The FastDay Forum

Something that bugs me about being considered at higher risk of disease with a waist size of more than 88cms( as quoted in the Swedish low carb study posted by Caroline) for women (more for men) is that it doesn't take into account your height, so where on earth do studies on obesity get this from? After all it stands to reason that if I am under 5 feet with a waist of 87cms compared to someone of say 5 feet 8 inches with a waist of 89cms then the one with the most risk would be the shorter person, even though their waist is supposedly healthy?

I thought a healthy waist size was exactly half your height?

yes, that's what I think too. it just seems that every time studies are published from research groups etc. this "magic" number is produced and I always wonder how they arrived at a particular number.

Actually, even though I've been lead to believe that it's healthy waist - half height... I don't know how they arrived at that conclusion either (whoever *they* are)!

How *they* arrive at anything these days, it's always up to interpretation. Last week going without food was bad for you, this week it has all sorts of health benefits with the side effect of weight loss...

[carorees]

These studies include lots of women, so on average they are average height presumably, so the waist size quoted refers to women of average height. There are studies which looked at waist:height ratio and found under 0.5 is associated with a low risk of cardiovascular events (hearty attack etc), but some found a bit less than 0.5 was best 0.48 if I remember correctly.

For anyone illiterate in metric, as I am, 88cm = 34.65 inches.

My height is 5'3" (I seem to have lost an inch somewhere along the way) so half my height would be 31.5". I have to say, I prefer the first figure, but currently I despair of ever getting to either. Jumbo tumbo continues to be as jumbo as ever (well, nearly). Goodness knows where the weight's coming off!

I am 161cm high (about 5'3") and I don't think I would ever get to 80.5cm waist. 88cm seems more feasible to me. Being short doesn't help and being a typical apple with no hips/butt doesn't help either!
I guess I'll see where I am measurements wise once I reach a healthy BMI, which btw with the new calculations is going to take longer!
Oh well, I can't change my height, I can't change my shape-trend, so I'll focus on what I can change

These studies include lots of women, so on average they are average height presumably, so the waist size quoted refers to women of average height. There are studies which looked at waist:height ratio and found under 0.5 is associated with a low risk of cardiovascular events (hearty attack etc), but some found a bit less than 0.5 was best 0.48 if I remember correctly.

These scientists like to use averages, but if you aren't average, you've just gotta treat recommendations with a grain of salt. All of the nutrition fact labels in the US have RDIs for a woman - 2000kcal, and a man -2500kcal. My TDEE is currently a little under 1300. I was gaining weight slowly for years with a daily intake that certainly was under 1500kcal.

Also, @carorees, isn't .5 essentially identical to .48 in real waist measurement numbers?

[carorees]

No 0.5 and 0.48 are not the same. For my height, 0.48 is 79.2 and 0.5 is 82.4 = 3.2 cm difference.