When people tell their waist size do they go by pant size or tape measure?
Vageta
I ask this because the 2 are most often not the same, and in some
cases extremely different. Before I began working out and dieting I
took measurements in all of the critical areas to keep track of my
progress. At the time I was wearing a size 38 pant which was starting
to get tight but nonethless still fit, though my actual naval
measurement was 43". If my waist was really 5" larger than the pants I
shouldn't even be able to get the buttons to touch, nonetheless button
together.
At this moment I'm wearing 34 pants extremely comfortably and will be
graduating to 32-33 in short time, yet my waist size with a cloth tape
measures 37" or so.
So the question is when people announce their waist size do they
usually just say the pant size or do they actually say their exact
measurement? I estimate my waist will measure 35" when I will fit into
size 32 pants.
I have this feeling that pant companies tend to fudge the numbers a
bit to get more people to buy their pants. If you found 2 pair of
pants that both fit the same but one said it was 2 sizes smaller
wouldn't you think that most people would buy the one that said it was
smaller even though they were identical?
I've tried many different types of pants, and with the exception of
those damn Calvin Klein's, my ovbservations have been the same. Any
jeans that look tight on Kate Moss cannot be made to fit 95% of the
population!
And before you all claim your waist measurement matches your pant size
I challenge you to do another measurement, and without sucking in till
your face turns blue. Firm your abs but do not suck in as to be
realistic in the measurement. If you have to keep your gut sucked in
all day to fit in your pants I'd say that's not being realistic. I can
button up a size 32 but comfortable is not the word that I'd describe
the sensation :)
Thai Boxer
I have not measured my penis in a while.
http://www.arach.net.au/users/burnie/muay.html
http://www.shoto.com/muaythai.html
http://www.wmto.org/
.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
e1d
tape measurement and you would look like Alley McBeal. Besides, when doing
ab work, real ab work, you actually increase in waist size, although it's
muscle, which is a good thing, a lot of people have a misconception that
crunches slim you down, it does to a certain extent, but if one dieted, did
no ab work they would have a smaller waist size than if they did ab work
too. I actually increased 2" in waist size, but the appearance is much
smaller since I have lost a lot of body fat and my shoulders and chest are
much larger, which gives an appearance that my waist is smaller than when I
was fatter. Look at Gabrielle Reese, she does 350 crunches A DAY and I know
her waist is wider than mine and we're the same height. I don't even get on
a scale or measure anymore, I judge by how my clothes fit and how I look in
the mirror (which there are mirrors that can make you slimmer too which I
think stores use to get you to buy clothes, I think I saw that on Dateline).
Jump up and down, if it jiggles, it's fat and time to lose it.
Vageta <vage...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:39400e79...@news.earthlink.net...
ewitte
correct (or close) though. Two inches above my belly button
(about where I button up) the circumference changes 2-3". I
also get another inch or so from pushing the fat in a little
(not much, just enough that they don't feel like they are
falling off). I say this because the distance between the start
of my belt to the whole I use measures about equal to the pant
size. I bet if you tried to button up at your belly button you
would have problems.
Eric
Daniel F Garcia
any one else or some ideal. So it doesn't matter how you are taking the
measurements, just if it is going up or down.
I take two measurements. Waist & belly. Waist is where my pants sit, which
is under my belly. Belly is at navel height.
Daniel.
Vageta <vage...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:39400e79...@news.earthlink.net...
>
>
> I ask this because the 2 are most often not the same, and in some
> cases extremely different. Before I began working out and dieting I
> took measurements in all of the critical areas to keep track of my
> progress. At the time I was wearing a size 38 pant which was starting
> to get tight but nonethless still fit, though my actual naval
> measurement was 43". If my waist was really 5" larger than the pants I
> shouldn't even be able to get the buttons to touch, nonetheless button
> together.
>
> At this moment I'm wearing 34 pants extremely comfortably and will be
> graduating to 32-33 in short time, yet my waist size with a cloth tape
> measures 37" or so.
>
> So the question is when people announce their waist size do they
> usually just say the pant size or do they actually say their exact
> measurement? I estimate my waist will measure 35" when I will fit into
> size 32 pants.
>
Watson Davis
<DanielG_PLEASEDON'TS...@colorcorp.com.au> wrote:
>When I take my measurements I take them for me and not to compare it with
>any one else or some ideal. So it doesn't matter how you are taking the
>measurements, just if it is going up or down.
>
>I take two measurements. Waist & belly. Waist is where my pants sit, which
>is under my belly. Belly is at navel height.
I take my measurements at my navel and at the narrowest part of my
abdomen (which is above the navel.)
Watson (the pencil neck) Davis
Anonymous
Vageta wrote:
>
> I ask this because the 2 are most often not the same, and in some
> cases extremely different. Before I began working out and dieting I
> took measurements in all of the critical areas to keep track of my
> progress. At the time I was wearing a size 38 pant which was starting
> to get tight but nonethless still fit, though my actual naval
> measurement was 43". If my waist was really 5" larger than the pants I
> shouldn't even be able to get the buttons to touch, nonetheless button
> together.
>
> At this moment I'm wearing 34 pants extremely comfortably and will be
> graduating to 32-33 in short time, yet my waist size with a cloth tape
> measures 37" or so.
>
> So the question is when people announce their waist size do they
> usually just say the pant size or do they actually say their exact
> measurement? I estimate my waist will measure 35" when I will fit into
> size 32 pants.
The general public often uses pants size. In bodybuilding,
fitness, or medical applications, people use the actual measurement.
--
the artist formerly known as Bill
--------== Posted Anonymously via Newsfeeds.Com ==-------
Featuring the worlds only Anonymous Usenet Server
-----------== http://www.newsfeeds.com ==----------
Bob Mann
From the looks of those pictures, you don't have a narrowest part
right now.
I think I see how you weighed the same as Whit.
--
Bob Mann
Http://members.home.net/bobmann
It may be that your sole purpose in life
is to serve as a warning to others.
Anonymous
Watson Davis wrote:
> I take my measurements at my navel and at the narrowest part of my
> abdomen (which is above the navel.)
I take measurements normal, vacuumed, and fully expanded; and
then redo the normal measurement in metric and reconvert to
inches. I go by the normal measurement in inches, while the others
are reality checks. The average of expanded and vacuumed should
not be far off from the normal, and metric should not be THAT
much larger than inch.
The reason for the expanded and vacuumed measurements is that
they are more reproducible than the normal measurement (which one
can vary over a range of an inch quite easily simply by changing
posture a little.)
BTW, metric always is larger than inch. This is obviously due
to psychological bias in measurement.
Watson Davis
>On Fri, 09 Jun 2000 01:14:21 GMT, Watson Davis
><wat...@watsonmusic.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 9 Jun 2000 07:55:07 +1000, "Daniel F Garcia"
>><DanielG_PLEASEDON'TS...@colorcorp.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>>When I take my measurements I take them for me and not to compare it with
>>>any one else or some ideal. So it doesn't matter how you are taking the
>>>measurements, just if it is going up or down.
>>>
>>>I take two measurements. Waist & belly. Waist is where my pants sit, which
>>>is under my belly. Belly is at navel height.
>>
>>I take my measurements at my navel and at the narrowest part of my
>>abdomen (which is above the navel.)
>>
>>Watson (the pencil neck) Davis
>
>From the looks of those pictures, you don't have a narrowest part
>right now.
>I think I see how you weighed the same as Whit.
Ouch. Yes. I saw that, too. Thanks for pointing it out.
Robert Schuh
> I ask this because the 2 are most often not the same, and in some
> cases extremely different. Before I began working out and dieting I
> took measurements in all of the critical areas to keep track of my
> progress. At the time I was wearing a size 38 pant which was starting
> to get tight but nonethless still fit, though my actual naval
> measurement was 43". If my waist was really 5" larger than the pants I
> shouldn't even be able to get the buttons to touch, nonetheless button
> together.
