I don't want to think I am bashing anybody. Just trying to figure this weight thing out. I have now been on 13 meets. Out of all of these all but one was not in my opinion overweight. It seems it would be hard to start a relationship, when a person is being dishonest right from the start. I also put down that I am an active person. 8 out of the 13 besides being overweight, clearly had a hard time just walking from the car to the meeting place. So what is average weight mean to you folks. Thanks, Rob

Body mass index (BMI) is a measure of body fat based on height and weight that applies to adult men and women. There is an optimal BMI for physical health.

The average BMI of a given group may not be the optimal BMI for good health.
BMI is a calculation using Height and Weight.

The results of this calculation will tell you if you are in range to be healthy.
Underweight = <18.5
Normal weight = 18.5–24.9
Overweight = 25–29.9
Obesity = BMI of 30 or greater

In the 18.5–24.9 range you are at normal BMI for a "human being".
If you type bmi in google you will get a simple BMI calculator that you just fill in your data and it gives you your BMI.

If the person's profile states 'average' it is likely average given that person's associations with those around them. It also could indicate that they fluctuate in weight and are currently at their average weight when they filled out their profile.

A person can be overweight or underweight but carry it well with good posture and balance that gives them grace.
A person can also have perfect BMI but have problems with carrying their mass, poor posture and clumsy.

Women often 'feel' overweight because society has taught them to be critical of themselves. A woman that puts average as a weight is likely more in tune with their health and may be slightly a higher BMI but manage it without self-conscious cruelty towards themselves or others.

Average means a pot belly.

average ? depends upon age a little bit I think..
I am in my early 60's ..and I would say most of us have a little extra here and there, so that's average for that age group;
when in my 20's and 30's, I was slim and trim, which would be average for that age group. Just my opinion.
average male? same thing. Most males over 50 have a beer/pot belly...

Wonderful addition to the topic.
Just want to note that all potbellies are not beer bellys.
I read an article or a headline about this once, can't remember the source but it stated that at a certain age the male body begins to change its digestion. Pot bellys are a result of that change.

At 56, I am well aware of the changes in human bodies due to age.
It is actually very disheartening that so many are not.
It is really sad to have to reassure a woman that I expect and accept their sagging and wrinkles. If I wanted a 20 year old I would be looking for 20 year olds. I'm not in my peak physical form anymore either. I am a bit above the average for my age group with a mid-range healthy BMI. My muscle mass is shrinking because I eat less and exercise less. I'm still young enought that I could recover but that age is slipping away and I am not driven by a need to impress with my physique anymore. I am not trying to reproduce. "That" changes the imperatives.

While my body is getting older and weaker my mind and personality are getting stronger and truer. So when I seek out a companion, I seek a woman that has intelligence and a great personality. The body type is secondary. I don't need her to carry my offspring.

I have a little extra here and there, over here and over there, besides there, next to there, next to here, besides here, on top off there, under here, and lastly too much there.

I think in the profiles, it asks for your body "type", not your weight. There is a difference. I consider myself average body type. I'm not thin or athletic. My weight is low, but I'm very short, so height has to do with it.

oh wow, it does say "type".
This opens a whole new line of snarky comments.
Ooo, I got one...

What is your body type?
My body type is...wait for it...LIVING

wait, got another one...
What is your body type?
I am a surface dwelling air breather.

yuk,yuk,yuk...

That does make sense I think I'm 5'10". And weigh 180. So a 5'2" person weighing 180. Would be considered normal in there eyes?

Maybe to some that is normal to me it is over weight..

I'm one of those short ones that consider myself over weight..

But having a issue walking is not always due to weight could be the onset of arthritis within the knees..

All I can say ask to see a full length picture first.. Pictures do not always tell the whole story... for they can be a bit perceiving~~~

Heck just ask them if they can hike a mile that should cut the ones out since your more active~~

Might miss out on a few, for I can not do the mile every day without my knees letting me know they are not having a good time~~

Depends on the area one lives in I think, when it comes to the States that is.
Many in the States are huge, others are so skinny it is freaky (to me).
If you live in an area with a lot of these big people, you'd be average when you're anything less than a beached whale yourself. Yet, in another state with mostly skinny health and sport freaks you may be considered 'big' or 'extremely big'.

It also depends on what YOU think is average, big and skinny. Your view may not be congruent with another's.
For instance, I am a typical 'in between' woman. I consider myself 'average - a few extra pounds'. Many see me as normal / slender, others see me as 'plus size'. It depends on their personal point of reference.

I think the issue here is 2 fold

1st. AVERAGE insinuates the reality of what people DO weigh, not what they should weigh
_In 1960, the average American male weighed about 166.3 pounds, which was the average weight for American women in 2010 at 166.2 pounds, which marks about a 18.5 percent increase. The average weight for women in 1960 was 140 pounds, according to the CDC report. The average weight for men has also increased to 195.5 pounds, gaining almost 30 pounds, which is a 17.6 percent increase.

2nd. AVERAGE weight, alone, samples all weights from people of all heights, so its not really a useful descriptor because a 166 pound woman at 5 foot 2 has body mass distributed quite differently than a 166 pound woman at 6 foot



I think the best way to find out what MOST people concerned about weight are asking, is to ask for hwp,, which means height weight PROPORTIONATE

or

that ones weight is a healthy weight for their HEIGTH

in which case, the rule of thumb I learned years ago was
- for a woman 100 pounds the first 5 feet and 5 pounds per inch after

-for men 106 pounds the first five feet and 6 pounds per inch after

I think that's part of the reason the vast majority of people demand clear, recent (no old, no hat and glasses, no all black at midnight, no just face) pictures on profiles before any real correspondence.

So are you saying you met 13 people who all had fake/misleading photos, or no photos on their profiles at all?


That seems to potentially have more to do with health and maybe age, than weight.


That doesn't mean much.
I mean the 8 of 13 that had a hard time just walking from the car to the meeting place could easily consider themselves "active" if they just slowly hobble around the neighborhood everyday, or possibly drive around the park on their lil rascal.

Being an "active person" doesn't mean healthy or capable.
At best it just means not sedentary.
My grandma is an "active person"...for her age and health.
Compared to my 16 year old 190 lb nephew running track she doesn't really do much. Compared to my 14 year old 140 lb nephew who does nothing but play video games, watch movies, complain, and nap, she's a triathlete.


Not much, in and of itself.

If it's on a dating site profile what it means to me is:
"This website used a general spreadsheet/database like interface system that was developed a long time ago. Sold to/copied by many dating sites that never really upgraded most likely due to cost.

The database system used was developed long before people had the dial up capacity to upload a bunch of photos. New technology and innovations allowing people the option to post multiple pictures rendered a lot of the standardized questions obsolete, meaningless, and/or pointless.

Of course they generally were pointless anyway as there was never really any means of verifying the information without actually meeting and forming some sort of relationship with them.

Life is like a box of chocolates.
An online dating profile is not an FDA verified and guaranteed (under penalty of law, using universally/legally recognized and accepted standards), ingredient list (like on the back of the box of chocolates) scientifically, exactly, absolutely, or pedantically, detailing what you're going to get with another person."


Dating site forums have always been rife with complaints about dates and profile inaccuracies.
"Oh, you wear color contacts?"
"Oh, you dye your hair?"
"Oh, you're really bald?"
"Oh, your profile said 6'1, but you're really 5'10?"
"Oh, your profile said you had no kids...but you really do?"
"Oh, your profile said you were 18, but you're really 35 you just think you're young looking, get along better with, and have more in common with 18 year old's?"
"Oh, you're looking to just date, not really a relationship?"
"Oh, you live in that zip code, but you're thinking of moving to this one?"
"Oh, you said you were divorced/single, but you're really just separated?"
"Oh, you said you were a Dr., but you're really unemployed?"
"Oh, your profile said athletic body type, and you consider competitive butter and pie eating a sport?"

So "average weight" means nothing to me if it's on a dating profile.

when your weight is in proportion to your height! Women know when they are not.