Sat, Nov-04-17, 13:24
|
|
Monday came.
Posts: 4,428
|
|
Plan: my own
Stats: 275/228.6/155
BF:ummm . . . ?
Progress: 39%
|
|
Waist-to-Height Ratio
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by synger
BMI is a VERY general measurement. It's only height/weight, and that weight is not just fat, but muscle and bone as well. BMI was developed not for individuals, but to show population trends overall. A lean but well-muscled individual might show up as "overweight" or even "obese" according to BMI, while a less well-muscled and more fat-laden person can be "normal weight" according to BMI.
Much better measurements are either waist/height ratio or waist/hip ratio. That is much more likely to show overweight, AND it's showing the intra-abdominal fat that is most likely to bring health issues. |
Older post, but new information for me, perhaps others? Never heard of this way of evaluating a healthy weight. It resonated for me. I've read that any waist size under 31" is healthful for a woman my age, but I have been feeling that I still want to take some more fat off this area.
Inverting the formula for waist->height, I can multiply my height by those standards; in my case 64"x.42-.48, so a waist size of around 27"-31" puts me in the lowest-risk category. (I'm ignoring the age-adjustment, as I assume this compensates for increasing illness in the older population, which doesn't apply to me at this time, and I hope never will.) This is a measurement I'm keeping an eye on, and it seems to be decreasing less quickly than other spots on my body, at about a ratio of an inch off my waist for every ten pounds I lose.
And another twenty pounds sounds about right to me, 132, and another few inches off my waist would probably be about right in terms of the amount of fat I would want to see there. |