[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
It is consider correct to measure at the smallest point. There has to be some qualification such as not grossly far from the navel, but I don’t know what that would be.
For those guys with giant beer bellies that announce that they wear the same size pants as in high school, though, obviously they don’t believe the measurement has to be relatively near the navel. While it might work with their too-low jeans, it wouldn’t work with dress pants. It obviously doesn’t work physique-wise, either, or in judging condition.
Myself, while there’s no substantial difference between at the navel and somewhat lower, I measure at the navel on the same reasoning you do.
I would suggest to a fat guy – I appreciate that’s not the case here, and for those for whom it is, I should have said person needing to “loose fat” – that measuring at the navel would be best, rather than searching lower down for a smaller measurement.[/quote]
Yea, I guess if your really starting to add a lot of fat your lower waist (where you would have a belt) would actually be smaller since you would have a large gut. For me as I said that lower waist area is 33in. and really doesn’t seem like an area that would fluctuate much unless there were large changes in body fat. Around my navel is 31.5 when waking up, just checked now and it was a little over 32in, and at the lowest point on my stomach (about 1-2 in. above the navel and consequently above any “love handles” it’s under 31in.). As both of us have said though I would think navel would be the best measure of how much fat your putting on (as far as waist measurements go).
Mainly I was wondering because I was surprised to see the area with less fat was actually my widest point…hoping I didn’t actually have a 33in. waist