The string test. Aibu to think this is a pretty clear way to show you're overweight?

[africanprincessinscotland]

I caught a bit of a BBC programme earlier where they were doing the string test. I've never heard of it before, but it makes perfect sense. If your waist measurement is more than half your height, you are overweight. And because it's around your waist, it indicates how much visceral fat you have. That's the really bad type.

So, you get a piece of string, cut it to the length of your height (heel to head), fold it in half and put it around your waist. If it doesn't meet, you're overweight. Very simple.

I know that BMI is controversial, but with this, you can't really argue against it, can you? Unless you're pregnant!

I'm overweight but I have a figure like Jessica rabbit so am ok with the strong test.

Sorry, I wrote badly.

I meant that the hostile reaction is to the term 'vanity sizing', because of personal reaction to the 'vanity' part of it, which deflected from the actual meaning. It's why I also mentioned how it wasn't just revalorisation f a standard to reflect changing population size (something I've seen used to deny that the phenomenon ever existed).

I think your term 'size inflation' is considerably better. And I don't think it's the term that people dislike, it's the unsettling idea that for an average height woman, 12 'means' heavy/overweight' these days and 14 'obese'

There was a thread recently where it was suggested that a size 12 was "fat" and people were horrified. In my personal experience; I am currently fitting into most of my size 12 clothes, but when I look into the mirror, I can see that I have excess weight that needs to go for me to be both healthy and a decent size. I'm 5'4", so if I was any shorter, size 12 would definitely suggest I was overweight.
Re the photo thing. Without a doubt, photos of me show really clearly that I'm far porkier than I'd like to be

"It makes me wonder if these people don't have mirrors in their homes or whether they are just in denial"

People always 'pose' themselves for a mirror, even if the action is subconscious. And they are probably in denial as well. The. Along comes a snap for which they haven't posed, and they don't have the illusions to hide behind. Not a pleasant moment - I've been there and managed to keep the the illusions going for years, thus being slim in my head but temporarily a bit off in appearance.

I have since lost the weight, with the help of some lovely MNetters on the same weight loss chat thread. It was landmark birthday that was my prompt to really get rid of excess. And I'm no longer squeezing myself into size 16 and kidding myself it's only a bit large. Both BMI and waist 'pass' and I think I'm normal size now, and that's usually an 8 or 10

Wondering if you can pass the string test but still be skinny fat? I often wonder if that might be the case with me - as my diet hasn't been brilliant at various times in my life, lots of sugar etc, so I've wondered if I might have low body fat, but internal visceral fat. I'm 5'7" and 25" waist so pass the test comfortably - but presumably that's one measure of. Wonder if there's any other way to tell other than a full body CT scan? My cholesterol, blood pressure, hbac1 etc are all perfect range. But I'm not naive enough to think that being slim necessarily means everything is in tip top condition!

I've got a couple of size 10 stiff cotton dresses from the 70's and 80's that originally belonged to relatives. I'm a size 8 top and 10 bottoms according to my clothes which range from the late 90s onwards (I have been consistent in my own clothes). My goodness I have to breath in and battle the zip on the vintage clothes!

Body shapes and proportions vary so going by a range of measures as well as using your eyes does help. As others have said, the visceral fat does have more specific health issues than the same quanity of fat in the thighs or bust.

DH is 6ft and lurks between a 32-34 inch waist trouser. If he has gone up to 36 inches, the weight will be on the abomen (as it does so often with men in particular) and it does tip him beyond the healthy range of BMI.

I'm naturally a pear shape although since having DCs, I have surplus overstretched skin which adds to my waist and seems to encourage more fat gain in that area than I once did. I have a small bust. As a 62 inch (5ft 2) shortie, I find the BMI range quite generous for my particular build and feel overweight before getting to BMI 28 or a 29 inch waist because I have minimal bust to balance it out (debatably a 32B, apparently I need something like 28D or 30C but can't actually find any to buy!) It's safe to say that I would be overweight with a surplus of visceral fat by a 31 inch waist!

I am 6ft and it means I could get 10cm fatter than I currently am . currently on bmi 24, and if I was 10cm bigger around the waist I'd really be very fat.

Also, women often go in at the waist so it is much harder for men

My waist is 20cm smaller than my hips, whereas DH is the same height as me but his hips are smaller than his waist

People have very different builds (esp male/female)

So this makes no sense to me at all

"It makes me wonder if these people don't have mirrors in their homes"

I think it's quite likely that if you don't like your body, you won't look straight on at full length mirrors. Also possible that some people don't have full length ones.

"Also, women often go in at the waist so it is much harder for men"

Yes, men are more at risk of some of these things aren't they?
I'm not sure if women go in at the waist after menopause.

" am 6ft and it means I could get 10cm fatter than I currently am shock. "

So it sounds like you're not carrying too much of your weight around the middle, which is what the string test is for.

So it sounds like you're not carrying too much of your weight around the middle, which is what the string test is for

That's crazy. As said, you can be a size 16 waist. into obese territory and still pass this daft "string" test.

The problem here is it's going to make some folks think "well I'm ok and not at risk". Or "I'm ok, I passed the test so I'm not really overweight" When they clearly are. But they want to think they aren't so will cling to it.

It's dangerous. And faintly ridiculous with it.

I tend to agree with bluntness, I did this test with DP last night and he just passed and was delighted. He's a good stone overweight and luckily dismissed it when he went on the scales.

His stomach is wider than his hips and he still passed. Maybe the test works better on short people!

I don't think the string test is suppoised to tell you "am I overweight?". IT's supposed to be an indication of whether you are carrying weight in an area that could indicate that your visceral fat is too high.

I just scrape a "pass" at the string test but I know my visceral fat is very low.

It's a blunt instrument, like BMI. Useful but not definitive

T's supposed to be an indication of whether you are carrying weight in an area that could indicate that your visceral fat is too high

But that's the point, for many of us it would tell us our visceral fat is not too high and it would be very wrong. In fact for the vast majority it seems.

Potentially it does actually work better on shorter people.

As said, I'm five eight, I could be a dress size 16/18 at the waist, and I would pass this test. There is no doubt that my visceral fat would likely be too high.

The reason it's dangerous is because it will tell a huge amount of people they likely don't have a problem when they do.

And the difference between this and bmi is bmi falls on the side of caution. This test does the opposite. It falls on the side of risk.

I think it might work on apple shapes but not pear shapes or even hourglasses

I'm very overweight and my waist is still less than half my height.
But my arms, legs, hips thighs bum are all objectively fat.

I have a double chin and dimples in my knuckles.

My calves are so big even wide leg boots won't do up and I have bingo wings.

But still have a pretty tiny waist (30", which is really miniscule compared to the rest of me)

I'm 5'4" with a healthy BMI. I fail the string test though and I'm definitely an apple. But I wear a 10 or 12. I think people who just assume they would pass because of their clothes size need to actually measure their waist.

I'm 5'4" with a healthy BMI. I fail the string test though and I'm definitely an apple. But I wear a 10 or 12

But this cannot be correct. To fail then your waist must be above a 32 inches, so 33 + as such, this is a standard uk dress size 16, it is not a ten to a 12.

Vanity sizing has a lot to answer for.

I'm 5'4 with a 32 inch waist, so I just about pass - I'm half a stone above a healthy BMI though. The last time I was at my ideal weight, in the middle of the healthy BMI, my waist was 29 inches.

... most of my excess weight is in my horrible large boobs .

I did this mine just met yet bmi says I'm obese so I'm not sure

Bluntness That's what I'm saying. People shouldn't assume because they wear a 10/12 then they have a 28 inch waist.

Vanity sizing is bonkers

25" waist jeans and a size 6 in some shops, size 8 in others - and even in the same shop (H&M) one style of denim shorts I bought in an 8, but another style I couldn't even get the 8 buttoned up, and got a 10 instead

That's even within the same store, and same style of garment!!

I think saying x inches is a size y is even more pointless than the string test thugh Bluntness because they vary so so much

I'm 5ft 2 and weigh 9.5 stone. Just inside the healthy BMI range. I'm a large frame and quite muscular. I have 27 knch waist and I pass the string test (At navel level too). I'm a size 10. I don't think I'm fat. Am I in denial?

Re size inflation. When I first got a bra in the mid 70s the smallest back size you could get was 32. Now adult back sizes start at 28. Does that mean that a 28 in today's sizing is a 36 in old sizes?