# Body mass index (calculator)



## Bigtallfatbloke (5 Dec 2007)

http://www.nhsdirect.nhs.uk/magazine/interactive/bmi/index.aspx

mine is 28.6 and that is after losing 4 stone 4lbs since Xmas. So i still need to work hard on the bike etc. 

I thought this was a useful site.


----------



## bianchi1 (5 Dec 2007)

I live by the phrase mentioned under the calculator!!!

"Also your BMI may not be accurate if you are a weight-trainer or an athlete"

that explains 25.34. I must be an athlete!


----------



## Elmer Fudd (5 Dec 2007)

24.07 here.
Still got a 34" waist.














Trouble is I've got a 56" belly !


----------



## walker (5 Dec 2007)

just about within the right BMI


----------



## Dave Davenport (5 Dec 2007)

Sorry, but I can't see how that's remotely accurate, I'm 5' 8" / 11st 12lb. and 'overweight' (ok 11 to 11 & 1/2 stone would be better). If I was 8st 10lb. I'd be in the ideal weight range apparently, only I'd look like I'd just come out of Belson.


----------



## yenrod (5 Dec 2007)

Your BMI is 27.78

I could lose some but it aint accurate !


----------



## trio25 (5 Dec 2007)

24.8 but that's only because I've been ill and lost weight, once it goes back on I'll be back to overweight ;-)


----------



## piedwagtail91 (5 Dec 2007)

i'm 29.29 ( hell i'm the biggest so far, will have to consider deletion /cheating!)but think i've only half at stone at most to lose.
i do weight train but only a couple of times a week. 150 miles a week on the bike.
i think they should get a more accurate system, though it will probably make a few think before they eat.
apparently i have to cut down to 30 minutes excercise a day, the dog won't be happy!


----------



## trio25 (5 Dec 2007)

I then tried the calorie counter, that tells you how many calories you are burning for the exercise you do and it suggested that my commute might mean I'm doing too much exercise a day.


----------



## PrettyboyTim (5 Dec 2007)

BMI: 20
Exercise calories: 870*

Actually, I think I may need to start eating more. I've lost about a stone since I started cycling, and I don't really want to lose any more.

Maybe I should start having a hobbit-style second breakfast...

* The calories for cleaning seems a bit high to me. I wonder what kind of cleaning they are thinking of?


----------



## andy_wrx (5 Dec 2007)

The calculator isn't 'wrong', it's just doing a calculation - what you then use that for...


Like it says"This is general advice for adults only. It does not apply to children. It does not apply to pregnant women or breastfeeding women. Also your BMI may not be accurate if you are a weight-trainer or an athlete, if you are over the age of 60 or you have a long-term health condition. "​
I'm of slim build, always have been all my life.
A few years ago we moved house and changed doctors, they'd only accept us if we booked-in with the nurse for a checkover - blood pressure, etc.

She measured my weight (clothed, shoes off) and height (the measure fitted above the scales so she had to dedust the height of them...) and worked-out my BMI was 24.something.
"oh you're nearly overweight", she said, "you'll have to start watching what you eat".

Hmmm.

A month or two later, a guy in the running club organised for a group of us to be guinea-pigs for the local college sports science course.
The students ran us though all sorts of tests, including body-fat measurement at 7 points using callipers - I was 15.something%

Obviously w-a-a-y fat.

See this site, which also does the calculation
http://www.menscience.com/Fight-Your-Bulge-with-Brains-_ep_106.html#


It cautions however"The BMI formula is not without its faults, though. Because it doesn’t take into account bone or muscle mass, it may not represent a reasonable estimate for very muscular or big-boned men, or older men who may be classified as underweight due to low muscle mass. After all, according to BMI standards, the following celebrities are considered overweight: Tom Cruise (BMI 26), George Clooney (BMI 29), Mark McGuire (BMI 30) and President George W. Bush (BMI 26). And surprisingly, Arnold Schwarzenegger (BMI 33), Sylvester Stallone (BMI 34) and Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson (BMI 33) are all considered obese! For men with a great deal of muscle mass, it’s best to consult a doctor about their ideal weight, instead of solely relying on BMI calculations."​


----------



## Bigtallfatbloke (5 Dec 2007)

I am confused...my BMI says I need to lose weight...but my calorie burner tells me I am over doing th eexercise and should ease back??????


----------



## fossyant (6 Dec 2007)

BMI's pretty rubbish and a guide only. Works if you don't exercise and don't have much muscle - and cyclists have big legs, so you'll never win.


----------



## Blonde (6 Dec 2007)

Mine's 23.42 according to the site. Odd as I had thought it would be lot higher since I am a fat git at the moment!

Doubly odd, as the practice nurse who used to weigh me, prior to searing me unnecessarily violently, with contraceptive injection, which caused me not to be able to sit down on that bum cheek for a week, always told me I was overweight when I weighed about 6 pounds less than I do at the moment and did two hours of exercise every day (one hour running, one hour weight training)!

In my experience very few health professionals have any idea what they are talking about when they are dealing with people who do any kind of sport.


----------



## ChrisKH (6 Dec 2007)

25.38. I also thought I was fat.


----------



## Twenty Inch (6 Dec 2007)

Blonde said:


> Mine's 23.42 according to the site. Odd as I had thought it would be lot higher since I am a fat git at the moment!
> 
> Doubly odd, as the practice nurse who used to weigh me, prior to searing me unnecessarily violently, with contraceptive injection, which caused me not to be able to sit down on that bum cheek for a week, always told me I was overweight when I weighed about 6 pounds less than I do at the moment and did two hours of exercise every day (one hour running, one hour weight training)!
> 
> In my experience very few health professionals have any idea what they are talking about when they are dealing with people who do any kind of sport.




Apart from the contraceptive injection, that absolutely rings true. BMI is a very, very, very, rough guide to averages. If you are anyway outside the average (and most of us are, by definition) then it's almost meaningless. Don't pay too much attention to it.


----------



## 515mm (6 Dec 2007)

For fun whilst bored off sick from work one day, I calculated the BMIs of my local rugby team (which fields at least 10 current international players of various countries) and every man jack of them was classed as obese. This includes one of the wingers who can run a sub 11 second 100 meters! 
The BMI is about as much use as a pile of wet horse manure at calculating how fit a person is. Unfortunately, it's used as a guide to a persons longevity and general health by life assurance and health insurance companies. When my pension provider wanted to know mine I challenged him to a 5000m race on the indoor rower. He glanced over at my arms and declined. I wasn't holding my breath.


----------



## wafflycat (6 Dec 2007)

Just got weighed at WeightWatchers this evening, so I have an accurate reading of my weight. Gives a BMI of 26.14

Because I exercise quite a bit, I've got a goal weight set at the upper end of the healthy BMI range - so I'm almost there. Hurrah! 76lbs lost in total.


----------



## Steve Austin (6 Dec 2007)

27.22 and i feel fine.

if i was anywhere near 25, i would be fading away gggrrr


----------



## Crackle (6 Dec 2007)

wafflycat said:


> Hurrah! 76lbs lost in total.



Holy Cow! That's serious weight loss. How long did that take?


----------



## trio25 (6 Dec 2007)

That is a seriously impressive weight loss!


----------



## 515mm (6 Dec 2007)

76lbs? That's stunning! I can only dream of owning willpower like that. Truly, a superb achievement. Very, very, well done.

Back on topic, have you had your body fat percentage calculated? The most accurate method is with calipers by a 'trained operator'. Your local gym or, if you live near a university with a sports science department......

My body fat percentage is 23.8. A good number for a bloke of my age is 16. Reliably informed at that point, one can see abdominal muscles. Six pack rather than beer barrel. Mrs 515mm can't wait


----------



## wafflycat (6 Dec 2007)

Crackle said:


> Holy Cow! That's serious weight loss. How long did that take?



Started middle Feb this year.


----------



## Crackle (6 Dec 2007)

wafflycat said:


> Started middle Feb this year.



_This year!_

Stunning. I thought I was doing well to lose two stone in 18 months. I bow down to such an effort.


----------



## bonj2 (6 Dec 2007)

i used to be 25.4 but probably more like 22 now


----------



## 515mm (6 Dec 2007)

Aha! A rival and a target to aim for! Unfortunately i've just buggered up my left Achilles tendon. A fortnight off the bike at least. And a full wine cellar* beckons. @rse!














*okay, it's the cupboard under the stairs. It IS full however........


----------



## wafflycat (7 Dec 2007)

Ta, all. WeightWatchers has made it easy to lose weight - the key for me is keeping it off long-term. Provided I keep going to WW (free once at goal weight: you're allowed to go 5lbs over goal, but any more than that & you start paying out dosh again). WW set goal weights using the healthy BMI range - as most folk don't exercise enough to make BMI irrelevant in calculating a healthy weight for their height. It's why my goal weight is going to be at the upper end of healthy BMI, as due to cycling, I have the odd muscle in the legs.


----------



## Pete (8 Dec 2007)

Well Done, Helen . I think I've said that before, but no matter, I'm saying it again. Also to those others of you who have achieved similar feats of course!

Interesting to compare what's said here, with what was said on this thread and this one, from a few months ago, when a lot of mud was slung, some of it at yours truly. I still maintain, that I admire those who've really achieved something. Also those who do their best. What I have little time for is those who neither know nor care, or those who know but don't care. But of course I don't really _know_, do I, whether that fat waddler taking up the entire width of the Tesco's aisle, is in fact trying or not! So I ought to give them the benefit of the doubt, should I not? But I'm only human...

BMI? I believe that the BMI-adherents and detractors are divided into two camps, those whose BMIs are OK, and those whose are not. If you've got a 'good' BMI you believe in it, if you've got a 'bad' one, then it's a load of tosh. I illustrate my point with my own example. I find it difficult - nay impossible - to get mine below 28. So I'm forever overweight. At the moment it's just touched above 30, making me 'obese'. I don't feel obese. I don't, I think, look obese. Certainly I'm not one of those Tesco's-waddlers I mentioned above. I take up much less width than the trolley I'm pushing. I can see perfectly when I go for a pee. I can get into 36" waist, just so long as it's trousers not jeans. My doctor (whom I am obliged to visit every six months, BP and cholesterol stuff), has never called me obese, indeed has never commented on it. He doesn't even tell me I'm overweight. Mind you he never weighs me nor asks my weight, just looks at me.

So what is it with BMI, for me? Should I take it seriously? I'm not trying to lose weight because no-one's told me I have to.


----------



## wafflycat (8 Dec 2007)

BMI has its uses. It's very useful as a guide to healthy weight ranges if you don't do much exercise, in other words, the vast majority of the population. Basically BMI visualises the body as a homogenous tube - if you've got decent muscle level via exercise, BMI does become less than an ideal way to calculate healthy weight ranges as muscle is more dense than fat, so if you exercise a lot and have a lot of muscle, you can have a low'ish % of body fat and still have a weight which a basic BMI calculation would put said person in the overweight (or obese) category, yet the reality is they are still fit. If you do a lot of exercise, the best way to have it worked out if you are carrying too much fat is to get a proper health check where calipers are used to check the amount of fat you have on differing parts of the body and then a % figure is worked out more accurately. Another way it is done is by passing a tiny electic current through the body and that does it too apparently. I've seen both ways used to give a more accurate % body fat figure than basic BMI. But that doesn't mean to say that BMI is useless - it isn't. As I said before, it's very useful for the majority of the population who don't do *enough* exercise, be it in the form of some sort of structured exercise pattern or via physically demanding work, to see if they are carrying too much weight.


----------



## Crackle (8 Dec 2007)

There was a piece in the news yesterday'ish. I think it was in relation to Ricky Hatton's weight blooms and losses, which basically said that there was some evidence that continual losing and gaining of weight was in fact potentially more damaging than remaining overweight.


----------



## Pete (8 Dec 2007)

wafflycat said:


> As I said before, it's very useful for the majority of the population who don't do *enough* exercise, be it in the form of some sort of structured exercise pattern or via physically demanding work, to see if they are carrying too much weight.


Yep, that's about the shape of it, I suppose. Which means, and sorry to get all 'up front and personal' with you Helen, but I don't forget that it was you who had a real 'go' at me in the past* ... what I wonder is, why have you been set a target which is below the 'magic' 25? Meaning that at your present 26-something, you're still needing to shed weight? After all you've done! Is there some sort of fixation with '25' amongst Weightwatchers? I would have thought that, compared to most ladies of your age, you do a _tremendous_ amount of exercise! Unless you've been lying through your teeth on these forums and you don't really cycle at all...  (only joking!). I put it to you that you have not only _achieved_ your target, but over-fulfilled it. Already. Today!

*bygones be bygones? I may have shown less tact than I ought.


----------



## wafflycat (8 Dec 2007)

Putting it bluntly - I've seen me nekkid and you haven't. I still could do with losing some weight 

The vast majority of folk who attend organisations such as WeightWatchers don't do anywhere near enough exercise, so BMI is a simple and generally effective way of setting healthy weight ranges for the vast majority and is adopted by organisations such as WW as they work for the vast majority of folk. To attend & not pay and yet carry on long term with help in keeping the excess off, as long as my goal weight is within the healthy range for my height, and I get there, it's within the rules of the organisation, and it's a good one. The rules have to be applicable to deal with the majority. Having a BMI of 25 or just below will not mean I'm on the verge of starvation, anorexia or bulimia. It will mean that I'm at a healthy weight and developing the eating patterns/behaviors to stay at a healthy level long term.

No-one other than me has set me a target below the 'magic 25' and by having a goal weight towards the upper end of the BMI range, with the amount of exercise I do will be well within the healthy range for me. No chance of going anorexic. Honest. I like my food too much. If I set my goal weight at, say a BMI of 20 (the low end of the healthy range for my height) - I'd be *skinny* and I have no intention of that. 

Pete, if I've had a go at anyone, it's down to assumptions and lack of understanding of the complex issues surrounding why folk become obese and the ignorant comments they deal with on a daily basis. And as one who has been pointed at & poked fun at in the past (in real life) due to weight, I know just how damaging such comments are and how they do nada to assist folk in getting to grips with obesity. If anything, they can and do make it worse for a lot of people.


----------



## summerdays (9 Dec 2007)

I once had the %fat worked out by the electric current method and mine came out quite high - 40%, but I was told afterwards that its effected by how hydrated (or not) you are at the time. 

On the BMI front, I'm just about on the 25 (either over or under depending on whether I say I'm half an inch taller or shorter than I am). I wouldn't say I was obese, but I definately have some bits where I wouldn't mind loosing a bit. However I don't gain or loose weight very quickly (and I never diet - too much effort and thought required), it seems to stay fairly similar most of the time. 

I do think that fat gene thing has some basis - I am probably (ok definately) the lightest of my mum and all my siblings (some of which I suspect have the 2 fat genes (and one sibling has a car gene - the one when you can't go anywhere without having the steering wheel attatched)). I suspect I have one copy, and my hubby definately would be in the no fat gene group.


----------



## wafflycat (9 Dec 2007)

If your BMI is about 25, then you aren't obese. 

The way it works is generally *about* this range:-

BMI under 20: underweight
BMI 20 - 25: healthy weight range (some interpretations go to a low end of 18, but that is *skinny*)
BMI over 25 - 30: overweight
BMI over 30 - 40: obese
BMI over 40: morbidly obese


----------



## andy_wrx (10 Dec 2007)

BMI is widely used because it's simple.
Just two measurements, weight & height.
Anybody can do the easy calculation, because it's so easy it can be put onto a cardboard-disc-with-windows-for-weigh-and-height sliderule calculator.

It's not very accurate, but so what ? It doesn't need to be, for the sort of purposes it's used for, for the sort of market it's aimed at : slimming clubs, well man/woman clinics, etc.
For them the sort of ranges wafflycat lists above are fine, it really doesn't matter if your BMI calculates-out as 24.7 or 24.8, just the sort of range it fits in. 
If it calculates-out as 40 or 17, it's likely you do have a problem.

I have had my body-fat measured using 7-point caliper measurement and I know how long it took, how much operator training would be required
See this calculator by contrast 
http://www.linear-software.com/online.html


----------



## punkypossum (11 Dec 2007)

My BMI is always around 20, but I'm not particularly fit and not exercising much at the moment, supect it would go up if I built up more muscle


----------



## zummerzet_lou (11 Dec 2007)

Phew .. 21.97 

but still way lardier than I was pre-kids ... back on the bike I guess?


----------



## gavintc (11 Dec 2007)

22.16, and I know that I am carrying some excess pounds. I need to lose about 5lbs, this would bring it down to about 21. I reckon if I was 25, I would be a pretty fat man.


----------



## Crackle (11 Dec 2007)

gavintc said:


> 22.16, and I know that I am carrying some excess pounds. I need to lose about 5lbs, this would bring it down to about 21. I reckon if I was 25, I would be a pretty fat man.



Define fat: The best I've ever been in my life is about 21.5 and at that BMI I could see individual muscles and my heart beating! Currently 25.5 and aim to get below 25, which I think is realisitic for my age and fitness. At that BMI I have 'lurrve' handles and I can pinch more than an inch but I would not call myself fat


----------



## Morrisette (13 Dec 2007)

This is interesting, how different calculators give different results for one thing!

Mine: 20.4

The weight I got down to when I was a student (diet: super noodles, tea and egg on toast) put me at 17.9 which seems scary - I was skinny but not THAT skinny.


----------



## Pete (13 Dec 2007)

Am I wrong about what I said before? I mean, about not taking BMI too seriously, nor the magic '25' as some sort of weightwatcher's nirvana? Should I be taking on board, the fact that mine is over 30 at the moment - hence, obese? And *doing something about it*? Whatever the verdict, _no way_ am I dieting at the moment, with heavy frosts outside and a nasty cold brewing in my chest...


----------



## wafflycat (13 Dec 2007)

A BMI of 25 is not some sort of 'magic' number, not a WW nirvana. BMI is a simple guide to working out whether someone is overweight, obese or morbidly obese. It works very well for those who do not do enough exercise and works as a rule of thumb guide even if you do exercise well. It has its flaws but that does not completely negate its value in working out if someone is too heavy. It's not just used by WW, but it's used by the medical profession too. If you (a generic you, rather than a specific you) have a BMI of 30, then yes, you are probably overweight at the very least. Even with all the cycling I do, when my BMI was 30, it was clear from looking at me that I was pretty overweight. Certainly better than a BMI of over 40, but not as positive as having a BMI in the healthy weight range for height. As for dieting - anyone who goes to an organisation such as WW will know that dieting is not the way to lose weight & keep it off long term. The term 'dieting' implies going without - I certainly don't go without anything I fancy eating.


----------



## Bigtallfatbloke (31 Jan 2008)

I still need to lose 3 stone to be at my ideal weight...wow...that'll take some doing...


----------



## Rhythm Thief (31 Jan 2008)

I would tell you all what my BMI is, but I have no idea what I actually weigh. I think I'm around 15 stone, so my BMI could be about 28. Equally, I could be anywhere up to a stone lighter or heavier. I must get some scales one day.


----------



## Blue (31 Jan 2008)

Back in the 1980's I lost more than 80lbs and have maintained a healthy weight ever since. I 'dieted', but not so much in the way of 'doing without'. What I did was keep the calorie equation as my rule and increased the exercise I did while seeking out lower calorie alternatives of, or for, the foods that I ate. This meant that I was able to continue eating almost the same quantity of food - so wasn't starving myself. I have to admit that some of the less fat/sugar alternatives tasted like chewing cardboard but, hey, the lbs fell off.

Overall, the experience changed me to a life of exercising and reading the labels of the foodstuffs I was purchasing. Exercising also awakened an interest in all aspects of healthy living. The weight stayed away. As far as I'm concerned it was all due to following the simple calorie equation, which is why I always mention it in threads of this nature. I now eat what I like, including high fat/sugar treats but being aware of the calorie equation is a constant reminder not to eat too much and to keep exercising - hence I'm still slim nearly 25 years post that 'diet'.


----------



## tdr1nka (7 Mar 2008)

BMI: 20.29
Height: 6' 2"
Weight: 11 & 1/2 stone

Not too bad methinks?


----------



## Crackle (7 Mar 2008)

tdr1nka said:


> BMI: 20.29
> Height: 6' 2"
> Weight: 11 & 1/2 stone
> 
> Not too bad methinks?



Yeah! but yer look terrible.


 :?:


----------



## John the Monkey (7 Mar 2008)

20.93 for me.


----------



## fossyant (7 Mar 2008)

Light weight's...... 5'9 and 78kg's - or about 12st and a little bit...but that was my race weight years ago - big legs....ahem !!! BMI is just under 25.

BMI is rubbish as any athlete won't get a low reading due to muscle - BMI is OK for couch potatoes !


----------



## Fab Foodie (7 Mar 2008)

27.75 
All on my belly too 
Not keen to go either. Could do with upping the excercise a tad and decreasing the food intake. Alcohol is waaay down since Christmas which is good, but decreasing consumption's not easy when sorrounded by the stuff.
Oh well, just another challenge...at least it's not going up!

Need to shift a stone and a half.


----------



## doyler78 (30 Mar 2008)

Height: 173cm (5'8")
Weight: 72kg
BMI: 24.06

I feel more comfortable (and not surprisingly cycle quicker) weight wise around 67-68kg so that's what I will aiming for once I start doing some longer commutes home now that the clocks have gone forward.

BMI is useful however waist to hip ratio is now seen as a better indicator of a person being at greater cardiovascular risk. With a 30" waist I don't think I have any worries on that front though as risk of heart disease is also hereditary and my dad has had 3 heart attacks I, as the doctor tactfully put it "probably have faulty valves anyway" so just postponing the inevitable. There's a cheery thought.


----------



## HLaB (30 Mar 2008)

Height: 5'10"
Weight: 143lb (last weighed my self in Jan)
BMI: 20.5
I don't really bother about what weight I am now. When I left college in 94, I was 161lb, took not well and lost 2 stone in about 1 month but that felt too light. Although according to the BMI calculator all three weights are amongst an ideal weight range, so I've not much confidence in the BMI.


----------



## Tynan (1 Apr 2008)

You are overweight for your height
Your BMI is 26.5

good job I didn't do this eight months ago when I weighed another two and a half stone

I've lost almost all my obvious fat barring some soft belly, from beer I suspect

I have put on a fair bit of muscle around the shoulders, arms and thighs

Still overweight is better than obese I suppose


----------



## walker (4 Apr 2008)

walker said:


> just about within the right BMI



after living with take aways for the last 3 weeks, jsut over the right BMI


----------



## fossyant (5 Apr 2008)

walker said:


> after living with take aways for the last 3 weeks, jsut over the right BMI



Take aways - argh - that's a lot !


----------



## joshw (4 May 2008)

18.5


----------



## PrettyboyTim (31 May 2008)

I just calculated my son's BMI (he's 3 and a half).

He's got a BMI of 13.8  which had me frantically re-calculating a couple of times.

Turns out however that young children are expected to have lower BMIs, reaching their minimum at about 4-5 years old. *phew*


----------



## Joe (31 May 2008)

Your BMI is 17.5

Underweight apparently. I'm naturally really skinny though, and I definitely get more than enough calories! In fact I'm starting to get a bit of fat on the belly. Will be 25 next year, it's all down hill from here right?


----------



## Danny (3 Jun 2008)

20.5


----------



## Amanda P (3 Jun 2008)

Hmmm. 21.5ish. 

I'm a touch heavier than I sometimes am. And I think I'm getting a little pudgy in places.

But on the whole probably not too much to worry about. I think I will have another chocolate digestive.


----------



## Aperitif (3 Jun 2008)

*You are overweight for your height*
Your BMI is 28.5

If your BMI is between 25 and 29.9 you're over the ideal weight for your height. Make sure you eat a healthy, well-balanced diet and don't eat more calories than you need to.

If you're trying to lose weight, get more exercise and avoid snacking and 'crash' diets. If you carry your weight around your stomach, you're 'apple-shaped', rather than 'pear-shaped'. This means you're at more risk of health problems, so you really need to get your weight down.
Top tip:

There are many benefits to losing weight. Start by reducing your calories by about 500 a day, and try to lose 5-10kg (11-22lbs) in about six months.

I don't feel too fat - honestly guv!


----------



## Jaded (3 Jun 2008)

Your BMI is 23.5

However I think I am at least 1/2 stone overweight.


----------



## angusde (22 Jun 2008)

My BMI is still over 40..... 

Since I started back on my bike last Easter I've lost in the region of 35 lbs and 3% of my fat index according to the scales in Tesco, but things have flattened out a bit since Christmas.

What was also interesting was that over that time my (home measured) BP has gone from 150/75 to 115/60 and my resting HR from 70 to 50. I still can't get my max HR much above 90 tho'.

I average about 40 miles a week on the bike, and generally eat healthy, but overdo the portion control at times.


----------



## Dayvo (22 Jun 2008)

I'm 6'1" and weigh 98 kg (15 st. 4).
My BMI is 28.4 
I've got a 34" waist, eat healthily and exercise regularly.
Must be 'big boned'!


----------



## Stig-OT-Dump (22 Jun 2008)

Dayvo - I'm not being cheeky but do you measure your waist? Or do you fit into 34" waist trousers? I always bought 34" and then went to a tailor who measured me and politely told me I'd be more comfortable in 36" trousers.

It turns out ladies' clothes aren't the only ones subject to vanity sizing (new size 10 is old size 12 etc) but that most gents' trousers are now incorrectly sized so that a more generously proportioned chap thinks he has the same waist band as when he left school.

That kicked me into losing a bit and now I'm a measured 33" (and smug).


----------



## Dayvo (22 Jun 2008)

Stig-OT-Dump said:


> Dayvo - I'm not being cheeky but do you measure your waist? Or do you fit into 34" waist trousers? I always bought 34" and then went to a tailor who measured me and politely told me I'd be more comfortable in 36" trousers.



Good point! Last year I wriggled into a pair of 32" '501s", but as regard to my 'actual' size I don't (want to) know! 
When i was playing rugby I had a apir of 38" but that was (mainly due to having larger thighs. Now I'm, er, leaner!


----------

