Average weight?

[Anna Allen]

I doubt anyone would be able to tell me this information, but I thought I’d go ahead and ask anyway.

Does anyone know what the average weight of a women or man (in the different age groups) would be in the 1860s? Also, I wonder if there would be any way of finding out the weight along with the height and any other body measurements, like waist size. It may seem like a silly question, but it’s just something I’ve been thinking about lately and thought it would be nice to know as well as interesting to compare to modern sizes.

[Rear Guard]

Re: Average weight?

I have pension records on one of my CW ancestors and it only lists the height as 5' 8" tall, no weight given.

Jeff Lawson

[Matt Woodburn]

Re: Average weight?

The source escapes me here at work, but I read where soldiers in a hospital (these had been in the field) were measured and weighed. The average was 2.25 pounds per inch of height. My height being 69 inches should put my "been in the field" weight at 155 pounds. Weight back then varied with height just as today obiously, but this has been the only period guage I've come across.

I doubt anyone would be able to tell me this information, but I thought I’d go ahead and ask anyway.

Does anyone know what the average weight of a women or man (in the different age groups) would be in the 1860s? Also, I wonder if there would be any way of finding out the weight along with the height and any other body measurements, like waist size. It may seem like a silly question, but it’s just something I’ve been thinking about lately and thought it would be nice to know as well as interesting to compare to modern sizes.

[rmeyer]

Re: Average weight?

I have heard that the average weight for a Civil War soldier was 145 and the average height was 5'7. Of course this does not mean that every joe blow was 145, and 5'7. I had heard somewhere that the average weight in the US in the 90's was only like 160.



Ryan Meyer

[Hank Trent]

Re: Average weight?

There are lots of ways to approach this: tailors' and dressmakers' manuals, statistical tables, surveys of surviving clothing, etc. Here's some random stuff I've gathered up on it.

-----

From Hill's Manual, Chicago, 1884 edition:

Average Height and Weight of Human Beings, at Different Ages. [Heights are listed first in feet, weights follow in pounds. Note that 1/8 and 1/3 look similar in the original typeface, so I can't guarantee I've not confused the two]

Male
Birth 1 2/3 feet, 7 lbs.
2 years, 2 2/3, 25
4 years, 3, 31 1/2
6 years, 3 1/2, 38 4/5
9 years 4, 50
11 years, 4 1/8, 59 3/4
13 years, 4 3/4, 75 4/5
15 years, 5, 96 1/2
17 years, 5 1/8, 116 1/2
18 years, 5 1/2, 127 1/2
20 years 5 1/2, 132 1/2
30 years 5 1/2, 140 1/8
40 years 5 1/2, 140 1/2
50 years 5 1/2, 140
60 years 5 1/8, 136
70 years 5 1/8, 131 1/4
80 years 5 1/8, 127 1/2
90 years 5 1/8, 127 1/2

Females
Birth 1 2/3 feet, 6 1/2 lbs
2 years, 2 1/2, 23 1/2
3 years, 3, 28 2/3
6 years, 4, 35 1/8
9 years, 4, 47
11 years, 4 1/4, 56 1/2
13 years, 4 3/5, 72 2/3
15 years, 5, 89
17 years, 5, 104 1/8
18 years, 5 1/8, 112 1/2
20 years, 5 1/6, 115 1/8
30 years, 5 1/6, 119 4/5
40 years, 5 1/6, 121 4/5
50 years, 5, 123 4/5
60 years, 5, 119 3/4
70 years, 5, 113 1/2
80 years, 5, 108 4/5
90 years, 5, 108 4/5

-------

Joe Loehle posted: As far as the average size foot? Well, in another post I made about the Southern Shoe Manufacturing Company, they listed that for every hundred shoes they made there would be "Sizes: fifteen sixes, twenty five sevens, thirty eights, twenty five nines & five tens in each hundred pairs". Looks to me like the average is about a size 8.

-------

Official Records.--Series III-Vol. V p. 880

Table No.8.--Showing measurements of chest, heights, and ages of recruits and substitutes accepted, as classified in to Americans and aliens, white Americans and colored Americans, white aliens and colored aliens, examined from July 4, 1864, to April 30, 1865.

Americans 1,383
Aliens or foreign born 138
Total of all examined 1,521

[the following averages are for whites only]

Measurement of chest
Average measurement at inspiration
Americans 35.05"
Aliens 35.48"

Average measurement at expiration
Americans 33.04
Aliens 33.59

Average height of all examined.
Americans 5 ft. 7.45 inches
Aliens 5 ft. 6.32 inches

Greatest height of any examined.
Americans 6 ft. 4 inches
Aliens 6 ft. 6 inches

Least height of any examined.
Americans 5 ft.
Aliens 5 ft.

----

The following information is from Saundra Altman:

What I have found that refutes tight lacing by the masses is a booklet
recording customers' measurements to be used with J.R.Van Dame's World's
Fair (1893) Premium Tailor System for women. In it are 116 customers'
measurements. The booklet instructs the person measuring to do so over the corset.

The average waist was: 31 inches.

The smallest waist was: 24 inches.

The largest waist was: 44 inches.

--------------
From "History of Davenport and Scott County"
(Iowa) by Harry E. Downer, provided by Elaine Rathmann:

"Capt. Bob Littler's State Guards, Company B, of the Second Regiment. .... The members of this company in age average twenty-five years; in height, five feet and seven and a half inches; in weight, one hundred and sixty pounds, and composed mostly of raftsmen and firemen. In muscular exercise they challenge the worst. They may almost be called a company of gymnasts and athletes."

--------

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

[ElizabethClark]

Re: Average weight?

Anna, I don't know of a unified source for female information; even dressmaking guides just classify women's figures as "slight, average, full" etc, without measures. I'll keep looking, and see what I can find.

Hank might have some medical journal resources you could check, though.

[Anna Allen]

Re: Average weight?

Great info there, Hank. Thanks a lot! Although, I noticed the dates in some of the information you gave are from the 1880s and '90s. Do you think it would have changed much from the 1860s?

Edit: Now that I think about it, maybe it is correct to look at records from the later eras. If I were to look at records from the 1860s, they would be referring to people not from the 1860s, but more like people from the 1840s and 50s?? Does any of this make sense? I have a feeling I'm not. Ah well...

That's a good idea to look in medical journals, Elizabeth. Does anyone know of any online sources I could peruse? This is very interesting. I appreciate everyone's help!

[Hank Trent]

Re: Average weight?

Edit: Now that I think about it, maybe it is correct to look at records from the later eras. If I were to look at records from the 1860s, they would be referring to people not from the 1860s, but more like people from the 1840s and 50s?? Does any of this make sense? I have a feeling I'm not. Ah well...

There are many problems with producing any average, the main one being what population is being surveyed. We don't know when or how or where that 1880s table of heights and weights was recorded. I wouldn't be surprised if it was English, due to the smaller heights compared to identified American sources and the fact that a lot of statistical information from England was published in America in the period. Not only do we not know who or how many people were surveyed, or when, but we also don't know whether it's a snapshot, or a collection of statistics over time (like all the patients admitted to a charity hospital over several decades).

Also note how the heights and weights decrease with age. We have no way of knowing if that's due to an older generation averaging smaller from birth, or due to stooping and loss of muscle mass from the effects of aging.

Whatever population is sampled is usually going to be a convenient one, not necessarily reflective of all people. Army soldiers are generally healthy young men, who might have more filling out to do as they mature, or who might average heavier than if ill and very short rejects were included. Those who can afford to have tailor-made clothes might be larger than less-well-fed poor people, or smaller due to less muscle mass and tighter corseting. Other sources of easily-measured people--convicts, slaves at auction, paupers applying for charity, hospital patients--are going to have their own causes for skewing the results.

Because such a wide spectrum of young men enlisted in the Civil War, army records are good for that subset, but lots of "average" people may [i]never]/i] have faced anyone with a tape measure, scale and notebook--for example the vast number of women who never needed charity, never joined the army, and made their own clothes.

And comparing the size of the average American today with the average American in the 1860s has its own problem. The average today is going to include more people of Asian, Latin and Middle Eastern descent, who may have smaller bone structure than those of northern European descent because of their ethnic heritage.

