Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 21

Thread: Average thigh size in US -- women or men bigger?

  1. #1
    Owner Dan Druff's Avatar
    Reputation
    10110
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    54,627
    Blog Entries
    2
    Load Metric
    65706150

    Average thigh size in US -- women or men bigger?

    A stupid debate broke out on Twitter, which I was only half-serious about, but now I'm curious as to the real answer.

    It is a fact that women's bodies store fat in their thighs and ass a lot more than men do, whereas men tend to get the fat in their stomach.

    However, it's also true that men are bigger in general, and their legs are naturally more muscular. We are talking averages here, not any particular fit or fat subgroup. We're also discussing the US, not other countries.

    It's my belief that women have bigger thighs on average than men, especially because Americans are fatter on average than 20 years ago, and that additional weight would end up raising the average female thigh size, whereas for men it really wouldn't have much effect.

    They appear bigger on women because of the big difference in height (men are over 6 inches taller than women in the US, on average), but I'm talking actual size difference.

    Attempting to google it revealed nothing useful.

    Anyone have a link to an article which could answer this important question?

  2. #2
    Platinum
    Reputation
    414
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    3,275
    Load Metric
    65706150
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Druff View Post
    A stupid debate broke out on Twitter, which I was only half-serious about, but now I'm curious as to the real answer.

    It is a fact that women's bodies store fat in their thighs and ass a lot more than men do, whereas men tend to get the fat in their stomach.

    However, it's also true that men are bigger in general, and their legs are naturally more muscular. We are talking averages here, not any particular fit or fat subgroup. We're also discussing the US, not other countries.

    It's my belief that women have bigger thighs on average than men, especially because Americans are fatter on average than 20 years ago, and that additional weight would end up raising the average female thigh size, whereas for men it really wouldn't have much effect.

    They appear bigger on women because of the big difference in height (men are over 6 inches taller than women in the US, on average), but I'm talking actual size difference.

    Attempting to google it revealed nothing useful.

    Anyone have a link to an article which could answer this important question?
    I would think, based on your proclivities, that you might be the foremost expert on big thighs.

    Not that there is anything wrong with that.

  3. #3

  4. #4
    Platinum BetCheckBet's Avatar
    Reputation
    928
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    4,645
    Load Metric
    65706150
    https://www.researchgate.net/figure/...fig5_237098626

    For AIDS patients females..... not sure that means anything, do you have twinks or bears as the gays?

  5. #5
    Platinum BetCheckBet's Avatar
    Reputation
    928
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    4,645
    Load Metric
    65706150
    Looks like men's are bigger on average according to these studies which do have adequate sample size. Largely american sample

    http://andreaportman.tripod.com/averages.html

    *The Data provided in the above table was collected from three seperate studies. The first being the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) conducted between 1988 and 1994 in the United States in which subjects were at least 20 years of age and the population was ethnically diverse, interviewing approximately 8000 men and 8000 women. The second being the MIL-STD-1472D study completed by the U.S. military in which approximately 500 men and 500 women were measured to quantify body size differences for human engineering uses. The third being the Quebec Family Study completed in 2001 comparing body shape (waist to hip ratios extracted) in 313 men and 382 women.

  6. #6
    Platinum BetCheckBet's Avatar
    Reputation
    928
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    4,645
    Load Metric
    65706150
    whats interesting is that despite men having bigger thighs on average, at the 95th percentile women are bigger than men. Which means you have a few outliers of women who have huge thunder thighs

    So men thighs greater than female thighs but....

    Mobidly obese women thighs greater than morbidly obese men thighs.

