waist should be less than half your height

12357…11

Replies

  • Sharon_C
    Sharon_C Posts: 2,132 Member
    I need less than a 35" waist and I'm at 29". Whoo hoo!!!!
  • Adpalangi
    Adpalangi Posts: 349 Member
    I am 5ft tall, and I would need to have a 30" waist, if I am understanding correctly. The other program I use with MFP , is giving me for an ideal waist of 22.. That's a 8inch difference...wonder why.
    Anyway according to this rule I am 2" less than the 30", (half of my 5 ft height.). I do like the sound of that better. But I intended to go for what looks good in the mirror, so I think 22 is way low, I also think 30 is too high. May be half Inbetween will work for me something like 26" . During this 26lbs loss, my tape measure has not been too good for me.
  • imogendarling
    imogendarling Posts: 3
    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.
  • Betti2
    Betti2 Posts: 30 Member
    Holy crap I need to lose 2 inches in my waist back to 32 inches this is going to be some challenge
  • RHachicho
    RHachicho Posts: 1,115 Member
    This sounds too arbitrary to apply to everyone. But is a useful yardstick. Kind of like BMI.

    By it's reckoning I need to be under 37" Which is about 4" away. But the key point I think is u gotta be under. I think a 35" waist is a good target for me. By these standards. But fact is my hip measurement hits bone at 37" So if I had a waist less than 37" wouldn't I start being an hourglass? Or am i totally off base.
  • ElkeKNJ
    ElkeKNJ Posts: 207 Member
    Probably a bit redundand by now, but here is my contribution.
    The item hit our evening's news yesterday.
    Apparantly, this is meant to keep your belly fat in check, which is the most dangerous fat in the body.
    Harder to lose than the subdural fat (probably inventing words here, but it sounds good), and the way to beat it is by healthy eating and lots of excercise.
    The reporter went onto the street for an in-depth research, and had people in the shopping streets measure their waste. A few slender-looking people actually did fail. Healthy according to BMI, but probably a lot of fat between the organs.
    They also said that your liver can get inflamed by being soaked in too much fat, and that you would not even notice this.
    Got a bit scared by this last night, but after the news I went to a meeting, had 4 glasses of wine, and ate my fair share of the cheese, chips and salami that stood on the table)
  • RHachicho
    RHachicho Posts: 1,115 Member
    Well honestly there is only so much you can worry about your diet before the happiness/misery cost benefit analysis starts erring on the side of eating more. I wanna be healthy but there's no way i'm always gonna eat like a saint. Cake is too tasty to miss out on completely. I know what I want out of life and sometimes it's a big juicy steak deep fried chips and some ice cream. But only SOMETIMES XD.
  • SrMaggalicious
    SrMaggalicious Posts: 495 Member
    It's interesting, because they've always said that the hourglass shape is correlated with lower risk of heart disease and stuff. A lot of this is genetic; my mom is overweight but she would have to be really overweight to be more than 34" at the waist, just because of her shape. Even when I'm "bigger", my waist is still 24". So it sounds like it's less about weight than where your body holds fat.

    I agree with this. My sister is 10 lbs less than me, 3 inches taller and has a THICKER waist. It's more of a straight down (boy shape) torso. I have a more narrow waist. These studies drive me nuts. We are all NOT made the exact same shape...look at bodybuilders...some have thicker waists, others tiny as a 12 yr old girls...and most ALL around 3% body fat.

    Just do your thing, keep on moving, eat great food 80% of the time with yummies where they fit, and go by how you FEEL. It's the simple stuff.
  • RHachicho
    RHachicho Posts: 1,115 Member
    It's interesting, because they've always said that the hourglass shape is correlated with lower risk of heart disease and stuff. A lot of this is genetic; my mom is overweight but she would have to be really overweight to be more than 34" at the waist, just because of her shape. Even when I'm "bigger", my waist is still 24". So it sounds like it's less about weight than where your body holds fat.

    I agree with this. My sister is 10 lbs less than me, 3 inches taller and has a THICKER waist. It's more of a straight down (boy shape) torso. I have a more narrow waist. These studies drive me nuts. We are all NOT made the exact same shape...look at bodybuilders...some have thicker waists, others tiny as a 12 yr old girls...and most ALL around 3% body fat.

