Confused about how to measure waist - am I at risk or not?
Replies
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »If you mean how much to lose to reduce the risk, then you need to get your waist to half of your height. That is the point at which risk increases.
For example, if you are 5'5" (65") then your waist should be 32.5 " or less to reduce risk of disease.
I seriously doubt that your risk goes down dramatically if you are 32.25 vs. 32.75 and 5'5 (any more than it does if you are 24.5 vs. 25.5 BMI), and in the UK I think they use a one-size fits all measurement (31.5) as the indicator of risk, which just shows that it's not that precise a measurement. One study simply looked at the one-half of height as a cut-off--the broader point is that it's more dangerous to carry weight around your middle than on your hips and thighs and rear and bust, as it is likely to be indicative of visceral fat. (In theory you can get tested to see how much visceral fat you in fact do have--I did a DXA, so have done that.)
All that aside, to the OP, I wouldn't worry much about others saying you don't need to lose more, as fat around the middle can be easy to hide depending on how you dress, so you know more about whether you have fat to lose than others will. Use your own judgment. When people tell me I don't need to lose more I just smile and say thanks and do what I want to do.
(My doctor said I don't need to lose for health reasons, but I'd still rather have a lower body fat percentage and see if I can get rid of some of the remaining fat around my middle.)
0 -
This thread was interesting until the page 3 ridiculousness. Thanks for the info, serious posters. Adios.0
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »If you mean how much to lose to reduce the risk, then you need to get your waist to half of your height. That is the point at which risk increases.
For example, if you are 5'5" (65") then your waist should be 32.5 " or less to reduce risk of disease.
I seriously doubt that your risk goes down dramatically if you are 32.25 vs. 32.75 and 5'5 (any more than it does if you are 24.5 vs. 25.5 BMI), and in the UK I think they use a one-size fits all measurement (31.5) as the indicator of risk, which just shows that it's not that precise a measurement. One study simply looked at the one-half of height as a cut-off--the broader point is that it's more dangerous to carry weight around your middle than on your hips and thighs and rear and bust, as it is likely to be indicative of visceral fat. (In theory you can get tested to see how much visceral fat you in fact do have--I did a DXA, so have done that.)
All that aside, to the OP, I wouldn't worry much about others saying you don't need to lose more, as fat around the middle can be easy to hide depending on how you dress, so you know more about whether you have fat to lose than others will. Use your own judgment. When people tell me I don't need to lose more I just smile and say thanks and do what I want to do.
(My doctor said I don't need to lose for health reasons, but I'd still rather have a lower body fat percentage and see if I can get rid of some of the remaining fat around my middle.)
Thank you so much for taking the time to post. It's all really useful
I feel very depressed after posting this and reading the very honest responses but it had to be faced. I thought that my last stone was for vanity and not that important, I now realise I was wrong and I have to an extent been hiding from my increased risk waist. Thanks all. Painful but useful.
0 -
I did a little research. LOL, I'm a total nerd like that.
Measurement
World Health Organisation's protocol
2.5 Summary and conclusions
Waist circumference should be measured at the midpoint between the lower margin of the least palpable rib and the top of the iliac crest (my personal edit -- the iliac crest is the top of the hip bone), using a stretch‐resistant tape that provides a constant 100 g tension. Hip circumference should be measured around the widest portion
of the buttocks, with the tape parallel to the floor.
{Reference} "Waist Circumference and Waist-Hip Ratio, Report of a WHO Expert Consultation". World Health Organization. 8–11 December 2008. Retrieved March 21, 2012.
http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2011/9789241501491_eng.pdf
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
If you mean how much to lose to reduce the risk, then you need to get your waist to half of your height. That is the point at which risk increases.
For example, if you are 5'5" (65") then your waist should be 32.5 " or less to reduce risk of disease.
Measured at the appropriate spot, of course. (where the nurse measured)
Thanks for that, I think, lol. I am 63", so I need to get my 37" waist down to 31.5.
Swankytomato falls over now....
0 -
.Wow, some properly thick people here, and I'm not talking about their physical appearance. If you are fat, you measure where the fat is at, i.e. the widest point. If you aren't fat, it doesn't matter where you measure, since none of this applies to you. Your waist could resemble a cartoon figure that was hit by a steamroller; if there is no fat there, you are not in the risk group regarding fat. Comprende?
And for the record, if your belly jiggles like a bowl full of jelly, then you are fat. If all you have is rock hard abs or maybe some loose skin and some soft bits, you are not fat.
I have reported this.
0 -
Wow, some properly thick people here, and I'm not talking about their physical appearance. If you are fat, you measure where the fat is at, i.e. the widest point. If you aren't fat, it doesn't matter where you measure, since none of this applies to you. Your waist could resemble a cartoon figure that was hit by a steamroller; if there is no fat there, you are not in the risk group regarding fat. Comprende?
And for the record, if your belly jiggles like a bowl full of jelly, then you are fat. If all you have is rock hard abs or maybe some loose skin and some soft bits, you are not fat.
this doesn't make sense. if you go from normal weight to overweight, your bone structure doesn't suddenly change. thus, it's just a guide, it's not exact.0 -
girlviernes wrote: »I take at two places, the narrowest point (I term that "waist") and the widest point (I term that "belly"). My ultimate goal is to get my "belly" measurement under 35 inches.
This is exactly what I do too.
I track both "waist" and "belly" measurements. Lately, they've been getting closer to each other (which means my belly is going away)!0 -
I wish someone would just draw a line on a sketch of a human body to show exactly what they're talking about.0
-
OP do you lift? Just thinking this might be a way to 'firm up' and lose fat without losing too much 'weight'.0
-
Seamstresses must have consistent waist measurements to make clothes fit their customers' bodies. The way they find a person's waist is to have them bend sideways and measure at the bend point. This point doesn't move over time with weight fluctuations and it doesn't matter where your belly button sits or where you carry your weight. It also doesn't matter if this is the biggest or smallest body circumference since you're establishing a baseline with the first measurement, then tracking from there.0
-
this doesn't make sense. if you go from normal weight to overweight, your bone structure doesn't suddenly change. thus, it's just a guide, it's not exact.
Bone structure really, really doesn't have anything at all to do with this.
You can be fat or not fat with any bone structure.0 -
Seamstresses must have consistent waist measurements to make clothes fit their customers' bodies. The way they find a person's waist is to have them bend sideways and measure at the bend point. This point doesn't move over time with weight fluctuations and it doesn't matter where your belly button sits or where you carry your weight. It also doesn't matter if this is the biggest or smallest body circumference since you're establishing a baseline with the first measurement, then tracking from there.
That's what I've always measured... the bend point. I must be a freak, because that's where my belly button is too. It happens to be the smallest point for me, but I have an hourglass figure (a large one, but still...), so I'm wondering how much body type plays into all the confusion?
0 -
It depends why you're measuring:
- If you're measuring for a seamstress, dressmaker or to make your own clothes, measure at the bend point ("natural waist") which is usually the narrowest part on many women.
- If measuring to see if you have an elevated risk of heart disease or other medical issues, measure at the midpoint between your hip bone and ribcage -- which is *usually* at or around the belly button, and is NOT the narrowest part.
- If measuring to see your weight loss progress, measure wherever you like, but at the same place each time.
0 -
wrong. it really, really does have something to do with this. yes, you can be fat, but you're wrong, bone structure DOES change your width and therefore can make your measurements bigger.
why do you think that children have smaller waists? they are shorter and more narrow than adults. not just because they have less fat.0 -
wrong. it really, really does have something to do with this. yes, you can be fat, but you're wrong, bone structure DOES change your width and therefore can make your measurements bigger.
why do you think that children have smaller waists? they are shorter and more narrow than adults. not just because they have less fat.
Look, we're going around and around on this here. If you want to believe that it's not fat but "big bones", go ahead. It's an excuse, though, and it's an excuse that people use when they wind up cheating themselves.
Children have smaller waists AND are shorter. They also haven't finished growing or developing until they've reached adulthood. And the health issues being discussed in this thread (and ratios of height/waist) are for adults, not for children.
I have no idea whether your waist is more than half your height. Mine is, when measured at the correct spot. I'm working to change it. Making excuses will get me nowhere. Diet and exercise is getting me somewhere; I've dropped 4 inches off my midsection already. I'm taking control of my life and health because nobody else is gonna do it for me.0 -
wrong. it really, really does have something to do with this. yes, you can be fat, but you're wrong, bone structure DOES change your width and therefore can make your measurements bigger.
why do you think that children have smaller waists? they are shorter and more narrow than adults. not just because they have less fat.
Look, we're going around and around on this here. If you want to believe that it's not fat but "big bones", go ahead. It's an excuse, though, and it's an excuse that people use when they wind up cheating themselves.
Children have smaller waists AND are shorter. They also haven't finished growing or developing until they've reached adulthood. And the health issues being discussed in this thread (and ratios of height/waist) are for adults, not for children.
I have no idea whether your waist is more than half your height. Mine is, when measured at the correct spot. I'm working to change it. Making excuses will get me nowhere. Diet and exercise is getting me somewhere; I've dropped 4 inches off my midsection already. I'm taking control of my life and health because nobody else is gonna do it for me.
my point is people come in different sizes and so does bone structure. they can not only grow up, they can also grow out due to bone structure. not always an excuse and this rule of waist half your height just is too general to fit for everyone. guessing that the number is larger for men because it's recognized that they are wider with bone structure. well, ummm, so are some women. i'm shorter than many people, but i'm also wider. so you're saying that nobody has wide hips due to bone structure? it's impossible? when i look at a picture of myself with someone who is clearly fatter than me in person, i look wider because of my bones. so good guess that my measurement will be bigger too even though i clearly have less fat.0 -
For the millionth time, nobody's saying to measure your hips. They're saying to measure your waist, ABOVE your hipbone. There are no bones there other than your spine.
And yes, people come in all shapes and sizes. Some of those shapes and sizes are more associated with elevated medical risks than others. If you happen to be a high risk shape or size, you need to work harder to reduce that risk than someone who is naturally tall and thin might. It's not "fair" but then, diseases aren't fair.
Don't know how else to put this. You're either gonna take the advice to heart or you won't. Up to you.0 -
Here is a picture of where different measurements fall on the two sexes (at least for sewing purposes. But every time I look at medical studies, they use the same definitions):
For women (sorry men, I just don't know), this will usually be above the belly button (although some people have higher belly buttons than others), especially if you are overweight. I know that my belly button has gotten "higher" as I've lost weight. Here is a pic (not me):
Just for the record, I appreciate that the "mid way between your lowest rib & the top of your hip bone" is the technically correct spot. However, it used to frustrate me because I could never put that into practice. Why? Because until 2 weeks ago I couldn't feel the top of my hip bone. I was actually shocked by how high up my hip bones go! It might be helpful for people who can actually feel their bones, but not so much for the rest of us.
0 -
For the millionth time, nobody's saying to measure your hips. They're saying to measure your waist, ABOVE your hipbone. There are no bones there other than your spine.
And yes, people come in all shapes and sizes. Some of those shapes and sizes are more associated with elevated medical risks than others. If you happen to be a high risk shape or size, you need to work harder to reduce that risk than someone who is naturally tall and thin might. It's not "fair" but then, diseases aren't fair.
Don't know how else to put this. You're either gonna take the advice to heart or you won't. Up to you.
YOUR HIP WIDTH AFFECTS YOUR WAIST WIDTH FOR THE BAZILLIONTH TIME. having wide hips does not put you at risk. having excess fat on your waist does. the measurement of your waist does not all include excess fat and the baseline can be larger for people with wider hips. that's why you can't just take this one number and compare it to your height. you should also compare it to your hips. that's why i view the waist hip ratio to be better.0 -
SingRunTing wrote: »Here is a picture of where different measurements fall on the two sexes (at least for sewing purposes):
This is for sewing. NOT for medical purposes.YOUR HIP WIDTH AFFECTS YOUR WAIST WIDTH FOR THE BAZILLIONTH TIME. having wide hips does not put you at risk. having excess fat on your waist does. the measurement of your waist does not all include excess fat and the baseline can be larger for people with wider hips. that's why you can't just take this one number and compare it to your height. you should also compare it to your hips. that's why i view the waist hip ratio to be better.
Okay look, believe whatever you want. I'm done. Denial is more than just a river in Egypt.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »If you mean how much to lose to reduce the risk, then you need to get your waist to half of your height. That is the point at which risk increases.
For example, if you are 5'5" (65") then your waist should be 32.5 " or less to reduce risk of disease.
I seriously doubt that your risk goes down dramatically if you are 32.25 vs. 32.75 and 5'5 (any more than it does if you are 24.5 vs. 25.5 BMI), and in the UK I think they use a one-size fits all measurement (31.5) as the indicator of risk, which just shows that it's not that precise a measurement. One study simply looked at the one-half of height as a cut-off--the broader point is that it's more dangerous to carry weight around your middle than on your hips and thighs and rear and bust, as it is likely to be indicative of visceral fat. (In theory you can get tested to see how much visceral fat you in fact do have--I did a DXA, so have done that.)
All that aside, to the OP, I wouldn't worry much about others saying you don't need to lose more, as fat around the middle can be easy to hide depending on how you dress, so you know more about whether you have fat to lose than others will. Use your own judgment. When people tell me I don't need to lose more I just smile and say thanks and do what I want to do.
(My doctor said I don't need to lose for health reasons, but I'd still rather have a lower body fat percentage and see if I can get rid of some of the remaining fat around my middle.)
Um, of course it's not an exact one-size fits all measurement. It's a health marker based on statistics (as all health markers are). Geez, did that really need clarified? The overall standard of 31.5, which takes no notice of height is far more generalized than that which does vary by size.
The OP was asking about health risk, not how to hide her fat.0 -
oh and ftr i don't need to "take this advice to heart". no matter what my measurements are, which i'm not even that sure how to measure it, i'm 106 pounds. i'm not at risk regardless.0
-
SingRunTing wrote: »Here is a picture of where different measurements fall on the two sexes (at least for sewing purposes):
This is for sewing. NOT for medical purposes.YOUR HIP WIDTH AFFECTS YOUR WAIST WIDTH FOR THE BAZILLIONTH TIME. having wide hips does not put you at risk. having excess fat on your waist does. the measurement of your waist does not all include excess fat and the baseline can be larger for people with wider hips. that's why you can't just take this one number and compare it to your height. you should also compare it to your hips. that's why i view the waist hip ratio to be better.
Okay look, believe whatever you want. I'm done. Denial is more than just a river in Egypt.
Hence why I said "But every time I look at medical studies, they use the same definitions"
If you've seen a study use a different definition, I'm all ears (not being sarcastic, I'm the type who genuinely likes to read studies and learn new things). I don't really have a horse in this race. Like I said earlier, I track both my smallest & largest abdominal measurements.0 -
SingRunTing wrote: »Here is a picture of where different measurements fall on the two sexes (at least for sewing purposes):
This is for sewing. NOT for medical purposes.YOUR HIP WIDTH AFFECTS YOUR WAIST WIDTH FOR THE BAZILLIONTH TIME. having wide hips does not put you at risk. having excess fat on your waist does. the measurement of your waist does not all include excess fat and the baseline can be larger for people with wider hips. that's why you can't just take this one number and compare it to your height. you should also compare it to your hips. that's why i view the waist hip ratio to be better.
Okay look, believe whatever you want. I'm done. Denial is more than just a river in Egypt.
dude, 106 pounds. i don't need to be in denial about anything. this rule just doesn't make much sense since it ignores hip measurement.0 -
SingRunTing wrote: »Hence why I said "But every time I look at medical studies, they use the same definitions"
If you've seen a study use a different definition, I'm all ears (not being sarcastic, I'm the type who genuinely likes to read studies and learn new things). I don't really have a horse in this race. Like I said earlier, I track both my smallest & largest abdominal measurements.
Yes, this one:I did a little research. LOL, I'm a total nerd like that.
Measurement
World Health Organisation's protocol
2.5 Summary and conclusions
Waist circumference should be measured at the midpoint between the lower margin of the least palpable rib and the top of the iliac crest (my personal edit -- the iliac crest is the top of the hip bone), using a stretch‐resistant tape that provides a constant 100 g tension. Hip circumference should be measured around the widest portion
of the buttocks, with the tape parallel to the floor.
{Reference} "Waist Circumference and Waist-Hip Ratio, Report of a WHO Expert Consultation". World Health Organization. 8–11 December 2008. Retrieved March 21, 2012.
http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2011/9789241501491_eng.pdf
0 -
SingRunTing wrote: »Here is a picture of where different measurements fall on the two sexes (at least for sewing purposes):
This is for sewing. NOT for medical purposes.YOUR HIP WIDTH AFFECTS YOUR WAIST WIDTH FOR THE BAZILLIONTH TIME. having wide hips does not put you at risk. having excess fat on your waist does. the measurement of your waist does not all include excess fat and the baseline can be larger for people with wider hips. that's why you can't just take this one number and compare it to your height. you should also compare it to your hips. that's why i view the waist hip ratio to be better.
Okay look, believe whatever you want. I'm done. Denial is more than just a river in Egypt.
dude, 106 pounds. i don't need to be in denial about anything. this rule just doesn't make much sense since it ignores hip measurement.
Hip measurement is irrelevant. It's not a "rule", it's a health marker based on health data. Do you seriously not know how medical recommendations and disease risk factors work?0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »SingRunTing wrote: »Here is a picture of where different measurements fall on the two sexes (at least for sewing purposes):
This is for sewing. NOT for medical purposes.YOUR HIP WIDTH AFFECTS YOUR WAIST WIDTH FOR THE BAZILLIONTH TIME. having wide hips does not put you at risk. having excess fat on your waist does. the measurement of your waist does not all include excess fat and the baseline can be larger for people with wider hips. that's why you can't just take this one number and compare it to your height. you should also compare it to your hips. that's why i view the waist hip ratio to be better.
Okay look, believe whatever you want. I'm done. Denial is more than just a river in Egypt.
dude, 106 pounds. i don't need to be in denial about anything. this rule just doesn't make much sense since it ignores hip measurement.
Hip measurement is irrelevant. It's not a "rule", it's a health marker based on health data. Do you seriously not know how medical recommendations and disease risk factors work?
well, then it's a health marker that is too simplistic and innacurate in many cases just like bmi is.0 -
Wow, some properly thick people here, and I'm not talking about their physical appearance. If you are fat, you measure where the fat is at, i.e. the widest point.
So you are ignoring all of the instructions from actual health organizations and the like?
The widest point for women is typically not the waist, so that's not really great advice. For men it might be correct. For women it's between the hip bone and ribs (not around them), whether that's your widest point or not (it's unlikely to be).
Edit: the other reason why this is silly advice is that it's contrary to the test--for women, at least--to measure where the fat is, because the whole question is about whether you tend to hold fat. A woman can weigh more and have a higher body fat percentage and yet be less at risk IF she happens to hold the weight around her hips and butt, etc. Holding it around the waist (which is typically not the widest part on any woman, at least not unless she's both an apple and sufficiently overweight) is a risk factor. That's why even a wider waist is less of a problem if you have a good difference between the waist and hips (which also accounts a bit for what Aviva seems to be talking about--a woman with wide hips and not enough distance between her hips and ribs for a nice, narrow, hourglass middle--there will still be a difference and that difference, if significant enough, would be a negative risk factor). Measuring improperly (not between the hips and ribs) would give poor results. Measuring the widest spot, then, almost certainly would for most women. For most men I'd imagine it's the right place, because men don't tend to hold fat on their hips (or have wide hips due to bone structure).0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions