To think a 84cm / 34 inch waist is not "slim"

[apenny4]

Here's a link to the article

I'm very open to being told IABU, in fact I'd be quite relieved to be told I have a warped view. Right now though I don't think a 34 inch waist is slim. To me slim is no larger than a size 10 so around a 27 inch waist max.

Unless you are a much taller than the average woman (average being 5' 4"?) I think a healthy (in the general sense of the word) waist is less than 30 inches.

However I have a small frame and have felt overweight whenever I've needed to wear size 12 bottoms (and that's still not over a 30 inch waist).

The irony is that I still think I'm at high risk of developing diabetes because my father has it and whilst not overweight I have a diet quite high in sugar.

Genuinely interested in people's views on this and whether my own view is out of kilter with the norm.

Rubbish running. My 10 year old is just growing out of a size 10. There is not a cm of fat on her. She is Amazonian, very athletic and sporty

I agree that alot of the hour glass figures of the 1950s were down to corsets. I don't think a return to that shape is desirable. If a women is 20-25 BMI and has a well toned abdomen then it being 30 inches rather than 26 doesn't matter. If she is carrying fat deposits round her middle then it does matter as it may affect her health.

I don't think clothing sizes mean much as they are very different to those from 20/30 years ago and also sizes fluctuate between shops. Today I am wearing a size 10 top, size 16 trousers and a size 12 coat!

I think the amount of fat you are carrying is the key.

Have you built up muscle around your waist mrs c

A 34 waist is not slim and as people have doubtless said, is a risk factor for type 2 diabetes.

That said, I am a size 8/10, about 9 stone and 5 foot 4, and my waist is about 29 inches even though my hips are only about 34 inches. So although I am fit and healthy, I have the apple shape which also make me higher risk for diabetes and heart problems. And I eat too much sugar. So I need to keep on running!

My 10 year old is just growing out of a size 10

I find this extraordinary. Is she incredibly muscular or large-framed or something? Because she is clearly larger than I am and I am not particularly slim.

She's tall am, she 5ft 8in. You couldn't describe her as anything other than slim. Amazonian is accurate. Her dad is 6ft 4in and his mum and 2 sisters are taller than him.

That said though, there are a couple of girls in her class only an inch or so shorter. So she is not 'extraordinary'

One measure is only an indicator, not an absolute. Waist size is a pretty good indicator.

I know people who are fairly large around the hips and thighs, very unfit, almost no ankles and relatively small waists. I have thin shapely legs, arms but all my weight is in my belly.

Height makes a huge difference as does muscle mass. For waist size, I think the shape of your hips can affect it too?

Wow, 5'8" is very very tall for a ten year old (and yes, a size 10 is pretty slim at that height)! But I guess her height is not unexpected with a 6'4" dad. I do think it's very much out of the ordinary. Most of the taller ten year olds I know are shorter than I am so under 5'6". The more average ones are probably significantly less than five foot at a guess.

I was at school with a girl who would have been that tall at 11 - she ended up being 5'11" tall by the end of fifth form (so when she was 15)

My MIL helpfully pointed out that young women these days had massive thighs - looking at me. I pointed out that some people have massive bellies and stick legs - her! Body shape is a struggle. Even at size 8, BMI 19, 5ft 8in - running 3 times a week, military fitness class 3 times a week - my thighs were still big and wobbly - I did not have thigh gap - but my arms, shoulders and torso looked great.

Ok now I feel fat. ~looks down at 40 inch waist~

Large midsection and thin legs usually means excess visceral fat and low muscle mass
Probably a worst case scenario in terms of body composition

Big legs are generally a good thing from a health point of view
Large calves often indicates a good amount of muscle mass

I notice lots of big legs too You

I agree that we have entirely lost sight of what slim is, as a society. MN does seem especially bad for this too.

I dont have a 'large midsection', suzanne

Did I say that you did?
No
I was just making a general point about body composition

But im so pleased to hear that you have a LOT of muscle "you gotta*

Although somehow I doubt it...very few women are genetically capable of high levels of muscle mass
How much can you bench / dead lift / squat and at what body fat?
20% ain't exactly ripped now is it....

Being 5'7" with a 37" waist I can tell you for a fact that size is very hard to gauge, given most people put my waist at 31" at most. I may not be slim enough for you lot but I don't have a "disproportionately large waist".

20% body fat is very lean for a woman.

I think where you place fat is a genetic lottery - and I'm just bloody lucky that I'm an hourglass. I've also known very slim and fit - size 6 women with fat ankles, I'm not sure it's something that can be helped anymore than my disproportionately large thighs!

I have big thighs. I'm a sprint/ mid distance runner. They've been big since I got into sport at school. Usain Bolt would look pretty daft and be quite ineffective with Pee-wee Herman's legs.

Some huge assumptions being made on here about 'fit and fat'.

For the record, I am diagnosed pcos sufferer so it's harder for me than most to get and keep my weight down. I think I do pretty fucking well, considering. Which is why I will continue to go with bmi as the most accurate interpretation of what is healthy and what is not.

Judging from some of the comments, I'd say the only women who classify as slim to some people are Victoria's Secret Models. Everyone else is just fat and in denial.