Waist Measurement And Visceral Fat

[LittleGreyCat]

The current assessment for risk of developing T2 includes a waist measurement which is more than half your height. This is considered more accurate than BMI.

As I understand it the risk is based around the amount of visceral fat, which can stress the liver and pancreas and also lead to general insulin resistance around the internal organs.

Now I am on a weight loss/fitness gain campaign at the moment and I am 6' tall and weigh 12 stone 2 lbs so well within normal BMI.

However my true waist measurement (that is, around the belly button not the trouser waist band above the hips) is currently nearer 37" than the recommended maximum of 36".

I don't know if this is a result of age (change in the musculature) or if my body is grimly holding onto visceral fat against possible future emergencies.

The key issue seems to be the extent of visceral fat (as estimated by waist measurement).

If this is considered crucial, why isn't this measured (perhaps once per year) to give a clear picture instead of just an estimate?

I assume that this could be done by ultrasound.

Has anyone had their visceral fat measured?
If so, under which circumstances?

 

[walnut_face]

I had an ultrasound earlier in the year (private) as I was interested in whether I had a fatty liver. I guess it would also show visceral fat, though I did not specifically ask. Why don't the NHS offer it? Cost I suppose, its motto seems to be penny wise, pound foolish

 

[Bluetit1802]

I think when measuring waist size, if you have already lost a lot of weight, you have to be careful you are not measuring a lot of loose skin!

 

[TorqPenderloin]

As others mentioned, visceral fat isn't measured because it's time consuming and/or expensive to do so. The BMI and other basic measurements exist because they're quick and easy to obtain and they apply to MOST people. Of course, the more basic a test is the less accurate it's going to be, and there certainly are a lot of exceptions to the BMI and similar measurements. Ironically, the BMI fails people who are often the most active as it doesn't account for skeletal muscle.

I'm a huge critic of the BMI because I believe it contributes to eating disorders and body image issues. While I acknowledge that it is applicable to many people it comes at the expense of others as too much emphasis is placed on the index. People consume themselves with reaching an arbitrary number rather than reaching a healthier version of themselves.

Bottom line, the measurements you listed are certainly considerations, but remember to keep in mind that they're not the ONLY considerations. While it's a bit extreme, I take body measurements 1-2 times a year of my arms, neck, chest, waist, and legs. I then compare them to past results as well as my current body weight to see if I'm gaining healthy weight (muscle) or fat.

 

[kokhongw]

I have not had any weight loss since starting on LCHF+IF about 1 year ago...

But had 1-2 inches waist loss...seems to have done wonders for my glucose and presumably insulin level...

 

[LittleGreyCat]

I think when measuring waist size, if you have already lost a lot of weight, you have to be careful you are not measuring a lot of loose skin!

Down from 12 stone 9 lbs to 12 stone 2 lbs so I am not carrying a badly folded rug around my waist.

In my case I have improved the definition of my waist but I don't seem to have decreased the circumference.

 

[Bic]

The current assessment for risk of developing T2 includes a waist measurement which is more than half your height. This is considered more accurate than BMI.

As I understand it the risk is based around the amount of visceral fat, which can stress the liver and pancreas and also lead to general insulin resistance around the internal organs.

Now I am on a weight loss/fitness gain campaign at the moment and I am 6' tall and weigh 12 stone 2 lbs so well within normal BMI.

However my true waist measurement (that is, around the belly button not the trouser waist band above the hips) is currently nearer 37" than the recommended maximum of 36".

I don't know if this is a result of age (change in the musculature) or if my body is grimly holding onto visceral fat against possible future emergencies.

The key issue seems to be the extent of visceral fat (as estimated by waist measurement).

If this is considered crucial, why isn't this measured (perhaps once per year) to give a clear picture instead of just an estimate?

I assume that this could be done by ultrasound.

Has anyone had their visceral fat measured?
If so, under which circumstances?

Hi Little Grey Cat (what a cute nickname, by the way)
I am Type 1 and I always have my waist measured when I meet my endo (some 4 times a year). I only wonder what use it can be, as the nurse never seem to put her tape round the same place of me: sometimes it's my actual waist (I take it to be the narrowest point in my torso), sometimes it's the belly, sometimes it's the hips and sometimes it's the buttocks… Very funny. However my endo has never taken notice of the difference in numbers (I have not what they call a 'ruler' figure) nor made the least comment about it. So, I'm just as perplexed as you are.

 

[therower]

I was once informed that the only guaranteed way to determine how much fat was part of your anatomy was to have it cut off and physically weighed.
Unfortunately this results in death.
Don't agree with BMI. As mentioned it fails to recognise muscle development.
The best way for me is an honest look in the mirror,
The hole's on my belt and how a t shirt that's slightly to small looks on, a very tight t shirt can show so much.

 

[qe5rt]

A DIY method of measuring visceral fat is standing against a wall relaxing your waist (let it hang ) and taking something straight like a board, ruler, ... something as a point of reference and place it flat on your belly button. Then measure the distance between the wall and the reference point. Repeat while lying down on a hard surface and see the difference between the two. The idea behind this is that visceral fat stays put while subcutaneous fat has the tendency to move with the body, while lying down a good portion of it will move to the sides. It's still a very rough estimate but if both values are exactly or barely differ you'll most likely have a decent amount of visceral fat around your waist.

But generally you'll need to lose overall fat to also lose visceral fat (not even ab exercises will target your belly fat specifically) so that number really isn't that important. If you're decreasing your waist circumference you'll likely also be decreasing your visceral fat.

 

[DavidGrahamJones]

I was once informed that the only guaranteed way to determine how much fat was part of your anatomy was to have it cut off and physically weighed.

The Bodpod is pretty good, considered to be the Gold Standard. I had a test done and it was exactly the same as measured by a set of TANITA scales.

 

[therower]

The Bodpod is pretty good, considered to be the Gold Standard. I had a test done and it was exactly the same as measured by a set of TANITA scales.

My biggest concern would be how a bod pod costing maybe £30,000 and a set of tanita scales costing maybe £100 would give the same measurements.
Are bod pods necessary?

 

[Prem51]

@LittleGreyCat I have lost about 4" from my waistline in the last 12 months. I think it must have an effect on the visceral fat around my liver and pancreas too. My fbgs seem to decrease with my weight loss.
I have never had an 'official' NHS measurement of my visceral fat, but I bought some Omron scales recently which also measure visceral fat. I don't know how accurate they are, but reviews show most people think they are ok. It shows my visceral fat as around 7, falling to 6 in the last few days, which is in the 'normal' range of 1-12. I would like to get it lower though.
My waist measurement is still half an inch more than it should be, but I have been fasting for the last four weeks and my weight is reducing again, so I hope I will get there.

 

[DavidGrahamJones]

My biggest concern would be how a bod pod costing maybe £30,000 and a set of tanita scales costing maybe £100 would give the same measurements.
Are bod pods necessary?

Most of scales measure body composition by using bioelectrical impedance. That is to say, they send a safe and very low electrical current through the lower half of the body. Since the electrical current flows more quickly through water and muscle than bone or fat, the scale measures the speed of the current. (Google)
The BOD POD system accurately measures body composition by determining body volume and body weight. Once those two variables are determined, body density can be computed and inserted into an equation to provide % fat measurements. Body weight is easily determined by the use of an accurate scale. (Google)
I don't fully understand either but I had always been very skeptical of the scales, I had also been concerned that the Harris Benedict formula for calculating resting metabolic rate might be a few hundred calories out. So I went to the University of Westminster to have them measured rather than calculated.
Impressively, the Bod Pod agreed with the scales and indirect calorimetry and the ventilated-hood agreed with the Harris Benedict formula. They have only served to verify the tools that I have at my disposal (scales and HB formula). Sadly nobody can explain how my calorie intake can be so low without me losing weight. The search goes on. In fact I'm on day six of the Newcastle Diet, 2 meal replacements and a low carb meal (low fat as well for me) and my weight hasn't changed. Am I absorbing water to replace those pounds? LOL

 

[therower]

The error range for a bod pod test is apparently ±1 to 2.7%. Not a great amount but none the less not accurate.

 

[AndBreathe]

My scales track my visceral fat, on a numeric scale from 1-30. Mine runs these days at 3. That part of the scale utilises electrical impedance to "measure" it.

Whilst at one stage I considered finding a Bod Pod or DEXA scan, I just knew once would not be enough and it would get expensive trotting back and forth!

My scales measure a number of metrics including muscle and body fat percentages as well as the usual weight and BMI. My scales are Omron BF511. There are many similar scales, from cheaper options to eye-wateringly expensive options. Like frank blood scores, I'm as much interested in stability and trends, rather than the actual numbers.

 

[Indy51]

I think I'll have to try and get a DEXA scan done. I enquired of Omron Australia when they plan on releasing the BF511 here and they said they don't have plans or date yet. They're releasing one in November (think it was BF212 or similar). The Tanita scales with the handles like the Omron run at close to $500, so can't see myself shelling out that much money

Even at my slimmest (around 12 months ago), my waist measurement never got below the recommended 80cm, so I think that's an unattainable goal for me

 

[AndBreathe]

I think I'll have to try and get a DEXA scan done. I enquired of Omron Australia when they plan on releasing the BF511 here and they said they don't have plans or date yet. They're releasing one in November (think it was BF212 or similar). The Tanita scales with the handles like the Omron run at close to $500, so can't see myself shelling out that much money

Even at my slimmest (around 12 months ago), my waist measurement never got below the recommended 80cm, so I think that's an unattainable goal for me

The Omron Aussie range is surprisingly limited, isn't it? This one says it pretty much does as the FB511, but without the hand grasps. For me, those were important as they measure slightly differently.

If I recall, @Debmcgee bought some on eBay, I think that have lots of functionality, at less than the Omrons cost me.

My fear of the DEXA was that for for it to be of material impact I would need at least 2 scans, and depending on success or otherwise, potentially a third scan. My rationale (being the data monster I am) was:

1 - Bench-marking, starting point

Assuming visceral fat, in quantities of interest, is detected

2 - After an elapsed period (self-defined) doing something planned to reduce the visceral fat

Period of further effort or maintenance (depending on the results of 2)

3 - Maintenance to ascertain whether visceral fat levels became stable/improve/deteriorated

That was the basis upon which I rejected the idea. I am Scottish after all.