    Just do your thing, keep on moving, eat great food 80% of the time with yummies where they fit, and go by how you FEEL. It's the simple stuff.

    Yeah I think this rule probably applies better to men than to women. We are more standardized in that department.
  • Megais
    Megais Posts: 28 Member
    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
  • kportwood85
    kportwood85 Posts: 151 Member
    I definitely have more weight I want to lose, but, at 64 inches tall, with a 32 inch waist, I'm doing alright.

    'Bout time this hourglass figure seemed worth it.
  • SlimMe37
    SlimMe37 Posts: 133 Member
    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

    If that is how you calculate it, then I'm at the right waist size at 29in :)
  • SingRunTing
    SingRunTing Posts: 2,604 Member
    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.
  • sixtyinchesoffury
    sixtyinchesoffury Posts: 321 Member
    Mine is about 30". I'm only 5 feet tall! I am 133 pounds, I am confused on how everyone has such small waists!! But mostly just jealous lol

    this except i'm 138. ugh.....:noway: :noway: :noway:
  • smburdette
    smburdette Posts: 3 Member
    I am wondering how many people are confused about were their waist is on their body. Your waist is above your navel not were your pants ride.
  • TLB86
    TLB86 Posts: 275 Member
    So mine should be less than 33in. 2 inches to go, nice 1!!! Lets go...

    (5ft6, 201lb)
  • Need2Exerc1se
    Need2Exerc1se Posts: 13,576 Member
    It's interesting, because they've always said that the hourglass shape is correlated with lower risk of heart disease and stuff. A lot of this is genetic; my mom is overweight but she would have to be really overweight to be more than 34" at the waist, just because of her shape. Even when I'm "bigger", my waist is still 24". So it sounds like it's less about weight than where your body holds fat.

    I agree with this. My sister is 10 lbs less than me, 3 inches taller and has a THICKER waist. It's more of a straight down (boy shape) torso. I have a more narrow waist. These studies drive me nuts. We are all NOT made the exact same shape...look at bodybuilders...some have thicker waists, others tiny as a 12 yr old girls...and most ALL around 3% body fat.

    Just do your thing, keep on moving, eat great food 80% of the time with yummies where they fit, and go by how you FEEL. It's the simple stuff.

    Yeah I think this rule probably applies better to men than to women. We are more standardized in that department.

    It's not a rule. It's a health marker. And as such, would apply to everyone. But, like all health markers (lipids, BP, etc.) it just measures risk. There is no guarantee that a waist within the range will keep you healthy, or that you will be unhealthy if your waist is outside the range.
  • Sabine_Stroehm
    Sabine_Stroehm Posts: 19,263 Member
    It's interesting, because they've always said that the hourglass shape is correlated with lower risk of heart disease and stuff. A lot of this is genetic; my mom is overweight but she would have to be really overweight to be more than 34" at the waist, just because of her shape. Even when I'm "bigger", my waist is still 24". So it sounds like it's less about weight than where your body holds fat.

    I agree with this. My sister is 10 lbs less than me, 3 inches taller and has a THICKER waist. It's more of a straight down (boy shape) torso. I have a more narrow waist. These studies drive me nuts. We are all NOT made the exact same shape...look at bodybuilders...some have thicker waists, others tiny as a 12 yr old girls...and most ALL around 3% body fat.

    Just do your thing, keep on moving, eat great food 80% of the time with yummies where they fit, and go by how you FEEL. It's the simple stuff.

    Yeah I think this rule probably applies better to men than to women. We are more standardized in that department.

    It's not a rule. It's a health marker. And as such, would apply to everyone. But, like all health markers (lipids, BP, etc.) it just measures risk. There is no guarantee that a waist within the range will keep you healthy, or that you will be unhealthy if your waist is outside the range.
    BINGO
  • Sabine_Stroehm
    Sabine_Stroehm Posts: 19,263 Member
    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.
  • vismal
    vismal Posts: 2,463 Member
    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.

Categories