Tcm621 said:
I actually like the waist circumference. It is an annual remainder of where you stand. How many people do you know who were fit and well built when they joined and now waddle around? In my experience a fair amount. That doesn't happen over night and it creeps up on you.
...
Some years ago, 15 or so, I guess, the medical community seemed to decide that "belly fat" was a better indication of health problems than was weight.
For most of the last 10 years of my military career (1980s and '90s) I was on a medical restriction that included limited physical activity and, consequently, my weight (and waistline) showed the effect ~ in that decade or so I went from about 175 to 235 lbs and my waistline went from 34" to about 42." Not long before I retired I managed, with some expert medical help and a (relatively) side-effect-free drug, to manage my (neurological) condition and just before I retired my medical status was changed back to "fit for duty." But during that time most of the medical staff, there were one or two exceptions, said my (obvious and worrisome) lack of fitness was a minor concern and getting my (serious) neurological problem under control was the only real priority.
On retirement, I began to see a younger civilian physician. She referred me to a different specialist, one who had been recommended by my military neurologist but was not approved by the Surg Gen, and she (over about three to five years) effectively "cured" me. Meanwhile, and
this is the bit of the story that is germane to the topic, my new general practitioner told me that my belly was a serious problem and, over the next few years, her plan was to slim me down, mainly through exercise and diet, and get rid of a walking stick, which had been the Surg Gen's solution to a couple of problems, one of which was knees that didn't like carrying too much weight. Dr Lee told me that the medical literature told her, and she considers herself a "mainstream" and "up-to-date" GP, that waistline circumference is a better predictor of health problems than is simple weight (BMI). In the intervening years I, very gradually, dropped about 15 pounds, my BMI is still too high, but Dr Lee just laughs and says that I am not overweight, I'm just 2" too short. The key thing is that my waistline is 6"+ smaller than it was when I retired and I "feel" better than I have for about 20 years and some of the lab tests show that I have fewer "problems" than I did on retirement.
I'm not faulting the medical officers (other than perhaps the Surg Gen of the day, I forget his name) who treated me, back in the 1980s and '90s ~ my condition was serious; I could work (in fact it helped a lot to work, very hard, at my demanding and highly technical desk job) but I was told to "take it easy," and to not worry about my BMI. I think, now, with the benefit of hindsight, that was not the best advice.
Not everyone is "shaped," from birth, as we might wish, but most of us are, and I'm
guessing that most (not all) of the 40"+ waistlines I see in Ottawa, amongst male uniformed members who are (often) shorter than I, could be trimmed back by a few inches with nothing more than a few changes in a few personal habits. It worked for me and I'm just as lazy as the next guy and I enjoy a pint and (used to enjoy) some junk food as much as everyone else.
Waistline circumference (belly fat) does matter ... I'm quoting professional medical advice, not the internet, and I am proof that one can manage his (or her, I guess) waistline without too much pain and feel better for it, too.
