According to the NHS, a woman’s waist measurement should be 31.5 ins or less.

Like you Oopsadaisy. My BMI is 23.5, and I need ideally to lose just about 10lbs for my fat measurement to get to an acceptable proportion of my body. By which time my BMI will be 21.5.

BMI should be junked. The only thing that matters is what proportion of your make up is fat. Instead of scales doctors and chemists should have bio-impedance machines, so we are no longer misleadingly beng told our weight is OK, when like me, you are actually quite overweight, nor do muscly sportsmen and the like get told they are overweight when they are not.

My BMI is 23.6 but there’s no way my waist is 31 inches.

But I would like to get down to 10 stone, only another half a stone to go.

Should we return to the era of the tight corsets? Then we can all have a 25” waist.

Well, that ship has sailed……

Kandinsky do you think you made a mistake in reading and that those measurements should apply to the thigh only?

Still am grateful to be healthy

Well I just bit the bullet and found a tape measure. At 5’ and a half inch my waist, if I found the right place is 40. Hips worse at 47.
I have always watched what I eat, don’t drink much and cook from scratch, no takeaways and walk a lot, take no meds and don’t have any ongoing health problems apart from 32 bmi. It’s disheartening.

My body frame is that from a long line of maternal female body shape, slim 5ft-6in but my waist measurement has been 30in since I was a teenager. All my trousers have a V fabric insert at the back of the waist to get the right overall fit.

Minimoon, my late, very glamorous MIL said that after 60 you choose between your bottom and your face ?

BMI is nonsense, always has been and always will be. It was developed by an economist in the 19th century to measure the relative prosperity of countries by measuring and weighing a sample of the population.

Where or when doctors got hold of it and decided it was a good way to measure and assess the relative health of individuals I do not know.

I am part of the UK BIobank, a huge sample of people who have been questioned, measured weighed and been asked to volunteer for all sorts of trials for about 15 years. This year I was asked to take part in a data gathering exercise. I had 2 MRI scans (head and body) bone density scan, weighed, measured and a bioimpedance test to measure how much body fat I had.

My weight was well within my BMI but I was told I was 35% fat and classfied as obese! This didn't surprise me. Long before the BMI, they did a health programme of work, where you stood on scales and your body fat was measured with callipers, and they said the same thing, I was within the weight parameters for my height, but I could do with losing 7 - 10 lbs of excess fat.

I have lost 7lbs since the Biobank survey, so I now just over weight, with another 7lbs to go. My waist when I had the survey was 34, and it remains that way, despite the weight loss, for the simple reason I do not and never have had a waist. My hips are so close to my ribcage they almost scrape each other and my waist doesn't go in and never will.

I think all these 'easy peasy' know at a glance whether you are overweight or not measurements are deeply misleading. They do not take into account the size and width of your skeleton, whether you have a big body and short legs, or long legs and a small body, or anything in between. They have to be interpreted as possible guidance, but not to be relied on.

Another 'suggestion' is that one's waist measurement should be less than half your height. That makes more sense to me than the less than 31.5" idea.

This makes me wonder if the pronouncement is based on the fact or assumption (?) that adults' internal organs will be similar sized regardless of height and it's larger bones and muscles that should make the difference rather than fat.

There must be some kind of reasoning behind it.

This is me just 'theorising'. My weight and waist are within the 'rules'.

Hm. 35” at 5’ 7” ?‍♀️

What gets me is that the 31” is for whatever height you are. I’m 5’10” and should have the same measurements as someone who is 5’2”? Rubbish…

Mines around that. I'm 5'1 and a half (important that half)
8stn 6lb.
Doesn't guarantee good health!! ?

I think the NHS says that our waist should be less than half our height, so 31.5 inches is correct if you are 5ft 3" (which I am). Others should measure more or less than that.
My waist is more than that and I am not overweight. I can't believe many older women have a waist as low as they say.

I've just measured mine and it's 35. Possibly 34 if I'd breathed in a bit!

Who comes up with this nonsense anyway.

Help, you all sound really thin!

I used to be 5’9”, now probably about 5’8”. My BMI is 23.4, so just about OK. My waist is definitely more than 31.5, several inches more.

I’m 82, heavier than I have ever been, and am torn between doing something about it and not giving a flying fig. The latter is winning.

I can remember a time when my measurements were 34:24:36. Those days are long gone. I know I'm overweight at 10st 3lbs, ( I was 8st 3lbs when I got married) but I don't worry. I had a very wise Granny who used to say that when a woman reaches a certain age, she needs a bit of weight about her.

It doesnt apply to me, as I no longer have a waist.
I did have, but got rid of it years ago.

Is that with your stomach sucked in, or letting it all hang out?

That's ridiculous. Do these people actually get paid for thinking up these theories? People are different shapes and builds...you can't have one rule for all. What matters is your over-all measurements, and being in the right proportions.

I dare not measure mine as I know it will be closer to 40 than 30. If I were a foot taller this would matter less but I am not, so it does.

Walking round I see very few older people who have a 31.5 waist. I've turned into my mum and gran not sure I could have avoided it.