give it to me straight. I want to know that what am looking at, is what I get in the morning Link to post Share on other sites
somedude81 Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 Yeah I know that women are supposed to have more body fat than men. But when a woman is shorter than I am, and weighs more than I do, something is off with that. And I'm hardly a stick thin guy. Generally when a man and woman are the same height, and neither of them look obese, the guy should be heavier than her because of his muscle mass as on average men have muscle than women. Muscle is more dense than fat so it's easy for weigh to go up without making a big visual impact. So verhrzn if you were serious about fitness and gained a significant amount of muscle, then it's not unusual at all for your weight to go up and still look the same. Though that does not apply for the average women. The vast majority of women don't use weights so muscle is a small percentage of their body weight. So odds are if a 5'2 woman is 150, it's not because she's super buff. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Phoe Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 Generally when a man and woman are the same height, and neither of them look obese, the guy should be heavier than her because of his muscle mass as on average men have muscle than women. Muscle is more dense than fat so it's easy for weigh to go up without making a big visual impact. I weigh more than I look. I have a good amount of muscle, with a light layer of fat (19-20%) I'm thin, but weigh more than most people think. And I'm stronger than most people think. People see me and think "oh she's just a skinny lil thing", and then I start lifting heavy things with ease and they just look at me dumbfounded. Weight, as a number, is mostly useless and should not be used to determine a woman's size. I know several men who are my height or taller, who weigh less than me. 4 Link to post Share on other sites
somedude81 Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 I weigh more than I look. I have a good amount of muscle, with a light layer of fat (19-20%) I'm thin, but weigh more than most people think. And I'm stronger than most people think. People see me and think "oh she's just a skinny lil thing", and then I start lifting heavy things with ease and they just look at me dumbfounded. Weight, as a number, is mostly useless and should not be used to determine a woman's size. I know several men who are my height or taller, who weigh less than me. Weren't you around 5'9, 145? If so, that's pretty much the exact weight I'd expect a woman of your height to be. As far as you being stronger than you look, just think of it being a cool little bonus Link to post Share on other sites
kaylan Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 Let's be honest here, fellas. Would you date an obese woman...or an overweight woman for that matter? Every single one of my girlfriends was overweight, as well as one night stands. I have no problems with bigger women, if they take care of themselves, show a little spirit and don't act like they are the ugliest creatures of earth Newsflash women, you're just as beautiful, but you have to believe it. Anyway, fellas...would you? Honest discussions, even if it may make you look like an ***hole. No, I want a woman who is at a healthy weight and is athletic. Obese is the antithesis of what I find attractive. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
isisisweeping Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 I am also 5' 9" and just shy of 160lbs with no gut, a tight bubble bum, solid physique for a non-gym goer, do 5km races in under 20mins, and my Boston qualifying when I was even in my peak performance was 2hr 40 full marathon.g I am over 5" shorter than you and qualified for Boston with enough leeway to get in at 150 lb. Granted, that was with a 3:31. Women's qualifying times. Link to post Share on other sites
isisisweeping Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 5'2 and 145. There is no way that the 5'2 woman has a nice body at that weight. Wrong. (10 char) 3 Link to post Share on other sites
Tayken Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 I am over 5" shorter than you and qualified for Boston with enough leeway to get in at 150 lb. Granted, that was with a 3:31. Women's qualifying times. Not to insult...equality unfortunately doesn't extend to situations like this, which just goes to show the hypocrisy of it all. What I actually mean to say prior was that when I did my 1st Boston over a decade ago, that was my qualifying time. I have since ran a number of marathons that are sub that time. My total count of marathons and ultra marathons i.e. races over the 42.2km distance, stands at over 95. My 100km over night takes 13hrs or less. I have never sought a woman who would be into it as I am, but at the same time I can't imagine myself with a "home buddy" who's idea of being active is Facebook, the Bachelor, Greys anatomy, and taking their pet round the block whilst picking up dog poo. No thanks Link to post Share on other sites
Anela Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 Being 5'9 and 145 is perfectly fine. Nobody is complaining about that. What is far more common are women that are 5'2 and 145. There is no way that the 5'2 woman has a nice body at that weight. I did, and still do. Link to post Share on other sites
jay1983 Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 5'2" 145 These aren't too bad. Welcome - What Real Women Look Like Welcome - What Real Women Look Like 3 Link to post Share on other sites
Anela Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 5'2" 145 These aren't too bad. Welcome - What Real Women Look Like Welcome - What Real Women Look Like Right - thanks for posting those. I couldn't remember the site that people here referenced in the past. I'm not obese, and never have been. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
jay1983 Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 Absolutely attractive ladies. Neither of these women are what any sane man would call obese. I would say they are both of average build. I don't know any men who would say either of these women are too fat. If I met such a guy, I would question his sexual orientation. Maybe somedude, somewhere. Wait, you said sane......lol 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Phoe Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 Weren't you around 5'9, 145? If so, that's pretty much the exact weight I'd expect a woman of your height to be. As far as you being stronger than you look, just think of it being a cool little bonus 5'8 and fluctuate between 130-140 , so you were pretty close. Link to post Share on other sites
somedude81 Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 5'8 and fluctuate between 130-140 , so you were pretty close. Phoe, with you being 130-140 at 5'8, you're pretty much the perfect example of what I'm trying to say Your body at 5'9, 140 would just look better than a woman who is 5'2, 140. The shorter woman would just have more fat and it would show. Link to post Share on other sites
jay1983 Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 Phoe, with you being 130-140 at 5'8, you're pretty much the perfect example of what I'm trying to say Your body at 5'9, 140 would just look better than a woman who is 5'2, 140. The shorter woman would just have more fat and it would show. Phoe can turn around and bend over so I can kiss your ass a little harder. Link to post Share on other sites
writergal Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 Like Anela I'm petite and about 150 and have curves in all the right places. I also ran a 5K this summer, hiked nonstop and played a lot of tennis without ever collapsing into a heap afterward. Just because a woman isn't stick-thin, doesn't mean she's not in good shape. Not to mention I have to battle a low thyroid so I'll never be stick-thin ever, and I'm ok with that. It's all about confidence anyway. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Phoe Posted October 8, 2014 Share Posted October 8, 2014 Phoe, with you being 130-140 at 5'8, you're pretty much the perfect example of what I'm trying to say Your body at 5'9, 140 would just look better than a woman who is 5'2, 140. The shorter woman would just have more fat and it would show. Welcome - What Real Women Look Like 5'2, 150 lbs. Clearly in EXCELLENT shape. This is why you can't assume, based on simple numbers. 3 Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts