Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Wow. What a bunch of fat beer drinking Peter Griffins around here. Again, I am 6' 1" tall and I know that if my waist gets larger than 32 inches I would consider myself fat (i.e., fat = need to lose body fat %). Everything I own is 30-32. If I were bigger I would not be happy with myself in terms of my health/fitness. The MOST important measurement is waist/stomach when it comes to health/fitness and I want to always keep mine as low as possible.
This is moot, considering I don't drink beer and find beer repulsive. Again, I lift heavy weights and want to get down to a 36 and bodyfat down to 5% (which I'm well on my way to doing considering my regimen). Once I get there, I'm good to go. Genetically, it's not possible for some people to be a 30-32 size and be in shape. As long as you have a reasonable level of fitness and are pushing yourself in your workouts, it shouldn't matter if your big.
Genetically, it's not possible for some people to be a 30-32 size and be in shape. As long as you have a reasonable level of fitness and are pushing yourself in your workouts, it shouldn't matter if your big.
If you have no fat around your middle, are you really going to be much larger than a 32?
If you have no fat around your middle, are you really going to be much larger than a 32?
Arnold Schwarzenneger's waist measurement was 34" in his Mr. Olympia years - and that was standing in a flexed pose (with his abs sucked in). He was pretty much "no-fat" in those days. He is/was 6'2" tall.
Body composition, height, and history of physical activity play roles in what your "optimal" waist size should be. The waist-to-height ratio is also one way to judge what "optimal" might be. It is when you start feeling self-conscious about wearing your shirts tucked-in that your waistline measurement matters.
Wow. What a bunch of fat beer drinking Peter Griffins around here. Again, I am 6' 1" tall and I know that if my waist gets larger than 32 inches I would consider myself fat (i.e., fat = need to lose body fat %). Everything I own is 30-32. If I were bigger I would not be happy with myself in terms of my health/fitness. The MOST important measurement is waist/stomach when it comes to health/fitness and I want to always keep mine as low as possible.
Say wat?
I'm 6 ft and when I was running 40 miles a week and being paid to work out all day (Marines) I was a 34 (And still am)
FAT?
I've got JUST a touch at the moment (Can't run anymore and Gorged the last 2 months... back to eating right, it'll be gone in a few more days, takes me less than 2 weeks to 'get back')
-Meaning I can't see all of my 6 pack, just some at the moment.
But going back to active duty... you couldn't have found anyone in better shape than us!
Might want to rethink that, skinny does NOT = health!
If you have no fat around your middle, are you really going to be much larger than a 32?
Maybe, maybe not depending on your body composition and genetics. If you lift heavy weights and have no fat, you can still have a waist greater than 32-34". Especially on squats/deadlifts, which target the lower body because you're lifting with your legs/quads. Some men who lift heavy are predisposed to put on size, which for some can be a good/bad thing.
I'm 6 ft and when I was running 40 miles a week and being paid to work out all day (Marines) I was a 34 (And still am)
FAT?
I've got JUST a touch at the moment (Can't run anymore and Gorged the last 2 months... back to eating right, it'll be gone in a few more days, takes me less than 2 weeks to 'get back')
-Meaning I can't see all of my 6 pack, just some at the moment.
But going back to active duty... you couldn't have found anyone in better shape than us!
Might want to rethink that, skinny does NOT = health!
I agree. What you can do is a better indicator of fitness than what you look like.
Even the WHTR doesn't take into account the high muscle mass some people posess. A lot of these formulas are flaw, period. If you feel the changes in your body, that's what counts.
I agree. What you can do is a better indicator of fitness than what you look like.
Depends what it is you can "do". If you can swim, bike, or run quickly and continuously over long distances that's probably a much better indicator of health than merely being able to lift a bunch of weight. I'd consider a good triathlete to be much healthier than a heavy weightlifter.
depending on age/fitness...
the target should be close to "an 8 inch drop"
40" chest = 32" waist
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