In my opinion, the best way to approach all those difficulties is to define the result you want as narrowly as possible, and then approach the answer by being careful not to read more into the available statistics than is really there. For example, if the question is: "If I walked down the street in 1860, would I notice fewer overweight people than today?" the answer might be found most easily through photographs and paintings of crowd scenes. If the question is: "If I were a tailor/dressmaker in the 1860s, would I be making a lot more small sizes than I do today?" then tailor/dressmakers manuals would be the best place to look. If the question is: "If I stepped into the ranks of a Civil War regiment, would I look noticeably fatter than most?" a combination of photographs and enlistment records could give an answer.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

[Anna Allen]

Re: Average weight?

Thanks again, Hank. You've been a great help! I'll keep all this in mind while doing more research on this subject.

[Gallinipper]

Re: Average weight?

Generally speaking also.... regardless of who you are, your diet and other lifestyle habits in the years BEFORE you started in this peculiar hobby makes it almost impossible for your physique to approach what theirs was. You can diet all you want, but you can't turn back the clock on the WAY you lived during those years. Our bodies are naturally going to be more heavy from muscle density, more broad-shouldered, less sickly in appearance, etc. etc.--from better hygienic practices and years of eating good ol' "steak & potatoes" if nothing else!

Rich Croxton

[Blum]

Re: Average weight?

Hello,

You can also find heights men informations on the Lazy Jacks mess Web site :

http://www.lazyjacks.org.uk/height.htm

Hope this help a little…

[KKS]

As for ladies,

In the 1860 "Beadle's Dime Guide to Dress-Making," Mrs. Pullan gives sample measurements in inches during her explanation of the patternmaking system called the Excelsior Dress-Model.

She explains that the first measure is the shoulder measure, done by "holding the end of the [measuring] tape against the back of the neck, where the top of the dress should come; then with the right hand, pass the tape round and under the right arm, and up again to the top of the dress" (pg 25).

The length of the body is measured "straight down the back, from the top of the body to the waist, allowing half an inch for what it will take in making" (pg 25).

For the circumference, "[t]he tape is passed around the fullest part of the bust, and across the prominence off the shoulders, as well as close under the arms," allowing an inch or more extra if there is to be padding (pg 26).

In measuring the waist, "[m]ost people prefer feeling that there is a band or compression round the waist, however slight. But others have a great objection to this; and according to the reply, you must either draw the measure very tight, or mark what it is without any such pressure" (pg 26).

And finally,
"Having noted these four measurements, you use FIRST for the outlines of the back and front. We will take an imaginary measure, for the sake of clearness, and suppose that it was 24; the length of the body, 14; the circumference, 36; and the waist, 23; these measurements, by the way, being about the average for a medium-sized woman, of five feet or so high" (pg 26).

I'm guessing this is an average based upon Mrs. Pullan's personal observation rather than a scientific study, but I found it very interesting nonetheless.

Kira Sanscrainte

[ElizabethClark]

Re: As for ladies,

What's wild is, those measures (36 bust, 23 waist, 14 back waist) would still be considered somewhat average for a trim woman of five feet tall, today. (Humans really don't change a great lot, save that we have a lot of very tall young women today.)

[Hank Trent]

Re: As for ladies,

Here's another table of statistics with heights and/or weights of various groups:

http://www.hti.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=moa;cc=moa;sid=f41ae4a8e26e3ad8d43457c697d8cd28;q1=life%20insurance;q2=soldier%2A;op2=and;op3=and;rgn=pages;idno=AAN0681.0001.001;view=image;seq=00000129

And a modern article analyzing data on height (unfortunately not weight) for Georgia convicts, and how it might correlate with economic data http://www.eh.net/Clio/Conferences/A...enberger.shtml

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

[KathyBradford]

Barbarism and Civilization stats

Hank,

Thanks for the links. It's fascinating that on the umich site, the average weights range from 140-151 lbs. compared with the average 226 lb. "Revolutionary officers at West Point, August 10, 1778, given in 'Milledulcia,' p. 278"