WIN is part of NIH (US National Institutes of Health), so yes, pretty impartial and science-based.

Relief! What relief! I didn't read any of the other posts so forgive me if this is repeating...

I read the title and thought that there was a dieting fad that had people weighing their poop and pee. i.d "waste".

Thank Goodness it was a spelling error! "waist" is what you're measuring. And yes, you are supposed to measure the largest part of your waist, but I don't know how that applies to some whose "stomach" has fallen somewhere below their pelvis.

I would think, though, that if this is the case, forget about measurements. There are muscular inefficiencies and high fat % issues that can be addressed without taking measurements. Meaning, at that point, just start living a healthy life and lose fat. At some point, you'll be made aware by your own body where to measure the loss.

As for BMI and height: From WIN: [W]omen with waist size equal to or greater than 35 inches were approximately twice as likely to die of heart disease as were women with a waist size less than 28 inches, regardless of their body mass index. Similarly, women with a waist size equal to or greater than 35 inches also were twice as likely to die of cancer as were women with a waist size less than 28 inches.

The research comes from the Nurses' Health Study, like a lot of women's health research.

The title is all fixed now

There certainly is a lot of conflicting info on how to measure your waist in order to accord with these studies. I was looking at that link MariaMaria posted and noticed that halfway down the article, it says "Waist circumference is determined by measuring around the waist at the navel line."

Then it sends you to another link (NHLBI) for more information... where they tell you: "To correctly measure your waist, stand and place a tape measure around your middle, just above your hipbones. Measure your waist just after you breathe out." I don't know about you chicks, but if I measure just above my hipbones, I'm between my navel and the smallest part of my waist.

I also wonder how many women they had in those studies with 28" or smaller waists at the navel. I'm 25.5" at the smallest part of my waist and 29.5" at the navel, and I'm a smallish gal who carries most of her weight in her hips and thighs rather than her waist. But I have wide-set hipbones, so maybe that's inflating my navel measurement?

My mum always makes me measure at the puffiest part of the muffin top. And the hip includes the stomach part that "hangs".

Since you probably don't have this problem I'd say your measurement at <=1" above the navel is probably fine. It's around about where I measure.

For most WOMEN the waist is two inches above the hip bone.
If you aren't an apple shaped girl it is the thinnest part of your midrift when you face the mirror straight.
If you are apple shaped just find your hip bone (It is a hard lump where the legs meet the stomach and count 2 inches up. Notice INCHES and not centimeters.
What the girl on the video says in not the waist but the stomach.

You can always measure your stomach too for cosmetic reasons, but it still isn't your waist.

I for one measure both my waste and my stomach.

Note that the waist remains rather stable around the month while the stomach circumference changes with every meal, TOM, or drink. Your stomach will bloat and deflate 3-4 times A DAY.

there was a fairly recent study that says that having a larger waist/being apple shaped is not a higher risk factor for heart disease - it's obesity in general, regardless of how the excess weight is distributed.

http://www.webmd.com/heart-disease/n...sky-study-says

I was always under the impression that the apple-shape risk referred to people who weren't obese. If you're obese, you're in trouble, no matter where your fat is. If you're a healthy weight, but your fat had more apple-shaped distribution, you're at higher risk than a healthy-weight pear or hourglass.

On the typo, I wanted to say a thank you to all of you out there. We all noticed it, including the OP. We all thought it was funny. Isn't it nice to be in a crowd of people for whom that type of thing is the exception rather than the rule? It's not the case for a lot of online dealings. Look at facebook! I appreciate the punctuation, the capitalization, the paragraphing you find on this board.

Thanks for changing the title Mandolin82!

Wow, it sounds like there are a lot of conflicting ideas about how to measure waist circumference--and unfortunately I am an apple. I just found the spot right above the top of the pelvis (I had to dig my hands in to find the exact top) which seems to be right on top of the belly button.

I imagine that the subcutaneous fat probably hangs out around the rolls of the abdomen, whereas the visceral fat (the worst kind) is evident in the thinner parts of the waist--around the naval and the fleshy spot between ribs and pelvis.

It seems like anything measured within the range of the pelvis (below the bellybutton) would probably represent subcutaneous fat more than visceral. Although there are organs all throughout the torso and hips.

Besides, I can't measure on the actual button, or below it--that is just cruel and unusual.

I have always wondered about this... I posted about this topic when I first joined 3fc (and some people gave me a hard time about being concerned about my waist size when I wasn't overweight - 5'6" 152 lbs but a waist size close to "dangerous").

I researched and concluded that I would track my measurements with two numbers - the minimum (which is about 1-2 inches above my navel) and the navel/2 inches above the hip bones, which also happens to be my maximum. When I take that measurement, my "waist" is ~ the same size as my "bust". Depressing.

I am currently around 135 lbs so a perfectly healthy weight for my height. My body fat is around 28%. I just checked...My waist at the navel is 34.5 inches. UGH.

I need to research this more ... I know the 35 (actually 88 cm/more like 34.5) inches is just a guideline but this is disturbing information.

I've always measured right on or right above my naval. I work measuring men at a tuxedo place, so I'm hoping I'm right since I don't usually measure women.

I lean to one side, where the bend is that is where I measure. I also measure at the belly button just as a way to track any gain or loss. It's the hips that I just never know where to measure.

If you want to know your waist when you're trying to find your size for clothes/sewing etc then it's the narrowest part of your waist that's roughly 1-2". You can also find it by bending to the right (or left, doesn't matter) and measuring where your waist bends. For me it varies between 33-34" depending on if I'm bloated or not.

Now, if you measure at your navel or below you and you're at all prone to bloating (especially during your TOM) then you're going to see A LOT more variation. For instance, around my built-in muffin top I can be as small as 37" or up to 40/41" if I've had a huge meal or it's TOM or I'm just bloated in general. Your navel can also have many more variations so I'd be pretty surprised if that's where they're measuring for the study because you'd have a lot more factors going into besides just how much fat a person is storing around their waist. Did they check if the woman had just ate? Is she on her period? etc

I do think measuring around your natural waist vs. your lower belly probably also shows more of a difference between visceral and subcutaneous fat. Even thought I don't have a "slim" natural waist yet, I don't have a lot of fat that I can just pinch around there (so it's probably stored more around my internal organs ). However, on my lower belly I can grab a huge chunk of fat...

I totally agree about the inch waist thing not making a ton of sense when it comes to one'S height. I read somewhere that ideally you divide your height in inches in half and your waist should be at or below that number. That seems to make more sense to me and for a 5'6" woman that would mean 33" or below. I'm right at the line between obese and overweight so it happens to coincide with that milestone in my BMI too. I've often wondered for other women where those too coincide...

As for Waist-to-Hip ratio. CDC lists being under 0.8 as "safe", although I've heard 0.7 is better and that 0.6 or under is what you see in some beauty icons. Right now I'm under 0.8 and even when I was in the middle of my BMI and VERY athletic I never was at 0.7 or under so I have a hard time believing that's going to happen. Some women are just not going to carry enough weight around their hips to pull that off...

Sorry for the rambling but I've watched my inches closely because my body doesn't like to give up pounds as easily so this is a subject near and dear to my heart.

I measure at the thinnest part of my waist, which is pretty much at my belly button. I have a spare tire above, and a belly pooch below, but I don't consider them my waist at all.

Carol