?

Log in

No account? Create an account
 
 
29 April 2009 @ 12:06 pm
Body stuff  
shelleycat and i spent part of last night discussing the post from yesterday. She thought 165 as a nominal goal was nuts, then i showed her the BMI calculator, and from there we found the ideal weight calculator which gives you results according to a couple different systems. According to that my ideal weight is 151 lbs, with a range of 129 to 174, going by BMI. There's an alternate scale that claims my ideal weight is 166 lbs, and another that claims 155 lbs. She claimed it was unrealistic, but when we tried plugging in her stats for comparison she ended up right near the middle of her ideal range.

She ended up deciding it would be better to pull out a tape measure and just measure me, since she thinks that's more important than the exact number of pounds (and i seem to remember some other people expressing agreement with that philosophy.)

The results of that were: Chest - 41.5", Upper arms - 12", Stomach - 37.5", Waist - 36.5", Thighs - 21.5"

I think my earlier claims about having a bulge in the middle are pretty well validated given that even shelleycat was surprised enough by the apparent discrepancy between the visual difference between my stomach and waist and the measured difference that she went back and remeasured my waist, and got the same results. What was especially ironic is that at the time i was wearing a pair of shorts that claimed to have a 32" waist, but which not only fit, they kept trying to actually fall off =P (Clearly women's clothes aren't the only ones with messed up measurements, though at least the guy's scales seem to be mostly internally consistent.)

So anyways, in her considered opinion my goal ought to be to lose 2 inches from my stomach and 1 inch from my chest, and gain one inch on my arms.
 
 
 
(Deleted comment)
DonAithnendonaithnen on April 29th, 2009 07:53 pm (UTC)
If by "waist" you mean "stomach," then yes, i'm sure it does ;)

I've got moderately strong abdomen muscles and probably ought to do something to work them out, there doesn't seem to be a clear notion of what exactly the best way to do that is. Or rather my very limited amount of research has revealed a lot of very differing claims :)
(Deleted comment)
DonAithnendonaithnen on April 29th, 2009 09:07 pm (UTC)
Sewing is Serious Business!!! ;)

I'm all for determining stuff that goes outside your body based on what your body is actually shaped like rather than via organ placement though :)

However it should be noted that girls are different(tm). I've never owned, or even seen when buying pants, a pair of guys pants that go around the stomach/belly/not-my-waist/whatever. And i've only ever seen guys wearing such pants in comedy sketches where it's intended to make the guy look like a dork.

Of course i think the style looks a little weird on girls too, but certainly nowhere near as odd as it does on guys.
(Deleted comment)
DonAithnen: blankdonaithnen on April 30th, 2009 12:26 am (UTC)
I'm so confused :(

My pants go around my waist. My waist is where my pants go. I've never had any pants that didn't go there.

Pants are an item of clothing worn on the lower part of the body from the waist to the ankles. A belt is a flexible band, typically made of leather or heavy cloth, and worn around the waist.

My waist is the narrowest part of my torso. (36.5 vs 37.5.) That's why the pants go there, they'd fall off otherwise. It's not at the same location as my stomach, either denotationally or connotationally. It's about two inches(?) below my belly button.

Measuring my waist is theoretically important for fitting clothes, cause that's where my pants go. (Although the 32 is not 36.5 thing throws a bit of a spanner into that theory.) Measuring my stomach/belly is important for cosmetic reasons.

Or are you talking about things from a sewing perspective again and not from a "real" perspective?
(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)
(Deleted comment)
DonAithnendonaithnen on April 30th, 2009 12:28 am (UTC)
Well yes, we all know that muscle is denser than fat, so you can can weight but lose volume at the same time :)

I wish i could do rock climbing again =/
Sister Atom Bomb of Courteous Debateakiko on April 29th, 2009 07:23 pm (UTC)
I should like to point out that the stomach is approximately at the natural waistline, so your "stomach" measurement should more likely be "abdomen."
DonAithnendonaithnen on April 29th, 2009 07:47 pm (UTC)
Uh, is not? My waist is where my pants naturally go =P
Sister Atom Bomb of Courteous Debateakiko on April 29th, 2009 07:51 pm (UTC)
The stomach is directly below the ribcage. http://home.comcast.net/~WNOR/skel&wallsabd.htm also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superficial_human_anatomy

The natural waist is the smallest part of the lower abdomen. Where pants sit on men is usually the top of the hips.

Edited at 2009-04-29 07:52 pm (UTC)
DonAithnendonaithnen on April 29th, 2009 07:58 pm (UTC)
"Waistline refers to the horizontal line where the waist is narrowest, or to the general appearance of the waist."

"Trousers are an item of clothing worn on the lower part of the body from the waist to the ankles"

The narrowest part of the area between my hips and the bottom of my ribcage is the area right above my hips. That's why the paints go there, so they don't (normally) fall off :)
Sister Atom Bomb of Courteous Debateakiko on April 29th, 2009 08:06 pm (UTC)
Regardless, the stomach is NOT in that location. The stomach is by the lungs, tucked up in the ribcage.
DonAithnendonaithnen on April 29th, 2009 09:01 pm (UTC)
We seem to be in an argument about anatomical denotation vs. physiological connotation. (I'm probably using that word wrong too =)

I know where the actual organ is located, but nobody says "OMG i'm full!" or "My stomach hurts!" and then starts rubbing their lower ribcage.

If i just start calling it "belly" instead (which the dictionary actually notes as a synonym for "stomach," by the by) will you cut me some slack about it? =P
Sister Atom Bomb of Courteous Debateakiko on April 30th, 2009 01:16 am (UTC)
Maybe. ;) But you'll never win a measurements argument with a pair of seamstresses.

(But, uh, when my stomach hurts, I do rub to the spot between my sternum and diaphragm, because that's where it hurts. If I've got gut pain, I say gut pain. You realize my being a medical professional *and* a seamstress means you've got double trouble, right?
DonAithnendonaithnen on April 30th, 2009 02:07 am (UTC)
No! I won't! Because the seamstresses are giving me conflicting definitions of what a waist is, so i can't possible by right not matter what i say! ;)

And okay, all the people who don't think medical stuff is Serious Business will pat their lower abdomen when referring to their stomach, even if they know where the stomach is technically located ;)
Sister Atom Bomb of Courteous Debateakiko on April 30th, 2009 02:16 am (UTC)
No, I think coraa and I are in basic agreement.

Jargon is very useful and results in fewer misunderstandings. ("belly pain" vs "right lower quadrant pain": the latter will be what your doc says in his note so the next doc who reads it will know what he meant.)
Kirinkirinn on April 29th, 2009 09:12 pm (UTC)
Yeah, for me, weight is pretty much entirely useless as a measure of fitness, because it's barely changed by more than the margin of error since, like, high school, regardless of how in or out of shape I am. I realize some people would kill me for that feature, but it doesn't mean I shouldn't try to stay in better shape. Really, the main change I notice when I *am* in better shape is increased endurance at whatever activities I'm using to get in shape. I probably also lose flab here and there, but it seems to trade off near exactly with muscle weight, so it's hard to tell in a quantitative way. I haven't really tried systematic circumference measurements, but my pants size doesn't seem to change a whole lot either. Maybe a little.
Brie2gouda4u on April 29th, 2009 11:45 pm (UTC)
In case you're curious, the lowest of the three weights is around where I am (for my height/gender, of course). I think it's kind of ridiculous to call that "ideal" - I mean, I'm not saying I'm unhealthily thin, but I think it would be completely reasonable for me to weigh another 5-10 pounds. Weighing 5-10 pounds less, on the other hand, would be getting me in to too thin territory. If x + 10 == reasonable and x - 10 == unreasonable, then x is not an ideal weight. In my opinion.

By the way, it sounds like no bad thing to have someone think you look thinner than you are :-)
DonAithnendonaithnen on April 30th, 2009 12:30 am (UTC)
Is the lower one for you the BMI one? Or the second (Dr. somebody-or-other) one?

In my case the Dr. one was about 10 pounds higher than the BMI one, but for shelleycat the Dr. one about 10 pounds lower.

And yeah, there are advantages :) And hopefully between the two of us we can settle on something sensible :)
Brie2gouda4u on April 30th, 2009 12:45 am (UTC)
The bottom of the BMI range is lowest, but the two Dr. ones are lower than the "ideal" BMI. The third Dr. one was lowest of the three - about 15 pounds less than the ideal BMI.
Sister Atom Bomb of Courteous Debateakiko on April 30th, 2009 01:17 am (UTC)
The ideal body weight is derived from actuarial tables, not from anything having to do with the real, human body. Anybody *sane* won't try to get you to your IBW.