>
> At this moment I'm wearing 34 pants extremely comfortably and will be
> graduating to 32-33 in short time, yet my waist size with a cloth tape
> measures 37" or so.
>
> So the question is when people announce their waist size do they
> usually just say the pant size or do they actually say their exact
> measurement? I estimate my waist will measure 35" when I will fit into
> size 32 pants.
>
> I have this feeling that pant companies tend to fudge the numbers a
> bit to get more people to buy their pants. If you found 2 pair of
> pants that both fit the same but one said it was 2 sizes smaller
> wouldn't you think that most people would buy the one that said it was
> smaller even though they were identical?
>
> I've tried many different types of pants, and with the exception of
> those damn Calvin Klein's, my ovbservations have been the same. Any
> jeans that look tight on Kate Moss cannot be made to fit 95% of the
> population!
>
> And before you all claim your waist measurement matches your pant size
> I challenge you to do another measurement, and without sucking in till
> your face turns blue. Firm your abs but do not suck in as to be
> realistic in the measurement. If you have to keep your gut sucked in
> all day to fit in your pants I'd say that's not being realistic. I can
> button up a size 32 but comfortable is not the word that I'd describe
> the sensation :)
You must wear your pants in the "fat white guys has the pants hang under
his pot belly" mode. I have a 29" waist and wear 29" Levi's Silver Tab
badges.
--
Robert Schuh
"The Most Trolled Man On The Internet!"
Stevie, Trane, Jaco, Jimi and Bird are GODS!
Donate your organs. Save a life.
Proud Endorser of Spaun Drums
Robert Schuh
baggies.
Daniel F Garcia
--
Daniel F Garcia.
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~danman
V-Card or Outlook contact item available on request
"Live each season as it passes; breath the air, drink the drink, taste the
fruit, and resign yourself to the influences of each. "
Henry David Thoreau
"Anonymous" <nob...@newsfeeds.com> wrote in message
news:394072AE...@royal.net...
>
>
> Watson Davis wrote:
>
> > I take my measurements at my navel and at the narrowest part of my
> > abdomen (which is above the navel.)
>
Vageta
wrote:
>
>You must wear your pants in the "fat white guys has the pants hang under
>his pot belly" mode. I have a 29" waist and wear 29" Levi's Silver Tab
>badges.
Last time I checked most men wear their pants on the top of their hips
as that is the way male pants are designed. Womens pants, unless they
get low cut "show off my belly" jeans, are made to be worn more across
the naval. Perhaps those are female silver tabs you are wearing?
If I was to pull my pants up to or above my naval I think I I'd have
some serious camel toe as I split my nuts down the middle. Not only
that I'd have to wear thongs so my pants could ride all the way into
the crack of my ass.
At any rate I wear my pants they way they are designed which is
slightly above my hips which measures more than my stomach. I don't
have a pot belly and if I was to yank them up to your "revenge of the
nerd" style then they'd be even baggier.
If I sounded sarcastic maybe it's because I was though honestly I
don't have any silver tabs at the moment. I did try some on at the
store last week and they fit the same way my current pants fit, though
for 53$ I opted to go with some Gap jeans.
Whit
Daniel F Garcia <DanielG_PLEASEDON'TS...@colorcorp.com.au> wrote in message
news:c8205.7$H33...@nsw.nnrp.telstra.net...
;)
Whit
henr...@my-deja.com
or a pair of tits :)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Watson Davis
wrote:
>
>
>Watson Davis wrote:
>
>> I take my measurements at my navel and at the narrowest part of my
>> abdomen (which is above the navel.)
>
>I take measurements normal, vacuumed, and fully expanded; and
>then redo the normal measurement in metric and reconvert to
>inches. I go by the normal measurement in inches, while the others
>are reality checks. The average of expanded and vacuumed should
>not be far off from the normal, and metric should not be THAT
>much larger than inch.
