waist should be less than half your height

1234568»

Replies

  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    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
    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.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories