...at least according to the Japanese. 33 inches?! You gotta be freakin' kidding me! :lol:

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/health/2008/06/23/kyung.fat.busters.cnn

...at least according to the Japanese.


How tall is the average Japanese male?

Wow...

Asia has always been a lot harder on overweight people, but this is a bit of a shock. It's a dangerous thing when the government starts regulating peoples waistlines...

If you don't factor in height or frame, that's kind of silly.

When I'm down near 10%, my true waist is around 31" (32" below belly button). Right now I'm closer to 15% than 10%, and my waist is 32-32.5%. At 6'1", I'm probably a smaller frame than some at that measurement, but if I was a 6'4" person, there is no way my waist would still be that small.

...at least according to the Japanese. 33 inches?! You gotta be freakin' kidding me! :lol:

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/health/2008/06/23/kyung.fat.busters.cnn


Thanks for the reminder! :mad:

If you don't factor in height or frame, that's kind of silly.

When I'm down near 10%, my true waist is around 31" (32" below belly button). Right now I'm closer to 15% than 10%, and my waist is 32-32.5%. At 6'1", I'm probably a smaller frame than some at that measurement, but if I was a 6'4" person, there is no way my waist would still be that small.


Japanese society is very homogenous, with relatively few non Japanese, so you don't have the big variances in body frame, height compared to a place like the US. For their society, the 33" cutoff is probably valid for the majority of people.

I give them credit for at least attempting to do something about this problem of obesity, before it becomes prevalent like here.

No problem....just apply to become a Sumo wrestler.

That way you get to eat all you want and still be respected by the majority.

33'' is a one-size-fits-all government number.....which equals bulls**t.

Just because you have a 33" waist, by-the-way, doesn't mean your healthy.

I know lots of people with thin waists who are as weak as a kitten basically (especially when it comes to strength moves).

More media B.S.

More government B.S.

Ever notice how just about all the B.S. thesedays is presented by a female liasonne spokesperson....that's because a female spokesperson is considered to be more palatable and believable.

I call it the "mom" effect.....mom's are considered to know best what's good for you. So the media will use women...and if that doesn't work then out come the children.

...at least according to the Japanese. 33 inches?! You gotta be freakin' kidding me! :lol:

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/health/2008/06/23/kyung.fat.busters.cnnSomeone posted this in the VIP section earlier, and I pointed out that it doesn't make much sense.

There's something wrong there. :confused:

Those exceeding government limits — 33.5 inches for men and 35.4 inches for women, which are identical to thresholds established in 2005 for Japan by the International Diabetes Federation as an easy guideline for identifying health risks — and having a weight-related ailment will be given dieting guidance if after three months they do not lose weight.

We have similar guidelines in North America (http://www.citytv.com/vancouver/news_17200.aspx)where women whose waists measure more than 35 inches are instructed to try to lose weight, but the guideline for men is 40 inches, not 33.5. I don't believe that any standards would suggest women's waists should be larger than men's. Take a look at clothing sizes.

Thursday October 6, 2005

Dr. Jacques Genest, Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada says that intra-abdominal fat, that's around the viscera in the abdomen, contributes to insulin resistance, diabetes, high blood pressure, too much bad cholesterol and not enough good cholesterol, so it's a major risk factor for cardiovascular disease.

So much so that experts say doctors should be regularly measuring their patient's waistlines.

For Caucasian men, you're considered to be at-risk if your waist measures more than 40 inches, for women it's more than 35 inches. For Asian men, you're considered to be at greater risk if your waist is over 36 inches and for Asian women, more than 32 inches.
If you look at Sears clothing charts, a woman is considered "plus size" if her waist is 36 inches or greater, but a man is not under the "big and tall" category until his waist goes all the way up to 48 inches.

a waist to hip ratio number would make more sense and apply to almost everyone.

Someone posted this in the VIP section earlier, and I pointed out that it doesn't make much sense.

I'm guessing the numbers started in metric and somebody screwed up with the calculator. Odds are the news people just pushed the wrong buttons. It sure seems like they didn't fact check :lol:

well i guess i'm screwed.

my waist is 33.5 inches and my pant waist is about 34.5 inches at 5' 6" and 157 lbs. plus i have visible abs. didn't think you could be obese and have abs.

I'm guessing the numbers started in metric and somebody screwed up with the calculator. Odds are the news people just pushed the wrong buttons. It sure seems like they didn't fact check :lol:That exactly what I figured.

There's no way that the Japanese health authorities would equate a man with a 33.5 inches waist as equivalently healthy to a woman with a 35.4 inch waist. :nope:

It's a great example of how quickly erroneous information can be passed along as fact.

I'm NOT obese, and I have a 37'' waist.

Oh well... ;)

I am a believer that a 33" waist or below should be a goal for nearly every man over 18 years of age. there is a good correlation between waist size and health. I don't think it hurts the way we look either. I would think 24" for women over 18 is a good goal also.

Look at 40s and 50s movies of crowd scenes and see what the public looked like then. We have just become a fat nation. :cool:

I am a believer that a 33" waist or below should be a goal for nearly every man over 18 years of age. there is a good correlation between waist size and health. I don't think it hurts the way we look either. I would think 24" for women over 18 is a good goal also.

Really, I'm not crazy about the tiny look. I had just under a 26 inch waist for a while, but I was not at all happy with how thin I looked and how weak I felt, so I started eating a little more and lifting a little heavier. Much better now. :flex: :D FWIW, girls clothing in size 16 has about a 27 inch waist, which is the same it was 20 years ago. I think 27 to 31 inches is a much better goal for a WOMAN (depending a bit on her height as well, of course).

My husband had a 31 inch waist when we got engaged, and I was also not happy about how he looked either.

There's not one particular size that every person should strive to be. Everyone has a different spot where they look and feel their best.

Really, I'm not crazy about the tiny look. I had just under a 26 inch waist for a while, but I was not at all happy with how thin I looked and how weak I felt, so I started eating a little more and lifting a little heavier. Much better now. :flex: :D FWIW, girls clothing in size 16 has about a 27 inch waist, which is the same it was 20 years ago. I think 27 to 31 inches is a much better goal for a WOMAN (depending a bit on her height as well, of course).


I've always been a little confused about where to measure your waist if you're female. I always thought it was at the narrowest point of your torso, which, for me, is about an inch above my navel. I have a 27 in waist. It also depends on your height, obviously. I would need to get ridiculously lean to get a 26 in waist and even then I'm not sure I could.

I've always been a little confused about where to measure your waist if you're female. I always thought it was at the narrowest point of your torso, which, for me, is about an inch above my navel.
Correct.
I have a 27 in waist. I would need to get ridiculously lean to get a 26 in waist.Correct. You would look ridiculous. :nod: And you would have nowhere to buy clothes. :cry: You'd have to go around all day in just your Superman undies. :p

How could one equate that ALL men should have a certain size waist?

If you're 6ft 6in tall and weigh 325lb. (ripped), why should your waist be the same as a guy that is 5ft 7in tall with an Ecto frame?

I think Somatype and basic bone structure should be the first consideration.

We've all seen the really big-boned tall woman who is trying like crazy to lose weight and look like her much smaller, Ecto-framed sister.

All you end up with is an emaciated train-wreck who now has a government-approved waist but looks like a female from Auschwitz.

I've always been a little confused about where to measure your waist if you're female. I always thought it was at the narrowest point of your torso, which, for me, is about an inch above my navel. .

About 1" is right. Some people have a natural waist. Some less so.

Supposedly bend over like the teapot song :lol: The spot you bend is your waist.

How could one equate that ALL men should have a certain size waist?
.

The points already been made but not too many Japanese males 6'6'.

Still you'd figure the hip/waist ratio would be better.

I am a believer that a 33" waist or below should be a goal for nearly every man over 18 years of age. there is a good correlation between waist size and health. I don't think it hurts the way we look either. I would think 24" for women over 18 is a good goal also.

Look at 40s and 50s movies of crowd scenes and see what the public looked like then. We have just become a fat nation. :cool:

some of us just aren't built that way. i'm short at 5'6" and my midsection is like a rock, i have visible, well defined abs, i am under 10% bf and i'm still at 33.5. i'll put my body up against most people from the 40's or the 50's too, especially since i don't have that pack of unfiltered pall malls either. :lol:

I am sorry, I didn't know people were against the v-shape. The first 15 Mr AAU Mr Americas measurements were reputed to be accurate. There were only 2 above 6'. And, sure, none were average and it was before steroids, HGH, and insulin were used by bodybuilders. I simply said the numbers might be goals. Most fully reach their goals.



1939 Bert Goodrich 5'10.5" 195 33"
1940/1941 John Grimek 5'8.5" 195 31"
1942 Frank Leight 5'11.5" 209 33"
1943 Jules Bacon 5'7" 175 31"
1944 Steve Stanko 5'11.5" 223 35.9"
1945 Clarence Ross 5'9.5" 185 32"
1946 Alan Stephan 5'11.5" 205 32.4"
1947 Steve Reeves 6'1" 213 31"
1948 George Eiferman 5'7.5" 195 32"
1949 Jack Delinger 5'6" 195 32"
1950 John Farbotnik 5'9" 195 32"
1951 Roy Hilligenn 5'6" 178 32"
1952 James Park 5'7.5 190 32.5"
1953 Bill Pearl 5'9" 201 32.5"
1954 Dick Dubois 6'1" 220 32.5"

As for women, I based that on those that I favor and some statics that I had seen for those times.

I am sorry, I didn't know people were against the v-shape.

I don't think they are against the v taper, I think some have to be realistic about body structure and just won't get down there. Some people no matter how lean they get will have a 32" waist.

For instance, on the board, newgrounds I think was about my size but more lean, but his waist was around 2" bigger than mine according to his posts IIRC.

It's all well and good to list a bunch of bodybuilders who obviously were successful. But at least some part of that success came from having the right bone structure to be able to end up with that look in the first place. Not everybody does.

Ah, shucks, I'm at about 32.5-33. I guess I better stop eating well and exercising. It's making me obese :tu:

I am sorry, I didn't know people were against the v-shape.

Its not that we are against the v-shape .... but rather, just pointing out how ludicrous it is to suggest anything above 33 inches in men should be classified as "obese". Many of the Mr. Americas on your list are straddling the threshold for being considered obese, and one of them is a bona fide fatty (Steve Stanko) by that definition!

I have a 38" waist in my avatar...:nod:

Since my deadlift and squat have started taking off, my abdomen measurement has gone up while my bf has stayed constant, so I don't think this is an accurate guage of anything, really. Maybe they should train some people with calipers instead.

I am sorry, I didn't know people were against the v-shape.

I don't think people have an issue with the shape, but 33 inches is unrealistic as an average for larger men. If you consider the waist measurements of the Heavyweight champions since John L. Sullivan (available here (http://www.ibhof.com/ibhftape.htm)) it turns out that only 18% of them had waists under 33", 12% had waists equal to 33" and 70% had waists over 33".

These are larger men, although by no means very tall (most are no taller than 6' 2"). They reflect pretty serious examples of fitness, most men of this frame size will not be in this sort of condition.

So it seems that 33" is just unrealistically low since only 30% of the heaavyweight champions in the past hundred or so years fall within that circumfrence.

So it seems that 33" is just unrealistically low since only 30% of the heaavyweight champions in the past hundred or so years fall within that circumfrence.
Well yeah, it all depends on your definition of health. To use the measurements of bodybuilders or any kind of model as a number that we should all aspire to doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

What were the waist sizes of all the people who have lived the longest in the past century? I wonder if we could dig those up somewhere.

Well yeah, it all depends on your definition of health. To use the measurements of bodybuilders or any kind of model as a number that we should all aspire to doesn't make a lot of sense to me.


Heck, I'd wager that even for your typical couch potato whose only athletic accomplishment is opening a bag of pork rinds, that 33 inches doesn't cross the threshold for obesity....unless they are 4 feet tall.

What were the waist sizes of all the people who have lived the longest in the past century? I wonder if we could dig those up somewhere.

Actually, once you get past about 65 years old, then being a little "overweight" has been healthier than being really lean.

We have the usual problem with projecting the health statistics of people who lived long enough before us to have reached a really advanced age now to our cohort, since we had a lot different environmental exposures. People who are now in their 90's survived some pretty nasty childhood maladies that people in their 40's now were pretty much exempt from, and many fewer of them knew to avoid smoking, etc. So in some senses that older generation got selected for surviving already, whereas that younger generation didn't. This could lead to a situation where the extra fat was protective for the older generation, but may not be equally so for the younger cohort.

But if you go by how it has been so far, being slightly overweight has been healthier than being slightly underweight.

One important thing to remember with this Japan stuff is that what is really going on is that they are setting the threshold really low so that most people can't meet it, and so the government can offload some of the cost of the national health insurance onto employers.

They didn't pick the 33 inches because it was necessary for health. This is about the money.

They didn't pick the 33 inches because it was necessary for health. This is about the money.Did they REALLY pick 33 inches? Because it still sounds really fishy to me. Anyone have a source to the original information (in centimeters, which is how they measure in Japan) and a proper conversion and translation?

Did they REALLY pick 33 inches? Because it still sounds really fishy to me. Anyone have a source to the original information (in centimeters, which is how they measure in Japan) and a proper conversion and translation?

Yes, they really picked 33 inches. And it's only if you are over 40 years old.

Did they REALLY pick 33 inches? Because it still sounds really fishy to me. Anyone have a source to the original information (in centimeters, which is how they measure in Japan) and a proper conversion and translation?

From NYTimes article (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/13/world/asia/13fat.html?ref=health):

Those exceeding government limits — 33.5 inches for men and 35.4 inches for women, which are identical to thresholds established in 2005 for Japan by the International Diabetes Federation as an easy guideline for identifying health risks — and having a weight-related ailment will be given dieting guidance if after three months they do not lose weight. If necessary, those people will be steered toward further re-education after six more months.

Here's more about the IDF guidelines (http://www.metabolic-syndrome-institute.org/news/2006/2006-05-03.2.php) where they specify 85cm (33.5 inches) for Japanese males and 90cm (35.4 inches) for Japanese females. Note that the IDF guidelines are far more lenient for Europoid males at 94cm (37 inches). That article also points out that the numbers used in the USA are 102cm for males (40inches) and 88cm for females (34.6 inches).

With those numbers and other information from the NY Times article that the CNN video leaves out, this seems entirely reasonable to me. A good idea, even.