Confused about how to measure waist - am I at risk or not?
Options
Replies
-
None taken.MrTolerable wrote: »no-offense but you are def at risk.lemurcat12 wrote: »girlviernes wrote: »Well the health issue stems from visceral fat tissue, so I think it's not about the measurement per se but figuring out if you are carrying a significant amount of unhealthy fat there.
This is really the key point.
And apart from the specifics of how to measure (between the hip and ribs!) I don't think it's that challenging to figure out if you have excess fat in the middle.
Same with the similar discussions of BMI--BMI ranges don't fit everyone, but it's not super hard to figure out if you are one of those people or not.
Agree, and not hard for me to see I have excess fat, but how much I need to lose is hard to know, and I'm not helped by the fact that my slimming club are all shouting at me that I need to stop and take target here as they all think I'm getting very upset and obsessed over not much. Which makes me think I'm going to need to leave that slimming club. Which is a shame, as I've made friends there, and I have welcomed the support across the 40lb I lost.
If you mean how much to lose to reduce the risk, then you need to get your waist to half of your height. That is the point at which risk increases.
For example, if you are 5'5" (65") then your waist should be 32.5 " or less to reduce risk of disease.
Measured at the appropriate spot, of course. (where the nurse measured)0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
None taken.MrTolerable wrote: »no-offense but you are def at risk.lemurcat12 wrote: »girlviernes wrote: »Well the health issue stems from visceral fat tissue, so I think it's not about the measurement per se but figuring out if you are carrying a significant amount of unhealthy fat there.
This is really the key point.
And apart from the specifics of how to measure (between the hip and ribs!) I don't think it's that challenging to figure out if you have excess fat in the middle.
Same with the similar discussions of BMI--BMI ranges don't fit everyone, but it's not super hard to figure out if you are one of those people or not.
Agree, and not hard for me to see I have excess fat, but how much I need to lose is hard to know, and I'm not helped by the fact that my slimming club are all shouting at me that I need to stop and take target here as they all think I'm getting very upset and obsessed over not much. Which makes me think I'm going to need to leave that slimming club. Which is a shame, as I've made friends there, and I have welcomed the support across the 40lb I lost.
If you mean how much to lose to reduce the risk, then you need to get your waist to half of your height. That is the point at which risk increases.
For example, if you are 5'5" (65") then your waist should be 32.5 " or less to reduce risk of disease.
Measured at the appropriate spot, of course. (where the nurse measured)
Ok so that's another 4 inches off to get to 30 inches - I'm 60 inches. I seem to remember that was 8st 10 on me - another 12 lb to go
0 -
Are you like in the third grade or something?SergeantSausage wrote: »SergeantSausage wrote: »SergeantSausage wrote: »"fair"
LOL
It was the wrong word and I clarified later. Not a reason to be rude.
It's not the reason I was rude, but thanks for noticing!
don't say thanks unless you mean it.
I meant it and I'll say it again: Thanks for noticing!
no you didn't.
How old are you?
Serious question.0 -
SergeantSausage wrote: »SergeantSausage wrote: »SergeantSausage wrote: »"fair"
LOL
It was the wrong word and I clarified later. Not a reason to be rude.
It's not the reason I was rude, but thanks for noticing!
don't say thanks unless you mean it.
I meant it and I'll say it again: Thanks for noticing!
no you didn't.
Thanks again!
0 -
Joe_Buck69 wrote: »
Are you like in the third grade or something?SergeantSausage wrote: »SergeantSausage wrote: »SergeantSausage wrote: »"fair"
LOL
It was the wrong word and I clarified later. Not a reason to be rude.
It's not the reason I was rude, but thanks for noticing!
don't say thanks unless you mean it.
I meant it and I'll say it again: Thanks for noticing!
no you didn't.
How old are you?
Serious question.
why are you asking me and not the other guy?
my age is not your business.0 -
SergeantSausage wrote: »SergeantSausage wrote: »SergeantSausage wrote: »SergeantSausage wrote: »"fair"
LOL
It was the wrong word and I clarified later. Not a reason to be rude.
It's not the reason I was rude, but thanks for noticing!
don't say thanks unless you mean it.
I meant it and I'll say it again: Thanks for noticing!
no you didn't.
Thanks again!
can you say something else for a change?0 -
Your post stood out more than his did.Joe_Buck69 wrote: »
Are you like in the third grade or something?SergeantSausage wrote: »SergeantSausage wrote: »SergeantSausage wrote: »"fair"
LOL
It was the wrong word and I clarified later. Not a reason to be rude.
It's not the reason I was rude, but thanks for noticing!
don't say thanks unless you mean it.
I meant it and I'll say it again: Thanks for noticing!
no you didn't.
How old are you?
Serious question.
why are you asking me and not the other guy?
my age is not your business.
If the "92" in your username refers to your year of birth, then that would place you in the 22-23 age range. But you still don't sound like a typical young twenty-something.
Third grade. That's my guess and I'm sticking to it.
0 -
SergeantSausage wrote: »SergeantSausage wrote: »SergeantSausage wrote: »SergeantSausage wrote: »"fair"
LOL
It was the wrong word and I clarified later. Not a reason to be rude.
It's not the reason I was rude, but thanks for noticing!
don't say thanks unless you mean it.
I meant it and I'll say it again: Thanks for noticing!
no you didn't.
Thanks again!
can you say something else for a change?
As long as you keep telling me what *I* mean, I'll continue ... I mean ... you're the one with all the answers on why I post what I post and what I mean when I post it, right?
0 -
SergeantSausage wrote: »SergeantSausage wrote: »SergeantSausage wrote: »SergeantSausage wrote: »SergeantSausage wrote: »"fair"
LOL
It was the wrong word and I clarified later. Not a reason to be rude.
It's not the reason I was rude, but thanks for noticing!
don't say thanks unless you mean it.
I meant it and I'll say it again: Thanks for noticing!
no you didn't.
Thanks again!
can you say something else for a change?
As long as you keep telling me what *I* mean, I'll continue ... I mean ... you're the one with all the answers on why I post what I post and what I mean when I post it, right?
what?0 -
C'mon sarg, you can't win against a rainbo fro, bro.0
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »If you mean how much to lose to reduce the risk, then you need to get your waist to half of your height. That is the point at which risk increases.
For example, if you are 5'5" (65") then your waist should be 32.5 " or less to reduce risk of disease.
I seriously doubt that your risk goes down dramatically if you are 32.25 vs. 32.75 and 5'5 (any more than it does if you are 24.5 vs. 25.5 BMI), and in the UK I think they use a one-size fits all measurement (31.5) as the indicator of risk, which just shows that it's not that precise a measurement. One study simply looked at the one-half of height as a cut-off--the broader point is that it's more dangerous to carry weight around your middle than on your hips and thighs and rear and bust, as it is likely to be indicative of visceral fat. (In theory you can get tested to see how much visceral fat you in fact do have--I did a DXA, so have done that.)
All that aside, to the OP, I wouldn't worry much about others saying you don't need to lose more, as fat around the middle can be easy to hide depending on how you dress, so you know more about whether you have fat to lose than others will. Use your own judgment. When people tell me I don't need to lose more I just smile and say thanks and do what I want to do.
(My doctor said I don't need to lose for health reasons, but I'd still rather have a lower body fat percentage and see if I can get rid of some of the remaining fat around my middle.)
0 -
This thread was interesting until the page 3 ridiculousness. Thanks for the info, serious posters. Adios.0
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »If you mean how much to lose to reduce the risk, then you need to get your waist to half of your height. That is the point at which risk increases.
For example, if you are 5'5" (65") then your waist should be 32.5 " or less to reduce risk of disease.
