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.

Moln but that's stil measuring bone, so it doesn't work

Purely from the diabetes pov, my nurse told me that very rarely she has tested somebody with a waste larger than 34" and they haven't had diabetes.
However, obviously they are there to be tested so have some symptoms already.
Saying that, you can be below 34" and develop it, as happened to me.
I was a 32 at the time, but overweight, not obese.

Blimey hollins then that is one seriously clever/flattering dress!!

Just did the measuring and realised that I have a 36 inch waist. Also, that I would have to be 20cm taller for that to be healthy.

Good thing I'm already on a diet, eh?

Couple of others. Fat but not huge. I just get irritated when people seem to think that anyone over 15 stone can barely walk

No CatsMeow you really wouldn't be measuring your bone. Mostly because you measure between your hip bone and the bottom of your ribs (and it's under women's ribs that you find the (mostly) narrowest part of the torso. But this isn't where you measure). Between your Hip (bone) and the bottom of your ribs there's no bone except your spine.

Seen your picture now and you should measure slightly above your belly button.

Grey would measure slightly under yours.

It is not your natural waist you are measuring. I do think they were stupid referring to it as a waist because it (obviously) confuses everyone.

Of course it's your natural waist!!!! What else is it?

Moln so in between the black and the yellow line? I get 28". 25" around the waist waist, 30" at the belly button.

Yeah calling it a waist is ridiculous why not call it abdominal circumference? I have 3 different "waists" from this

Fierce pics hollin I wouldn't argue with you

green if you measure where moln says that isn't your waist

Moin seems to have a different method to the rest of the world

Australian guidelines say anything above 75 or 80cm (I think it's 80cm?) waist for a woman is unhealthy, and equals a higher risk for diabetes,
heart disease etc.

According to the online calculator, I need to lose 20 pounds, which seems rather a lot! I have lost a stone over the last year, and 20 pounds is another stone and then some

My BMI is (just) under 25 and my waist is 35". Like LaContessa I'm already on the case fortunately. I was recently tested for diabetes (which I don't have) and was labelled medium risk, mainly on account of my age.

mrsdv I would say it is sugar (including processed food) and to a lesser degree, stress, rather than saturated fat.

Waist to height ration is frequently used as a future health indicator these days. Take your waist and divide it by your height measurement. You are aiming for your waist to be 50% or less of your height. BMI is outdated due to different build and muscle mass. So, my height is 60 inches(5FT 5) and waist is 27 inches. 27 divided by 60 is 0.45, so 45% of my height.

ratio not ration!!!!

best your waist waist or the other one?

Mine!!!
www.health-calc.com/body-composition/waist-to-height-ratio

Actually mine is 0.41 on the site I linked, so even better. This site says 1 inch above belly button is your waist and I agree!!

I think that's weird they call that a waist I'm with moln that if should be called something else because that's not the waist on a lot of people

Mines either 0.37 or 0.42 depending which measurement

Some of the measurements for clothes being bandied about on this thread are nuts. I'm old (over 50) and as s teenager I wore skinny jeans by Pepe because they did half sizes. 31 waist was a size 13. That means that in the mists of time 32 was a 14, 34 a 16 and 36 an 18 etc., not the tiny measurements you are all making up! And to confirm this skinny DD bought some vintage Levi 501s. She is a (current) size 10 so I used the old Pepe measurements to advise her which to try. The 28s (10) fit her like modern 10s. These were jeans from the early 80s. No change in sizes.

Look at best's link and couldn't work out what I'd done. They're my measurements as the example!