Would it be worth losing a few more pounds for a lower waist size ifalready slightly under 31.5 in.?

AdahPotatah2024

Anyone seen any more research on this???

In women, Mohammadi said the relationship was “U-shaped” rather than linear, meaning that the mid-range waist measurement, rather than the narrowest, was least risky. What’s more, the mid-range waist measurement was in the range traditionally recognized as at risk for abdominal obesity: more than 80 cm wide.

The reason for this could be down to the type of fat that tends to hang out on men’s and women’s bellies. Mohammadi said some studies have suggested that men may have more visceral fat that goes deep inside your body and wraps around your vital organs.

This fat can be turned into cholesterol that can start collecting along and hardening your arteries, perhaps ultimately leading to a heart attack or stroke.

“In women it is thought that a greater portion of the abdominal fat is constituted by subcutaneous fat which is relatively harmless,” she said.

However, the lower numbers of women included in the study meant the findings had less “statistical power” and more research was needed to draw definite conclusions, Mohammadi said.

The risk of cardiovascular disease like heart attacks or strokes is considered to be higher in those with a waist measurement of above 94 cm in men and above 80 cm in women, according to the World Health Organization. The risk is thought to be substantially increased in men with a waist wider than 102 cm and 88 cm in women.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/20/health/belly-fat-heart-attacks-wellness/index.html

AnnPT77

It seems like when we get down to individuals (vs. population statistics), it's likely to depend on height/weight, and possibly overall body configuration (some women are more hourglass-ish than others), not to mention health history/genetics. Because I'm non-tall, I still would be very substantially over-fat at (say) 31 inches, enough so that there would be negative health implications in my case. The same might not be true for a tall woman.

Have you considered the height to waist size screening metric? I've read some sources suggesting that's a more indicative health metric than either raw waist size or BMI. Usually, from what I've seen I think we'd be aiming for waist circumference being between 40% and half of height.

For example:

http://www.ashwell.uk.com/documents/obesityandshape/2012 Ashwell Gunn and Gibson Ob Revs.pdf

AdahPotatah2024

Thanks! I'll check out that article.

My waist is exactly half my height. I think I'll still work on losing a few more pounds and try to consistently stay 135-140 pounds. It doesn't look like, so far, there's much evidence that under 31 inches would provide any more benefits...for myself, anyway.