Simple way to evaluate if men's or women's physical preferences are more unrealistic: What would be required to reach them for the majority of people?

I commonly see people debate whether women's or men's physical preferences are "unrealistic." In fact, I grew up indoctrinated with decades of teaching that "body standards for women are unrealistic."

To the contrary I think body standards for women are perfectly realistic. It is body standards for men that are unrealistic. We only have to look at what's required to reach the "ideal" for each gender on average to see it.

For 90% of women to meet men's physical ideal, they would just need to exercise 1 hour a day and eat healthy food and not too much to attain a <30% body fat. That's it. If every person on earth did this it would almost fully solve diabetes and other lifestyle related health issues. It would actually make humanity better. Women meeting men's standards would objectively improve the world.

For 90% of men to reach women's ideal, we would need some combination of reconstructive facial plastic surgery, skin bleaching or race change surgery, leg lengthening surgery, and/or steroids. Most guys would get crippled or disabled trying to achieve what women want.

I get rated 5.5/10 and I am physically fit. I work out 1 hour a day and watch my diet. If I was a woman with those stats alone irrespective of anything else I would be drowning in men's affection. Yet it means nothing as a man to women because their physical standards are far less realistic.

Is this a simple way to see that it is the body standards women apply to men that are "unrealistic," not vice versa?

I think so.