I seriously doubt that your risk goes down dramatically if you are 32.25 vs. 32.75 and 5'5 (any more than it does if you are 24.5 vs. 25.5 BMI), and in the UK I think they use a one-size fits all measurement (31.5) as the indicator of risk, which just shows that it's not that precise a measurement. One study simply looked at the one-half of height as a cut-off--the broader point is that it's more dangerous to carry weight around your middle than on your hips and thighs and rear and bust, as it is likely to be indicative of visceral fat. (In theory you can get tested to see how much visceral fat you in fact do have--I did a DXA, so have done that.)
All that aside, to the OP, I wouldn't worry much about others saying you don't need to lose more, as fat around the middle can be easy to hide depending on how you dress, so you know more about whether you have fat to lose than others will. Use your own judgment. When people tell me I don't need to lose more I just smile and say thanks and do what I want to do.
(My doctor said I don't need to lose for health reasons, but I'd still rather have a lower body fat percentage and see if I can get rid of some of the remaining fat around my middle.)
Thank you so much for taking the time to post. It's all really useful
I feel very depressed after posting this and reading the very honest responses but it had to be faced. I thought that my last stone was for vanity and not that important, I now realise I was wrong and I have to an extent been hiding from my increased risk waist. Thanks all. Painful but useful.
0 -
I did a little research. LOL, I'm a total nerd like that.
Measurement
World Health Organisation's protocol
2.5 Summary and conclusions
Waist circumference should be measured at the midpoint between the lower margin of the least palpable rib and the top of the iliac crest (my personal edit -- the iliac crest is the top of the hip bone), using a stretch‐resistant tape that provides a constant 100 g tension. Hip circumference should be measured around the widest portion
of the buttocks, with the tape parallel to the floor.
{Reference} "Waist Circumference and Waist-Hip Ratio, Report of a WHO Expert Consultation". World Health Organization. 8–11 December 2008. Retrieved March 21, 2012.
http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2011/9789241501491_eng.pdf
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
If you mean how much to lose to reduce the risk, then you need to get your waist to half of your height. That is the point at which risk increases.
For example, if you are 5'5" (65") then your waist should be 32.5 " or less to reduce risk of disease.
Measured at the appropriate spot, of course. (where the nurse measured)
Thanks for that, I think, lol. I am 63", so I need to get my 37" waist down to 31.5.
Swankytomato falls over now....
0 -
.Wow, some properly thick people here, and I'm not talking about their physical appearance. If you are fat, you measure where the fat is at, i.e. the widest point. If you aren't fat, it doesn't matter where you measure, since none of this applies to you. Your waist could resemble a cartoon figure that was hit by a steamroller; if there is no fat there, you are not in the risk group regarding fat. Comprende?
And for the record, if your belly jiggles like a bowl full of jelly, then you are fat. If all you have is rock hard abs or maybe some loose skin and some soft bits, you are not fat.
I have reported this.
0 -
Wow, some properly thick people here, and I'm not talking about their physical appearance. If you are fat, you measure where the fat is at, i.e. the widest point. If you aren't fat, it doesn't matter where you measure, since none of this applies to you. Your waist could resemble a cartoon figure that was hit by a steamroller; if there is no fat there, you are not in the risk group regarding fat. Comprende?
And for the record, if your belly jiggles like a bowl full of jelly, then you are fat. If all you have is rock hard abs or maybe some loose skin and some soft bits, you are not fat.
this doesn't make sense. if you go from normal weight to overweight, your bone structure doesn't suddenly change. thus, it's just a guide, it's not exact.0 -
girlviernes wrote: »I take at two places, the narrowest point (I term that "waist") and the widest point (I term that "belly"). My ultimate goal is to get my "belly" measurement under 35 inches.
This is exactly what I do too.
I track both "waist" and "belly" measurements. Lately, they've been getting closer to each other (which means my belly is going away)!0 -
I wish someone would just draw a line on a sketch of a human body to show exactly what they're talking about.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.5K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 392 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 926 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions