Don't Weigh Me

[Allentown]

Just for perspective, im pretty sure you guys are arguing with the person who claims that your back will disintegrate picking up your kid if you always wear a belt while squatting.

[quikky]

I mean, we're talking about excess body fat being a risk factor for health, which is a medical fact, kind of like smoking being bad. People store a lot of fat in their midsection, and a measure of their waist circumference is a pretty simple and good way of estimating their risk. Arguing against waist size being a risk factor, is essentially saying excess fat is not a risk factor, or that somehow the fat around the midsection doesn't really matter because some super tall dude might have a slightly bigger waist, or something. This is not a serious position.

@Hardartery, I have a feeling you are not interested in a good faith argument here. You already made up your mind, or perhaps you're defensive because some of these guidelines apply to you (if that's so, it was not the intention to offend you, just talking about risk factors here). I don't think posting any of the countless studies on waist size will do anything to convince you.

I do seriously recommend dropping your waist size to 36" tops, especially since you mentioned folks in your family have a history of diabetes. Again, don't mean to offend, and you do your thing. It's just a shame if someone does not lose weight not because it is too hard but because they think their waist size doesn't matter much.

[mbasic]

The two times I went on a hard diet (now -25#s, and like 8-10 years ago -35#s) it seems most of the weight comes off in the belly/waist region 1st.

I believe that was mostly the visceral fat they speak of. My chest, moobs, ass, thighs? .... not so much.

Just my n=1

I think the waist size thing is more useful than BMI in more cases (within each method).

More people will slip thru the cracks on a BMI screen, than a waist circumference screen ....

[Hardartery]

I mean, we're talking about excess body fat being a risk factor for health, which is a medical fact, kind of like smoking being bad. People store a lot of fat in their midsection, and a measure of their waist circumference is a pretty simple and good way of estimating their risk. Arguing against waist size being a risk factor, is essentially saying excess fat is not a risk factor, or that somehow the fat around the midsection doesn't really matter because some super tall dude might have a slightly bigger waist, or something. This is not a serious position.

@Hardartery, I have a feeling you are not interested in a good faith argument here. You already made up your mind, or perhaps you're defensive because some of these guidelines apply to you (if that's so, it was not the intention to offend you, just talking about risk factors here). I don't think posting any of the countless studies on waist size will do anything to convince you.

I do seriously recommend dropping your waist size to 36" tops, especially since you mentioned folks in your family have a history of diabetes. Again, don't mean to offend, and you do your thing. It's just a shame if someone does not lose weight not because it is too hard but because they think their waist size doesn't matter much.

You didn't make the argument that excess fat was the factor, you specifically proposed using a fixed number as a universal measurement that applies to all. Which is stupid, and then you tried to shift your argument. The person with the good faith issue here is not me. You floated an idiotic idea to supplant the flawed BMI that is currently in use, anddon't like someone pointnig out that it's stupid. Maybe work on your reading comprehension a little. There exists the possibility that you did not mean hat you proposed, exactly, but I was more than clear in what I was responding to and you did not claim to have misrepresented your assertion, so I can't cut you slack for that. Asserting that excess fat is a risk factor is a universal claim that is statistically apparent in aggregate. Stating that a waist larger than 37" regardless of any other biometric is a risk factor is retarded. Pick your argument and stick with it, don't try this shifting sand nonsense and pretend you were making the realistic argument to begin with, becasue you weren't.

[Hardartery]

Just for perspective, im pretty sure you guys are arguing with the person who claims that your back will disintegrate picking up your kid if you always wear a belt while squatting.

That's not what my argument was, but I am unsurprised that that is all you can manage to come up with. No wonder you fell for the SS nonsense.

[Hardartery]

The two times I went on a hard diet (now -25#s, and like 8-10 years ago -35#s) it seems most of the weight comes off in the belly/waist region 1st.

I believe that was mostly the visceral fat they speak of. My chest, moobs, ass, thighs? .... not so much.

Just my n=1

I think the waist size thing is more useful than BMI in more cases (within each method).

More people will slip thru the cracks on a BMI screen, than a waist circumference screen ....

My n=1 on that is I cut from 196 last year to 262 beofre going off diet and rebounding to 277. My waist measurement did not change a millimeter through any of it, except briefly getting a little bigger (about 1/8") after about 15 lbs of weight loss and the going back to where it started. It depends entirely on body type where the fat is stored, where it goes on first, and where it comes off first. And the idea that one indicator alone is useful in determining health is foolish. Health is a lot more complicated than that, and kids shouldn't get "Don't weigh me" cards, they should be taught to not have the scale weight as a source of anxiety.

[Hardartery]

Waist circumference, no correlation with BMI. Same results. You can believe whatever you want, but like others have said above, your position is NOT supported by data.

“Results from this large prospective study emphasize the importance of WC as a risk factor for mortality in older adults, regardless of whether the BMI is categorized as normal, overweight, or obese. Our results suggest that, regardless of weight, avoiding gains in WC may reduce risk of premature mortality.”

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamain ... cle/775594

My position is supported by that study, actually. The results are based on gains in waist circumference relative to that individuals waist circumference, not an arbitrary number, which means that it is not a number taken in isolation and applied across a vroad spectrum of body sizes. If your waist specifically get bigger versus itself, your risk factor goes up. At no point are the waist sizes being compared to a fixed, globally applied number. Additiionally, you should consider some of the reasons for exclusion:
" We also excluded participants with a weight gain of more than 25 lbs (>11.3 kg) between the 1992 and 1997 surveys (907 men and 1193 women) because their reported weight in 1997 may not have been representative of their long-term weight."
So, your waist could increase more than 10 cm, but not if it resulted in a 26 lb weight gain. So what gives rise to the waist increase? If they were using me in the study, I have had a more than 25 lb change in weight with no change whatsoever in waist size, therefore by that standard my weight is irrelevant and does not represent a risk factor for me. Which is of course not true. It just so happens that the fat comes off of everywhere else first when I cut. They also exluded anyone with a waist circumference greater than 40".
They also stratified the participants:
"All proportional hazards models were adjusted for age (using the stratified Cox procedure with 1-year age strata33), race (white, black, other, or unknown), educational level (less than high school, high school graduate, some college, college graduate, graduate school, or unknown), physical activity (<7, 7 to <14, 14 to < 21, or ≥21 metabolic equivalents per week, or unknown), smoking status (never smoker, cigar/pipe smoker only, former cigarette smoker [subcategorized by years since quit: <5, 5 to < 10, 10 to <20, 20 to < 30, ≥30, or unknown], or current cigarette smoker [subcategorized by years smoked: ≤40, >40, or unknown]), height (men: <69 in, 69 to <70 in, 70 to <72 in, or ≥72 in; women: <63 in, 63 to <64 in, 64 to <66 in, or ≥66 in), marital status (married, widowed, divorced or separated, never married, or unknown), and alcohol use (never, <1 drink per day, 1 drink per day, >1 drink per day, former drinker, or unknown). Models in women were also adjusted for hormone therapy (never, former, current, or unknown). Models adjusted for BMI included variables for BMI categories (18.5 to <20, 20 to <22.5, 22.5 to <25, 25 to <27.5, 27.5 to <30, 30 to <32.5, 32.5 to <35, or ≥35) and cross-product interaction terms between the variables for each BMI category and age at baseline (<70 years or ≥70 years). Including BMI-by-age interactions may better adjust for BMI because the association between BMI and mortality differs substantially by age.34,3"

So, in fact, waist circumference was at no point isoated to an arbitrary number, like 37" as quickky proposed, it was all done relative to other factors - as it alsways is which is why no study exists that only considers waist measurement. It is always going to be in relation to other things. You need to read more than the title.

[quikky]

I mean, we're talking about excess body fat being a risk factor for health, which is a medical fact, kind of like smoking being bad. People store a lot of fat in their midsection, and a measure of their waist circumference is a pretty simple and good way of estimating their risk. Arguing against waist size being a risk factor, is essentially saying excess fat is not a risk factor, or that somehow the fat around the midsection doesn't really matter because some super tall dude might have a slightly bigger waist, or something. This is not a serious position.

@Hardartery, I have a feeling you are not interested in a good faith argument here. You already made up your mind, or perhaps you're defensive because some of these guidelines apply to you (if that's so, it was not the intention to offend you, just talking about risk factors here). I don't think posting any of the countless studies on waist size will do anything to convince you.

I do seriously recommend dropping your waist size to 36" tops, especially since you mentioned folks in your family have a history of diabetes. Again, don't mean to offend, and you do your thing. It's just a shame if someone does not lose weight not because it is too hard but because they think their waist size doesn't matter much.

You didn't make the argument that excess fat was the factor, you specifically proposed using a fixed number as a universal measurement that applies to all. Which is stupid, and then you tried to shift your argument. The person with the good faith issue here is not me. You floated an idiotic idea to supplant the flawed BMI that is currently in use, anddon't like someone pointnig out that it's stupid. Maybe work on your reading comprehension a little. There exists the possibility that you did not mean hat you proposed, exactly, but I was more than clear in what I was responding to and you did not claim to have misrepresented your assertion, so I can't cut you slack for that. Asserting that excess fat is a risk factor is a universal claim that is statistically apparent in aggregate. Stating that a waist larger than 37" regardless of any other biometric is a risk factor is retarded. Pick your argument and stick with it, don't try this shifting sand nonsense and pretend you were making the realistic argument to begin with, becasue you weren't.

I don't know why you're getting so angry and defensive.

Anyways, let me explain it one more time. Yes, your waist size is an independent risk factor. Even if you are perfectly healthy, having a large waist is a risk factor. Large waist = excess body fat. What is excess? Over 37 inches. High excess is over 40. No, I don't care about your example of someone like Halfthor not fitting into this perfectly. This applies to the vast majority. Including you. It is also obvious that this is a spectrum. Obviously, you are not perfectly fine at 36.9 and then danger zone at 37. It's a general point of reference that's been backed by data across broad swaths of the population. I'll ping
@Austin here in case he would like to explain this better.

In addition, you seem to not understand what risk is. It is not a guarantee of disease, it's the probability. Large waist is higher probability. Very large waist is much higher probability. It is like that with lots of other cardio metabolic metrics. Having 135/80 BP is not great. Having 160/95 is really not great. Even if you seem perfectly healthy otherwise, a higher BP increases risk. Having a large waist does the same. You might live a long and healthy life with a large waist but the chances are a lot smaller than if you lost some. Just like some people live a long life with abnormal BP and never get a stroke.

Some of the data has been presented here, and there's a ton of it out there for you to see. You can ignore it all you want and get angry at people on the internet instead.

[mettkeks]

I don't think any physician is going to even mention BMI if you have a somewhat healthy bodycomposition. If your waist, weight and visual bodycomposition are all outside a healthy range, You're obviously not too jacked for BMI to apply to you.

[bobmen10000]

My primary care physician only mentioned my BMI number when I had lost something like 50 lbs since my previous visit (this was many moons ag). I was like, dude you didn't mention I was too fat the last 10 visits but now that i am down 20% of my bodyweight it is now relevant, okay. He was just reading a checklist on his terminal, which seems to be commonplace in my experience with doctors, and during that particular visit BMI was flagged to be discussed. And yes, I was too fat then, way too fat now but you can visually see my obesity, BMI only makes it seem like it is a miracle that I am ambulatory. If you include my waist circumference and it is a greater miracle I can find pants.

[mbasic]

Never forget . . . .

viewtopic.php?t=122

[convergentsum]

I have seen the absolute value cutoffs (37 and 40 inches, 35ish inches for Caribbean men, which surprised me), also I've seen the threshold for waist to height ratio of 0.5.
Which indicator is superior?

[Brackish]

Waist circumference, no correlation with BMI. Same results. You can believe whatever you want, but like others have said above, your position is NOT supported by data.

“Results from this large prospective study emphasize the importance of WC as a risk factor for mortality in older adults, regardless of whether the BMI is categorized as normal, overweight, or obese. Our results suggest that, regardless of weight, avoiding gains in WC may reduce risk of premature mortality.”

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamain ... cle/775594

My position is supported by that study, actually. The results are based on gains in waist circumference relative to that individuals waist circumference, not an arbitrary number, which means that it is not a number taken in isolation and applied across a vroad spectrum of body sizes. If your waist specifically get bigger versus itself, your risk factor goes up. At no point are the waist sizes being compared to a fixed, globally applied number. Additiionally, you should consider some of the reasons for exclusion:
" We also excluded participants with a weight gain of more than 25 lbs (>11.3 kg) between the 1992 and 1997 surveys (907 men and 1193 women) because their reported weight in 1997 may not have been representative of their long-term weight."
So, your waist could increase more than 10 cm, but not if it resulted in a 26 lb weight gain. So what gives rise to the waist increase? If they were using me in the study, I have had a more than 25 lb change in weight with no change whatsoever in waist size, therefore by that standard my weight is irrelevant and does not represent a risk factor for me. Which is of course not true. It just so happens that the fat comes off of everywhere else first when I cut. They also exluded anyone with a waist circumference greater than 40".
They also stratified the participants:
"All proportional hazards models were adjusted for age (using the stratified Cox procedure with 1-year age strata33), race (white, black, other, or unknown), educational level (less than high school, high school graduate, some college, college graduate, graduate school, or unknown), physical activity (<7, 7 to <14, 14 to < 21, or ≥21 metabolic equivalents per week, or unknown), smoking status (never smoker, cigar/pipe smoker only, former cigarette smoker [subcategorized by years since quit: <5, 5 to < 10, 10 to <20, 20 to < 30, ≥30, or unknown], or current cigarette smoker [subcategorized by years smoked: ≤40, >40, or unknown]), height (men: <69 in, 69 to <70 in, 70 to <72 in, or ≥72 in; women: <63 in, 63 to <64 in, 64 to <66 in, or ≥66 in), marital status (married, widowed, divorced or separated, never married, or unknown), and alcohol use (never, <1 drink per day, 1 drink per day, >1 drink per day, former drinker, or unknown). Models in women were also adjusted for hormone therapy (never, former, current, or unknown). Models adjusted for BMI included variables for BMI categories (18.5 to <20, 20 to <22.5, 22.5 to <25, 25 to <27.5, 27.5 to <30, 30 to <32.5, 32.5 to <35, or ≥35) and cross-product interaction terms between the variables for each BMI category and age at baseline (<70 years or ≥70 years). Including BMI-by-age interactions may better adjust for BMI because the association between BMI and mortality differs substantially by age.34,3"

So, in fact, waist circumference was at no point isoated to an arbitrary number, like 37" as quickky proposed, it was all done relative to other factors - as it alsways is which is why no study exists that only considers waist measurement. It is always going to be in relation to other things. You need to read more than the title.

Alright, I give up. You do you.

[Hanley]

Which indicator is superior?

Probably waist to height ratio.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22106927/

[alek]

Which indicator is superior?

Probably waist to height ratio.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22106927/

Since it's behind a paywall, and I ain't skeered of sci hub, I took some images of that paper to post here.

SpoilerShow

[asdf]

Which indicator is superior?

Probably waist to height ratio.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22106927/

Since it's behind a paywall, and I ain't skeered of sci hub, I took some images of that paper to post here.

The full downloadable PDF is available on ResearchGate:

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... a-analysis

[alek]

The full downloadable PDF is available on ResearchGate:

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... a-analysis

Well there went the wind in my sails...

[Hanley]

The full downloadable PDF is available on ResearchGate:

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... a-analysis

Well there went the wind in my sails...

I'm sure you have an enviable waist to height ratio.

[Hardartery]

Which indicator is superior?

Probably waist to height ratio.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22106927/

Since it's behind a paywall, and I ain't skeered of sci hub, I took some images of that paper to post here.

The full downloadable PDF is available on ResearchGate:

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... a-analysis

Imagine that, waist measurement in isolation isn't very useful, it needs to be considered in relation to other factors - like height.

[asdf]

waist measurement in isolation isn't very useful

That was hardly the conclusion of the paper. But carry on...