BMI, body fat percentage, waist measurement

I have the same problem. I have lost 33lbs and am now JUST in the healthy BMI range at 24.9 but my waist is still 34 inches [87.5cms] which keeps me firmly in the high risk of bla bla bla category. I was only going to lose another 7lbs but I now think I'll have to lose another 14lbs to get my waist down another 3 inches [7.5 cms]. At a goal of 116lbs [5ft height] I will then be just under the middle of a healthy BMI, so maybe my stubborn waist is not such a bad thing as it has prompted me to REALLY want to finish the job of losing weight.

Your waist measurement has decreased and will obviously decrease more if you lose some more weight and get firmly into the healthy BMI range - good luck.

sarahredhaira wrote: »

(Measuring around the point just below the belly button - not the narrowest part)

That's not your waist measurement Hope you're not making things difficult for yourself..

Everything I've ever seen says the waist is just above the top of your hip bone - your narrowest part.

Look on the bright side, at least you can now feel your hip bone and bottom rib to be able to measure Keep going, you're doing really well!

There's a reason the BMI zones are so wide: Individuals have lots of different body types. At my height (5'5"), the "normal" BMI runs from 111 to 149 pounds - that's a huge range.

I have wide shoulders, but narrow hips, not much waist indent, no booty, and literally no breasts (breast cancer survivor, mastectomies with no reconstruction) - i.e., built like a boy, even though I'm a li'l ol' lady. I'm fairly muscular for a li'l ol' lady, but nowhere near an elite athlete or bodybuilder.

I'm at 122lbs, which is seeming about right to me, BMI 20.3, waist 26.5", hips 35", still some fat on the belly, upper backside of hips, inner thighs. Body fat percentage probably somewhere in the 20-25% range.

For me, the high end of normal BMI was Not A Good Place. I could see & feel it. For someone quite muscular, or with more substantial pelvic bones, not to mention breasts - could be perfect. For someone veryVery muscular, that would probably be too low a weight.

The BMI range can be a helpful guide for most people, but it doesn't work for everyone . . . and for most people, somewhere inside the range is more likely to be a good weight than one extreme or the other.

cafeaulait7 wrote: »

amyk0202 wrote: »

cafeaulait7 wrote: »

For women, we are supposed to measure the narrowest part. Lower than the navel would certainly give bigger numbers, unless you are straight up and down in shape. I'd do the navel at lowest.

That's not what I've read either. I'll look it up again, but when I researched it before the instructions were to find the top of your iliac crest & bottom of your ribcage & measure halfway between the two.

How can that measurement end up lower than anyone's navel, though?

Here's WebMD's opinion:
http://www.webmd.com/diet/guide/calculating-your-waist-circumference__

"To measure your waist circumference, use a tape measure. Start at the top of your hip bone, then bring the tape measure all the way around, level with your belly button."

And Harvard School of Public Health's:
"Waist circumference is the simplest and most common way to measure “abdominal obesity”—the extra fat found around the middle that is an important factor in health, even independent of BMI. It’s the circumference of the abdomen, measured at the natural waist (in between the lowest rib and the top of the hip bone), the umbilicus (belly button), or at the narrowest point of the midsection."

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/obesity-prevention-source/obesity-definition/how-to-measure-body-fatness/#waist-circumference

Some women flare out dramatically from their waists (natural waist) to get to their hips. Think of an hour glass. That body type would show up as central obesity, so the higher measurements just seem to make more sense to me, too. I have a 4" circumference difference between my natural waist and my abdomen/start of my hip area, and I've finally lost my extra fluff there It's due to the size of my pelvis right underneath there, if you can picture that.

I think where your navel is depends on your specific anatomy. My belly button is below the top of my iliac crest, so my measurement would never be below my navel. I'm 5' 2.5" & have a very short torso. My bottom rib is actually right above my iliac crest--there is not even a finger-width of distance, but my hips are much wider than my ribs. I guess if someone had a longer torso, their belly-button could be above their iliac crest.

I found this article: http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/30/6/1647.full

Which covers the measurements points:
"Waist circumference (WC) is actually a perimeter, which provides an estimate of body girth at the level of the abdomen. Different anatomical landmarks have been used to determine the exact location for measuring WC in different clinical studies, including: 1) midpoint between the lowest rib and the iliac crest; 2) the umbilicus; 3) narrowest (minimum) or widest (maximum) waist circumference; 4) just below the lowest rib; and 5) just above the iliac crest. The specific site used to measure WC influences the absolute WC value that is obtained (9). The most commonly used sites reported in studies that evaluated the relationship between morbidity or mortality rate and WC were at the midpoint between the lowest rib and the iliac crest (29%), umbilicus (28%), and narrowest waist circumference (22%). Although sites that use an easily identifiable and reproducible landmark (e.g., just above the bony landmark of the lilac crest) might be more precise and easier to use than other sites, we are not aware of data from any studies that demonstrate an advantage of one measurement site over others."

And follows up:
"Assessment of WC provides a measure of fat distribution that cannot be obtained by measuring BMI. However, there is no standardized approach for measuring WC and different anatomical landmarks have been used to measure WC in different studies. Moreover, the measurement site that provides the best correlation with disease risk and best reflects changes in abdominal adipose tissue mass has not been established."

What this tells me, personally, is that I should try to get all of those measurement points out of the danger zone.

rabbitjb wrote: »

Isileth wrote: »

I don't have an answer, but let me start off with saying BMI is utter BS. I'm on 14% Bodyfat and my BMI is in the overweight range. I have to lose another 24lbs to achieve "Normal" BMI, ain't NEVER gonna happen! I also have a thick waist due to powerlifting and my general build, so a waistline below 80cm would be very hard to achieve. I'm 5 ft 5 and 174.9lbs.

BMI is not absolute BS when used appropriately

Appropriately is as a population measure to give general population health risks and not as an individual

Those with higher muscle mass can fall in the overweight / obese category of this population measure and have great health markers.

But most use the BMI is BS as an excuse, most aren't within this category of pro athlete / bodybuilder

For the majority, 70-80% of the population the BMI scale is an OK guideline of where their ideal weight range should potentially lie within ...for most it's a good enough initial goal to aim for top BMI and reassess when nearing

Waistline on the other hand is beginning to be seen as a more reliable measure of health markers

I couldn't agree more.