Guest guest Posted June 28, 2004 Report Share Posted June 28, 2004 Yikes, currently at .55 even though my BMI is only 25.0. To make matters worse, my waist to height ratio used to be 0.41 - 0.42 when I was in the Army.** Set point in terms of weight seems to be pretty misleading because the body changes so much over time. However set point in terms of waistline makes a lot more sense. Also since this parameter seems to be so important for health. aequalsz ** This post is solely presented for the writer's self motivation. Unkind comments are not welcome and will not be required for additional motivation for the writer to lose more weight. :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 12, 2005 Report Share Posted June 12, 2005 > I think that you can't expect the waist to height ratio to be linear. > Tall people are more likely to have a small waist-to-height than > short people. I'm 5'3 " and even when I weighed 97 lbs (BMI =17, body > fat approx 16%), my waist-to-height was 0.41. > > Diane ><snip> I entirely agree with this. After a certain point, one's waist is less a measurement of adiposity than it reflects the reality that you have a liver, and kidneys, and a spine, and intestines, and other organs in your torso. I'm 5'-nothin', 92 lbs, and my W:H comes out at 0.43. I like my liver. I don't want to reduce it much at all. TK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 12, 2005 Report Share Posted June 12, 2005 Yep! IMO, body fat percent is a much better measure of how much one has; what one has left to lose; lost; wish one could lose; or in a few cases, wish one hadn't lost. But it is a lot more difficult to measure accurately than WC/H! Rodney. > > I think that you can't expect the waist to height ratio to be linear. > > Tall people are more likely to have a small waist-to-height than > > short people. I'm 5'3 " and even when I weighed 97 lbs (BMI =17, body > > fat approx 16%), my waist-to-height was 0.41. > > > > Diane > ><snip> > > I entirely agree with this. After a certain point, one's waist is less > a measurement of adiposity than it reflects the reality that you have > a liver, and kidneys, and a spine, and intestines, and other organs in > your torso. > > I'm 5'-nothin', 92 lbs, and my W:H comes out at 0.43. I like my liver. > I don't want to reduce it much at all. > > TK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 12, 2005 Report Share Posted June 12, 2005 > " Rodney " <perspect1111@y...> wrote: > Yep! IMO, body fat percent is a much better measure of how much one > has; what one has left to lose; lost; wish one could lose; or in a > few cases, wish one hadn't lost. > > But it is a lot more difficult to measure accurately than WC/H! I tried the link Tony suggested yesterday for estimating body fat: http://www.scientificpsychic.com/fitness/diet.html and found that its estimate of my body fat based on 3 simple measurements was very close to the number measured for me last year via the water immersion method. Not to say that either of these methods is necessarily accurate, but neither is WC/H accurately indicative of body fat! Diane Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 12, 2005 Report Share Posted June 12, 2005 Hi All, If you CR, your liver and kidneys are greatly reduced in size and skeletal muscle is also if you do not intervene with muscle-building exercise as human CRers often do. --- tigerpatronus <tigerpatronus@...> wrote: > > After a certain point, one's waist is less > a measurement of adiposity than it reflects the reality that you have > a liver, and kidneys, and a spine, and intestines, and other organs in > your torso. > > I'm 5'-nothin', 92 lbs, and my W:H comes out at 0.43. I like my liver. > I don't want to reduce it much at all. > > TK > > > Al Pater, PhD; email: old542000@... __________________________________ Discover Get on-the-go sports scores, stock quotes, news and more. Check it out! http://discover./mobile.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 12, 2005 Report Share Posted June 12, 2005 Al: are you saying that our livers and kidneys have shrunk since we started CR??? on 6/12/2005 5:43 PM, Al Pater at old542000@... wrote: > Hi All, > > If you CR, your liver and kidneys are greatly reduced in size and skeletal > muscle is > also if you do not intervene with muscle-building exercise as human CRers > often do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 12, 2005 Report Share Posted June 12, 2005 Hi Diane: Yes. I agree with you. But to give an example of some of the potential difficulties with the US Navy method (which is probably one of the better ones) for measuring body fat percentage .............. A few months ago I made my usual measurements and noted the following: my weight had dropped a few pounds; my neck circumference, very carefully measured, had gotten smaller; and my navel-height circumference had also dropped. So you might suppose that my body fat percentage, given that the calculation uses all the above measurements, might have dropped also. Right? But when I put the numbers in the US Navy formula it told me that my body fat percentage had RISEN. AAAAha. Now if you are into spending time solving 'puzzles', you might enjoy figuring out how that could happen. There is a quite simple explanation, and it is because of the nature of the formula - not that all the weight I had lost had been LBM. Nor was a change in my height responsible either. Of course I believe the supposed rise (or a previous drop) was incorrect. But this may serve to emphasize that when one thinks one is beginning to approach the do-not-go-below danger levels of body fat, one needs to get a more accurate measurement done than rely on a formula that has a known, appreciable, error margin. I forget how large that margin is for the US Navy formula, but IIRC the normal range around the true value is about three percent in either direction. Some months back I took lots of body measurements and calculated my body fat percentage using quite a few different methods. The answers I got ranged from 13% to 25%! Immersion, presumably, is reliable. And *presumably* also the specified danger levels at the lower end are based on immersion data, or something that is very well correlated with it. Yes also ......... WC/H does not accurately measure body fat. Neither does BMI. Neither does weight. They are all simply indicators that are used to try to get an idea of how one's own body composition compares with that of benchmarks. Francesca's table in the database section of the site is one set of benchmarks - a very helpful one for people like us, imo - against which one can make comparisons. It seems that it might be best to use a combination of different 'measures' of body composition when trying to assess one's own status. Rodney. > > Yep! IMO, body fat percent is a much better measure of how much one > > has; what one has left to lose; lost; wish one could lose; or in a > > few cases, wish one hadn't lost. > > > > But it is a lot more difficult to measure accurately than WC/H! > > > I tried the link Tony suggested yesterday for estimating body fat: > > http://www.scientificpsychic.com/fitness/diet.html > > and found that its estimate of my body fat based on 3 simple > measurements was very close to the number measured for me last year > via the water immersion method. > > Not to say that either of these methods is necessarily accurate, but > neither is WC/H accurately indicative of body fat! > > Diane Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 13, 2005 Report Share Posted June 13, 2005 Hi All and Francesca, Yes. Heart, genitals and brain are relatively unaltered if we are to believe that animal studies that have shown it to be so in a wide variety of animals on CR. --- Francesca Skelton <fskelton@...> wrote: > Al: are you saying that our livers and kidneys have shrunk since we started > CR??? Al Pater, PhD; email: old542000@... __________________________________ Discover Use to plan a weekend, have fun online and more. Check it out! http://discover./ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.