  7. #7
    Platinum FRANKRIZZO's Avatar
    Reputation
    482
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    3,393
    Load Metric
    65706150
    thighs and big butts yeah

     
    Comments
      
      dwai: FRANK LIKES BIG BUTTS AND HE CANNOT LIE

  8. #8
    Owner Dan Druff's Avatar
    Reputation
    10110
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    54,627
    Blog Entries
    2
    Load Metric
    65706150
    Quote Originally Posted by BetCheckBet View Post
    Looks like men's are bigger on average according to these studies which do have adequate sample size. Largely american sample

    http://andreaportman.tripod.com/averages.html

    *The Data provided in the above table was collected from three seperate studies. The first being the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) conducted between 1988 and 1994 in the United States in which subjects were at least 20 years of age and the population was ethnically diverse, interviewing approximately 8000 men and 8000 women. The second being the MIL-STD-1472D study completed by the U.S. military in which approximately 500 men and 500 women were measured to quantify body size differences for human engineering uses. The third being the Quebec Family Study completed in 2001 comparing body shape (waist to hip ratios extracted) in 313 men and 382 women.
    Thanks, but unfortunately that doesn't help much. It deals with 1988-1994, when people were thinner in the US by a good amount. I am almost certain that the average thigh size of women in 2020 is much bigger than in 1988, whereas I'm guessing that for men it's relatively similar, since dudes don't get much fat there.

  9. #9
    Owner Dan Druff's Avatar
    Reputation
    10110
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    54,627
    Blog Entries
    2
    Load Metric
    65706150
    Quote Originally Posted by Texter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Druff View Post
    A stupid debate broke out on Twitter, which I was only half-serious about, but now I'm curious as to the real answer.

    It is a fact that women's bodies store fat in their thighs and ass a lot more than men do, whereas men tend to get the fat in their stomach.

    However, it's also true that men are bigger in general, and their legs are naturally more muscular. We are talking averages here, not any particular fit or fat subgroup. We're also discussing the US, not other countries.

    It's my belief that women have bigger thighs on average than men, especially because Americans are fatter on average than 20 years ago, and that additional weight would end up raising the average female thigh size, whereas for men it really wouldn't have much effect.

    They appear bigger on women because of the big difference in height (men are over 6 inches taller than women in the US, on average), but I'm talking actual size difference.

    Attempting to google it revealed nothing useful.

    Anyone have a link to an article which could answer this important question?
    I would think, based on your proclivities, that you might be the foremost expert on big thighs.

    Not that there is anything wrong with that.
    This is part of the reason it's difficult for me to figure out! I notice the women with big thighs more than the ones without big thighs, and I don't look at men's thighs at all, aside from my own. So I wondered if I was just noticing a lot of women with big thighs, while mostly ignoring everyone else.

    I tried to google this, but just didn't come up with anything, which surprised me.

    Some idiots on Twitter are claiming it's crazy to believe the average female thigh in the US is larger, which is stupid. I'll admit it's probably close, but it's not like I'm asserting something obviously false, such as claiming that the average female is taller than the average male.

    Looks like I'll probably never know the truth. Sad!

  10. #10
    Platinum BetCheckBet's Avatar
    Reputation
    928
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    4,645
    Load Metric
    65706150
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Druff View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by BetCheckBet View Post
    Looks like men's are bigger on average according to these studies which do have adequate sample size. Largely american sample

    http://andreaportman.tripod.com/averages.html

    *The Data provided in the above table was collected from three seperate studies. The first being the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) conducted between 1988 and 1994 in the United States in which subjects were at least 20 years of age and the population was ethnically diverse, interviewing approximately 8000 men and 8000 women. The second being the MIL-STD-1472D study completed by the U.S. military in which approximately 500 men and 500 women were measured to quantify body size differences for human engineering uses. The third being the Quebec Family Study completed in 2001 comparing body shape (waist to hip ratios extracted) in 313 men and 382 women.
    Thanks, but unfortunately that doesn't help much. It deals with 1988-1994, when people were thinner in the US by a good amount. I am almost certain that the average thigh size of women in 2020 is much bigger than in 1988, whereas I'm guessing that for men it's relatively similar, since dudes don't get much fat there.

    Well then use this 2008

    http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc...=rep1&type=pdf

    pages 43 for females and 44 for males.

    The results are the same as aforementioned study. at 20 years and older the mean score for males higher than females. At 95th percentile females continue to have higher scores than males. Differences very similar to 20 years earlier.

