waist should be less than half your height
Replies
-
So, I have a foot more to go.0
-
WalkingAlong wrote: »
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.tigersword 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...
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 day0 -
-
WalkingAlong wrote: »
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.tigersword 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...
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
I'm 6' 192 and my waist is 38.5" Sucks I tell you.0 -
Weird. Here's 40 men's waists and their measurements.WalkingAlong wrote: »
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.tigersword 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...
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
http://www.precisionnutrition.com/finalists-men-aug-2010
33-34 doesn't look 'effin huge' or obese to me but I guess we're all different.
There are some interesting recommendations in here. 40" is a red flag for many orgs. 35.5" for others.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/obesity-prevention-source/obesity-definition/abdominal-obesity/
0 -
CarrieCans wrote: »Measuring is hard when you're shaped like the Michelin Man!
5'3" and 38.5" waist. I need to get to 31.5".
I started at 39.5" and i lost almost 20 lbs to lose just 1 inch. Doesn't seem like i can reach that with only 30 more lbs to lose. Guess i will have to tackle that issue when i get there.
Are you sure you are measuring in the right place? I'm 5'3 too, and it sounds like we both tend to carry weight in our middles. One thing that I've noticed (or remembered) is that I'm pretty straight up and down (but with decent-sized breasts), because my legs are proportionally long and hips/butt narrow, and the hip bone goes up past my waistline to almost my ribcage. My narrowest bit is above my waistline, then, and I think that's what they mean by waist--between your hip bone and ribs. If I measured where my belly button is, I'd be getting hip bone.
Anyway, I also found that weight started dropping off from the middle more quickly as I got closer to goal, so you might be surprised.0 -
Considering the waist can be artificially narrowed....
http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/smallest-waist-living-person/
But I'm thinking this might be more valuable than the BMI, which is an approximation at best.
Like I said upthread, my insurance company seems to use a combination. Obese BMI is considered a risk factor, and overweight BMI plus waist more than half of height is the same. Still imperfect and there's more to it, but not bad, IMO.0 -
My waist was under the 1/2 mark even when my BMI was at obese. I think your body shape has a lot to do with it....0
-
-
Oooh snap, that means I'm close. It's 35" at the smallest point right now, I gotta get to 33.0
-
Can I just add this bit of inanity?
I love the image of a reporter wandering around the street asking to measure people's "waste". That is cracking me up!0 -
Nekrachael wrote: »Can I just add this bit of inanity?
I love the image of a reporter wandering around the street asking to measure people's "waste". That is cracking me up!
That's a different thread, though one that might exist around here somewhere! ;-)0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »CarrieCans wrote: »Measuring is hard when you're shaped like the Michelin Man!
5'3" and 38.5" waist. I need to get to 31.5".
I started at 39.5" and i lost almost 20 lbs to lose just 1 inch. Doesn't seem like i can reach that with only 30 more lbs to lose. Guess i will have to tackle that issue when i get there.
Are you sure you are measuring in the right place? I'm 5'3 too, and it sounds like we both tend to carry weight in our middles. One thing that I've noticed (or remembered) is that I'm pretty straight up and down (but with decent-sized breasts), because my legs are proportionally long and hips/butt narrow, and the hip bone goes up past my waistline to almost my ribcage. My narrowest bit is above my waistline, then, and I think that's what they mean by waist--between your hip bone and ribs. If I measured where my belly button is, I'd be getting hip bone.
Anyway, I also found that weight started dropping off from the middle more quickly as I got closer to goal, so you might be surprised.
Sounds like we have similar body types - short waisted.
Last physical I got, the measurement was at the belly button, not the natural waist like you describe. I thought it was ridiculous since she was measuring just at the top of my pelvis and questioned it. The nurse told me that the new regulations for insurance were at the belly button to minimize variation in location of measurement.
She may have been wrong, but now that I've noticed that at least one clinical trial where I've part of the setup measures that way as well.0 -
31.5 for me....but I'm shooting for 29
)..maybe 30 0 -
WalkingAlong wrote: »
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.tigersword 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...
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.0 -
WalkingAlong wrote: »
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.tigersword 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...
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
Are you sure you aren't confusing waist size with pant size? I'm 5'7 200 pounds right now, I can fit into size 32 jeans, but my waist size is about 37. Either way, I'm certainly not "effing huge." Maybe you have an issue with perception?0 -
tigersword wrote: »WalkingAlong wrote: »
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.tigersword 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...
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
Are you sure you aren't confusing waist size with pant size? I'm 5'7 200 pounds right now, I can fit into size 32 jeans, but my waist size is about 37. Either way, I'm certainly not "effing huge." Maybe you have an issue with perception?
I know, right? I am about a 35 inch waist right now. I'm 5'9" and 199 lbs. I'm overweight, but I don't think I'm HUGE.
0 -
"Depending on the day" suggests to me he measured it often and maybe took notes, which taken with the rest suggests perception/dysmorphia issues, if you ask me.tigersword wrote: »WalkingAlong wrote: »
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.tigersword 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...
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
Are you sure you aren't confusing waist size with pant size? I'm 5'7 200 pounds right now, I can fit into size 32 jeans, but my waist size is about 37. Either way, I'm certainly not "effing huge." Maybe you have an issue with perception?
0 -
tigersword 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...
Not saying you weren't, (how could I know I never met you) but having a hard time picturing someone 5'7" tall with a 33.5" waist as obese...
0 -
WalkingAlong wrote: »
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.tigersword 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...
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...
0 -
WalkingAlong wrote: »
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.tigersword 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...
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?0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
The idea that a fixed waist measurement is useful, regardless of the height of the person involved, seems brain damaged even for government.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.)
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.0 -
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?0
-
I'm 64" and my waist is 25-26". I guess that's good, then.0
-
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.0 -
Interesting. I'm 5'10" with a 27in waist...I don't even think it was 35in when I was pregnant lol.0
-
Who wears pants around their waist? Most people wear them around their hips which should be wider than the waist.Iwishyouwell wrote: »WalkingAlong wrote: »
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.tigersword 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...
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.
0 -
0
-
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.0 -
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.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions