I wish there was a lot more emphasis on 'function' rather than 'form'. In other words, to my mind health is determined by what you can do with your body, i.e. if I was a caribou, could I keep up with the herd and outrun a predator?
With my own body, barring a joint or foot issue or an illness, the question is, can I run without getting winded? What is my endurance while running, walking or climbing? What kind of strength do I have to lift or push or carry? What kind of flexibility and balance? What is my baseline and how can I improve it? When I couldn't do any impact activities at all with my foot for a year, I tried to look at what I could do to keep up my energy levels and mood.
Often I weigh more when I have more muscle mass, but I might sometimes be leaner in silhouette or at the waist for example. My DH does various kinds of bicycle racing and often gets left in the dust by someone in their 60's. As I see it, form follows function, and physical strength is something that if I am privileged enough to have at some point, I use or lose. If one uses it, and is lucky enough not to have or develop other health limitations, it's kind of incredible at what ages people can continue to be physically strong.
So that was a long-winded digression, but I that's where I worry about the 'average' - not in how it applies to dress sizes or weight, but to how fit is that 'average' woman? Especially compared to an average man? Or to her mother or grandmother at the same age?
