The FastDay Forum

Thought you guys might like to have a read of this:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/foodanddrink/healthyeating/10004219/Lunch-with-Michael-Mosley-the-52-diet-guru.html

Thank you for that. Will check it out.

No chocolate, boys and girls, says the good doctor. Ooooh that's not how to make friends and influence people!

[carorees]

Important point to note:

Rather than working out BMI, Mosley recommends measuring your waist around the belly button, now considered by some health professionals to be a better indicator of a healthy weight. “Your waist measurement should be no more that half your height. Men tend to go by their trouser size, which is wrong – it’s generally smaller than your actual waist.”

Important point to note:

Rather than working out BMI, Mosley recommends measuring your waist around the belly button, now considered by some health professionals to be a better indicator of a healthy weight. “Your waist measurement should be no more that half your height. Men tend to go by their trouser size, which is wrong – it’s generally smaller than your actual waist.”

I don't think this is more than another broad indicator, though. I am a tall, narrow-shouldered man. How can this hold true for me as well as a shorter, broad-shouldered person?

I don't think this is more than another broad indicator, though

You must be right, but it may be a better broad indicator than BMI. Perhaps we need a ratio of waist / shoulder circumference? We have WHR and WHtR, that would be WSCR (WSR is already used as 'Waist Stature Ratio' i.e. WHtR).

BTW, this paper suggests that 0.48 is really the right waist/height ratio (WHtR) to aim for, not 0.50...

[carorees]

True enough but perhaps it is still better than BMI! I am using a combination of waist:height and waist:hip ratio. The problem with waist:hip is that it does not account for carrying weight on both hips and waist so if both are large it's possible one is still too fat even if the ratio is good (which is my situation). So despite my waist:hip ratio being under 0.8, I can clearly see that my waist and hips need to slim down so I was aiming to get my waist to be less than my height. Now I've seen dominic's post I can admit that probably 0.48 would be right for me. But, as you say, waist:height does not account so well for your frame. Possibly waist:hip is better for men and waist:height better for women who are more likely to carry fat on the hips. Thoughts anyone?

Well this is what the abstract says [bear in mind that their WSR is our WHtR, they are comparing it with Waist Circumference (WC) and Waist-Hip Ratio (WHR)]:

Among 11 cardiovascular risk factors in partial correlation analysis, including ties WSR had the highest r in 6 in men, and 5 in women; followed by WC with 4 in men and 6 in women. In Receiver Operator Characteristic (ROC) analyses of 21 risk factors and health conditions, the area under curve of WSR was the largest for most (13 of 21) factors in men and 10 in women; followed by WHR with 14 in women but only 5 in men. The optimal WSR cutoff value was 0.48 for both men and women.

So if I understand the jargon right: of these three measures WHtR (waist/height) is the best indicator for men, for women WHR (waist/hips) or WC (waist only) could be said to be better indicators depending on which statistical technique you use; however WHtR was still the best indicator for women taking both techniques into account.

I find it tough to accurately measure my waist. I find that I'm subconsciously holding it in a bit sometimes, and have to try to relax the muscles. Even so, it's around half my height now, and I certainly still have a noticeable belly. It's way smaller than it was six months ago of course, but I'm pretty sure that it still needs work!

No chocolate, boys and girls, says the good doctor. Ooooh that's not how to make friends and influence people!

funny, for me I have found that having so much chocolate in the house that I could not come close to finishing it has been a much better route to take. It doesn't work that way with crackers for me though.

I'm only using my waist measurement to judge my progress - I ditched the scales a couple of years ago as I was getting obsessed - and fatter!
The doc weighed me a few weeks ago at 16 stone and I read somewhere that 7 pounds fat loss = an inch of belly fat and if that's the case and I've got about 9 inches of belly to lose, that equates to 4.5 stone which interestingly gets me to a healthy BMI! I also have a selection of jeans in a box on the top of the wardrobe - when I can get into the smallest I'll know I've made it!

Possibly waist:hip is better for men and waist:height better for women who are more likely to carry fat on the hips. Thoughts anyone?

Simple waist measurement is often quoted as a health indicator. If the waist is between the hips and the rib cage it isn't wholly dependent on bone structure size.

There is a risk of index syndrome here - taking a few basic measurements and turning them into a myriad of statistics. If you lose weight your BMI, WHR and any number of other ratios will fall, won't they ?

You can't increase your height by dieting, not your shoulder width.

Thanks for sharing that article - I'm sure a lot of us on here would have missed it otherwise

I agree Suchard, but in fact it was posted here yesterday too in a different topic: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3773

Stuff goes past so quickly now on this forum! Blink and you miss it. Good stuff as well, sometimes...

dominic - you're not wrong I often find really interesting threads as far back as page 3/4 and wonder how on earth I've missed them. It's so great that this is so popular - the planet's becoming a lighter place (I often wonder if it'll start spinning quicker ha ha !!)