    Results also show whites and hispanics significantly smaller thighs than blacks. JLO is an oddity. All hiphop videos are true obv

  11. #11
    Diamond dwai's Avatar
    Reputation
    1653
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    7,855
    Load Metric
    65706150
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Druff View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Texter View Post

    I would think, based on your proclivities, that you might be the foremost expert on big thighs.

    Not that there is anything wrong with that.
    This is part of the reason it's difficult for me to figure out! I notice the women with big thighs more than the ones without big thighs, and I don't look at men's thighs at all, aside from my own. So I wondered if I was just noticing a lot of women with big thighs, while mostly ignoring everyone else.

    I tried to google this, but just didn't come up with anything, which surprised me.

    Some idiots on Twitter are claiming it's crazy to believe the average female thigh in the US is larger, which is stupid. I'll admit it's probably close, but it's not like I'm asserting something obviously false, such as claiming that the average female is taller than the average male.

    Looks like I'll probably never know the truth. Sad!
    it's because being "thicc" is in now and you're noticing more girls following this trend, funny enough, on Instagram dude's photoshop themselves with bigger thighs and butts, and also skinny waists, it's hilarious. check out r/instagramReality for some funny shit

  12. #12
    Platinum BetCheckBet's Avatar
    Reputation
    928
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    4,645
    Load Metric
    65706150
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Druff View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Texter View Post

    I would think, based on your proclivities, that you might be the foremost expert on big thighs.

    Not that there is anything wrong with that.
    This is part of the reason it's difficult for me to figure out! I notice the women with big thighs more than the ones without big thighs, and I don't look at men's thighs at all, aside from my own. So I wondered if I was just noticing a lot of women with big thighs, while mostly ignoring everyone else.

    I tried to google this, but just didn't come up with anything, which surprised me.

    Some idiots on Twitter are claiming it's crazy to believe the average female thigh in the US is larger, which is stupid. I'll admit it's probably close, but it's not like I'm asserting something obviously false, such as claiming that the average female is taller than the average male.

    Looks like I'll probably never know the truth. Sad!
    4 minutes later....

    Seriously druff took me two mins to find this article your research game is lacking.

  13. #13
    Diamond dwai's Avatar
    Reputation
    1653
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    7,855
    Load Metric
    65706150
    remember that time you talked to Cmoney for 4 hours thinking it was his brother?

    classic

  14. #14
    Owner Dan Druff's Avatar
    Reputation
    10110
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    54,627
    Blog Entries
    2
    Load Metric
    65706150
    Quote Originally Posted by BetCheckBet View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Druff View Post

    Thanks, but unfortunately that doesn't help much. It deals with 1988-1994, when people were thinner in the US by a good amount. I am almost certain that the average thigh size of women in 2020 is much bigger than in 1988, whereas I'm guessing that for men it's relatively similar, since dudes don't get much fat there.

    Well then use this 2008

    http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc...=rep1&type=pdf

    pages 43 for females and 44 for males.

    The results are the same as aforementioned study. at 20 years and older the mean score for males higher than females. At 95th percentile females continue to have higher scores than males. Differences very similar to 20 years earlier.

    Results also show whites and hispanics significantly smaller thighs than blacks. JLO is an oddity. All hiphop videos are true obv
    Um, did you look at pages 43 and 44?

    The numbers for "Mid-thigh circumference in cm, all races, age 20+" are incredibly similar -- 52.9 for women, 53.8 for men.

    These numbers were from 2003-2006, and the US obesity problem has gotten significantly worse. Also, as dwai mentioned, there was also a cultural shift, to where a "thicc" ass and thighs were celebrated instead of shamed. This shift began around 2010.

    It's probably safe to say this is a virtual tie.

  15. #15
    Platinum BetCheckBet's Avatar
    Reputation
    928
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    4,645
    Load Metric
    65706150
    Why do I waste my time? Jesus you ask someone to look this up and then just make every excuse when it’s no what you like. It’s not too hard to calculate whether this is a sognificsnt difference but not wasting my time anymore with how you are acting.

