How is it that George Washington was considered a "tall, robust man" if he was only 6'2 and only weighed 175

Question

If someone who is 6'2 weighs 175 then chances are that they are probably going to look kind of tall and thin, and if they are muscular they probably will not have much muscle or else they would weigh more than that. Although 175 lbs is within the reccomended weight for a male who is 6'2, the reality is that the most "robust, strong-looking" individuals of that height usually weigh much more than 175. In addition, there are plenty of people who are taller than 6'2, so it is not like it is unusual for someone to be that height. So how it it that George Washington was considered uniquely "robust and tall" when he was no taller than anyone else, and in fact weighed a great deal less than a lot of people?

Answer 1

For that time he was "robust and strong-looking". Besides being above average height for that time period he also was relatively healthy for that time b/c he like many others
(at that time)contracted small pox...yet he survived. So yes..I would say he's robust too!

The portrait we most commonly see (the one by Gilbert Stuart) isn't a true and accurate portrait of GW. He had terrible scars on his face from small pox.

Answer 2

6' 2" and 175 is tall and robust, even today.

Back then, with poorer nutrition, people were much shorter, on average. If you've ever taken the walking tour of the Mayflower, for instance, you have to stoop way over to walk around if you're over 6' tall.

Also, a lot of people came to the US to avoid famine and stuff like that. Colonies died out from starvation. They couldn't go down to McDonald's back then, so if there was a problem with your crop, you were in deep trouble.

They had active lifestyles, no cars, etc. The people were much leaner back then, and it's not like weight training was even heard of at the time. 175 without those training techniques is not heavily muscled, but not a beanpole either. He wouldn't be considered "big," weight-wise today, but if you haven't been living in a hole, you're probably aware that we're in the midst of an obesity epidemic in the US.

The average height of a male in the US was 5' 8" in 1780. That was nearly 3 inches taller than the average European male. So Washington was half a foot taller than the average person in the US at the time.

Currently, the average male height in the US is a little over 5' 10", so Washington would be considered tall, even by today's standards.

Answer 3

You are judging a man who lived over 200 years ago by today's standard. Back then Washington was far taller than average -- average was about 5' 6" or so at the time, and of course people weighed a lot less than 175. There were very few people at that time over 6 feet tall. Also, robust and strong do not translate to heavy.

Answer 4

People were shorter back then, in many colonial era houses you will find the doorways aren't as tall...and people were thinner, for the most part. They didn't have a McDonald's on every corner like we do now. I suppose for the 1700s Washington was a tall and robust man.

Answer 5

You're making a comparison based on our modern lifestyle and access to food--especially rich, meaty junk food. Look around you at all the vegan hippies who starve themselves rail-thin by not eating animal products. Put a blush of health on that by adding dairy and some farm-fresh meats and New England seafood back on the menu, and you have the build of your average American colonist C. 1770.

Answer 6

You forget that the average height of a man was only 5'6" back then.

Answer 7

men in those days averaged much smaller than now. they sa its from the high protien diet of todays americans that is making us grow taller

Answer 8

History book tend to enhance things like that.

Answer 9

in those days obesity was relatively unknown.