>
>The reason for the expanded and vacuumed measurements is that
>they are more reproducible than the normal measurement (which one
>can vary over a range of an inch quite easily simply by changing
>posture a little.)
>
>BTW, metric always is larger than inch. This is obviously due
>to psychological bias in measurement.
Oh. god.
I do the same thing.
Well, except for the metric conversion stuff.
I found that I was getting too much variance based on if I was
slouching or arching my back or unconsciously sucking it in a little.
MikeL
wrote:
>You must wear your pants in the "fat white guys has the pants hang under
>his pot belly" mode. I have a 29" waist and wear 29" Levi's Silver Tab
>baggies.
>
>
I don't think so Bert. I have noticed the same thing as our portly
friend and I have never once had a "pot belly" in my life.
--
ML
"no amount of money can magically change a creaky, balky,
untrained body into a well-trained, strong and smoothly-moving
physique that adds layers of sensual enjoyment to every moment
of existence" --Trygve
MikeL
<wat...@watsonmusic.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 9 Jun 2000 07:55:07 +1000, "Daniel F Garcia"
><DanielG_PLEASEDON'TS...@colorcorp.com.au> wrote:
>
>>When I take my measurements I take them for me and not to compare it with
>>any one else or some ideal. So it doesn't matter how you are taking the
>>measurements, just if it is going up or down.
>>
>>I take two measurements. Waist & belly. Waist is where my pants sit, which
>>is under my belly. Belly is at navel height.
>
>I take my measurements at my navel and at the narrowest part of my
>abdomen (which is above the navel.)
For sake of comparison I always used to take the smallest measurement
I could while keeping my stomach relaxed. In that way I was fairly
sure I was measuring the same area each time.
K. Taxi
|>
|
|I don't think so Bert. I have noticed the same thing as our portly
|friend and I have never once had a "pot belly" in my life.
|
Stomach used to measure in at 38' inches and I could fit into 34 relax
fit jeans (Levis) and NOT in 34 slim. When my stomach got to 34.5
the relax fit were too baggy and now I'm about a 32 or 33 for my waist.
Boggle.
Stephen
> > So the question is when people announce their waist size do they
> > usually just say the pant size or do they actually say their exact
> > measurement? I estimate my waist will measure 35" when I will fit into
> > size 32 pants.
>
>
> You must wear your pants in the "fat white guys has the pants hang under
> his pot belly" mode. I have a 29" waist and wear 29" Levi's Silver Tab
> badges.
I haven't been able to make sense of this one either. I meansured and my
waist is the same as my pants size for all of my pants.
Bob Mann
<wat...@watsonmusic.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 09 Jun 2000 04:15:48 GMT, Bob Mann <bob...@home.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 09 Jun 2000 01:14:21 GMT, Watson Davis
>><wat...@watsonmusic.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 9 Jun 2000 07:55:07 +1000, "Daniel F Garcia"
>>><DanielG_PLEASEDON'TS...@colorcorp.com.au> wrote:
>>>
>>>>When I take my measurements I take them for me and not to compare it with
>>>>any one else or some ideal. So it doesn't matter how you are taking the
>>>>measurements, just if it is going up or down.
>>>>
>>>>I take two measurements. Waist & belly. Waist is where my pants sit, which
>>>>is under my belly. Belly is at navel height.
>>>
>>>I take my measurements at my navel and at the narrowest part of my
>>>abdomen (which is above the navel.)
>>>
>>>Watson (the pencil neck) Davis
>>
>>From the looks of those pictures, you don't have a narrowest part
>>right now.
>>I think I see how you weighed the same as Whit.
>
>Ouch. Yes. I saw that, too. Thanks for pointing it out.
>
>Watson (the pencil neck) Davis
De nada dude. :-)
Watson Davis
Different people are built different. My waist is up to 2 inches
greater than my pants size with no stomach overhang... even though I
do have a Burgeoning Power Center (aka Heroic Tummy).
Steve Carr
to be 32..... and i aint got no fat over the top.....really!!!lol