JJD Productions wrote:
A scientist weighs in on the old "why are tall models chosen for the runway?"  Geometric similarity is the term used to scale the size of objects.  To show how this applies to models, consider the petite 5 foot, 100 lb model with 36-24-36 measurements, a size 4 and 20% body fat.  She is pretty, healthy, and wonderfully proportioned.  For a 5'9" model to be geometrically similar to the petite model, she would not only be 15% taller, but she would be 15% larger in the other two dimensions as well.  Her measurements would be 41.4-27.6-41.4 and more importantly, her volume would be 1.15x1.15x1.15 = 1.52 times greater.  This means that given the same density (20% body fat), she would weigh 152 lbs.  As we know, most 5'9" runway models weigh considerably less than 152 lbs and their measurements are not much different than the 36-24-36 of the petite model.  Are these women freaks or aneorexic?  The answer is no.  Taller people are not geometrically similar to shorter people they are not scaled equally in the transverse dimensions to the longitudinal direction.  To start with the a 5'9" model who weighs 120 lbs and scale downward to 5 feet would mean that the petite model would have to weigh 78.9 lbs (120/1.52) to be geometrically similar which is unrealistic if not almost impossible.  The simple fact is that the tall model is 15% taller but only about 2% larger in the other directions accounting for her 20% greater weight (1.15x1.02x1.02= 1.20) and measurements that are 36.7-24.5-36.7.  Both women are 20% body fat but the taller model "appears" thinner and less curvey.

Science does not explain why designers want the appearance of thin any more than glamour magazines want the appearance of curves but the anthropometrical facts are that short women appear more curvey and tall women appear thinner. There isn't much that models can do to alter height and therefore, there are reasonable limits on what to expect when trying to alter the other two dimensions.  I hope this reality helps models understand and accept themselves in a healthy way.  Cheers,

Jim :-)

*sigh*  Math.  I'm in love...Sorry, I have a background in geophysics, so I love mathematical equations   Especially ones that say that, while I'll never be a runway model, at least I'm "geometrically similar" to a "pretty, healthy, and wonderfully proportioned" woman.  hahahaha.

TXPhotog wrote:
I agree that the math shows how hard it would be for a 5'0" model to be isomorphic with a standard high fashion model.  Pretty much an impossibility.

However, the average woman isn't 5'0", but 5'4" tall.  And that's probably on the low side of the median for models who ask the "why can't I be a fashion model?" question.

For a 5'4" model, isomorphic stats would be 31.5 - 22.6 - 31.5, and a weight of 99 pounds.  I have personally measured some girls taller than that with those measurements and lower weight.  Not many, but it is possible, and they do exist.

As the height creeps up towards "standard", it gets ever more likely that a shorter model can meet the isomorphic standard stats.  It's not easy for them, or common, but it is possible, and it does happen.

The issue isn't so much about isomorphic shape to meet a desired aesthetic profile so much as it is about fitting the sample size clothes are cut to in runway and editorial modeling.  Clothes cut for a "standard" model would be too large on a shorter, isomorphic model.  That greatly complicates the logistics of the fashion marketing process.

Aesthetics are important, but they aren't the only issue.

Yes I agree that the 5'0" example is extreme but the 5'9" runway model is also a minimum.  If you scale a 69" 120 lb 36-24-36 runway model to a geometrically similar 64" model (5'4") her weight would have to be 95.8 lbs (not 99) and her measurements would be 33.4-22.3-33.4.  This is better than the previous example of the 5 foot model but also not very realistic to attain.  Couple that with the average runway model who is 5'10" or 5'11" and a weight less that 120 lbs, and the comparison starts getting more extreme again.

When I was at the Andrew Majtenyi collection last year, I talked with him at length about model selection and he said tailoring is done to fit models selected for his shows but they had to be close to a size 4 so his alterations were mostly sleeves and hems to look good on models of different heights.  He also said style can trump pure aesthetics but she better have an incredible presence on the runway to make up for less height.  I didn't see a model under 5'9" in any of his shows and some were 6 feet or more.

Dani_86 wrote:
Yes I agree that the 5'0" example is extreme but the 5'9" runway model is also a minimum.  If you scale a 69" 120 lb 36-24-36 runway model to a geometrically similar 64" model (5'4") her weight would have to be 95.8 lbs (not 99) and her measurements would be 33.4-22.3-33.4.  This is better than the previous example of the 5 foot model but also not very realistic to attain.  Couple that with the average runway model who is 5'10" or 5'11" and a weight less that 120 lbs, and the comparison starts getting more extreme again.

Not as impossible (difficult, yes, but not impossible) to attain as you think.  For example:  https://www.modelmayhem.com/member.php?id=210698 and I believe her measurments.