I was just curious about waist circumference. I measured my waist today and I had a measurement of 31 1/4 inches. I measured my true waist at 1 inch above the belly button. The stigma for a woman's perfect measurements has always been 36-24-36. At 139lbs I have no idea how I would take 7 inches off of my waist without killing myself. I'm still carrying weight in my belly and I'm hoping that by losing these last 10lbs that it will take care of some of that belly fat. I'm not really worried about having perfect measurements, but I am worried about visceral fat in my abdomen for health reasons.
If any of you don't mind I would love to hear some of your waist measurements. I would rather see where real women are as opposed to those perfect models in magazines.
I'm rather apple-tastic, so there's no hope for me of that hour-glass figure, no matter how much weight I lose. And I don't think that these last ten pounds will change my waist circumference much, but we'll see.
Also an apple here. 35 - 27.5 - 36 or thereabouts, depending on whether I'm bloated that day. As of today, my butt looks good in size 26 jeans but my tummy wants a size 28
I've decided that my ultimate goal is to have measurements of 34 - 26 - 34: that involves losing at least 10 more lbs but it also means I'll have to bulk up my muscles in my glutes in order to not lose so much there. So that's a fitness goal as well as a weight one.
Very few women have 36-24-36. Shrug... I've made my peace that I won't be one of them.
Last edited by lackadaisy; 02-06-2011 at 06:40 PM.
I honestly thought the "perfect" measurements were 36-26-36? 24 is a pretty small waist...even at my thinnest college self (110 lbs) my waist was only 25 inches...I can't imagine being 24.
My waist is currently 27 inches - I am 39-27-39. But I'm a small frame, so I tend to wear small sizes despite looking so hour glassy on paper.
I guess you are right on the border for the visceral fat risk...I think they recommend waists 30 inches or smaller for women and then look at the waist to hip ratio. But, you know, it's only a guideline. I wouldn't worry too much about being right on the line...it's not an exact science, but some sort of measurement made up by a doctor somewhere. It's not like your waist gets an inch bigger and your health falls apart, ya know? That standard is for people with much bigger waists to also compare too. So if you are 1 inch over, it doesn't really seem like anything compared to someone who is 30 or 40 inches over, ya know? I wouldn't sweat it too much...
Last edited by Wildflower; 02-06-2011 at 07:22 PM.
I thought the same as wildflower about the "ideal" womens measurements.
I'll contribute too, are you guys measuring the fullest part of your bust, smallest part of your waist and then hips? Let me know and I'll go measure when someone confirms.
Banana- I'm measuring the fullest part of the breast (i put on a sports bra so everything was even), about an inch above the belly button for the waist, and the widest point around my hips/butt.
Thanks for the confirmation. That's pretty much what I did, except I was bra-less, if I put a sports bra on it'll be tight and inaccurate since my sports bras really hold my boobies in flat, I'm DDD and run and I'd hate to get two black eyes.
I am unfortunately a complete pear. My measurements are 33-25-37..I know we all have our "problem" areas but to me its one of the most frustrating things about losing weight; not losing in your problem area. I dont think there should be any "ideal" measurement. Because everyone is so different. For instance, hopeful, you look AWESOME in your main pic, I cant imagine you losing much more. So I think numbers are deceiving!
I may change my numbers later because I haven't measured in a while, but to my knowledge:
150 pounds
37-28-37
Edit: I came back and changed my numbers as I knew I would. Apparently I am still the hour glass I always have been, though I think technically the waist is supposed to be a full nine inches smaller, so maybe I'll lose there next.
I found a funny article about "ideal" measurements in a blog for Psychology Today. The author uses the 24" waist as the ideal . I wonder how tall this ideal woman is supposed to be... or all women at all heights should have these measurements (<<that is not dramatic enough eye-rolling...).
ANYway - I looked up an old thread here to see what my measurements were. You can check it out to see more featherweights' numbers but unfortunately most don't include their weight at the time. I think I was 141 or 142 lbs when I first posted there.
My measurements at ~139 lbs:
B - 37
W - 30
H - 40
And I checked on the number that indicates disease risk: 30" is slightly elevated but the number that indicates a significant risk is 35". Here is one of the National Institutes of Health publications that explains it somewhat. Of course the research that these numbers are based upon uses population information, so it's just a guideline (like Wildflower said).
I was freaking out when my waist got to 33". I wasn't overweight, but I was accumulating so much fat around my middle. That's when I got serious about focusing on my health.
EmmaD - Thanks for posting the NIH link. I had remembered the risk number being 35 inches too, but when I did a search online I couldn't find that anywhere.
I wonder if the 24" waist was only made more possible when a) women regularly wore corsets, and b) people were shorter.
I have a 27-inch waist, and according the YMCA body fat guidelines, I have a healthy and athletic build. I'll take that over corset-squeezed organs any day!
Thanks ladies for all the measurements. I'm absolutely positive that I'll NEVER have a 24" waist, and I'm totally fine with that. My main concern is keeping my waist in a healthy measurement zone since that's where I seem to accumulate baggage.
realistic waist circumference
. I wonder how tall this ideal woman is supposed to be... or all women at all heights should have these measurements 
(<<that is not dramatic enough eye-rolling...). 
