# Waist measurement: how to reduce it



## Radders (Jul 28, 2016)

i've read several articles which state that a waist measurement of 35 or more for a woman puts us at high risk of illnesses including heart problems, type 2 diabetes and cancer. Under 32 inches is seen as healthy. I don't understand why this measurement is absolute: surely a tall person would expect to be further round the waist than a short person? 

My BMI is currently in the healthy range, I am just attempting to shed the last half stone, but I know from when I was diagnosed that in order to reduce my waist to below 32 I would have to be underweight. It's now 35 inches and I expect about half an inch will come off if I ever manage to shift this last half stone! I'm taller than average. 

How important is this waist measurement thing, and how does one redistribute one's fat away from the danger area? Any ideas?


----------



## Robin (Jul 28, 2016)

It seems to me to be a very inexact science. I'm very short waisted, so there's not much room between the bottom of my rib cage and the top of my hips, so my waist is never going to be as small as I'd like, there's too much to fit into a small space. 
I watched Trust me I'm a Doctor a couple of weeks ago, and they covered losing visceral fat, which is why the waist measurement has taken on such over-importance. They gave three groups different things to do. One reduced calories, so lost weight all over. This group lost most visceral fat. The group that did loads of sit ups didn't lose any visceral fat, but reduced their waist by a couple of inches. Thus showing how farcical the whole thing is. I'm afraid I can't remember what the third group did, but they didn't lose any visceral fat either. The conclusion drawn was that the only thing that's really important is losing weight generally all over.


----------



## Northerner (Jul 28, 2016)

Interestingly, since stopping drinking alcohol in January my body fat percentage has fallen by 8%, visceral fat has halved, I've lost 21 pounds and 5 inches off my waist (was 35"). Haven't changed anything else about my diet! My BMI is now 21.0 

I suspect the waist thing is similar to the whole BMI thing - a rough guide that can easily be applied, then other measurements taken to refine actual body composition etc.


----------



## Radders (Jul 28, 2016)

Thanks Robin, that's what I thought, however I could never hope to maintain the weight I would need to be to end up less than 32 inches. I would be downright skinny, as I was when first diagnosed. I still don't understand how it can be the same measurement whatever your build. 

I know one of the reasons it's unhealthy is because of insulin resistance, but I don't think I have that as my total daily dose of insulin is quite low. My BP is also good, as is my cholesterol. I just wonder how much this should be bothering me!


----------



## trophywench (Jul 28, 2016)

Think the third group were the control group and just carried on as before.

Yes it is supposed to show you are well endowed with fat round your organs and you know the genetic predisposition that people from south India have to T2? - well they also have a marked predisposition to tubbiness round the tummy.  Having spent a fair bit of time up and down the Soho Road and around there at one time - purely because my husband's business  was just off there so I got lots of my grocery and green grocery shopping in the Asian and Indian etc shops  - brill for herbs and spices of every description, not just 'curry' ingredients at all! and stuff like nuts, pulses etc and well before eg Tesco sold basmati rice! - you did see shedloads off 'round' people who came from there.  (don't want to insult or exclude anyone so not saying nationalities.  However - it is recognisable that northern Indians - genetic Siks for instance - ten to be more statuesque and a lot less like a Botticelli cherub in shape! 

Soo, I think that, is part of the 'tummy fat' thing.  They couldn't really say 'south Indians mustn't be more than 31" round but if you're white - you're probably OK'   Actually whatever colour creed or race you are it's not so brilliant esp for a woman wearing Western dress cos it's hard getting clothes to fit you there, without swamping the rest of you.  Tell me about it - I've never ever had much of a waist anyway and it's getting a bit silly now so I'll have to cut down ......


----------



## Radders (Jul 28, 2016)

trophywench said:


> Soo, I think that, is part of the 'tummy fat' thing.  They couldn't really say 'south Indians mustn't be more than 31" round but if you're white - you're probably OK'   Actually whatever colour creed or race you are it's not so brilliant esp for a woman wearing Western dress cos it's hard getting clothes to fit you there, without swamping the rest of you.  Tell me about it - I've never ever had much of a waist anyway and it's getting a bit silly now so I'll have to cut down ......


Funnily enough, the table I found did have different waist sizes for different countries of origin. I'm not round at all to look at, I just don't go in much at the waist, never have.


----------



## trophywench (Jul 28, 2016)

Whole thing is silly - they reckon Pete should be about 10 and half stone.  They'd literally have to amputate two or 3 limbs to get that low - the last time he weighed that he reckons he was about 13 !  His skeleton size overall - size 12 tootsies and the rest of the body to match but only 5'10" actually prevents him going lower than about 12 and a half stone and staying fit.


----------



## trophywench (Jul 28, 2016)

My fat is all lower belly and with a short waist, what's a waist?  LOL  No thunder thighs, and my bony pelvis STILL sticks out at the front, as do all my other angular bones near the surface - eg ankle and wrist bones.  Forever clunking them all - Owww.


----------



## TheClockworkDodo (Jul 28, 2016)

You might find this more helpful than just going by waist measurement alone, Radders - http://www.bmi-calculator.net/body-fat-calculator/

Have a look at the waist to hip calculator while you're there as well.  Apparently women like me who are apple shaped as opposed to pear shaped (tendency to store fat around the middle rather than around the hips) are more at risk of health problems, as Jenny says.  So although I'm a petite size 10-12 with a BMI of 20.28 my body fat level is only at an "acceptable" rather than fit level and my waist to hip ratio means my health risk is moderate rather than low.

I'm not sure what we're supposed to do about it though, without going underweight ...


----------



## Radders (Jul 28, 2016)

Interesting, thank you. With the waist to hip one I can't win, as if I lose weight it will go from both places I'm sure! That one puts me at high risk, whereas the body fat percentage one says I'm "acceptable".


----------



## Austin Mini (Jul 29, 2016)

Cycling every day will reduce your waistline remarkably quickly.


----------



## Radders (Jul 29, 2016)

Austin Mini said:


> Cycling every day will reduce your waistline remarkably quickly.


It hasn't so far, unfortunately! I have noticed that my quads and glues have toned up considerably but little effect on my waist.


----------



## Robin (Jul 29, 2016)

Radders said:


> It hasn't so far, unfortunately! I have noticed that my quads and glues have toned up considerably but little effect on my waist.


I found that being of 'a certain age' any weight I lose comes off my hips and thighs, and any I put back on again goes on my waist. I've completely changed shape in the last ten years.


----------



## Radders (Jul 29, 2016)

Robin said:


> I found that being of 'a certain age' any weight I lose comes off my hips and thighs, and any I put back on again goes on my waist. I've completely changed shape in the last ten years.


Oops Robin, that's quite an incentive not to lose weight!


----------



## Robin (Sep 4, 2016)

Radders said:


> It hasn't so far, unfortunately! I have noticed that my quads and glues have toned up considerably but little effect on my waist.


Just a postscript to this thread. I went walking in the mountains for ten days. What with the hills and the altitude, I've come back the fittest I've been for a couple of years, I've also toned up my bum and thigh muscles. I measured my waist and hips, and discovered I've lost an inch off my hips, but nothing off my waist. So whereas my ratio before was in the 'low risk of a cardiac event' category, now I'm in the high risk. RIdiculous or what!


----------



## Radders (Sep 4, 2016)

Yes, clearly that's just daft, such a crude measure doesn't reflect reality at all. Did you have a nice time though?


----------



## Robin (Sep 4, 2016)

Radders said:


> Yes, clearly that's just daft, such a crude measure doesn't reflect reality at all. Did you have a nice time though?


Yes! thank you. The weather even stayed dry, which for the Alps is a minor miracle.


----------



## Marsbartoastie (Sep 4, 2016)

trophywench said:


> Yes it is supposed to show you are well endowed with fat round your organs and you know the genetic predisposition that people from south India have to T2? - well they also have a marked predisposition to tubbiness round the tummy.


Your observations about different body shapes is interesting.  A few years ago I was having supper with friends and we got on to the same subject.  When we compared our torsos the differences were clear.  Both Indian guys had nipples and tummies that sat very high up their bodies compared with the Europeans and the Japanese.


----------



## KookyCat (Sep 5, 2016)

Late to this thread but I completely ignore BMI and waist measurements, they're utterly irrelevant to my body type.  I'm six foot and a bit, female and most of my height is leg and I have more muscle.  Currently I have a 27 inch waist, but that's because I don't really have a waist, I'm size 8 and have a BMI of 23, but when my body fat was measured it's still considered dangerously low.  Before diagnosis my BMI was 26 I was a size 10 my waist was 28 inches and I was considered overweight, yet my body fat measurement was you've guessed it dangerously low.  One nurse noted my body shape as Apple, because I didn't fit any of the categories at all.  If I put weight on it tends to evenly distribute and I'm not your narrow gangly sort of tall either, I've got me a strapping pair of shoulders.  We're all different and a measurement system invented on norms is not going to be useful for everyone.  That said if you want to whittle a waist hula hooping is a great method, although that won't really tackle visceral fat.  I'm rambling a bit now (must get my morning coffee!) but visceral fat is actually very useful, it has a role to play in protecting organs so some is necessary


----------



## Northerner (Sep 5, 2016)

I've always been very light, and weight tends to go on the torso - only started happening after I turned 40 so I guess a true 'middle-aged spread'  However, since stopping drinking alcohol in January I have lost 6.5 inches off my waist and my BMI has fallen from 24.5 to 20.5. I'm still about 2 stone heavier than I was when I was 25 though!


----------



## Robin (Sep 5, 2016)

Northerner said:


> I've always been very light, and weight tends to go on the torso - only started happening after I turned 40 so I guess a true 'middle-aged spread'  However, since stopping drinking alcohol in January I have lost 6.5 inches off my waist and my BMI has fallen from 24.5 to 20.5. I'm still about 2 stone heavier than I was when I was 25 though!


That's impressive. The weight / inches loss, I mean, not the misspent youth!


----------



## Northerner (Sep 5, 2016)

Robin said:


> That's impressive. The weight / inches loss, I mean, not the misspent youth!


It's been a big surprise! I've clearly lost weight from everywhere, but I'm astonished that it was the alcohol in my diet that was adding about 25 pounds to my weight  My waist is now the same as when I was 30, trouble is now that my trousers were all bought more recently!


----------



## Marsbartoastie (Sep 5, 2016)

Northerner said:


> I've always been very light, and weight tends to go on the torso - only started happening after I turned 40 so I guess a true 'middle-aged spread'  However, since stopping drinking alcohol in January I have lost 6.5 inches off my waist and my BMI has fallen from 24.5 to 20.5. I'm still about 2 stone heavier than I was when I was 25 though!


So that'a a mineral water for you on Saturday Northerner.  You're a cheap date.


----------



## Northerner (Sep 5, 2016)

Marsbartoastie said:


> So that'a a mineral water for you on Saturday Northerner.  You're a cheap date.


One of the hardest things for me after a lifetime of choosing beer in pubs has been trying to find something else, especially something that's not loaded with sugar and that the bar steward is unlikely to mix up with a 'diet' version  So far this year, mineral water has been the prime selection!


----------



## TheClockworkDodo (Sep 5, 2016)

I'm fascinated by the difference between the way these calculations work (or don't work) for Kooky and me ...



TheClockworkDodo said:


> So although I'm a petite size 10-12 with a BMI of 20.28 my body fat level is only at an "acceptable" rather than fit level and my waist to hip ratio means my health risk is moderate rather than low.





KookyCat said:


> Currently I have a 27 inch waist, but that's because I don't really have a waist, I'm size 8 and have a BMI of 23, but when my body fat was measured it's still considered dangerously low.  Before diagnosis my BMI was 26 I was a size 10 my waist was 28 inches and I was considered overweight, yet my body fat measurement was you've guessed it dangerously low.



... ie my BMI is lower because I'm shorter, not because I'm thinner (my waist is about 29), and even though my BMI is lower, my fat level is on the high side of healthy and Kooky's is too low.  Standard calculations really are a complete lot of nonsense, aren't they?!


----------



## TheClockworkDodo (Sep 5, 2016)

I must say though, R has lost a lot of paunch since he's been doing a fast day every week - the weight loss has slowed down but he's obviously still losing fat, so fasting really does seem to work (for him, at least!).


----------



## Radders (Sep 5, 2016)

I found out that my narrowest measurement isn't actually where I would place my waist: it's much higher, and an inch less. By this measure I am only one inch over the risk level!


----------



## KookyCat (Sep 5, 2016)

Radders said:


> I found out that my narrowest measurement isn't actually where I would place my waist: it's much higher, and an inch less. By this measure I am only one inch over the risk level!



I was amused to read that most people can't accurately find their waist...oh how I tittered safe in the knowledge that at least I know where my waist is....until that is I found where my actual waist is  that'll teach me!


----------



## Radders (Sep 5, 2016)

KookyCat said:


> I was amused to read that most people can't accurately find their waist...oh how I tittered safe in the knowledge that at least I know where my waist is....until that is I found where my actual waist is  that'll teach me!


Where's it actually meant to be? 
The way I see it, the only logic for a high waist measurement to indicate visceral fat is the fact that in the gap between ribs and hips there isn't much bodywork so a lot of what's there must be fat. So I thought my waist would automatically be the narrowest bit between those two, no?


----------



## KookyCat (Sep 5, 2016)

Radders said:


> Where's it actually meant to be?
> The way I see it, the only logic for a high waist measurement to indicate visceral fat is the fact that in the gap between ribs and hips there isn't much bodywork so a lot of what's there must be fat. So I thought my waist would automatically be the narrowest bit between those two, no?



It's different for everyone (which is the bit I didn't know) apparently, but if you stand up straight then lean either to the left or right it's where your body creases (or basically where you bend).  I'd always thought it was level with the belly button which apparently it is for some folk but my waist is much higher than belly button, in fact my belly button is apparently where my hips are (I'm pretty straight up and down so that's not as daft as I make it sound ).


----------



## Radders (Sep 5, 2016)

KookyCat said:


> It's different for everyone (which is the bit I didn't know) apparently, but if you stand up straight then lean either to the left or right it's where your body creases (or basically where you bend).  I'd always thought it was level with the belly button which apparently it is for some folk but my waist is much higher than belly button, in fact my belly button is apparently where my hips are (I'm pretty straight up and down so that's not as daft as I make it sound ).


Oh dear. I just tried that. I asked Mr Radders to point out where the crease was. "Which one?" He said. So I looked in the mirror and there is no crease - more of a bulge, really! As I thought: I have no waist!


----------



## Matt Cycle (Sep 5, 2016)

Northerner said:


> and that the bar steward is unlikely to mix up with a 'diet' version



That's a bit harsh int it.  I mean we all make mistakes but there's no need to call him that.  ......Oh, I see what you mean.


----------



## Robin (Sep 6, 2016)

Radders said:


> Oh dear. I just tried that. I asked Mr Radders to point out where the crease was. "Which one?" He said. So I looked in the mirror and there is no crease - more of a bulge, really! As I thought: I have no waist!


I tried it this morning, and had several creases to choose from! However if I chose the top one, which is just under my ribs, I was an inch less, so naturally I went for that one! It makes sense, that's where your liver, kidneys etc are.
( OH then saw me standing in front of the mirror and commented, 'Are you supposed to bulge over your knickers like that?' He may live, but it's touch and go)


----------



## Radders (Oct 1, 2016)

Went for my flu jab this morning and the GP decided she needed to weigh me and take my blood pressure. I took off my denim jacket which I had just put back on after the jab, and she told me to keep it on. I insisted as it must weigh at least half a kilo, but I still had shoes on, quite chunky Keen walking sandals as well. I don't get why she would think this does not matter, given next time I might be wearing something totally different!
Anyway, even in with shoes on I was 69 kg and bp was 120 over 70 so very respectable. I can only assume they already know my height (5'9") and are assuming it hasn't changed, as they didn't measure anything else.
Waist measurement still stubbornly sitting in the high risk zone though.


----------



## Robin (Oct 1, 2016)

Radders said:


> Went for my flu jab this morning and the GP decided she needed to weigh me and take my blood pressure. I took off my denim jacket which I had just put back on after the jab, and she told me to keep it on. I insisted as it must weigh at least half a kilo, but I still had shoes on, quite chunky Keen walking sandals as well. I don't get why she would think this does not matter, given next time I might be wearing something totally different!
> Anyway, even in with shoes on I was 69 kg and bp was 120 over 70 so very respectable. I can only assume they already know my height (5'9") and are assuming it hasn't changed, as they didn't measure anything else.
> Waist measurement still stubbornly sitting in the high risk zone though.


Oh we had that about three years ago at the flu jab clinic, they grabbed everyone who came in for the jab and weighed and BP'd them, even though I protested I'd only had it done at my annual review a couple of weeks earlier! Nurse muttered something about statistics, but they haven't done it at any jab clinics since!


----------



## Chaobaby7 (Nov 21, 2016)

I have the hideous apple shape and detest it, it runs in the family, all females in the family have skinny, bony chicken legs and massive guts and big shoulders. I had PCOS ( got no womb and ovaries now as i had cancer) I get distressed when there's people who are over 20 stone and don't have Diabetes and I am 2 stone over weight and diabetic, I never gain weight on the legs or bum, I know I shall nevr be a an hour glass or neat waisted type, I have a big  rib cage and there's no room for a waist that dips in on me, I want to get my 36 inch waist to a healthy rate, I was 40 inches in the summer now 36 from cutting down on carbs mainly.


----------



## Chaobaby7 (Nov 21, 2016)

TheClockworkDodo said:


> You might find this more helpful than just going by waist measurement alone, Radders - http://www.bmi-calculator.net/body-fat-calculator/
> 
> Have a look at the waist to hip calculator while you're there as well.  Apparently women like me who are apple shaped as opposed to pear shaped (tendency to store fat around the middle rather than around the hips) are more at risk of health problems, as Jenny says.  So although I'm a petite size 10-12 with a BMI of 20.28 my body fat level is only at an "acceptable" rather than fit level and my waist to hip ratio means my health risk is moderate rather than low.
> 
> I'm not sure what we're supposed to do about it though, without going underweight ...


I am apple shape I hate it so much


----------



## HOBIE (Nov 21, 2016)

If you exercise it will help. Good luck


----------



## trophywench (Nov 22, 2016)

It sounds to me like there's a goodly amount of genetic stuff probably going on in your family, @Chaobaby - NOT simply the weight.  Also there can be ethnic tendencies going on, South Asian heritage or certain Afro-Caribbeans are more prone to it anyway than us pale individuals - and lots of people get diabetes of all types (well perhaps not MODY) when they aren't overweight, have never been overweight and there's never been even the slightest hint of it anywhere in their family background.  It's not at all picky who it chooses to move in with !


----------



## Chaobaby7 (Nov 22, 2016)

my ancestory is Celt/Saxon like most Birts, but because i guess Diabetes is on both sides of the family is a big thing, my dad's dad controlled his with his diet and was  avery active man, I alos had PCOS which has a problem re insulin resistance, the PCOS was not discoeverd til I was in my 30s after failure to concieve so I had spent a lot of my younger days eating too much in the way of carbs.


----------



## grovesy (Nov 22, 2016)

Chaobaby7 said:


> my ancestory is Celt/Saxon like most Birts, but because i guess Diabetes is on both sides of the family is a big thing, my dad's dad controlled his with his diet and was  avery active man, I alos had PCOS which has a problem re insulin resistance, the PCOS was not discoeverd til I was in my 30s after failure to concieve so I had spent a lot of my younger days eating too much in the way of carbs.


Researchers seem to be finding different genes that are responsible for Type 2, so you gene make up plays a part that the press fail to report on.


----------

