NotAnExpert
Well-Known Member
Watch out! This thread enters squarely into freaky-geeky FA calculus territory. I'm not sure if it belongs on the Weight board or the Paysite board. Its source material is paysite but its conclusions are definitely general FA. Let me explain.
Feast has been promoting the Bountiful Productions website and takes great pride in displaying the dimensional statistics of all the models, as accurately as can be determined. It occured to me that all those numbers presented an opportunity. One of the holy grails of FA science has been the ability to determine weight based solely on measurements, an elusive goal in light of inconsistent data, non-standardized measurements and the vagaries of bony composition. Well, good or bad, we have a sample, so I thought I'd run a spreadsheet.
Back in the days when I was a young, lonely FA, I would pore over the size chart in the latest Roaman's catalog, comparing the size lists to the corresponding measurements. (Back then, "women's" sizes actually corresponded to something in reality. A size 42 meant a 42-inch waist. The "misses" sizes were virtually the same, minus 20. In time, the "women's" sizes switched to the "misses" numbers with a "W" tacked on, but even that fell off eventually. But I digress.)
I became aware of some rules of thumb from these charts, the Metropolitan Life Height-Weight chart and various women's magazines. One was that the unofficial mental weight chart for women started at 100 pounds at a 24-inch waist and 5ft in height and added 5 pounds per inch of additional height. Another was that a dress size represented about 15 pounds. Therefore, 1 inch equals 7.5 pounds, and 12 inches represents about 90 pounds. Because a waistline is only one component of the picture, I averaged all three numbers and rounded the index number up to an even 100.
These were the basic elements of the formula. Let's say you take the average of three circumferential measurements (in feet), knock off 1 foot and multiply by 100 pounds. To account for height, you add that 5 pounds per inch rule (or should it be 5% per inch to account for three-dimensional changes?). I tried it both ways, incorporating the numbers I collected from the Bountiful site, with mixed results.
Some models are listed more than once. I incorporated data from last month's Boutiful page too, and I noticed that a few models had different measurements for the same weight, so obviously the data isn't perfect but the formula should be able to indicate when the match isn't good.
So here is the result. (Sorry it's so small, I didn't know what the file size limit was before now. I'll try a PDF tomorrow if there isn't an angry mob waiting for me.) Some calculations are spot on or close. Some are way off (bad data, of course). And some work better with the 5 pound rule while others favor the 5% rule.
There's obviously room for improvement. My base numbers may be wrong (95 lbs? 105? 4%? 6%?). The formulas do not take thigh measurements or body fat ratios into account. I apologize to the ladies for what may seem to be a callous obsession with numbers. And I apologize for not producing a metric version but I want it a little more precise before I start selling the home version of the calculator.
Of course the biggest drawback is getting enough measurements to do the analysis. (By then, you'd probably already be given the answer.) But I thought a few might be interested in the process. Anybody else want to take a crack at it? I have to go do something useful now.
View attachment BountifStats.jpg
Feast has been promoting the Bountiful Productions website and takes great pride in displaying the dimensional statistics of all the models, as accurately as can be determined. It occured to me that all those numbers presented an opportunity. One of the holy grails of FA science has been the ability to determine weight based solely on measurements, an elusive goal in light of inconsistent data, non-standardized measurements and the vagaries of bony composition. Well, good or bad, we have a sample, so I thought I'd run a spreadsheet.
Back in the days when I was a young, lonely FA, I would pore over the size chart in the latest Roaman's catalog, comparing the size lists to the corresponding measurements. (Back then, "women's" sizes actually corresponded to something in reality. A size 42 meant a 42-inch waist. The "misses" sizes were virtually the same, minus 20. In time, the "women's" sizes switched to the "misses" numbers with a "W" tacked on, but even that fell off eventually. But I digress.)
I became aware of some rules of thumb from these charts, the Metropolitan Life Height-Weight chart and various women's magazines. One was that the unofficial mental weight chart for women started at 100 pounds at a 24-inch waist and 5ft in height and added 5 pounds per inch of additional height. Another was that a dress size represented about 15 pounds. Therefore, 1 inch equals 7.5 pounds, and 12 inches represents about 90 pounds. Because a waistline is only one component of the picture, I averaged all three numbers and rounded the index number up to an even 100.
These were the basic elements of the formula. Let's say you take the average of three circumferential measurements (in feet), knock off 1 foot and multiply by 100 pounds. To account for height, you add that 5 pounds per inch rule (or should it be 5% per inch to account for three-dimensional changes?). I tried it both ways, incorporating the numbers I collected from the Bountiful site, with mixed results.
Some models are listed more than once. I incorporated data from last month's Boutiful page too, and I noticed that a few models had different measurements for the same weight, so obviously the data isn't perfect but the formula should be able to indicate when the match isn't good.
So here is the result. (Sorry it's so small, I didn't know what the file size limit was before now. I'll try a PDF tomorrow if there isn't an angry mob waiting for me.) Some calculations are spot on or close. Some are way off (bad data, of course). And some work better with the 5 pound rule while others favor the 5% rule.
There's obviously room for improvement. My base numbers may be wrong (95 lbs? 105? 4%? 6%?). The formulas do not take thigh measurements or body fat ratios into account. I apologize to the ladies for what may seem to be a callous obsession with numbers. And I apologize for not producing a metric version but I want it a little more precise before I start selling the home version of the calculator.
Of course the biggest drawback is getting enough measurements to do the analysis. (By then, you'd probably already be given the answer.) But I thought a few might be interested in the process. Anybody else want to take a crack at it? I have to go do something useful now.
View attachment BountifStats.jpg
