Waist Circumference Matters

jenorama
on 6/11/18 4:23 pm - CA
RNY on 10/07/13

Interesting article on the NYT today regarding waist circumference and risk factors associated with obesity. It's a bit of a blanket measurement of 35 inches for women and 40 inches for men without height in mind, but it really drives home the notion that a large amount of visceral fat centered in one's abdomen is less than ideal. Note that the article calls out folks who may have a normal or near-normal BMI but a less-than-ideal waist circumference can still be at elevated risk for diabetes and some cancers.

We've all made huge leaps and bounds in our health by taking the WLS step, but this is a good reminder to not rest on our laurels when it comes to health.

Jen

H.A.L.A B.
on 6/12/18 3:45 pm

This is so good. Thank you for taking the time to post it.
Our waist circumference has a lot to do with our body fat %. most people don't realize that.

Hala. RNY 5/14/2008; Happy At Goal =HAG

"I can eat or do anything I want to - as long as I am willing to deal with the consequences"

"Failure is not falling down, It is not getting up once you fell... So pick yourself up, dust yourself off, and start all over again...."

Grim_Traveller
on 6/12/18 7:19 pm
RNY on 08/21/12

I'll have to look for it, but the bit about having a normal BMI and a large midsection brought to mind another study. It compared BMI with actual body fat measurements.

The study showed that some overweight folks had a very good body fat percentage -- something that a great many obese and overweight folks are fond of pointing out. But there were actually more people with normal BMIs that had an excessively high body fat percentage -- skinny fat.

6'3" tall, male.

Highest weight was 475. RNY on 08/21/12. Current weight: 198.

M1 -24; M2 -21; M3 -19; M4 -21; M5 -13; M6 -21; M7 -10; M8 -16; M9 -10; M10 -8; M11 -6; M12 -5.

Most Active
×