waist should be less than half your height
Options
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
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 388 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 918 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions