I have heard jordan say if a male has a 40 inch waist or over it increases his risk for disease.
1st question does this apply to shorter then average males?
2nd question is their a waist measurement that has the lowest risk of disease for males?
Hey Michael,
Yes, it sure does.
There is not a waist measurement that has lowest risk of disease for males without other anthropometric data being included.
Given his username, should it be 37?
What other anthropometric data would that be? Hip to waist ratio?
I’ve recently asked Jordan something similar, and he suggested that for some males he recommends 37". Maybe this applies to you as well, Michael:
Yes, it’s 37"
The rationale is that the lower “cut-points” are more sensitive to determine those who are at risk for disease states secondary to obesity.
Im not sure about that. My name is deceptive. My great grandfather was from china, but the rest of my family is Hispanic. Father is from Peru and is of dark complexion. My mother is a white cuban, and her grandparent are from Spain.
What anthropomorphic data?
I’m asking because it seems like barbell training has increased my muscle mass enough that it would be difficult to discern a whole lot from a specific numeric measurement.
After going from 36 inch pants and 42 inch navel down to 33 inch pants and 36 inch navel I’m still seeing fat loss but the tape measure isn’t really changing anymore.
Of course that could just be skin or still visceral fat I don’t know? I know I am still losing holes on my weight belt.
When you see some ridiculous oblique person I’m guessing they must have a relatively large waist numerically?
Maybe I’m just babbling from sleep deprivation though. 