waist should be less than half your height

Options
1…5678911»

Replies

  • flatlndr
    flatlndr Posts: 713 Member
    Options
    J72FIT wrote: »
    glevinso wrote: »
    WalkingAlong wrote: »
    glevinso wrote: »
    tigersword wrote: »
    glevinso wrote: »
    At 67" tall, that puts me at a 33.5" waist. I was obese when my waist was 33.5".

    What kind of stupid measurement is that?

    Currently 29.5, and I could still lose a few lbs if I felt like trying

    LESS THAN half your height. 33.5 is a limit, not a target. Why can't people read before saying nonense?

    Seriously? I was trying to say that I was OBESE. As in EFFING HUGE when my waist was at that "target". I was in no way even remotely healthy.

    Maybe you should learn to read before spouting nonsense...
    Are you sure you were obese with a 33.5" waist? I'm a 147 lb. woman and my waist is larger than that. I'm not 'effing huge' or anywhere near obese and I'm shorter than you.

    A quick google suggests 33" waist is a men's medium in shirts and pants.

    5'7", 200lbs... my waist measured between 33 and 34 depending on the day

    Something is off...

    5'7" 200lbs with a 33-34" waist... I am picturing someone very muscular...

    Sounds more like trouser size than actually measured waist, with the belly overhanging the belt?
  • csuhar
    csuhar Posts: 779 Member
    Options
    DeguelloTex wrote: »
    Les Mayhew, a professor of statistics at Cass Business School, said: “There is now overwhelming evidence that government policy should place greater emphasis on waist to height ratio as a screening tool.”

    Of course, the NHS does place great emphasis on the waist size. They're a bit more draconian though - women's waists ideally should be less than 31.5" and men's less than 37".

    http://www.nhs.uk/chq/Pages/849.aspx?CategoryID=51

    Due to the dreaded middle aged spread, I'm pretty sure I'm not going to get under that again. Should make 32.5", though. (at 65", that's half.)
    The idea that a fixed waist measurement is useful, regardless of the height of the person involved, seems brain damaged even for government.

    I think some of the energy behind this comes from an attempt to make quick measurements, which are easier for cursory examinations, more individualized when it comes to the standards used.

    Some agencies will actually use waist measurement to assess body composition and, therefore, "health risk".

    I remember there was a big stink in the US Air Force when they added such a waist measurement to our mandatory fitness test because not only is it not a very accurate measurement of the visceral fat they were claiming to measure, but the waist standards and the associated points were the same for everyone. So it didn't matter if you were barely tall enough to join at 4'10" or the tallest the rules allowed at 6'8", a 36" waist, which could be pretty big on a shorter person but fairly thin on a taller one, got you the same points.

    So trying to take it and associate the waist with the individual's height would theoretically compensate for the fact that you can't expect people who are different heights to have the same waist size.
  • Aviva92
    Aviva92 Posts: 2,333 Member
    Options
    i'm assuming waist means smallest part between your hips and your ribcage? I'm a little confused as to how this is a completely accurate way to access health though. Don't some people have wider ribcages and therefore will have a larger waist to begin with even if it's not all fat?
  • kk1084
    kk1084 Posts: 51 Member
    Options
    I'm 64" and my waist is 25-26". I guess that's good, then.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Options
    Aviva92 wrote: »
    i'm assuming waist means smallest part between your hips and your ribcage? I'm a little confused as to how this is a completely accurate way to access health though. Don't some people have wider ribcages and therefore will have a larger waist to begin with even if it's not all fat?

    Yes, it's not perfect, as some people naturally have wider waists, but to a significant extent it adds to the BMI measure and even the BF% measure, as it also takes into account where you tend to hold weight. All else equal, including BF%, it's more of a risk factor if the excess weight tends to be around the middle than around the hips and thighs and in the breasts.

    Also, I don't think that much risk of it exaggerating risk, as I tend to have a wider waist for my fitness level (not because of a wide ribcage, but because there's not much room between my ribs and hips), and yet so long as I'm below an obese BF% , my waist won't be more than half my height. But in that people's bodies differ a lot I won't say it couldn't happen.
  • carolineat111
    carolineat111 Posts: 97 Member
    Options
    Interesting. I'm 5'10" with a 27in waist...I don't even think it was 35in when I was pregnant lol.
  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    Options
    Iwishyouwell wrote: »
    glevinso wrote: »
    WalkingAlong wrote: »
    glevinso wrote: »
    tigersword wrote: »
    glevinso wrote: »
    At 67" tall, that puts me at a 33.5" waist. I was obese when my waist was 33.5".

    What kind of stupid measurement is that?

    Currently 29.5, and I could still lose a few lbs if I felt like trying

    LESS THAN half your height. 33.5 is a limit, not a target. Why can't people read before saying nonense?

    Seriously? I was trying to say that I was OBESE. As in EFFING HUGE when my waist was at that "target". I was in no way even remotely healthy.

    Maybe you should learn to read before spouting nonsense...
    Are you sure you were obese with a 33.5" waist? I'm a 147 lb. woman and my waist is larger than that. I'm not 'effing huge' or anywhere near obese and I'm shorter than you.

    A quick google suggests 33" waist is a men's medium in shirts and pants.

    5'7", 200lbs... my waist measured between 33 and 34 depending on the day

    Legit measured, as in with a tape measure and relaxed stomach?

    Or pants size. Because men's pants size has almost nothing to do with waist measurement. Vanity sizing, coupled with the fact that many men don't actually wear their pants at the true waist, mean lots of guys have waists far in excess of the number on their pant.
    Who wears pants around their waist? Most people wear them around their hips which should be wider than the waist.
  • segacs
    segacs Posts: 4,599 Member
    Options
    stevencloser wrote: »
    Who wears pants around their waist?

    Steve Urkel?
  • Aviva92
    Aviva92 Posts: 2,333 Member
    edited December 2014
    Options
    carolineat111 wrote: »
    Interesting. I'm 5'10" with a 27in waist...I don't even think it was 35in when I was pregnant lol.

    yeah, i'm 5'4" with around a 27 in waist too, which seems fine with this rule, but it also seems like it gives an unfair advantage to taller people and those with small rib cages. my ribcage is big. it sticks out since i'm only 106 pounds. not sure what my waist size was at my highest weight of 140, but wouldn't be surprised if it was over the threshold and i wasn't even considered overweight.

    actually, re-measured, maybe closer to 26. depends on how i measure.
  • segacs
    segacs Posts: 4,599 Member
    Options
    I'm 5'1" and my waist is down to 32" (down from 36" at my SW). Trying to get it back down to 28".

    Yeah, I'd love to be taller and have more space for everything in there to expand -- I'm very short-waisted so there's not much space for stuff in there. Seriously, there's like an inch between my under-bust measurement and my waist, and only another inch or so from my waist to my belly button.

    But I also recognize that as just another excuse. It may be a bit harder for me than for a taller woman, but ultimately it still comes down to putting in the hard work. Whether it's easy or not, I still gotta lose that spare tire, and I know I can do this.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Options
    stevencloser wrote: »
    Iwishyouwell wrote: »
    glevinso wrote: »
    WalkingAlong wrote: »
    glevinso wrote: »
    tigersword wrote: »
    glevinso wrote: »
    At 67" tall, that puts me at a 33.5" waist. I was obese when my waist was 33.5".

    What kind of stupid measurement is that?

    Currently 29.5, and I could still lose a few lbs if I felt like trying

    LESS THAN half your height. 33.5 is a limit, not a target. Why can't people read before saying nonense?

    Seriously? I was trying to say that I was OBESE. As in EFFING HUGE when my waist was at that "target". I was in no way even remotely healthy.

    Maybe you should learn to read before spouting nonsense...
    Are you sure you were obese with a 33.5" waist? I'm a 147 lb. woman and my waist is larger than that. I'm not 'effing huge' or anywhere near obese and I'm shorter than you.

    A quick google suggests 33" waist is a men's medium in shirts and pants.

    5'7", 200lbs... my waist measured between 33 and 34 depending on the day

    Legit measured, as in with a tape measure and relaxed stomach?

    Or pants size. Because men's pants size has almost nothing to do with waist measurement. Vanity sizing, coupled with the fact that many men don't actually wear their pants at the true waist, mean lots of guys have waists far in excess of the number on their pant.
    Who wears pants around their waist? Most people wear them around their hips which should be wider than the waist.

    I'm old. I remember the '80s, and this was pretty common. I've seen the horrible high waisted styles try to sneak back in from time to time too.

    But the fact is that pants size and waist sizes aren't the same and counter-intuitive as it might seem pants, whether they go around your waist or hips, tend to understand waist size. The jeans I wear now that are tagged to those numbers definitely understate my waist size.

    Granted, I don't really know men's sizes, so if this isn't the case for you all, people can explain that.
  • Iwishyouwell
    Iwishyouwell Posts: 1,888 Member
    edited December 2014
    Options
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Granted, I don't really know men's sizes, so if this isn't the case for you all, people can explain that.

    A lot of men's dress pants, and still some more conservative jean styles, are still cut for the true waist. But I'd say most pants are cut to be worn around the hips, which is pretty ubiquitous these days. Yet the labels are still reflective of the waist, even if manufacturers know that the pants are likely, or straight up designed, to be worn lower than the waist.

    Adding to all that is vanity sizing; once primarily a female issue, men's clothes have become infected with the practice too. Which is potentially more dangerous for us. Unlike with women, most men assume the waist measurement on their tag is actually reflective of their waist size. So a dude still squeezing into his size 36 jeans might think he's doing pretty OK, even though he could technically be rocking a size 42 or 44 waist.

Categories