Height÷2=healthy waist measurement...

Options
AdventureVix
AdventureVix Posts: 46 Member
in Health and Weight Loss
Has anyone else heard this? If so, I'm normal but by bmi standards I'm very unhealthily over weight...what does everyone judge it on?

Replies

  • JazzFischer1989
    JazzFischer1989 Posts: 531 Member
    Options
    I'm 5'3" so that'd be 63/2 = 31.5. Doesn't.. seem quite right for someone w/my frame.
  • JoeCampbell85
    JoeCampbell85 Posts: 140
    Options
    Im 74 inches so that would be a 37 inch waste. at 17% bf i have a 33-34 waste. 37 would not be healthy. unless i have muscular hips of course
  • michikade
    michikade Posts: 313 Member
    Options
    This would make the quote, unquote "perfect" figure of 36/24/36 be a 4 foot tall woman.
  • AdventureVix
    AdventureVix Posts: 46 Member
    Options
    This would make the quote, unquote "perfect" figure of 36/24/36 be a 4 foot tall woman.

    Hahaha!
  • AdventureVix
    AdventureVix Posts: 46 Member
    Options
    Im 74 inches so that would be a 37 inch waste. at 17% bf i have a 33-34 waste. 37 would not be healthy. unless i have muscular hips of course

    That's it, from now on, I'm not overweight, I have muscular hips :p
  • JoeCampbell85
    JoeCampbell85 Posts: 140
    Options
    Im 74 inches so that would be a 37 inch waste. at 17% bf i have a 33-34 waste. 37 would not be healthy. unless i have muscular hips of course

    That's it, from now on, I'm not overweight, I have muscular hips :p

    In the words of my good friend:

    I'm in shape....round is a shape.
  • EvgeniZyntx
    EvgeniZyntx Posts: 24,208 Member
    Options
    Height to waist ratio identifies an additional risk when waist/height > 0.5
    It does not mean that < 0.5 is healthy or that 0.5 is ideal.

    Ref:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18359190
  • rachelilly
    rachelilly Posts: 62
    Options
    I'm 5'5" so that's 32.5.

    Um no? I'm close to 30% BF with a 31 inch waist.
  • AdventureVix
    AdventureVix Posts: 46 Member
    Options
    Aah ok, thank you for the clarification. The article I was reading must have misinterpreted or misrepresented the data. I thought it sounded odd to say it was 'healthy', which is really such a general categorisation, thinking about it.

Categories