Dappered

Affordable Men's Style

  • Don’t Miss Anything
  • Start Here
  • Essentials Shop
  • Latest Deals
  • Style Scenarios
  • Reviews
  • Forum

Style Poll: What is an “athletic” body type anyway?

May 13, 2014 By Joe | Heads up: Buying via our links may result in us getting a commission. Also, we take your privacy rights seriously. Head here to learn more.

 

“Thanks for the feedback XYZ. For a fit perspective, what’s your body type?”
“Athletic!”

 

The heck does that mean though? Is it similar to how most Americans describe themselves as “middle class” even if they’re not? 1/3 of Americans who make less than $30K a year still describe themselves as Middle Class, while those on the upper end may not be jumping at the chance to label themselves as rich.

Two questions. First, an easy poll. How would you describe your body type?

 

What's your body type?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

 

And second, to the comments…

What is an “athletic” body type? How do you define it? Is it a certain height/weight ratio? Or does there need to be a certain amount of strength weight? What about body fat? Can you be carrying a bit of a gut (or even a lot of gut) and still consider your body type as “athletic”? Can person A have an athletic body type, but get winded rounding second in beer league softball? Can they have an athletic body type if they’re a rail thin marathon runner?

Leave it all in the comments below.

Top Photo: Simpson Grey

Filed Under: Etc. Tagged With: style poll

Continue the Conversation …

Want to share your thoughts on this article? Send us a tweet, join the discussion on Facebook, or start a discussion on Dappered Threads, our forum!

Don’t Miss Anything

Subscribe via email to get articles in your inbox or add Dappered on Flipboard. You can also follow us on Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram. Or subscribe to push notifications to get alerts immediately.

New Here?

Well, welcome to Dappered. Here are what we consider the most useful posts on the site if you're looking to put a little more effort into your appearance. Just want to see our favorite menswear products? Shop our essentials here.

Steal Alert: Nordstrom Extra 25% off Sale Items Clearance Blowout

Steal Alert: Nordstrom Extra 25% off Sale Items Clearance Blowout

Uncle Nordy wants this stuff gone. Cashmere sweaters. Lots of chukkas. Plenty of Bonobos.

Best Posts of 2020: Thanks to our Contributors

Best Posts of 2020: Thanks to our Contributors

A thanks to all the guys that help us out.

Best Posts of 2020: A lot of watches, some shoes, and being a stylish dad

Best Posts of 2020: A lot of watches, some shoes, and being a stylish dad

Look out watch snobs, quartz is coming for you.

Follow Dappered on Instagram »

Comments

  1. Officer Rex Bishop says

    May 13, 2014 at 3:03 PM

    Maybe it’s like Potter Stewart’s definition of pornography. I can’t define it, but I know it when I see it. Perhaps instead of the catch-all “athletic” body type, we should define by sport. Brock Lesnar and Usain Bolt are both “athletic,” but . . .

  2. Joe says

    May 13, 2014 at 3:07 PM

    I was thinking more like football positions.

    “I’m a punter” “I’m a lineman”

    “Athletic” seems to mean… outside linebacker? Strong Safety? Y’know, proportionally, without all the insane amount of muscle mass.

  3. Officer Rex Bishop says

    May 13, 2014 at 3:09 PM

    If we’re going football, I’d say Richard Sherman is what I think of when I think “athletic.” Clearly in shape, but without any one overly muscled area.

  4. LolaB says

    May 13, 2014 at 3:12 PM

    In regards to menswear, I’d say it’s broad shoulders with a narrow waist. It’s no fun when a shirt fits well up top but looks like a maternity blouse in the belly.

  5. Jay says

    May 13, 2014 at 3:13 PM

    A sweaty towel in a heap on the floor is athletic, right?

  6. Josh Pfau says

    May 13, 2014 at 3:13 PM

    I believe it has everything to do with the shoulders and chest. Someone who has an athletic build will have wide shoulders and a bigger chest than stomach. This will be seen when they take a suit or sport coat off the rack to try it on.

  7. hornsup84 says

    May 13, 2014 at 3:13 PM

    Agree that ‘athletic’ is an overused and misused term. In my mind, it means that you have a legitimate drop, but otherwise are neither huge nor skinny otherwise. Likely register as the obese range on BMI, but are in shape. I also don’t think it means you’re sub 15% BF either.

  8. Josh Pfau says

    May 13, 2014 at 3:16 PM

    See, what you are talking about seems like “average” to me, but since no one wants to be referred to as average, they go with athletic.

  9. Mike Rousseau says

    May 13, 2014 at 3:20 PM

    When you are naked. Look down, if you can’t see your penis you don’t have an athletic build!

  10. hornsup84 says

    May 13, 2014 at 3:22 PM

    You say shoulders/chest wider than stomach, but then call a legit drop “average”? Seems like we’re talking about similar things here.

    That being said, average is a relative term. If you’re talking average American, what I describe is far from that.

  11. BenR says

    May 13, 2014 at 3:23 PM

    Tell that to this guy.

    http://www1.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Behdad+Salimikordasiabi+Asian+Weightlifting+-b0uAkkWmU7l.jpg

  12. hornsup84 says

    May 13, 2014 at 3:24 PM

    To clarify, when I say neither huge, nor skinny, and register as obese on BMI, that is to say that being “athletic” in my mind requires a good bit of muscle, but does not require the “I workout 3 hours a day” and/or roid rage size.

  13. hornsup84 says

    May 13, 2014 at 3:25 PM

    I wouldn’t call his build athletic. I would, however, call him athletic. And, sir, to his face.

  14. David Gullatte says

    May 13, 2014 at 3:25 PM

    Shoulder to waist ratio is the most important factor.

    Also if your chest does not protrude further than your stomach, then that’s an automatic disqualifier for those claiming an athletic build.

    Can you see your bicep vein when you flex? I’d have a hard time calling anyone’s build athletic if they don’t have some bicep and forearm vascularity.

  15. Josh Pfau says

    May 13, 2014 at 3:26 PM

    Definitely talking about similar things, specifically with the drop, but the BMI requiring to be over 15 is where I would disagree.

    And we definitely agree on the average American, however despite being American, I refuse to call that average.

    Perhaps average is the wrong term. Perhaps the lack of a term I can think of quickly may be why so many just go with athletic.

  16. Joe says

    May 13, 2014 at 3:26 PM

    Indeed, but there are also plenty who are boxy through the torso, naturally, or don’t have the widest shoulders, yet don’t carry much fat at all. I’m not sure that the inverted triangle, the Michael Phelps body, fits all “athletic types”.

  17. BenR says

    May 13, 2014 at 3:32 PM

    When I see people use the term “athletic” in relation to clothes, I usually see it as a qualification of their general body shape when they talk about their “stats.” For example, someone who is an “athletic” 5’9″ and 190 lbs is going to look a lot different than someone who is 5’9″ and 190 lbs and legitimately overweight.

    Other than that, the term “athletic” when used to describe body shape fails simply because it is so broad that it could describe a hundred different body types. A professional marathoner and an Olympic heavyweight weightlifter are both athletes but their body types are about as different as they can possibly be.

    Trying to boil down what it looks like or means to be “athletic” in terms of chest-to-waist ratios or veins popping just devolves into a silly peacocking contest, IMO. “I’ve got an 8-inch drop and I think I’m athletic, so obviously, you’re not athletic if you don’t have an 8-inch drop.”

  18. zaphod beeblebrox says

    May 13, 2014 at 3:38 PM

    i think that there are two “athletic” body types. Those that are trully athletic, wide shoulders narrow waist type. You know, chest muscles that can fill out even brooks brothers classic shirts, thighs that can tear acid wash jeans like some 80’s super hero.
    Then there is my type, the type that once was in really good shape, wide shoulders narrow waist, but we’ve softened, added a few curves, so that we aren’t fat, we just have still have our large shoulders, slightly larger than average chest, but our waists no longer taper to quite as narrow.
    Some points: I cannot wear charles tyrwhitt slim fit shorts, my shoulders are too wide, but the waist fits pretty well. Slim fit pants are often too tight around my thighs.

  19. Joe says

    May 13, 2014 at 3:39 PM

    Indeed, I believe it’s awfully possible to discuss what means what without diving into personal statistics.

  20. frost says

    May 13, 2014 at 3:40 PM

    I’m 5’9″ / 165 and a regular runner / gym guy. I consider my body type athletic. Here’s a picture of me climbing a wall last weekend:

    http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j164/frostnyc/Spiderman_zpsd7092ae4.jpg

  21. Walt says

    May 13, 2014 at 3:56 PM

    I think there is a category between ripped and heavy and strong. I am not ripped but if we’re talking chest to waist my chest is 12″ bigger. I’m not heavy either. I consider myself athletic but with your category I might be somewhere between ripped and heavy in the powerlifter meat head category.

  22. bryclops says

    May 13, 2014 at 4:02 PM

    Or “dad fit,” as I like to refer to it.

  23. BenR says

    May 13, 2014 at 4:03 PM

    Underweight former D-1A O-lineman. Was 260lbs when I played, now 225 and dropping, 6’1″. Playing days I had a 40″ waist, 40″ thighs, and a 52″ chest, down to a 37″ waist, 30″ thighs, and a 46″ chest. Either way, heavy, strong, and pretty dang zippy.

  24. BenR says

    May 13, 2014 at 4:03 PM

    Underweight former D-1A O-lineman. Was 260lbs when I played, now 225 and dropping, 6’1″. Playing days I had a 40″ waist, 40″ thighs, and a 52″ chest, down to a 37″ waist, 30″ thighs, and a 46″ chest. Either way, heavy, strong, and pretty dang zippy.

  25. BenR says

    May 13, 2014 at 4:05 PM

    I’m not saying it’s impossible to discuss what the term means. But it’s so ambiguous that it seems futile to try to pin a measurable, objective definition onto it. The only objective definition for an athletic body type is a body type possessed by an athlete. Trying to define the term more specifically than that gets you into subjective preferences that are as varied as the people who hold them. Since most men (particularly those of us vain enough to frequent style blogs and forums…) prefer to see ourselves as active and “athletic” in some fashion, a lot of us will default to our own body types as objectively definitive of “athletic.” That’s where the peacocking part tends to come in.

    If we’re just talking about an “athletic fit,” then as far as I can tell that’s just a “slim” or “tailored” fit garment that’s being marketed at bros who think “slim” is a bad thing.

  26. BenR says

    May 13, 2014 at 4:11 PM

    There are also plenty of guys who are rail-thin, little fat or muscle, with naturally broad shoulders. I’ve known tons of guys like that who I wouldn’t describe as athletes.

  27. Joe says

    May 13, 2014 at 4:22 PM

    Then perhaps the question is less about what does “athletic” mean, and more about what can be substituted for the term? See the poll above. I think: “I’m a cyclist” or “I’m a competitive powerlifter” says a lot more than “athletic”, and could be of much more use to those discussing fits on the web.

  28. hornsup84 says

    May 13, 2014 at 4:44 PM

    Being under 15% BF I’d say that you’re pretty “lean & mean” or “ripped” (going on Joe’s poll options, depending on how much muscle). Then again, I’m nearly 30 (age, not BF, thanks!), so my views on that have changed since I was eating 4000 kcal daily and losing weight in high school / college, with no BF to speak of. Desk jobs really do a number on ya.

    And to add on, I agree that no one wants to be average, but I’d also never think what I am as average–even in NYC where everyone is significantly thinner than most places in America.

    All this is meant for good discussion, btw, just interesting to hear different views on this.

  29. BenR says

    May 13, 2014 at 4:56 PM

    I had to google Brock Lesnar.

    What the…. How can he even turn his head with those traps!?

  30. Jim Alrutz says

    May 13, 2014 at 5:10 PM

    I’m not sure what to make of “strong”. I’ve been overweight all my life and still think of myself as such, despite losing enough weight that it’s not nearly as apparent (when I’m standing with good posture, I’m basically flat, helped by a barrel torso). I’ve never been one for serious exercise, so in an arm wrestling match anybody who played sports in high school would probably nail me. At the same time, I do some some natural strength from a lifetime of carrying around a ton of fat (and heavy brass instruments). I’m definitely heavy, what’s the threshold for strong?

  31. Jack says

    May 13, 2014 at 6:08 PM

    I think of athletic as anyone who generally works out, but not intensely, and isn’t an obvious weightlifter/marathon runner. doesnt have a gut. etc.

  32. Marc says

    May 13, 2014 at 6:09 PM

    Was actually thinking about this earlier. Good timing. “Athletic” is really anything but completely out of shape. No one wants to openly put themselves down.

  33. jdw says

    May 13, 2014 at 6:17 PM

    None of these right now, but “heavy and strong” is the closest, I suppose — six feet, 215, and I lift twice a week (though I only started in the second half of last year, and missed about two months with a knee injury followed by a kidney stone, so…).

    As for “what is athletic,” I think it’s somewhere in what I’m going to call Michael Westen territory, since I’ve been watching a lot of Burn Notice lately. While power lifters are unquestionably athletic people, I don’t think their bodies generally qualify as “athletic.” If you think of someone who lifts weights twice a week and does cardio — hiking, running, swimming, whatever — a few times a week, and has been doing so for a long time… that’s probably athletic. Enough muscle to notice, little not enough to make you go “holy shit,” and little enough fat that what muscle is there is not concealed.

  34. Marc says

    May 13, 2014 at 6:17 PM

    Just my opinion, not trying to insult or spark personal emotions.

    My frame frame (6’1″) could support a wide weight range and still be “healthy” or “athletic” in most eyes. I personally disagree,as most people are not professional athletes so there should be a lower weight range associated with height. Since no one has six hours a day to train, my personal opinion ties athletic to more strict guidelines. For reference, at 6’1″, 165lbs, and lifting heavy 3x’s a week, I still don’t consider my frame “athletic”.

  35. jdw says

    May 13, 2014 at 6:20 PM

    I think vascularity is a bad measure. Would you call powerlifters athletic? I would, but a lot of them are carrying 20% bodyfat, sometimes more, and distinctly lack vascularity.

  36. jdw says

    May 13, 2014 at 6:21 PM

    “I cannot wear charles tyrwhitt slim fit shorts, my shoulders are too wide.”

    If you can’t wear slim-fit shorts because of wide shoulders, you might have more problems.

    (I kid, I kid!)

  37. Marc says

    May 13, 2014 at 6:23 PM

    15% body fat can also just be someone who is light and skinny with little muscle. Doesn’t necessarily mean you’re “athletic”.

  38. Marc says

    May 13, 2014 at 6:26 PM

    Depends on what the training is for,right? Lifting max weight? Get bigger. Crossfit? Get lean. Etc.

  39. Marc says

    May 13, 2014 at 6:29 PM

    But he can’t move anyone else on the field with pure strength, so he can be overmatched even in his own sport. I think the specific area for training relates to what “athletic”means. Sherman is arguably the best CB, but he’d be far from the best LB, DT, OL, QB etc.

  40. Marc says

    May 13, 2014 at 6:31 PM

    Have to mention it because I haven’t read it yet. “Primetime” Sanders is the prototypical athlete. Show me someone else so dominant in multiple pro sports and I’ll reconsider.

  41. AL 1987 says

    May 13, 2014 at 6:46 PM

    10 inch drop or more, and an ass that causes you to size up at least twice in the pants.

    Side note: where the hell can I buy suits?

  42. ike says

    May 13, 2014 at 7:06 PM

    Funny my tailor told me to look for athletic fit jackets or suits. I’m a tad heavy these days but I jogg a couple of miles a few times a week and lift every other day. 44short shoulders and a 36 waist 5 8. I have no idea what that makes me. A lot of 44 suits tend to be a little too big for me in the front/waist though

  43. Scott says

    May 13, 2014 at 8:42 PM

    BMI is an outdated joke that we need to stop using. BF% is way better measurement.

  44. Rory says

    May 13, 2014 at 9:24 PM

    Agreed, I am one of those who are more boxy through the torso naturally. I’m more of an inverted trapezoid than an inverted triangle…

  45. Rory says

    May 13, 2014 at 9:30 PM

    After skimming the comments I saw a lot of talk of shoulder/chest ratio to waist, but what about waist ratio to lower body? My two biggest clothing frustrations are having to size up in shirts to fit shoulders and chest, resulting in a billowing torso area, and having to size up a waist size in pants to get them to fit my thighs and derriere; these are the reasons I classify my body type as “athletic.”

  46. Andrej says

    May 13, 2014 at 11:13 PM

    I would say athletic body types are most like a gymnast. Big shoulders, legs, arms and chest with a trim small to smaller waist. Someone who can’t wear skinny jeans without looking like they’re wearing tights

  47. facelessghost says

    May 13, 2014 at 11:37 PM

    As I think a few others have already pointed out, there’s some confusion of the issue here. The question isn’t what it means to be athletic, it’s what it means to have an athletic body type. And since this is a menswear cite, I think we can interpret that question to be what type of body needs an “athletic fit.” For me, that’s easy–broad shoulders and chest, narrow waist.

    Of course, not everyone who’s athletic will fit that description, nor will everyone who fits that description be athletic.

    I describe myself as athletic. But at 6’5″ and 170 lbs, I would never describe my body type as athletic when I’m looking for clothes. Lanky, lean, slim, gangly, whatever. But never athletic 🙂

  48. One Man's Sight says

    May 14, 2014 at 1:55 AM

    My doctor actually called me skinny fat. That was a few years ago, and I’ve been putting a lot of effort into just getting bigger in general. I was in the high 120s lbs at the time and now I’m 138, my goal is to reach the 150 or 160 by the end of the year.

  49. pierrot says

    May 14, 2014 at 4:32 AM

    It’s based on how good do you look naked

  50. TheLordFlasheart says

    May 14, 2014 at 5:27 AM

    As other people have said, it’s a term that can be applied pretty broadly…but here’s my take on it:

    I see a lot of guys who post pictures of themselves asking for fashion advice, or just to show off a new outfit that they’re proud of. The most common element I can pin down to guys who call themselves “athletic” is…being big. Every guy would like to claim to be athletic, so a lot of guys I see who have high percentages of body fat still say that they have an athletic build. In fact if they have any kind of size on them they say that they are athletic or have a “muscular build”. Most of these guys are what my mother used to call “husky” – think late Friends era Joey.

  51. DJP says

    May 14, 2014 at 6:34 AM

    Agree with Josh. Skinny guys and big guys can of course BE athletic, but when it comes to clothing fit I think the term refers to having big shoulders or a thick chest and a smaller waist (or, to a lesser degree, big arms), which makes a lot of clothing fit weird. If we want an objective test then let’s say it’s a drop of at least ~8 or 10 inches between chest and waist (so 42 jacket and 32 waist qualifies), which makes buying traditional suits nearly impossible and makes traditional dress shirts all poofy and gathered at your waist.

  52. P J says

    May 14, 2014 at 6:34 AM

    I think “athletic” is just a marketing euphemism for “regular” (which unfortunately generally means overweight). I don’t think I’ve come across a shirt labeled “athletic” that had a bigger chest than waist. If I’m giving the designers the benefit of the doubt, then I might say “athletic” is designed to fit every body type within it. Granted, most will be swimming in it.

  53. zaphod beeblebrox says

    May 14, 2014 at 6:43 AM

    hahah, its a great typo!

  54. Clasifyd says

    May 14, 2014 at 6:44 AM

    The reason chest/waist drop is mentioned so much is because there is a lot more diversity in chest/waist than there is in waist/thigh. I have the same problem as you, though, and have completely written off entire brands of pants because of it. I have to get CT Extra-slim shirts tailored, too, which seems absolutely silly.

  55. DJP says

    May 14, 2014 at 6:46 AM

    I think this misses the point, however. The “athletic” designation on clothing isn’t at all about actual athletic ability (it’s not like anyone makes you run a sub 4.6 forty to buy their shirts), it’s just about the fit of that piece of clothing, and in that context it typically refers to items cut bigger through the chest and shoulders and trimmer at the waist. (And if the somewhat-arbitrary naming of clothing dimensions indicated actual physical characteristics, I suspect guys would be less concerned with buying “athletic” and more concerned with buying “extra long”.)

  56. Michael H says

    May 14, 2014 at 7:02 AM

    The obvious problem is that “athletic” means different things for different body types. Someone can be athletic at 6’2 185 lbs just as they could at 5’10 210 lbs. The defining factor for me has always been where a person carries their weight. In a vaccuum, if your weight is in your chest/shoulders, not stomach, you could be considered athletic. On the other hand, if it’s carried in the thighs and butt (which is where the biggest muscles occur naturally) you likely wouldn’t spark that same reaction from people.
    We can get into a battle of semantics and argue who is truly athletic and who isn’t, but ultimately we must remember that most clothiers are manufacturing clothes to fit generic body types that fit a wide range of people. You might believe that it takes a 10″ to 12″ drop from chest to waist to be considered to have an athletic body type, but that fit won’t work for very many people. In most cases if you take your definition of an athletic fit and scale it back one notch, that will probably be closer to the actual fit.

  57. theYeti says

    May 14, 2014 at 7:17 AM

    Yeah, or even just a more flattering descriptor than “slim”

    This
    backed up by the highly scientific observation of needing to size up to
    an XL or possibly a 2X (in the Target athletic-fit polo mentioned in the
    Dappered polo roundup a few days ago) despite not being even slightly built like Hugh Jackman.

  58. Thomas More says

    May 14, 2014 at 7:25 AM

    DJP, I find your definition best and explanation about the men’s misunderstanding of “athlethic” and its association n to “extra long” funny (yet on point).

  59. Damionitis Joseph says

    May 14, 2014 at 7:31 AM

    By football standard we would really go by a chris johnson, adrian peterson type would be the epitome of been athletic. All the other positions are a push in one or the other direction-too big or too small. The truth is the cb are probably the perfect look for the corporate world while the rb look is the best look when it comes to showing off

  60. Matt says

    May 14, 2014 at 7:32 AM

    I believe “athletic” refers to a larger build. I think you can be an athletic build and in shape or not, because it has more to do with muscle density than body fat percentage. Me for instance I’m not in great shape now, I could stand to lose 15-20 pounds. I have thick legs, arms and neck, and big shoulders. When it comes to shirts, I think athletic fit refers to a certain chest to waist ratio where even though the build is not slim, the waist is still significantly smaller than the chest. I don’t find many shirts advertised as athletic fit, so my best fits usually come from sizing up a size or two on slim fit shirts. In spite of the fact that I’m not slim, shirts that fit me in the neck/shoulder/arm. generally don’t fit in the chest/waist. My options are to wear a large shirt with an open collar, or a large or extra large slim fit.

  61. Matt says

    May 14, 2014 at 7:46 AM

    42 jacket 34 waist here. If I dropped a waist size though I’m still not sure I could comfortably wear a 40 jacket.

  62. Eric says

    May 14, 2014 at 7:48 AM

    Hahaha…. so glad you posted this. I feel like every person who asks a fit question for the first time in the forum describes himself as “athletic.”

    Plenty of people are “athletic,” but when using it as a descriptor when talking about menswear, it should only refer to Jim Brown in his prime.

  63. ChrisS says

    May 14, 2014 at 8:11 AM

    This could also just be a self selecting bias. People who don’t have an odd body type can find clothes OTR just fine and don’t need to ask questions about how to find a shirt that fits properly without going bespoke.

  64. Mike N says

    May 14, 2014 at 8:12 AM

    Speaking in terms of how clothes fit – not all athletes have an athletic body type. Marathon runners for example would probably not be classified as such. Wide shoulders tapering to a narrower waist and hips would be how I would describe it. As clothes of this cut generally look better on most people than the ‘classic’ American fit (less extra fabric and all), people who wear athletic fit clothing probably tend to describe themselves as having an athletic body type. Also, it sounds nicer than husky, etc.

  65. ChrisS says

    May 14, 2014 at 8:12 AM

    Same here. We’re probably even the same size. I’m not particularly in my prime physical shape, but I do have a 12″ drop with a larger neck and relatively shorter arms than how most shirts are cut. If I buy something traditional fit, I end up with wads of cloth tucked in around my waist.

    I once had a little puke sales rep at a higher end dept store ask me if I was aware that the shirt I was buying was a trim fit as if those shirts were only for beanpoles like my younger brother.

  66. Dr. Soprano says

    May 14, 2014 at 8:20 AM

    One big plus to this site for me was that Joe’s body was similarly built to mine. I’m 5’11” 180, but as an avid lifter I have bigger shoulders, chest, arms, and thighs. Its stupid hard to make clothes look good on me OTR.

    I used to define myself as “athletic,” but hell if I know what I am… bodybuilder lite?!?

  67. Josh says

    May 14, 2014 at 8:26 AM

    That’s where I think the conversation here is getting lost. Powerlifters are athletic. But is their build “athletic”? I would say usually not, based on the folks I know. As “athletic” fits go these days, it is usually the inverted triangle shape.

  68. BenR says

    May 14, 2014 at 8:26 AM

    Misses the point? I thought part of the point of the discussion was to debunk the silliness surrounding arbitrary and inaccurate fit labels like “athletic.” To say that broad shoulders + narrow waist = athletic, either in terms of body types generally or just to describe a particular clothing fit, would make my rail-thin, professional chain-smoker acquaintances more “athletic” than a barrel-chested rugby player. The term “athletic” loses whatever meaning it has if it is simply used to describe an arbitrary set of body proportions that have little or nothing to do with athleticism.

  69. hornsup84 says

    May 14, 2014 at 8:34 AM

    Agreed, but I was using it as a measure of size to height in describing the “athletic” figure — not a measure of health. For that purpose, I think it actually works well as a descriptor.

  70. hornsup84 says

    May 14, 2014 at 8:36 AM

    True, Mark, which is why I noted the BMI level – I was assuming a base level of size, so assuming a reasonable BF%, then that leaves bone and muscle mass making up the rest.

  71. Jackson says

    May 14, 2014 at 8:40 AM

    As evidenced by the general lack of agreement in the comments on how to even define the term “athletic,” especially as it pertains to fit, one might easily conclude the word to be a meaningless descriptor or something akin to vanity sizing. To add to the confusion, an athletic fit label from one brand can have a completely different fit from another, so it’s not as if there’s an industry consesnus either.

  72. DJP says

    May 14, 2014 at 8:49 AM

    Okay, I’ll write it again: No one’s suggesting that “athetic fit” clothes have anything to do with actual athleticism; it just denotes the way a piece of clothing is cut. If I buy an athletic cut shirt I expect it to be roomy in the chest and taper at the waist. Using the term that way doesn’t mean it loses its meaning, it’s just a different meaning than if we use the term in the context of sports and fitness. It’s the same way that if I buy a “Lazio” suit from Suit Supply it just means that I’m buying a suit with a particular cut and I’m not somehow becoming a resident of central Italy.

  73. Marc says

    May 14, 2014 at 9:06 AM

    Wasn’t arguing, just tagging in. Problem is, anyone who isn’t severely overweight seems to classify themselves as “athletic”. Not saying anyone on here is within this stereotype, but people don’t like to admit faults.

  74. Marc says

    May 14, 2014 at 9:08 AM

    Legarrette Blount or Jerome Bettis = epitome of athletic 😉

  75. Tom says

    May 14, 2014 at 9:08 AM

    Athletic seems to cover the middle ground between skinny and super-jock football player endomorph, I guess that’s why I choose it (although I did choose skinny fat in the poll).

  76. BenR says

    May 14, 2014 at 9:14 AM

    I’m not really sure what point you’re trying to make, or why you think I don’t already understand that “athletic” in terms of clothing fit is not equal to “athletic” in terms of, you know, what the word actually means. That discordance is precisely what I’m criticizing.

    What you seem to be saying (and please correct me if I’m wrong) is that because you have accepted that clothing manufacturers use words to mean something other than what they actually mean, the rest of us shouldn’t criticize the ambiguous or inaccurate use of those words?

    Obviously someone is suggesting that athletic fit clothes have something to do with athleticism, or else there would be no appeal in using the term in the first place. The manufacturers themselves are appealing to the vanity of their target audience, and certain consumers buy into that appeal and wear “athletic” fit clothing to affirm their own body image.

    If manufacturers use the term “athletic” to describe a clothing fit that is only marginally connected to actual athleticism, that’s worth criticizing. Calling a garment a “Lazio” or “London” is giving it a name that only vaguely suggests the style or cut may be influenced by regional preferences. Calling a garment “athletic,” on the other hand, is giving it (and the wearer) a concrete description – an entirely inapt one in many circumstances.

    Regardless of whether you or the majority of shoppers or commenters have accepted that incongruity, it is still worth criticizing IMO.

  77. shad0w4life says

    May 14, 2014 at 9:32 AM

    If you have a fitness model 6 pack and are above genetic limits for weight, eg. 6′ 200 lbs You’re on steroids/peptides and I would classify that as RIPPED. This we be some football players and all pro bodybuilders/fitness models

    Athletic if you look at most soccer/hockey players aren’t overly huge muscle bound upper torso. I think what most people view as “athletic” is more along the lines of an aesthetic bodybuilding competitor.

  78. Bruce says

    May 14, 2014 at 9:47 AM

    sorry this made me lol. but remember when Blount went through 6 guys?

  79. Nicholas says

    May 14, 2014 at 9:50 AM

    This is what I was thinking.

    In America though “Athletic” seems to commonly be identified as your basketball players, sprinters, wide receivers/tight ends/running backs in football

  80. Mike N says

    May 14, 2014 at 10:01 AM

    I’d say athletic is more what I think of in a swimmers build. Soccer players are sometimes the opposite of that, broader at the leg/hip.

  81. ADrumm says

    May 14, 2014 at 10:24 AM

    BenR – I think you articulated the point very clearly. I too share your frustration with the fact that the clothing industry uses “Athletic Fit” as an analog for “broad shoulders, tapered waist.” It is certainly worth criticizing, as there are many athletic people that don’t fit those proportions. However, similar to DJP’s suggestion, until they find a more appropriate term, “athletic” serves as a decent indication of the intended shape of the garment.

    My main complaint is actually the fact that the execution of said ratio is wildly inconsistent. If I were to order an “athletic” fit shirt from 5 different brands, I could have five wildly different results. I know that this is similar the variances in “slim” fit – but it can make ordering something online a nightmare.

    In short, if you’re going to use a overly simplified, vanity-driven term – at least be consistent.

  82. shad0w4life says

    May 14, 2014 at 11:38 AM

    Roid rage is a myth, the guys were messed up long before they increased their hormones. Pretty much a great majority of pro athletes have taken PED and you don’t see these crazy killing sprees going on.

    Another great example are the Mr. Olympias on their CRAZY doses, pretty calm, nice guys. Lance Armstrong did them and he was a scrawny little bugger as well.

    BMI is terrible, I’m Obese at 6′ wearing a 32 pant(well not any more my thighs don’t fit anything fitted) 😀

  83. shad0w4life says

    May 14, 2014 at 11:53 AM

    Definitely not athletic build, upper arm freak hells yes.

  84. Aaron Trent says

    May 14, 2014 at 12:03 PM

    I consider an athletic body type to be well-rounder, pretty lean, and with a moderate drop.

    I don’t confuse this body type with being athletic or particularly good at sport. Your average, mid-level crossfitter is going to look more “athletic” than Mo Farrah or Joaquim Rodriguez but the crossfitter isn’t bringing home 6-7 figure paychecks based on their athletic ability.

  85. Marc says

    May 14, 2014 at 12:10 PM

    Yes, but I also remember multiple times when he hit the hole only to be brought down from behind by the opposite side DE who caught up to him from across the field. He’s a good smash-mouth runner who fit a team need last year.

  86. Jeremy says

    May 14, 2014 at 12:43 PM

    I’m FAIRLY sure my linebacker+ legs and posterior will never make me an “athletic” fit…

  87. Eskamobob1 says

    May 14, 2014 at 12:45 PM

    I would agree for the most part, but as someone with 19″ shoulders and a 31-32″ waist, you need to include height. I am 5’5″ and don’t fit into most “athletic” fit things as they are made for a much longer torso.

  88. Bruce says

    May 14, 2014 at 2:39 PM

    Couldn’t agree more

  89. Adam says

    May 14, 2014 at 2:58 PM

    Skinny fat, checking in.

  90. DJP says

    May 14, 2014 at 6:17 PM

    With all due respect, I really don’t get the frustration or why this is an issue for anyone. If we all know what the word “athletic” is intended to mean functionally when used to describe clothing fit (albeit without ideal consistency, though the same is true of “medium”, “large” and every other clothing fit term), then it has practical utility and means something i nthis context. If the way clothing stores characterize fit has any ability to move the needle on any guy’s self esteem one way or the other, he has more serious issues. I have a 10 inch chest to waist drop, and would buy a well-made, decently priced dress shirt that accomodates that without tailoring whether it’s called “athletic” or “trim fit” or “tailored” or “purple unicorn” — I can’t understand why anyone would really care about the name.

  91. eddiejacks says

    May 14, 2014 at 7:02 PM

    If I read one more
    silly/ignorant and inaccurate article on the internet about body types with
    regard to exercise and fitness, I think I might have to write yet another book
    to clear up the stupidity alone describing them…and, the fashion websites are
    also guilty as they keep writing articles on “how hard it is for women to find
    clothing that looks good” on plus-size body types.

    Repeat after me
    people: Words like “athletic” or “plus-size” are not body types…and some of the
    other names that these fitness and fashion people give to body types are not
    only confusing and wrong, but have absolutely no credence to them. For
    example, there are a plethora of articles still being written on which
    exercises an ectomorph, endomorph and mesomorph should be performing…and while
    there may be an understanding that these body types (Endomorph, Ectomorph &
    Mesomorph) are commonly described and discussed, they actually have nothing to
    with fitness, and do not even come close to describing true and accurate
    descriptions on how people are naturally built. The inventor and creator
    of these body types, Dr. William Sheldon in the 1940’s created these names to
    merely describe personality types and the physical
    characteristics associated with such. They were not created by Dr. Sheldon
    to educate people on body type-specific exercises because at the time he
    described them many years ago, very few of the exercises/fitness equipment even
    existed and more importantly, that was not his area of interest nor
    expertise.

    In addition, none
    of the characteristics for any of the three body types hold any medical or
    scientific credence and are confusing as well as the recommended exercises that
    accompany them. Over the years, depending upon who is writing an article
    on the body types that Dr. Sheldon created, the information given to the public
    changes from writer to writer and as a result, no clear and cut logic
    exists.

    More recently,
    we’ve heard of other body types; apple, androgynous, pear, parsnips,
    banana, carrot, the rectangle, triangle, inverted triangle, diamond, rounded
    oval, wedge, etc…and although some of them may describe which diseases one may
    be more susceptible to, these body type names at best describe how someone
    might be built like, as no human is truly constructed like any of these fruits
    as I don’t know anyone who is actually built like an apple and besides, what if
    you’re a small-framed, skinny person with a big stomach, would that make you a
    “thin apple” with a paunch? I think everyone gets the point here…Additionally,
    none of the body types or body shapes have any research, data or information
    regarding what to do fitness-wise and if they do, and are indeed accurate, are
    in copyright, trademark and patent infringement of Edward Jackowski, Ph.D.’s
    body types and advice – as he created them all well before any of these body
    type names/exercise recommendations came along…

    To date, there is
    only one company that has been documenting for over 25+ years, specific
    aesthetic results when certain exercises are performed on different body types.
    At exude.com
    fitness, they explain the real physiology through the world’s only
    medically-proven, patented and trademarked fitness system for body types
    for both men and women by demonstrating and explaining the best exercises for
    Hourglass®, Spoon®, Ruler® and Cone® shaped individuals. This is the key
    to changing and ridding your body of problem-areas and the most
    important factor to achieving your aesthetic goals while exercising.

    To
    get accurate, insightful and helpful info on all aspects on lifestyle, fitness,
    weight loss issues, please go to: http://www.exude.com

  92. southy says

    May 14, 2014 at 8:16 PM

    Exactly. We can argue all day about body types. Athletic as a type only really makes sense as it applies to CLOTHING. You can be athletic as hell and a slim fit will work for you, but there are a bunch of folks out there who have a 9, 10″+ drop from chest to waist which makes clothes shopping really irritating unless you like button strain across your chest or a parasail out back.

    If clothing companies who are doing “super extra f&$#ing slim fit” would make something called an “Athletic Fit” it would (or should) be a big shoulder/chest-to-waist drop. This is my dream scenario.

  93. Drew says

    May 14, 2014 at 9:26 PM

    Athletic build / fit = Chest size > waist size. (eg. Have to ask tailor to chop waist out of suits and shirts; shopping for something that fits shoulders / chest and having it brought in)

  94. Johnny Chen says

    May 14, 2014 at 10:35 PM

    To me “athletic” body type means you have a V taper. Thick chest, wide shoulders but fitted waist.

  95. James Grant Repshire says

    May 15, 2014 at 3:04 AM

    Athletic fit is often just another form of vanity sizing. Makes you feel good to buy it, even if it isn’t true. Kinda like how Ralph Lauren polo shirts come in “classic” and “custom”, though all it means is that a large “custom” is exactly like a medium “classic” (tried both on in the store the other day, no noticeable difference in actual cut). Either you feel good buying “custom” or you feel good buying a smaller size. Same thing if you feel good buying “athletic”, even though it isn’t cut all that well. Just marketing.

  96. Will says

    May 16, 2014 at 1:59 PM

    I’ll stick to a clothing minded definition here and say athletic means not afraid to wear tighter clothing. If you’re worried about covering up your love handles or belly, however big or small, then you’re body isn’t “athletic.”

  97. stephenheleker says

    May 20, 2014 at 2:58 AM

    For the purposes of men’s body type or fit, I’d say that “athletic” makes me think of generic masculine characteristics. A drop 6 or 7 in a suit (probably a 40/33-34). Noticeable difference between upper arm and forearm. The kind of person who wants clothes that are shaped like their body, but that don’t fit too closely (to cover their 12-16% body fat). Decidedly masculine, if not otherwise outstanding.

Men’s Fashion or Affordable Style?

Men's Fashion or Affordable Style?

Fashion is temporary and expensive. Style is timeless and affordable. Dappered® helps you work the retail system so that you can be comfortable, look sharp, and save money.

Want to share a great product? Email Us.
Continue the discussion at Dappered Threads.
For a fit perspective, see Joe's measurements.
Make sure to read our affiliate disclosure.

Connect with Dappered

  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • Pinterest
  • RSS
  • Twitter

Most Popular on Dappered

  • Monday Men’s Sales Tripod – Kent Wang Shoe Clearance, Slipper Boot Restock, & More
  • adidas End of Season, Allen Edmonds Warehouse Sale, & More – The Thurs. Men’s Sales Handful
  • Steal Alert: Nordstrom Extra 25% off Sale Items Clearance Blowout
  • Best Posts of 2020: A lot of watches, some shoes, and being a stylish dad
  • Best Posts of 2020: Cool Weather and Welcome Warmth
  • Best Posts of 2020: Adapting, Getting Dressed, and Home Offices

Popular Topics

  • Best dress shirts to own
  • Best looking watches under $100
  • Best men’s dress shoes under $200
  • Nike Killshot sneaker alternatives
  • How to wear a suit without a tie
  • Suitsupply store review
  • Suitsupply Blue Line review
  • J. Crew Factory Thompson suit review
  • How much does it cost to tailor a suit?
  • Dopp kit essentials
  • Brown shoes with gray pants
  • Men’s style buying guide

RSS Latest on Dappered Threads

  • AE Dalton too stiff
  • SuitSupply Linen Tuxedo
  • hiking shoes for AE dress shoe dress boot guy.
  • Blazer aaaand...
  • Remember when people used to post things here?

Copyright © 2021 Dappered.com | Dappered, LLC | Dappered® is a registered trademark of Dappered, LLC

Hat tip: Magazine Pro Theme On Genesis Framework

Dappered does not collect or sell its users personal information | Disclosures: Privacy and Affiliates, Gilt.com, FTC

WPE

We work with partners that use cookies to understand how visitors use our site. Find out more.