  16. #16
    Owner Dan Druff's Avatar
    Reputation
    10110
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    54,627
    Blog Entries
    2
    Load Metric
    65706150
    Quote Originally Posted by BetCheckBet View Post
    Why do I waste my time? Jesus you ask someone to look this up and then just make every excuse when it’s no what you like. It’s not too hard to calculate whether this is a sognificsnt difference but not wasting my time anymore with how you are acting.
    I appreciate you looking this up. I mean that.

    However, I can't just accept your conclusions when the numbers say otherwise.

    52.9cm ad 53.8cm is NOT a significant difference, and it's not far fetched to think those numbers got even closer in the past 14 years.

    What am I missing?

  17. #17
    Platinum BetCheckBet's Avatar
    Reputation
    928
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    4,645
    Load Metric
    65706150
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Druff View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by BetCheckBet View Post
    Why do I waste my time? Jesus you ask someone to look this up and then just make every excuse when it’s no what you like. It’s not too hard to calculate whether this is a sognificsnt difference but not wasting my time anymore with how you are acting.
    I appreciate you looking this up. I mean that.

    However, I can't just accept your conclusions when the numbers say otherwise.

    52.9cm ad 53.8cm is NOT a significant difference, and it's not far fetched to think those numbers got even closer in the past 14 years.

    What am I missing?
    I'm sorry to be rude but if you don;t have a background in basic statistics you shouldn;t be making judgements on what a significant difference is between scores. I'm assuming you understand standard deviation very well just not how to use it for group differences (since it's not used that way in poker)

    We have a sample size here of nearly 10k. Just by taking this into consideration and looking at the standard error it's obvious its a significant difference. Now if we had a sample size of of a few hundred or even one thousand and got these results then yes not that big of a deal.

    Anyways I've gone ahead and converted our standard error to SD for a basic t score comparison of group means. It's actually even more significant than I thought, but again we are dealing with very large sample sizes which nearly eliminates variance.

    Name:  thighs.png
Views: 1110
Size:  73.5 KB

  18. #18
    Owner Dan Druff's Avatar
    Reputation
    10110
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    54,627
    Blog Entries
    2
    Load Metric
    65706150
    I believe you're either overthinking this or misunderstanding what I meant by "significant difference".

    I wasn't arguing that there was some kind of sampling error or inappropriate sample size. I was arguing that the actual difference in size is not very significant!

    Let's say we did a study of baseball pitchers from 1980-1990 and 2010-2020, regarding height. I'm just making the numbers up, but let's say the average height of the 1980-1990 group was 6'3.0" and the 2010-2020 was 6'3.3".

    Statistically, I would be confident in stating that it is meaningful, and not just random variance.

    However, in a practical sense, this wouldn't mean much. The 0.3" in average height wouldn't be noticeable to anyone, nor would it likely make much difference in the performance of the pitchers in the different eras.

    So if someone said, "Baseball pitchers are taller now compared to the '80s", and cited the above study, it would statistically be true, but otherwise wouldn't be worth noting, due to the tiny difference.

    I'm asserting that 53.8cm for male thighs is close enough to 52.9cm for female thighs to where it can be stated to be roughly equal, especially if females have bridged the gap due to changes in average body size since 2006.

  19. #19
    Platinum
    Reputation
    414
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    3,275
    Load Metric
    65706150
    Well this odd thread has taken a boring turn.

  20. #20
    Gold Wiganer's Avatar
    Reputation
    386
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    1,566
    Load Metric
    65706150
    Quote Originally Posted by Texter View Post
    Well this odd thread has taken a boring turn.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tyde View Post
    I stay to myself and keep out of trouble and/or potentially problematic scenarios

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 04-28-2020, 02:33 PM
  2. Average penis size by state
    By Muck Ficon in forum Flying Stupidity
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 04-10-2020, 07:19 PM
  3. The average southerner
    By big dick in forum Flying Stupidity
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 04-09-2018, 02:59 PM
  4. Complete Genius: Hot/Crazy Matrix or Men's Guide to Women
    By wrenchjockey in forum Flying Stupidity
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 07-29-2014, 02:06 PM
  5. three men, forty eight women, seventy six kids
    By Rollo Tomasi in forum Flying Stupidity
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-21-2013, 10:28 AM