A contemporary investigation into anthropometric dimensions and applications for design 70 years after the publication of "The Average Man
Level 4 - case-series / case-control
Cross-sectional secondary database analysis (by design analogy, not clinical CEBM)
OpenAlex W4285126305 · doi:10.54941/ahfe1001867
What was done
The authors replicated and updated Gilbert S. Daniels' 1952 "Average Man" methodology across two studies using two modern anthropometric databases: ANSUR II (military) and CAESAR (civilian). The updated method evaluated individuals falling within the middle 25% to 30% across ten consecutive body dimensions without eliminating top and bottom population percentiles.
What was found
Results were generally consistent with Daniels (1952). Only three individuals met the criteria for average across all ten measurements, all of whom were men from the ANSUR II combined condition. In the combined male and female dataset, women were eliminated faster than men, with all women eliminated after the sixth measurement. The abstract does not report overall sample sizes or exact retention counts per step.
Why it matters
Designing products around a multi-dimensional "average" human remains flawed, and pooling male and female anthropometric data without stratification systematically excludes women from design standards.
Limits
The abstract omits total sample sizes, does not specify which ten anthropometric dimensions were analyzed, and provides limited quantitative data across steps.
Cited by
- supports In the 1950s, Air Force cockpit design research measuring physical dimensions showed that virtually zero pilots fell within the middle 30 percentiles across even three basic body measurements.