waist should be less than half your height

fitfabforties

well that would make my waist 31.5" as half my height and mine is 28" so I'm doing ok....:)

SueInAz

People need to make sure they understand what is meant by waist size. It's not the same as pants/jeans size! You need to measure below your lowest rib and above your hip bone. For most people this is across the belly button. You can't lift up your belly if it hangs over and measure underneath it. I think I could squeeze into a size 40 pair of jeans when my waist was easily 50 or more. Currently I wear a size 31 in jeans but my waist is around 35 inches.

The American Heart Association has maintained for quite a while that a HIGH correlation exists between heart disease and having 2x waist > height. To the people saying they "don't agree", what exactly do you not agree with? Unless you object to the way this study was designed the results are the results. You must also understand a correlation is just that, a correlation. We know smoking is highly correlated with lung cancer. We also know plenty of people who smoke and have never had lung cancer. Having a waist 2x > height does not guarantee healthy problems, you are simply at more risk to develop them then someone who does not have waist 2x > height.

This.

There is a definite correlation between people who carry their weight around their middle (as opposed to around their hips and buttocks) and a higher incidence of heart disease. It has to do with the fat being around the major organs. The more fat is around one's middle, the higher the likelihood that you'll end up with heart disease. The waist < 1/2 height is not some artbitrary designation. The first time I heard that was the first time I was happy that my fat concentrates itself on my thighs. Heart disease runs in my husband's family. All of the overweight men in his family have big bellies and skinny legs. Most of them have had heart issues and both of his grandfathers died of heart attacks. By contrast, the men in my family are all built more like me and there have been no heart issues at all.

Beautifulbridgittlee7

Mine is 26/27, so I'm good.

ZBuffBod

At 5'7", my waist should be 33.5. At 37 currently, I guess I should be able to whittle it down to 33.5 when I get to goal weight.

AmazingShrinkingMan

37-inches? Well I think that should be doable!

kkimpel

if this was true, my waist should be about 31 inches or less. my waist is legitmately about 22 inches, so i can't even imagine how big 31 inches would be. and my bmi is about 20, so i cant imagine being that big. I'm not trying to be rude or anything, i just find it odd.

First, creepy avatar.
Second HAVE YOU TRIED READING??
And then maybe...comprehending?

Sorry, but come on already.

Thanks.. I thought maybe I was being overly sensitive ..

SlimMe37

Did I calculate this right?
I am 5'2 tall
so 52 divided by 2?
that equals 26in, being that my waist should be less than 26in

If so it sounds right to me.
x

No.

5 feet is 60 inches, so 5'2 is 62 inches.

Divide that by 2 = 31 inches.

Your waist should be less than 31 inches.

Keep in mind that this is a health marker, not an ideal body marker.

Thanks for that. It wants me less than 34 inches as I'm 5ft 8in.

Sabine_Stroehm

People need to make sure they understand what is meant by waist size. It's not the same as pants/jeans size! You need to measure below your lowest rib and above your hip bone. For most people this is across the belly button. You can't lift up your belly if it hangs over and measure underneath it. I think I could squeeze into a size 40 pair of jeans when my waist was easily 50 or more. Currently I wear a size 31 in jeans but my waist is around 35 inches.

The American Heart Association has maintained for quite a while that a HIGH correlation exists between heart disease and having 2x waist > height. To the people saying they "don't agree", what exactly do you not agree with? Unless you object to the way this study was designed the results are the results. You must also understand a correlation is just that, a correlation. We know smoking is highly correlated with lung cancer. We also know plenty of people who smoke and have never had lung cancer. Having a waist 2x > height does not guarantee healthy problems, you are simply at more risk to develop them then someone who does not have waist 2x > height.

This.

There is a definite correlation between people who carry their weight around their middle (as opposed to around their hips and buttocks) and a higher incidence of heart disease. It has to do with the fat being around the major organs. The more fat is around one's middle, the higher the likelihood that you'll end up with heart disease. The waist < 1/2 height is not some artbitrary designation. The first time I heard that was the first time I was happy that my fat concentrates itself on my thighs. Heart disease runs in my husband's family. All of the overweight men in his family have big bellies and skinny legs. Most of them have had heart issues and both of his grandfathers died of heart attacks. By contrast, the men in my family are all built more like me and there have been no heart issues at all.

+1 for that

Need2Exerc1se

Oh, I hope that is true! I only need to lose one inch off my waist to meet that requirement, even though I'm just starting and I'm more than 20 lbs overweight by BMI.

I did a little googling to make sure I was measuring the in the right spot, and I am (between the lowest rib bone and the hip bone, according to one article on the study).

I suppose I should thank my parents.

I thought of this thread when I measured this morning and found I'm now in the healthy waist range. Down almost 2 full inches! Yay me!

mandimahoney5

People have different body types, so I can't see this always possible.
A girl I work with has the pear/chicken shaped body. Really waste was like a size 14, but her legs were skinny and would be like some one is a size 8 pant.
My sister also has this issue.

I am guessing a guy wrote this rule.

Need2Exerc1se

People have different body types, so I can't see this always possible.
A girl I work with has the pear/chicken shaped body. Really waste was like a size 14, but her legs were skinny and would be like some one is a size 8 pant.
My sister also has this issue.

I am guessing a guy wrote this rule.

It's not a rule. It's a statistical health marker.

AshleeC123

That is interesting. I have quite a few inches to go! Gives me a new goal!
:happy:

molls10m

I'm 5' 1" and need to lose 10" off my waist if this is true!!! YIKES

Liftng4Lis

I'm good

Kari121869

Mine should be 32 it says.. I'm pretty much there (fit in a size 10-14 depending on make of pants).. .although I'm working on losing another 25lbs so hopefully that makes another 2-4 inches

SueInAz

People have different body types, so I can't see this always possible.
A girl I work with has the pear/chicken shaped body. Really waste was like a size 14, but her legs were skinny and would be like some one is a size 8 pant.
My sister also has this issue.

I am guessing a guy wrote this rule.

It's not a rule. It's a statistical health marker.

The fact is this rule takes into account the different body shapes. The person you are describing is not a pear shape. Round waist, skinny legs is called "apple-shaped" and those with that shape have a higher tendency to heart disease specifically because they carry their weight around their midsection. It's exactly this fact that this rule is aimed at.

People who are pear shaped carry the majority of their weight around their hips, thighs and buttocks. That shape is less likely to suffer from heart disease and their waists are usually smaller for their weight.

The point is, the more fat that builds up around the major organs in the center of the body, the higher one's risk for heart disease. If that's because an apple-shaped person tends to build up fat around their middle or because a pear-shaped person is very overweight but they both have the same waist size, it results in the same risk factors as far as this rule is concerned. There are, of course, other risk factors related to genetics, diet, cholesterol levels, etc. and this is just one.

lorib642

I know they say waist, but do they mean waist (as in the natural waist) or belly? If they mean waist, I'm close. If they mean belly, not so much...

I was wondering the same thing. My waist isn't so bad but my belly is a different story.

lorib642

People have different body types, so I can't see this always possible.
A girl I work with has the pear/chicken shaped body. Really waste was like a size 14, but her legs were skinny and would be like some one is a size 8 pant.
My sister also has this issue.

I am guessing a guy wrote this rule.

It's not a rule. It's a statistical health marker.

The fact is this rule takes into account the different body shapes. The person you are describing is not a pear shape. Round waist, skinny legs is called "apple-shaped" and those with that shape have a higher tendency to heart disease specifically because they carry their weight around their midsection. It's exactly this fact that this rule is aimed at.

People who are pear shaped carry the majority of their weight around their hips, thighs and buttocks. That shape is less likely to suffer from heart disease and their waists are usually smaller for their weight.

The point is, the more fat that builds up around the major organs in the center of the body, the higher one's risk for heart disease. If that's because an apple-shaped person tends to build up fat around their middle or because a pear-shaped person is very overweight but they both have the same waist size, it results in the same risk factors as far as this rule is concerned. There are, of course, other risk factors related to genetics, diet, cholesterol levels, etc. and this is just one.

Oh i have a disproportionate amount of "toxic" abdominal fat

Adpalangi

I've been having a real hard time understanding my waist measurement as it hasn't moved to much, but my weight loss has been good, 26 lbs, have no idea where the inches have come from, cause my inches all over haven't done much. But I've had to get some new jeans and dress pants, what I had was falling off, I tried a belt for awhile. Anyway this formula brings me much closer to my inches. This would put me at a 30 inch waist, which I am just under I am under at a 28. My my health program I have been using says I need a22 inch waist. I am closer to this half a height. And six inches I would need to drop to come close to that twenty some measurement. Hmm confused

Need2Exerc1se

I've been having a real hard time understanding my waist measurement as it hasn't moved to much, but my weight loss has been good, 26 lbs, have no idea where the inches have come from, cause my inches all over haven't done much. But I've had to get some new jeans and dress pants, what I had was falling off, I tried a belt for awhile. Anyway this formula brings me much closer to my inches. This would put me at a 30 inch waist, which I am just under I am under at a 28. My my health program I have been using says I need a22 inch waist. I am closer to this half a height. And six inches I would need to drop to come close to that twenty some measurement. Hmm confused

Wow, a 22 in waist is small even for someone 5 ft tall. What program are you using?