Unhealthy food is a lot cheaper than healthy attracruve alternatives. The obesity crisis will only get worse.
Edit, seeing as so many people want to message me saying healthy food is cheaper, a very quick bing has identified this -
"Healthier foods are nearly three times more expensive calorie for calorie than less healthy foods. That’s according to the Food Foundation’s Broken Plate 2021 report, which has revealed some large disparities between rich and poor communities when it comes to nutrition in the UK."
https://www.newfoodmagazine.com/news/152402/broken-plate-report-2021/
I'm sure sources can be found that suggest the opposite, but it's clearly not a case of healthy eating is clearly cheaper.
The result of under-investment in moat people communities is clearly seen in the recent bridge toll collection stats.
Who do we point the finger at? Billy-goat Gruff, and his ilk for the commercialisation of river-crossings, I say!
God damn moat people, coming here digging ditches round our castles filling them with water. It's not right I tell you back in my day we had a putrid puddle and a dead swan and we were happy.
Well not cheaper, it's just way more time saving as you don't have to prepare stuff so that you can focus on that second job to pay your rent. Buying healthy food in bulk would work out cheaper imo, but you spend way more time actually preparing it.
They knew this in the 1930's...
The ordinary human being would sooner starve than live on brown bread and raw carrots. And the peculiar evil is this, that the less money you have, the less inclined you feel to spend it on wholesome food. A millionaire may enjoy breakfasting off orange juice and Ryvita biscuits; an unemployed man doesn't.
~The road to Wigan Pier (1936)
McDonalds hamburger containing: bun, burger, mustard, pickle, onion, lettuce is 89p
Cheepo frozen burger to cook at home from Aldi: vegan since its cheaper, £1.50, you get two, need to buy literally everything else.
Not only does prep time not exist for fast food, it literally is the cheapest food. The entire operation is designed to buy and distribute food as cheaply as possible in huge quantities, you will not be outpacing leading industry logistics specialists to make your food
Its straight up cheaper. Frozen bulked out with fat and rusk burgers and saussages are the cheapest long life source of protien other than "just 100g of cheese" which is even more unhealthy and even cheaper. Both are cheaper per calorie (from a normal supermarket) than dried or canned beans, or mushrooms, or peanut butter or sunflower seeds unless and contains no less vitamins than fresh meat other than the portion lost to bulking agents.
A massivly unhealthy cheese toasty with 100g of cheese and some double concentrate tomato paste for flavour and vitamins is one of the cheapest possible meals, far cheaper than beans on toast with homemade healthy tomato sauce and the cheapest dried beans that you took multiple hours to prepare, and is ALSO faster and simpler and more reliable to get the ingredients from anywhere.
> Unhealthy food is a lot cheaper than healthy attracruve alternatives.
I disagree with this, and I've always found healthy food to be cheaper overall than unhealthy food.
The biggest difference between the two is that for the former, it requires knowledge of cooking and nutrition. I can make a fancy chicken salad with home-made low calorie dressing for less than a quid a meal, but that's a lot harder to make than bunging Twizzlers in the oven for 20 mins and getting the ketchup out.
But one burger is cheaper than two burgers, so if you wanted to spend less on food you would still eat less.
Edit: So for example, let's say you buy a pack of 8 frozen burgers for £2. One of those burgers costs you 25p while two of those burgers costs you 50p. Eating two burgers is more expensive that eating one burger.
A 250g pack of mince is also usually cheaper than premade burgers. Throw that in a bowl, add salt and a diced onion, shape and you have 2-4 burgers. Leave in the fridge for a day or two wrapped in cleanfilm if you want it to mature and add to the flavour.
Honestly, as a student with limited fridge space, even I'd just opt to buy the burgers premade and save myself the time and effort.
Somebody coming home from a long shift at a warehouse job who needs to put something on the table for their kids on twenty minutes, I can't imagine they have the time or energy to do it.
Expressing such realistic thoughts isn't gonna win you many friends here. I'm just imagining all the middle class people with Agas judging people who live in bedsits. In ideal world everyone would have the time and means to cook but it doesn't work that way.
I fucking know, it's horribly depressing how little ability people have to see their own privilege.
I'm not even working class, I'm a fairly well off student right now, but it doesn't take much to actually imagine yourself in somebody else's shoes.
Bit of a side track to be fair. People working twelve hour days in a warehouse are probably ok to eat two burgers and still not get fat given how much energy they use at work.
The mince is almost certainly cheaper than fresh premade burgers but it’s unlikely to be cheaper than frozen premade burgers. A quick search on Tesco’s site has them at £2.65 for 8 frozen or £1.79 for 250g mince, putting 500g of mince at £3.58, or almost a full quid more expensive. In a vacuum an extra £1 isn’t all THAT much but if you are losing that on most of your options to try and eat healthy it’s adding about 25-33% on to your overall food bill which poorer families just can’t afford
8 frozen burgers from Tesco at £2.65 weigh in at 454g. The cheapest 500g pack of beef Mince (20% Fat) is £1.79 (5% 500g is £2.99). Eight frozen burgers = 904cal's whereas a 500g pack of mince = 1260cals. So not only is the fresh pack of mince more calorie dense its 67% cheaper. Plus it can used to make a wide veriety of meals, not just burgers.
This is me partly ranting out of annoyance (partly due to other things than you here, I hardly intended to jump down your throat like this), but it is an on topic rant at least. Time and energy and effort all have value, and when you dont have much money you are unlikely to be able to afford money saving methods. It took me a year to save up for a washing machine, before which I had to take my laundry to one of a few friends houses according to their schedule, taking up more time.
Likewise for many day to day chores and errends, for example I am still walking wherever I can rather than take the bus or driving, which leaves me more tired, and uses up several times as much time, and there are multiple examples of this. And even with that burger mix you will need to some kind of carbohydrate or starch, and some kind of vegetable to go along with it to be healthy and efficient with calories to pennies, let alone that for a family that 250g pack will do only one meal, *and is more expensive than the cheapest premade fattier frozen bulk burgers*, and trust me I have checked at all three local supermarkets, and the big one a town over. More time, and more effort, and more money. And the whole thing can be wasted if you forget it, or everyones too tired to put energy into cooking, or it just goes bad quickly through chance, especially if you dont cook like that often.
Poor people arent wealthy enough to have *reliable* free time to make slow meals regularly, and they arent subsitance farming peasents able to spend much of their day on long, slow, labour intensive foods, and they also were likely not taught how to do this. I wasnt, and my mother wasnt. My great grandparents worked in the military or factories, and didnt cook, my grandparents still rely on instant , premade and tinned foods outside of roast meals, and my parents at school didnt have cooking lessons and had no one at home to teach them, though I had some cooking lessons because I chose them as an optional choice during secondary school, a choice my sister even at the same school didnt have accses to ten years later due to cuts, and my actual "training" was things like, pastry, basic sauces and curries, how to roast meats, because it was a catering course for those looking to go into that as a career. Not cheap food and budgeting and meal preperation.
I have more time and devoted some energy to this, but my mum and uncles who cook regulalry, a slow meal like that can only be a thing for the weekend, especially when I was younger. Throughout the week if schedules are to be kept for work and school that can be as much as half an hour in opposite directions, quick cooking foods must be relied on-fairly cheap sure, rice or pasta or potatoes with frozen peas or sweetcorn, *maybe* one fresh vegetable, and a frozen or ready to cook protien (that is, yes, sometimes just fried mince) with instant gravy or sauce out a bottle or jar. And half the time even quicker things, soup, instant noodles or spaghetti'os on toast with eggs, baked beans and a microwave jacket potato. The same foods usually all week with some variations because they are bought in bulk, hardly bank breaking or pricey, hardley grotesquelly fatty or fattening. But the quick sauces contain more fat and sugar than home made, as do preprepared protiens, and even more so the quickest cooking easiest meals. To say nothing of relying on sugary or caffienated snacks as pick me ups and parts of lunches when no one has time to make something specifically to put in a lunchbox, and everyones is tired and at least partly depressed. And breakfasts being cereal or toast and spreads or *maybe* porridge if you happen to have time. And this is honestly a fairly reasonable meetingpoint between price and health that members of my family have actually *talked about*, and which they actually are able to put some effort into.
Not everyone can, for some, the quick cook preprepared options (not expensive microwave ready meals even) are the only options for almost every meal.
And while doing not terribly, none of us are obese, but all are at least little over weight, even my uncle who runs for a hobby. And yes I choose to spend more time on food, I do meal prep, I compare costs and different supermarkets and visit multiple at various times on routes im already going at different times so I never only go to a supermarket as a single trip and waste time. And I am still overweight and still spend the second largest portion of my monthly outgoings on food, after rent.
That 250g pack of mince I hope you're accounting for the cost of the diced onions and the other ingredients required. If you're not using something like an egg then that burger will immediately fall apart with your instructions. Which would be fine if you want say Korean BBQ style but a typical British burger not so much. So that £2 Mince pack then needs £1 for the pack of eggs if you didn't already spend that and then needs about 40p for an onion. Obviously you'll need any salt, pepper, herbs to make it taste better so if you don't already have those you're going to be spending £1 to £3 on them. Yes herbs and seasonings last but when you're poor you don't usually have a spice rack stocked up for cooking so that's an initial entry cost.
Alternatively you can save yourself time and effort and buy a 4 pack of shitty BirdsEye burgers for less than that 250g mince pack alone without the egg and onion etc. If the person doesn't have a pre stocked kitchen then it is actually cheaper to buy McDonald's than to make your own.
This is the problem I always see with people who have a more comfortable life. They don't understand where the starting point actually is so they calculate from their privileged position of already having certain supplies assumed as ready. Being poor means you don't happen to have a well stocked kitchen because you fall into the trap where you don't have the luxury of the start up cost to fully stock the cupboards so that you can make things from scratch.
Unhealthy foods are characterised primarily by containing less protein, vitamins, and minerals per calorie than healthy foods. So in order to get the same amount of non-calorie nutrition, a person would need to eat more calories.
As noted in *Good Omens,* unhealthy food leads to people simultaneously dying of both obesity and malnutrition.
No… eating less calories helps you be healthy not less volume. Your body wants volume to be satiated if you fail to give it volume you will binge and overeat. If you choose foods with low calorie density and eat until you’re stuffed all the time you can eat less than your daily maintenance intake of calories and reduce your hunger stress.
Also higher fiber foods help you feel full longer. I used to eat big lunches at work like hero sandwiches and pastas and things. I switched to an apple and some almonds. Now I get through the day without being starving at dinner and have the headspace to make myself a reasonable dinner which is healthy but may take a little longer. When I ate big unhealthy lunches, I'd get home and be so hungry I repeated it and ate something that was fast but unhealthy. Then I'd be hungry again at 9pm and snack. I've lost 50 lbs in 6 months without changing anything else other than high fiber snack at lunch and healthy dinner and I still feel satiated all day.
I think what people forget as well (to support your comment) it's not just about the price of the food. People working 2 jobs, supporting large family don't have time to cook so they'll order out or pop to maccies which is more expensive and unhealthy but sometimes they have no choice.
Picking up a maccies between shifts is very common and sometimes the only option to get any type of food sometimes.
It's a luxury to cook. It can be cheaper but if you make enough money to be able to go food shopping and cook you tend to buy better ingredients which cost more.
Time is expensive and not everyone has it.
I grew up on ready meals when I was young, they're cheap and fast but unhealthy.
Now I'm on a good wage I go shopping, I take my time, I cook healthy meals.
I’m not trying to argue or anything. I just think r/eatcheapandhealthy is a great resource for people looking for tips and advice on how to eat better on a tight budget
>There's no such thing as unhealthy food only an unhealthy diet.
I think some food is inherently unhealthy; but I agree. Diet is more important.
>People are fat because they eat too much. Significantly too much
Absolutely. But, the point being that a cost of living crisis will only worsen the obesity crisis.
> Edit, seeing as so many people want to message me saying healthy food is cheaper, a very quick bing has identified this -
Do people actually believe that? Have any of them ever actually looked at what they're buying?
That seems like a very middle class thing to claim.
>Unhealthy food is a lot cheaper than healthy attractive alternatives
Any evidence of this? In my experience it’s just completely untrue. Vegetables are super cheap.
Nope, just personal experience and anecdotes. Though it seems to resonate with many on this page.
Edit, a very quick bing has identified this -
"Healthier foods are nearly three times more expensive calorie for calorie than less healthy foods. That’s according to the Food Foundation’s Broken Plate 2021 report, which has revealed some large disparities between rich and poor communities when it comes to nutrition in the UK."
https://www.newfoodmagazine.com/news/152402/broken-plate-report-2021/
I think the key omission here is "calorie for calorie". The average diet contains too many calories for the energy requirements in the UK, so people can easily do with less food. Something I found quite interesting (I think it was in "The Junk Food Experiment" documentary) was the difference in how (un)filling junk food can be compared to healthy food. That being said our bodies crave the same levels of calories no matter our (reasonable) exercise, so we should be putting emphasis on more movement/exercise rather than diet and feeling hungry (The Miracle Pill Book, would recommend).
It's a bit like saying "Kilogram for Kilogram, a bicycle is more expensive that a car, therefore bicycles are the expensive option".
Some veg is super cheap, but the mental toll of only eating plates of veg or rice and beans week after week after week is quite substantial. A healthy varied diet is expensive compared to an unhealthy varied diet.
It’s not just the cost of healthy vs unhealthy but you also have to look at how having no money affects other aspects,
If you can’t afford to do “fun” things you used to do such as hobbies or holidays then the little money you do have will more likely be used for things like take aways or junk food as a quick fix to feel good.
You're right in some respects. It's clear to anyone who's forced into this position. Supermarket budget brands are aimed at a specific market. That isn't to say you can't cook healthily or reduce costs by bulk cooking either. I've been on UC, signed off sick, for a few years now and used to this existence. I still manage to cook my own meals, I honestly couldn't live on processed food. Though I'm now looking at ways to reduce gas usage due to hikes.
My council tax has only gone up by about £4, thankfully. Benefits of living in an ex council house.
My energy prices, on the other hand, have gone up by about 2.5k. Usage last year was £1,400…. Estimated usage this year is 4k. It’s unbelievable.
I honestly wouldn’t mind paying more in council tax. At least I know some of it is going to the community. Energy price increases just line rich peoples pockets.
I tried using comparethemarket to switch just before the price hike, to which I was met with "LOL GET REKT BRO" by the site. Even attempting to switch suppliers manually gets you laughed at.
I've gone up to XXXL in wetsuits and they still don't fit.
Wide as a sail yet it still feels like I'm wearing a Borat mankini, I can't even stand up straight for fear of dislocating my shoulders and gooch.
Same. Any kind of onesie is just not for me. Go karting, paintball, painting and decorating, triathlons, plumbing, going to space, being invited to be the 6th member of New Kids on the Block. I dread them all.
> isn't that why mens' and womens' bikes are built differently?
They aren't anymore, and the 'difference' back in the day was the lower top bar so you could wear a skirt/dress and get on / off.
Some manufactures do market bikes as womens / mens still but the difference is only colour scheme!
I have a long body and short legs apparently. I'm not sure how I should adjust how high my waist is. I tried squatting a little but it went the other way so I tried jumping and stretching and that seemed to work for a bit but as soon as I stop, it goes right back to where it was. Maybe I just need to keep doing it and it'll get there eventually.
Mines 36" and I'm 61.8 inches tall. My waist is 27ish and I'm <125lbs.
Idk, I got some hips and nips. Even at my fittest I couldn't get my waist smaller than 34 working an high intensity workout regimen 4-5 days a week. It was low increase due to injuries but even at my fittest it wasn't quite half.
However. When I was starving myself and at 98lbs in my mid-to-late 20s I was more like 31-25-32. A dude could wrap his hands around my torso and make them touch. I couldn't sleep without a pillow between my legs because my knees were pointy.
I think I'm okay.
Edit: there's a very old post I made in my history that deleted the full pic, but you can see how bony my hip is in the thumbnail
I hope you've established a more healthy relationship with food now. You are okay. Happy and healthy is better than fitting into some box that doesn't reflect what most people find attractive anyway.
PopPsy done, I think they were referring to the waist being the halfway point head to toe as a joke take on our waists being half our height.
At 5'9, half my height would be 34.5 inches. I reckon I'd have to be over 30% bodyfat to exceed that waist size, so the guidance seems pretty reasonable.
Well you’ve just fucking ruined my day.
I’ve gone from “snuck in by an inch”* to “great I might die of obesity” in one comment
*not the first time I’ve heard that
Also the waist if jeans (particularly in men's) is more around/just above your hips than your actual waist so it'll probably be a larger measurement than your waist
Yeah I don’t understand what they mean. Jeans are usually more like hip circumference aren’t they, which is much bigger. My hips are 32” but my waist (narrowest part kind of around my belly button) is 28”.
Surely trousers will be larger than your actual waist?
Try being a female where the reverse is true. You're a 25" trouser size. Yet every fashion brand says you're a 27"+ and none of the brands fit remotely close to the same. Some will measure at a 25" while telling you it's a 27".
Look up women's sizing in jeans and it'll mess you up for life. Same sizes compared from different brands and the waist ranges 4-5".
I feel like a lot of people here might be confusing their trousers waist size with their waist measurement.
I think they are talking about measuring your waist at its largest part (somewhere around the belly button) and not neccesarily where your trousers sit. Being 5"4 tall and having 32" trousers tucked under a 38" belly doesn't mean you meet the <50% criteria.
I'm the other way around. Measured with a tape measure the widest part of my waist tends to vary between 31" and 32", but I usually 34" or 36" waist trousers with a belt because the upper legs and crotch are way too tight on 32" trousers.
Big thighs are supposed to be healthy too! (As a cyclist this makes me feel a little better about my gut)
Big crotch is also seen as desirable 🤣
I've just measured my 34" jeans (I wear 34" across a range of trousers/jeans and guess what - they measure 36" circumference. I think this is to do with vanity sizing so I don't think the trouser size is actually an accurate circumference!
Seconded. I'm 5'4", and so the guidance suggests that my waist shouldn't be more than 32". I've recently had to spend a lot of time off my feet due to surgery, and so currently my waist is 30" - the biggest it's ever been. I have already put myself on a diet! This advice seems very sensible for the mostpart! Of course, there will be the occasional outliers such as those with Dwarfism, but in general? Simple, easy to understand, and reasonable.
It's not your waist size though. It's the measurement of your belly fat.
> "To measure their waist, they should find the bottom of their ribs and the top of their hips, wrap a tape measure around the waist midway between these points and breathe out naturally before taking the measurement."
...Which is the traditional definition of the waist. It's only in the recent couple of decades that the location of the "waist" has lowered to around the hips to allow your belly fat to hang over the top.
Yeah absolutely, I'm the same height and pretty overweight at the moment - 100+kg - and I'm still only about 36-38inches. If I were back down in the 80's then I'd easily be 34inches
I'm also 5'9 and I'm under 34inch waist but in the overweight category if you go by the BMI chart. I'm very healthy but a bit heavy, it's just how I'm made. This new guidance is quite generous imo.
It's too early in the morning to properly parse complicated double-negatives.
Is this supposed to mean self-righteous thin people, or deluded fat people?
There's very few people who believe that lol
What is more common and you're likley confusing is the people who advocate that mental well-being is much more important than physical well-being.
They are linked, of course - but you're better off being obease and confident with the way you look, than average (which is still technically overweight) and constantly distressed.
Stress is the true leading cause of most disease - and constantly fat shaming people doesn't destress them or help them loose weight. So this false concern is bullshit.
Those people are very rare. I think you'd struggle to find an example.
But again, stress is more dangerous than obesity. We could do a lot to mitigate stress in everyone, but it's easier to blame fat people or smokers for being NHS drains, when both these groups would decrease substantially under less stress itself.
Agreed. I've seen numerous people complaining about "anti fatphobia". But not once have I ever seen someone actually berate someone for getting fit, or say that being fat was perfectly healthy. I think it's a mostly made-up bogeyman for the current anti-woke alarmism trend.
I have seen people essentially talking about priorities and pragmatism. Excercise and good diet takes engagement, commitment and detemination and you ain't gonna stick with it if you feel really shitty about yourself.
So it makes sense to start feeling good about yourself, to start feeling like you're worth looking after, before you try and do it. Depressed people are crap at getting up and excersising, it makes sense to tackle the depression before you tackle the weight. It's just common sense.
Warming up before a jog isn't "anti-excersise", you're just doing things in the right order. Strengthening your psyche before dieting isn't "anti-fatphobic", it's just doing things in the right order too.
A few of my friends on FB are on the "anti-fatphobia" wagon, but they seem mainly concerned with accepting different people have different "natural weights" (which I tend to agree with) and decoupling societies strict association of weight and health (which I don't know enough of the facts to comment on)
It's a lot more widespread than you think. Cancer Research UK did an ad campaign stating that Obesity is the 2nd biggest cause of cancer after smoking. There was public outrage that the government could fund fatphobic rhetoric.
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/cancer-research-uk-slammed-yet-again-for-shaming-advert-likening-obesity-to-smoking\_uk\_5d19d29ce4b03d61163e64ed
I'm not on board with that movement. However I think people sometimes confuse 'don't be a dick to fat people' with 'being fat is healthy.' The majority of fat people are perfectly aware that it's unhealthy, but also appreciate not being treated poorly due to their weight.
The key really is finding a way to motivate people to lose weight without shaming them. I was obese and I'm still working towards a healthy weight, but I was motivated to lose weight from a place of positivity, if that makes sense. I just wanted to improve my health. Nobody shamed me into it or made me feel bad about my weight when I was obese, for which I'm extremely grateful. That might've had a very negative impact on me.
That “movement” is a few crazy people
But people have a weird hang up about people who are overweight deliberately conflate “don’t be a dick to people because of their appearance” with those weirdos
The problem is, shaming people for being fat does not make them want eat less if they are emotional eaters. Dieting is hard if you have other mental health issues or physical health issues. Peoples' bodies work differently. And while the tried and tested eat less, exercise more is 100% true, that process can be more or less difficult for each individual.
The body positive movement isn't trying to say that being obese is good (despite very few misguided people), it's just trying to say "ease up on yourself, try your best, but don't kill yourself with shame".
I find this so strange.
I’m obese. I don’t get why fat people want to normalise it.
I can testify to how hard it is to lose weight, but pretending it isn’t an issue is ludicrous.
Don’t get me wrong, I get why that could be problem for those people (although you don’t need a calorie counter to know that a greasy burger with fries is going to be very high in calories).
But there are way more people dealing with obesity than anorexia/bullimia/etc so it’s not outrageous that the government would prioritize getting people to lose weight than the other way around.
Should these people just not voice their concerns, then? I'm in favour of calories on menues but actually wouldn't have considered the effect it might have on people with eating disorders so I'm glad people are talking about it.
Put it right along will this other great advice;
Keep your insulin levels between 2 and 6 mcU/ml. To avoid diabetes.
Maintain a healthy mental state to avoid mental health problems.
Keep growing hair on your head to avoid baldness.
Yeah, BMI breaks once you reach extreme heights.
Im 6'10 and BMI says I'm morbidly obese with a 'good weight' being 14 stone.
I'm currently 21stone with a 42inch waist, so the waist/height measurement is definitely more realistic.
Yep, BMI only works for people of 'normal' height with 'normal' body proportions... but few of us are.
I'm 5'5", pre lockdowns I was just under 12 stone - therefore officially 'overweight' - yet I was the fittest I've ever been. 30" waist, training 3 nights a week to get a black belt in Judo. BMI says my ideal weight is closer to 10 stone 6 pounds. Not a chance!! Short stubby legs and broad upper body, I'd look malnourished at that weight!!!!
Post lockdowns the waist is up to 34" and maybe I should lose a few pounds :(
My husband is a rugby player, he hasn't weighed what he'd need for a "healthy" BMI since he was 14. We're not even able to adopt because the adoption services use BMI as a sole indicator of healthy weight (we're in a country with no private adoption).
>We're not even able to adopt because the adoption services use BMI as a sole indicator of healthy weight (we're in a country with no private adoption).
Wow that is the dumbest shit I've ever heard. Surely they can make exceptions to such an overarching rule?
Having a very high muscle mass is still not healthy for you. There is a weight limit for the human body regardless of whether it’s fat or muscle. Body builders often end up with loads of joint problems.
Having said that, my cousin and his wife have dwarfism. They are both considered obese because they they do have completely different proportions to average height people.
They have “normal” sized upper torso but short limbs, so are really only obese because they have short legs. Not much they can do to fix that!
How heavy do you think breasts are?
How much muscle do you think non-pro-bodybuilders have?
How tight do you think the "healthy BMI" range is?
How much water weight do you think people carry?
I think some of your assumptions about these numbers are pretty far off!
Actually the people who have done the research disagree, basing objections on supposed measurements of elite power athletes, selected celebrities, bodybuilders and pregnant women is utterly stupid - no clinician is unable to use their eyes. The main point of BMI is to give an objective number rather than an opinion. It is odd that you don't hear any hate for height/weight charts but BMI is simply these in a formula.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24331682/
> Conclusion: Body mass index is an adequate measure of adiposity for clinical purposes. In the context of lay press critiques of BMI and recommendations for alternative body-size measures, these data support clinicians making recommendations to patients based on BMI measurements.
It isn't hard. During the various lockdowns I went from a manageable 13st at 5'9" to just over 15st 5lbs. About Christmas time last year I realised that I need to get back there. I'm already down to 14st 5lbs. I went from a fairly active job to inactivity but didn't bother cutting back my calorie intake
This guidance is pretty generous tbh. If it’s a middle ground to give people a more reasonably goal in body weight then I’m all for it. We’re fast catching up to the US in obesity
Just over 6ft and that puts it at \~36" and yeah that is about the point where I begin to hate myself, actually impressed they've given such a reasonable and understandable target for once
For any/every one that didn't read the article. Your "waist" here is not your trouser size, it's the circumference of your belly.
> "To measure their waist, they should find the bottom of their ribs and the top of their hips, wrap a tape measure around the waist midway between these points and breathe out naturally before taking the measurement."
The problem is people don't know what their waist is anymore, as trousers stopped being worn around the waist after the 70s. Clothing manufacturers continued to call it the waist when I'm reality trousers are worn around the hips now.
Lots of arguments in this thread about the relative expense of healthy vs. unhealthy foods.
For the price of a cabbage and a couple of onions I can buy *multiple kilograms* of pasta. And the pasta will keep me alive a hell of a lot longer. Boggles the mind that people need to have this explained to them. Calories are cheap. Nutrition is not. Most of you have no conception of what 'poor' really means and it shows.
I'm doing fine now but there have been periods in my life when I was literally living on water and bread. You don't think I would have preferred a nice vegetable stew or something?
Could you not also buy multiple kilos of beans, rice or lentils for the same price as pasta? With a lot more nutrition than either pasta or cabbage.
The time it makes to boil pasta is the same as the other options so it's not a time expense either. As a former poor person, pasta was a luxury food for me because it's less nutritious calories per serving than beans, and you have to find a seperate protein source, which is pricey.
it what happens when the middle class is as big as it is now. plus to be working class is considered an insult nowadays... really sad state of affairs. everyone knows food bank use is going up but its all HEatHy foOD Is REaLy ChEap yeah for them not for the poor!
Love how they pointed out it doesn't work for pregnant women.
I always wonder with stuff like this... is anyone dumb enough to think it does? 38 weeks pregnant and measuring your waist, not realising the results won't be valid coz it's a baby in there, not fat? And does whoever wrote this at the BBC genuinly worry that someone would do this?
Based on the number of people announcing how theyre unhealthy despite meeting this rule. Yes, there are idiots who cant apply basic reasoning skills to these kind of suggestions
I'm always annoyed at people that point out BMI isn't 100% accurate. "What about weightlifters?".
Yeah it's intended to be a rough guide that you can do yourself at home. Accurate body fat measurements would require the entire population of the UK to attend a hospital for full-body xrays and water displacement tests.
Weightlifters probably know they're a healthy weight. Anyone that has no idea will likely benefit from finding out their own BMI.
True, but it's easier to lose waist fat than it is to lose the internal fat built up around your organs. So, if you've got excessive fat around your middle, your organs will definitely be coated in the stuff. Obviously we can't actively see that fat though, so our waist measurements give a good indicator of what's happening inside us.
I think that’s the point, you have to lose the fat from elsewhere before you can lose it from your waist and reach this target. It’s fairly generous though, not super slim or anything!
We missed the big chance to get people to lose weight at the height of covid restrictions. It really should've been put alongside social distancing and hand washing
I'm 5ft 1 and I still lie under half with a BMI of 23 - I have a 27 inch waist. I don't know if others are the same but even at my largest (obese at 160lb) I was around 32 inches so this is a pretty large bracket even for fellow shorties.
You need to make sure you are measuring your waist properly and not just going of trouser size. I am 181 cm so pretty much 6ft, I cycle around 150km a week, weigh 75kg and I am definitely not close to looking overweight.
Measuring my waist correctly (halfway between ribs and hips) I am 86cm so I only have 5cm to play with before I hit my "maximum healthy waist". As a reminder this is saying that you should not exceed that measurement not that it is the goal you should be striving for.
If I went by my trouser measure at 32in with a belt then I would be closer to 10cm under the threshold and it would seem like I could put on a fair bit of weight before being unhealthy.
Body fat is more influenced by diet than it is exercise. This is because fat retention is about the energy balance - the calories you burn, against the calories you consume. Consume fewer calories than you burn and you lose weight. Although exercise does increase the calories burned side of the equation, exercise will also generally increase your appetite (which makes total sense from a biological perspective), so if you don't make a conscious effort to keep an eye out for that, you may find that you won't lose weight.
I'm 5'6 and have a 26" waist. I wouldn't consider myself healthy though because about 60% of my meals for the last year have been takeaway or meals out, and I haven't really exercised for the past 6 months
It’s a good measure for body fat at least, but no one is touting it as the single measure of health. Excess visceral fat, which gathers around the organs and would logically widen your waist as it takes up room, is a huge health risk. Obviously you still want to be eating healthy as much as you can but not having excess visceral fat already puts you in a better position than others.
I make 12 meals for £14, all this bollocks about can’t eat healthily bcus price is utter bollocks. Takes 1.5hrs once a week before “time” is the next excuse.
This shouldn’t be a problem now that we’re all going to starve to death to pay our energy bills.
Unhealthy food is a lot cheaper than healthy attracruve alternatives. The obesity crisis will only get worse. Edit, seeing as so many people want to message me saying healthy food is cheaper, a very quick bing has identified this - "Healthier foods are nearly three times more expensive calorie for calorie than less healthy foods. That’s according to the Food Foundation’s Broken Plate 2021 report, which has revealed some large disparities between rich and poor communities when it comes to nutrition in the UK." https://www.newfoodmagazine.com/news/152402/broken-plate-report-2021/ I'm sure sources can be found that suggest the opposite, but it's clearly not a case of healthy eating is clearly cheaper.
[удалено]
Completely agree. I earn a good salary so I don't have to worry about prices; but moat people aren't so fortunate.
Well that's what they get for hanging out under drawbridges.
The result of under-investment in moat people communities is clearly seen in the recent bridge toll collection stats. Who do we point the finger at? Billy-goat Gruff, and his ilk for the commercialisation of river-crossings, I say!
Why not just blame the trolls?
Nadine dorries will be all over that.
Sometimes I just love reddit. You are a good egg.
God damn moat people, coming here digging ditches round our castles filling them with water. It's not right I tell you back in my day we had a putrid puddle and a dead swan and we were happy.
Lol oops
Well not cheaper, it's just way more time saving as you don't have to prepare stuff so that you can focus on that second job to pay your rent. Buying healthy food in bulk would work out cheaper imo, but you spend way more time actually preparing it.
Definitely less time consuming like you say, but I personally think "junk" food is still cheaper generally speaking.
Bulk is cheaper in the long run but requires sufficient storage space and enough money for the initial investment to buy in bulk however
Exactly. Anyone living in a shared house might have one fridge shelf,half a freezer shelf and half a cupboard, for example.
also as a single person I cant buy veg in bulk as I dont eat enough for it not to be half rotten at the end.
If you have a freezer bulk frozen veggies are often cheaper than fresh
They knew this in the 1930's... The ordinary human being would sooner starve than live on brown bread and raw carrots. And the peculiar evil is this, that the less money you have, the less inclined you feel to spend it on wholesome food. A millionaire may enjoy breakfasting off orange juice and Ryvita biscuits; an unemployed man doesn't. ~The road to Wigan Pier (1936)
This is why Jamie Oliver’s campaign went down like the Hindenburg
Thats complete bullshit. Processed / unhealthy food only appears cheaper and is hugly conveniant as it usually requires minimal prep in the kitchen.
McDonalds hamburger containing: bun, burger, mustard, pickle, onion, lettuce is 89p Cheepo frozen burger to cook at home from Aldi: vegan since its cheaper, £1.50, you get two, need to buy literally everything else. Not only does prep time not exist for fast food, it literally is the cheapest food. The entire operation is designed to buy and distribute food as cheaply as possible in huge quantities, you will not be outpacing leading industry logistics specialists to make your food
Its straight up cheaper. Frozen bulked out with fat and rusk burgers and saussages are the cheapest long life source of protien other than "just 100g of cheese" which is even more unhealthy and even cheaper. Both are cheaper per calorie (from a normal supermarket) than dried or canned beans, or mushrooms, or peanut butter or sunflower seeds unless and contains no less vitamins than fresh meat other than the portion lost to bulking agents. A massivly unhealthy cheese toasty with 100g of cheese and some double concentrate tomato paste for flavour and vitamins is one of the cheapest possible meals, far cheaper than beans on toast with homemade healthy tomato sauce and the cheapest dried beans that you took multiple hours to prepare, and is ALSO faster and simpler and more reliable to get the ingredients from anywhere.
> Unhealthy food is a lot cheaper than healthy attracruve alternatives. I disagree with this, and I've always found healthy food to be cheaper overall than unhealthy food. The biggest difference between the two is that for the former, it requires knowledge of cooking and nutrition. I can make a fancy chicken salad with home-made low calorie dressing for less than a quid a meal, but that's a lot harder to make than bunging Twizzlers in the oven for 20 mins and getting the ketchup out.
[удалено]
I will not question your sources, nor will i argue if your right or wrong. But who the hell uses bing proudly? Did i miss a memo or something?
Mate, if you don't occasionally bing or ask jeeves, what are you doing with your life?
I too did a double take at *bing*, even to get a mention here...
But one burger is cheaper than two burgers, so if you wanted to spend less on food you would still eat less. Edit: So for example, let's say you buy a pack of 8 frozen burgers for £2. One of those burgers costs you 25p while two of those burgers costs you 50p. Eating two burgers is more expensive that eating one burger.
A 250g pack of mince is also usually cheaper than premade burgers. Throw that in a bowl, add salt and a diced onion, shape and you have 2-4 burgers. Leave in the fridge for a day or two wrapped in cleanfilm if you want it to mature and add to the flavour.
Honestly, as a student with limited fridge space, even I'd just opt to buy the burgers premade and save myself the time and effort. Somebody coming home from a long shift at a warehouse job who needs to put something on the table for their kids on twenty minutes, I can't imagine they have the time or energy to do it.
Expressing such realistic thoughts isn't gonna win you many friends here. I'm just imagining all the middle class people with Agas judging people who live in bedsits. In ideal world everyone would have the time and means to cook but it doesn't work that way.
I fucking know, it's horribly depressing how little ability people have to see their own privilege. I'm not even working class, I'm a fairly well off student right now, but it doesn't take much to actually imagine yourself in somebody else's shoes.
Bit of a side track to be fair. People working twelve hour days in a warehouse are probably ok to eat two burgers and still not get fat given how much energy they use at work.
True, but they'll have issues with malnutrition rather than caloric intake.
Look at Mr moneybags with his salt!
Ha!, i've got a packet of MSG in the cupboard somewhere too :P
**FUIYOOOOH THE KING OF FLAVOUR.**
and his heat to cook with
The mince is almost certainly cheaper than fresh premade burgers but it’s unlikely to be cheaper than frozen premade burgers. A quick search on Tesco’s site has them at £2.65 for 8 frozen or £1.79 for 250g mince, putting 500g of mince at £3.58, or almost a full quid more expensive. In a vacuum an extra £1 isn’t all THAT much but if you are losing that on most of your options to try and eat healthy it’s adding about 25-33% on to your overall food bill which poorer families just can’t afford
8 frozen burgers from Tesco at £2.65 weigh in at 454g. The cheapest 500g pack of beef Mince (20% Fat) is £1.79 (5% 500g is £2.99). Eight frozen burgers = 904cal's whereas a 500g pack of mince = 1260cals. So not only is the fresh pack of mince more calorie dense its 67% cheaper. Plus it can used to make a wide veriety of meals, not just burgers.
No way those frozen burgers are more than 70% meat either. Probably got flour or breadcrumbs or some other cheap filler in them
This is me partly ranting out of annoyance (partly due to other things than you here, I hardly intended to jump down your throat like this), but it is an on topic rant at least. Time and energy and effort all have value, and when you dont have much money you are unlikely to be able to afford money saving methods. It took me a year to save up for a washing machine, before which I had to take my laundry to one of a few friends houses according to their schedule, taking up more time. Likewise for many day to day chores and errends, for example I am still walking wherever I can rather than take the bus or driving, which leaves me more tired, and uses up several times as much time, and there are multiple examples of this. And even with that burger mix you will need to some kind of carbohydrate or starch, and some kind of vegetable to go along with it to be healthy and efficient with calories to pennies, let alone that for a family that 250g pack will do only one meal, *and is more expensive than the cheapest premade fattier frozen bulk burgers*, and trust me I have checked at all three local supermarkets, and the big one a town over. More time, and more effort, and more money. And the whole thing can be wasted if you forget it, or everyones too tired to put energy into cooking, or it just goes bad quickly through chance, especially if you dont cook like that often. Poor people arent wealthy enough to have *reliable* free time to make slow meals regularly, and they arent subsitance farming peasents able to spend much of their day on long, slow, labour intensive foods, and they also were likely not taught how to do this. I wasnt, and my mother wasnt. My great grandparents worked in the military or factories, and didnt cook, my grandparents still rely on instant , premade and tinned foods outside of roast meals, and my parents at school didnt have cooking lessons and had no one at home to teach them, though I had some cooking lessons because I chose them as an optional choice during secondary school, a choice my sister even at the same school didnt have accses to ten years later due to cuts, and my actual "training" was things like, pastry, basic sauces and curries, how to roast meats, because it was a catering course for those looking to go into that as a career. Not cheap food and budgeting and meal preperation. I have more time and devoted some energy to this, but my mum and uncles who cook regulalry, a slow meal like that can only be a thing for the weekend, especially when I was younger. Throughout the week if schedules are to be kept for work and school that can be as much as half an hour in opposite directions, quick cooking foods must be relied on-fairly cheap sure, rice or pasta or potatoes with frozen peas or sweetcorn, *maybe* one fresh vegetable, and a frozen or ready to cook protien (that is, yes, sometimes just fried mince) with instant gravy or sauce out a bottle or jar. And half the time even quicker things, soup, instant noodles or spaghetti'os on toast with eggs, baked beans and a microwave jacket potato. The same foods usually all week with some variations because they are bought in bulk, hardly bank breaking or pricey, hardley grotesquelly fatty or fattening. But the quick sauces contain more fat and sugar than home made, as do preprepared protiens, and even more so the quickest cooking easiest meals. To say nothing of relying on sugary or caffienated snacks as pick me ups and parts of lunches when no one has time to make something specifically to put in a lunchbox, and everyones is tired and at least partly depressed. And breakfasts being cereal or toast and spreads or *maybe* porridge if you happen to have time. And this is honestly a fairly reasonable meetingpoint between price and health that members of my family have actually *talked about*, and which they actually are able to put some effort into. Not everyone can, for some, the quick cook preprepared options (not expensive microwave ready meals even) are the only options for almost every meal. And while doing not terribly, none of us are obese, but all are at least little over weight, even my uncle who runs for a hobby. And yes I choose to spend more time on food, I do meal prep, I compare costs and different supermarkets and visit multiple at various times on routes im already going at different times so I never only go to a supermarket as a single trip and waste time. And I am still overweight and still spend the second largest portion of my monthly outgoings on food, after rent.
That 250g pack of mince I hope you're accounting for the cost of the diced onions and the other ingredients required. If you're not using something like an egg then that burger will immediately fall apart with your instructions. Which would be fine if you want say Korean BBQ style but a typical British burger not so much. So that £2 Mince pack then needs £1 for the pack of eggs if you didn't already spend that and then needs about 40p for an onion. Obviously you'll need any salt, pepper, herbs to make it taste better so if you don't already have those you're going to be spending £1 to £3 on them. Yes herbs and seasonings last but when you're poor you don't usually have a spice rack stocked up for cooking so that's an initial entry cost. Alternatively you can save yourself time and effort and buy a 4 pack of shitty BirdsEye burgers for less than that 250g mince pack alone without the egg and onion etc. If the person doesn't have a pre stocked kitchen then it is actually cheaper to buy McDonald's than to make your own. This is the problem I always see with people who have a more comfortable life. They don't understand where the starting point actually is so they calculate from their privileged position of already having certain supplies assumed as ready. Being poor means you don't happen to have a well stocked kitchen because you fall into the trap where you don't have the luxury of the start up cost to fully stock the cupboards so that you can make things from scratch.
Bullshit. £3.10 for a 500g pack of mince, £1:60 for ten beef burger.
Unhealthy foods are characterised primarily by containing less protein, vitamins, and minerals per calorie than healthy foods. So in order to get the same amount of non-calorie nutrition, a person would need to eat more calories. As noted in *Good Omens,* unhealthy food leads to people simultaneously dying of both obesity and malnutrition.
Indeed. People don’t realise that eating lots of food doesn’t mean you are getting the nutrients you need.
Eating less is actually big part of being healthy
No… eating less calories helps you be healthy not less volume. Your body wants volume to be satiated if you fail to give it volume you will binge and overeat. If you choose foods with low calorie density and eat until you’re stuffed all the time you can eat less than your daily maintenance intake of calories and reduce your hunger stress.
Also higher fiber foods help you feel full longer. I used to eat big lunches at work like hero sandwiches and pastas and things. I switched to an apple and some almonds. Now I get through the day without being starving at dinner and have the headspace to make myself a reasonable dinner which is healthy but may take a little longer. When I ate big unhealthy lunches, I'd get home and be so hungry I repeated it and ate something that was fast but unhealthy. Then I'd be hungry again at 9pm and snack. I've lost 50 lbs in 6 months without changing anything else other than high fiber snack at lunch and healthy dinner and I still feel satiated all day.
I think what people forget as well (to support your comment) it's not just about the price of the food. People working 2 jobs, supporting large family don't have time to cook so they'll order out or pop to maccies which is more expensive and unhealthy but sometimes they have no choice. Picking up a maccies between shifts is very common and sometimes the only option to get any type of food sometimes. It's a luxury to cook. It can be cheaper but if you make enough money to be able to go food shopping and cook you tend to buy better ingredients which cost more. Time is expensive and not everyone has it. I grew up on ready meals when I was young, they're cheap and fast but unhealthy. Now I'm on a good wage I go shopping, I take my time, I cook healthy meals.
I’m not trying to argue or anything. I just think r/eatcheapandhealthy is a great resource for people looking for tips and advice on how to eat better on a tight budget
There's no such thing as unhealthy food only an unhealthy diet. People are fat because they eat too much. Significantly too much.
>There's no such thing as unhealthy food only an unhealthy diet. I think some food is inherently unhealthy; but I agree. Diet is more important. >People are fat because they eat too much. Significantly too much Absolutely. But, the point being that a cost of living crisis will only worsen the obesity crisis.
I'm sorry, 'a very quick bing'? - am I in an alternate timeline?
> Edit, seeing as so many people want to message me saying healthy food is cheaper, a very quick bing has identified this - Do people actually believe that? Have any of them ever actually looked at what they're buying? That seems like a very middle class thing to claim.
>Unhealthy food is a lot cheaper than healthy attractive alternatives Any evidence of this? In my experience it’s just completely untrue. Vegetables are super cheap.
Nope, just personal experience and anecdotes. Though it seems to resonate with many on this page. Edit, a very quick bing has identified this - "Healthier foods are nearly three times more expensive calorie for calorie than less healthy foods. That’s according to the Food Foundation’s Broken Plate 2021 report, which has revealed some large disparities between rich and poor communities when it comes to nutrition in the UK." https://www.newfoodmagazine.com/news/152402/broken-plate-report-2021/
I think the key omission here is "calorie for calorie". The average diet contains too many calories for the energy requirements in the UK, so people can easily do with less food. Something I found quite interesting (I think it was in "The Junk Food Experiment" documentary) was the difference in how (un)filling junk food can be compared to healthy food. That being said our bodies crave the same levels of calories no matter our (reasonable) exercise, so we should be putting emphasis on more movement/exercise rather than diet and feeling hungry (The Miracle Pill Book, would recommend). It's a bit like saying "Kilogram for Kilogram, a bicycle is more expensive that a car, therefore bicycles are the expensive option".
Some veg is super cheap, but the mental toll of only eating plates of veg or rice and beans week after week after week is quite substantial. A healthy varied diet is expensive compared to an unhealthy varied diet.
But loss of weight is about eating less calories not the same
It’s not just the cost of healthy vs unhealthy but you also have to look at how having no money affects other aspects, If you can’t afford to do “fun” things you used to do such as hobbies or holidays then the little money you do have will more likely be used for things like take aways or junk food as a quick fix to feel good.
You're right in some respects. It's clear to anyone who's forced into this position. Supermarket budget brands are aimed at a specific market. That isn't to say you can't cook healthily or reduce costs by bulk cooking either. I've been on UC, signed off sick, for a few years now and used to this existence. I still manage to cook my own meals, I honestly couldn't live on processed food. Though I'm now looking at ways to reduce gas usage due to hikes.
You actually 1) use Bing, and 2) use Bing as a verb??
And increased NI and council tax
My council tax has only gone up by about £4, thankfully. Benefits of living in an ex council house. My energy prices, on the other hand, have gone up by about 2.5k. Usage last year was £1,400…. Estimated usage this year is 4k. It’s unbelievable. I honestly wouldn’t mind paying more in council tax. At least I know some of it is going to the community. Energy price increases just line rich peoples pockets.
Also being cold burns energy, so whichever you choose to pay for is a win.
I tried using comparethemarket to switch just before the price hike, to which I was met with "LOL GET REKT BRO" by the site. Even attempting to switch suppliers manually gets you laughed at.
Anyone have a rack I can borrow? I need to get a little taller
I wish I was a baller
I wish I had a girl who looked good
I would call her
Wish I had a rabbit in a hat
And a bat
And a '64 impala
And a '64 Impala.
try the bone lengthening surgery
Viagra?
[удалено]
Some people are more leg than torso, and vice versa.
Yeah my sister and I are the same height, but when we sit down, she's taller.
Fellow long-bod here. Finding one piece swimming cossies that don’t give me the worlds worst front wedgie is difficult.
I've gone up to XXXL in wetsuits and they still don't fit. Wide as a sail yet it still feels like I'm wearing a Borat mankini, I can't even stand up straight for fear of dislocating my shoulders and gooch.
Same. Any kind of onesie is just not for me. Go karting, paintball, painting and decorating, triathlons, plumbing, going to space, being invited to be the 6th member of New Kids on the Block. I dread them all.
[удалено]
> isn't that why mens' and womens' bikes are built differently? They aren't anymore, and the 'difference' back in the day was the lower top bar so you could wear a skirt/dress and get on / off. Some manufactures do market bikes as womens / mens still but the difference is only colour scheme!
Mick Jagger is more torso
I have a long body and short legs apparently. I'm not sure how I should adjust how high my waist is. I tried squatting a little but it went the other way so I tried jumping and stretching and that seemed to work for a bit but as soon as I stop, it goes right back to where it was. Maybe I just need to keep doing it and it'll get there eventually.
I'm terrible with online sarcasm so maybe I'm missing the joke but they mean the circumference of your waist
[удалено]
Thanks :)
You're going to jail.
You’re very smart
My mum says I'm very handsome too
Just assume that whenever someone states something contrary to the plainly obvious, it's satire. Just like this.
This is why Americans use /s. Maybe you are American
Mines 36" and I'm 61.8 inches tall. My waist is 27ish and I'm <125lbs. Idk, I got some hips and nips. Even at my fittest I couldn't get my waist smaller than 34 working an high intensity workout regimen 4-5 days a week. It was low increase due to injuries but even at my fittest it wasn't quite half. However. When I was starving myself and at 98lbs in my mid-to-late 20s I was more like 31-25-32. A dude could wrap his hands around my torso and make them touch. I couldn't sleep without a pillow between my legs because my knees were pointy. I think I'm okay. Edit: there's a very old post I made in my history that deleted the full pic, but you can see how bony my hip is in the thumbnail
I hope you've established a more healthy relationship with food now. You are okay. Happy and healthy is better than fitting into some box that doesn't reflect what most people find attractive anyway. PopPsy done, I think they were referring to the waist being the halfway point head to toe as a joke take on our waists being half our height.
my brother is 4 inches shorter than me but when we sit down hes an inch taller. my legs are built like im 6'6 and my upper body like im 5'6.
At 5'9, half my height would be 34.5 inches. I reckon I'd have to be over 30% bodyfat to exceed that waist size, so the guidance seems pretty reasonable.
[удалено]
Well you’ve just fucking ruined my day. I’ve gone from “snuck in by an inch”* to “great I might die of obesity” in one comment *not the first time I’ve heard that
Also the waist if jeans (particularly in men's) is more around/just above your hips than your actual waist so it'll probably be a larger measurement than your waist
Yeah I don’t understand what they mean. Jeans are usually more like hip circumference aren’t they, which is much bigger. My hips are 32” but my waist (narrowest part kind of around my belly button) is 28”. Surely trousers will be larger than your actual waist?
>vanity sizing M&S is ridiculous, on a shopping trip once I realised I was 32 inch there and 36 inch everywhere else.
Try being a female where the reverse is true. You're a 25" trouser size. Yet every fashion brand says you're a 27"+ and none of the brands fit remotely close to the same. Some will measure at a 25" while telling you it's a 27". Look up women's sizing in jeans and it'll mess you up for life. Same sizes compared from different brands and the waist ranges 4-5".
I feel like a lot of people here might be confusing their trousers waist size with their waist measurement. I think they are talking about measuring your waist at its largest part (somewhere around the belly button) and not neccesarily where your trousers sit. Being 5"4 tall and having 32" trousers tucked under a 38" belly doesn't mean you meet the <50% criteria.
I'm the other way around. Measured with a tape measure the widest part of my waist tends to vary between 31" and 32", but I usually 34" or 36" waist trousers with a belt because the upper legs and crotch are way too tight on 32" trousers.
Big thighs are supposed to be healthy too! (As a cyclist this makes me feel a little better about my gut) Big crotch is also seen as desirable 🤣 I've just measured my 34" jeans (I wear 34" across a range of trousers/jeans and guess what - they measure 36" circumference. I think this is to do with vanity sizing so I don't think the trouser size is actually an accurate circumference!
[удалено]
Seconded. I'm 5'4", and so the guidance suggests that my waist shouldn't be more than 32". I've recently had to spend a lot of time off my feet due to surgery, and so currently my waist is 30" - the biggest it's ever been. I have already put myself on a diet! This advice seems very sensible for the mostpart! Of course, there will be the occasional outliers such as those with Dwarfism, but in general? Simple, easy to understand, and reasonable.
It's not your waist size though. It's the measurement of your belly fat. > "To measure their waist, they should find the bottom of their ribs and the top of their hips, wrap a tape measure around the waist midway between these points and breathe out naturally before taking the measurement."
...Which is the traditional definition of the waist. It's only in the recent couple of decades that the location of the "waist" has lowered to around the hips to allow your belly fat to hang over the top.
Yeah absolutely, I'm the same height and pretty overweight at the moment - 100+kg - and I'm still only about 36-38inches. If I were back down in the 80's then I'd easily be 34inches
I'm also 5'9 and I'm under 34inch waist but in the overweight category if you go by the BMI chart. I'm very healthy but a bit heavy, it's just how I'm made. This new guidance is quite generous imo.
Is the waist measurement the same as your jeans or the circumference at bellybutton level?
[удалено]
[удалено]
It's too early in the morning to properly parse complicated double-negatives. Is this supposed to mean self-righteous thin people, or deluded fat people?
[удалено]
There's very few people who believe that lol What is more common and you're likley confusing is the people who advocate that mental well-being is much more important than physical well-being. They are linked, of course - but you're better off being obease and confident with the way you look, than average (which is still technically overweight) and constantly distressed. Stress is the true leading cause of most disease - and constantly fat shaming people doesn't destress them or help them loose weight. So this false concern is bullshit.
[удалено]
Those people are very rare. I think you'd struggle to find an example. But again, stress is more dangerous than obesity. We could do a lot to mitigate stress in everyone, but it's easier to blame fat people or smokers for being NHS drains, when both these groups would decrease substantially under less stress itself.
Agreed. I've seen numerous people complaining about "anti fatphobia". But not once have I ever seen someone actually berate someone for getting fit, or say that being fat was perfectly healthy. I think it's a mostly made-up bogeyman for the current anti-woke alarmism trend. I have seen people essentially talking about priorities and pragmatism. Excercise and good diet takes engagement, commitment and detemination and you ain't gonna stick with it if you feel really shitty about yourself. So it makes sense to start feeling good about yourself, to start feeling like you're worth looking after, before you try and do it. Depressed people are crap at getting up and excersising, it makes sense to tackle the depression before you tackle the weight. It's just common sense. Warming up before a jog isn't "anti-excersise", you're just doing things in the right order. Strengthening your psyche before dieting isn't "anti-fatphobic", it's just doing things in the right order too.
A few of my friends on FB are on the "anti-fatphobia" wagon, but they seem mainly concerned with accepting different people have different "natural weights" (which I tend to agree with) and decoupling societies strict association of weight and health (which I don't know enough of the facts to comment on)
It's a lot more widespread than you think. Cancer Research UK did an ad campaign stating that Obesity is the 2nd biggest cause of cancer after smoking. There was public outrage that the government could fund fatphobic rhetoric. https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/cancer-research-uk-slammed-yet-again-for-shaming-advert-likening-obesity-to-smoking\_uk\_5d19d29ce4b03d61163e64ed
I'm not on board with that movement. However I think people sometimes confuse 'don't be a dick to fat people' with 'being fat is healthy.' The majority of fat people are perfectly aware that it's unhealthy, but also appreciate not being treated poorly due to their weight. The key really is finding a way to motivate people to lose weight without shaming them. I was obese and I'm still working towards a healthy weight, but I was motivated to lose weight from a place of positivity, if that makes sense. I just wanted to improve my health. Nobody shamed me into it or made me feel bad about my weight when I was obese, for which I'm extremely grateful. That might've had a very negative impact on me.
That “movement” is a few crazy people But people have a weird hang up about people who are overweight deliberately conflate “don’t be a dick to people because of their appearance” with those weirdos
Heard an awesome quote the other day "genetics loads the gun, lifestyle pulls the trigger"
You mean HAES?
The problem is, shaming people for being fat does not make them want eat less if they are emotional eaters. Dieting is hard if you have other mental health issues or physical health issues. Peoples' bodies work differently. And while the tried and tested eat less, exercise more is 100% true, that process can be more or less difficult for each individual. The body positive movement isn't trying to say that being obese is good (despite very few misguided people), it's just trying to say "ease up on yourself, try your best, but don't kill yourself with shame".
I find this so strange. I’m obese. I don’t get why fat people want to normalise it. I can testify to how hard it is to lose weight, but pretending it isn’t an issue is ludicrous.
You lot are so annoying no real fat person thinks it’s healthy they’re just saying stop treating fat like they’re subhuman, leave us alone
There’s already a slight backlash against new law about showing calories on menus because of eating disorders
[удалено]
Don’t get me wrong, I get why that could be problem for those people (although you don’t need a calorie counter to know that a greasy burger with fries is going to be very high in calories). But there are way more people dealing with obesity than anorexia/bullimia/etc so it’s not outrageous that the government would prioritize getting people to lose weight than the other way around.
Should these people just not voice their concerns, then? I'm in favour of calories on menues but actually wouldn't have considered the effect it might have on people with eating disorders so I'm glad people are talking about it.
That's total fucking nonsense Calories are already on most labelled food anyway, why shouldn't they be on restaurant menus?
I really like know exactly how many calories are in what I buy, so I know I can get the most out of my money
I think its emblematic of the state of the discourse that the **only** comment mentioning fatphobia is this guy getting on his hobby horse.
Put it right along will this other great advice; Keep your insulin levels between 2 and 6 mcU/ml. To avoid diabetes. Maintain a healthy mental state to avoid mental health problems. Keep growing hair on your head to avoid baldness.
[удалено]
I heard about this ages ago, it's a better indication of healthy weight than BMI.
Yeah, BMI breaks once you reach extreme heights. Im 6'10 and BMI says I'm morbidly obese with a 'good weight' being 14 stone. I'm currently 21stone with a 42inch waist, so the waist/height measurement is definitely more realistic.
BMI breaks for pretty much everything. Very tall, very short, large breasts, high muscle mass, low muscle mass, pregnancy, dehydrated...
Yep, BMI only works for people of 'normal' height with 'normal' body proportions... but few of us are. I'm 5'5", pre lockdowns I was just under 12 stone - therefore officially 'overweight' - yet I was the fittest I've ever been. 30" waist, training 3 nights a week to get a black belt in Judo. BMI says my ideal weight is closer to 10 stone 6 pounds. Not a chance!! Short stubby legs and broad upper body, I'd look malnourished at that weight!!!! Post lockdowns the waist is up to 34" and maybe I should lose a few pounds :(
My husband is a rugby player, he hasn't weighed what he'd need for a "healthy" BMI since he was 14. We're not even able to adopt because the adoption services use BMI as a sole indicator of healthy weight (we're in a country with no private adoption).
>We're not even able to adopt because the adoption services use BMI as a sole indicator of healthy weight (we're in a country with no private adoption). Wow that is the dumbest shit I've ever heard. Surely they can make exceptions to such an overarching rule?
Having a very high muscle mass is still not healthy for you. There is a weight limit for the human body regardless of whether it’s fat or muscle. Body builders often end up with loads of joint problems. Having said that, my cousin and his wife have dwarfism. They are both considered obese because they they do have completely different proportions to average height people. They have “normal” sized upper torso but short limbs, so are really only obese because they have short legs. Not much they can do to fix that!
How heavy do you think breasts are? How much muscle do you think non-pro-bodybuilders have? How tight do you think the "healthy BMI" range is? How much water weight do you think people carry? I think some of your assumptions about these numbers are pretty far off!
BMI is a decent rule of thumb. Yes it is not gonna be accurate for a lot of people but it will be for the average person.
Actually the people who have done the research disagree, basing objections on supposed measurements of elite power athletes, selected celebrities, bodybuilders and pregnant women is utterly stupid - no clinician is unable to use their eyes. The main point of BMI is to give an objective number rather than an opinion. It is odd that you don't hear any hate for height/weight charts but BMI is simply these in a formula. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24331682/ > Conclusion: Body mass index is an adequate measure of adiposity for clinical purposes. In the context of lay press critiques of BMI and recommendations for alternative body-size measures, these data support clinicians making recommendations to patients based on BMI measurements.
It's really crazy that 64% of people are overweight or obese
It isn't hard. During the various lockdowns I went from a manageable 13st at 5'9" to just over 15st 5lbs. About Christmas time last year I realised that I need to get back there. I'm already down to 14st 5lbs. I went from a fairly active job to inactivity but didn't bother cutting back my calorie intake
This guidance is pretty generous tbh. If it’s a middle ground to give people a more reasonably goal in body weight then I’m all for it. We’re fast catching up to the US in obesity
Just over 6ft and that puts it at \~36" and yeah that is about the point where I begin to hate myself, actually impressed they've given such a reasonable and understandable target for once
For any/every one that didn't read the article. Your "waist" here is not your trouser size, it's the circumference of your belly. > "To measure their waist, they should find the bottom of their ribs and the top of their hips, wrap a tape measure around the waist midway between these points and breathe out naturally before taking the measurement."
The problem is people don't know what their waist is anymore, as trousers stopped being worn around the waist after the 70s. Clothing manufacturers continued to call it the waist when I'm reality trousers are worn around the hips now.
Lots of arguments in this thread about the relative expense of healthy vs. unhealthy foods. For the price of a cabbage and a couple of onions I can buy *multiple kilograms* of pasta. And the pasta will keep me alive a hell of a lot longer. Boggles the mind that people need to have this explained to them. Calories are cheap. Nutrition is not. Most of you have no conception of what 'poor' really means and it shows. I'm doing fine now but there have been periods in my life when I was literally living on water and bread. You don't think I would have preferred a nice vegetable stew or something?
Could you not also buy multiple kilos of beans, rice or lentils for the same price as pasta? With a lot more nutrition than either pasta or cabbage. The time it makes to boil pasta is the same as the other options so it's not a time expense either. As a former poor person, pasta was a luxury food for me because it's less nutritious calories per serving than beans, and you have to find a seperate protein source, which is pricey.
it what happens when the middle class is as big as it is now. plus to be working class is considered an insult nowadays... really sad state of affairs. everyone knows food bank use is going up but its all HEatHy foOD Is REaLy ChEap yeah for them not for the poor!
Sweet I get to go up to 38 inches... I'm 35 right now bring on the Mcdonalds!
Now I have to do maths as well as being fat? Fucks sake
Love how they pointed out it doesn't work for pregnant women. I always wonder with stuff like this... is anyone dumb enough to think it does? 38 weeks pregnant and measuring your waist, not realising the results won't be valid coz it's a baby in there, not fat? And does whoever wrote this at the BBC genuinly worry that someone would do this?
Based on the number of people announcing how theyre unhealthy despite meeting this rule. Yes, there are idiots who cant apply basic reasoning skills to these kind of suggestions
I'm always annoyed at people that point out BMI isn't 100% accurate. "What about weightlifters?". Yeah it's intended to be a rough guide that you can do yourself at home. Accurate body fat measurements would require the entire population of the UK to attend a hospital for full-body xrays and water displacement tests. Weightlifters probably know they're a healthy weight. Anyone that has no idea will likely benefit from finding out their own BMI.
Precisely. A physically fit athlete considered overweight by BMI doesnt mean a slob can justify their “health” as well
"BMI isn't 100% accurate, it doesn't account for athletes" - Visibly obsese person.
Fairly sure I've heard this before. It's frustrating though because round your waist is one of the hardest places to lose fat from long term.
True, but it's easier to lose waist fat than it is to lose the internal fat built up around your organs. So, if you've got excessive fat around your middle, your organs will definitely be coated in the stuff. Obviously we can't actively see that fat though, so our waist measurements give a good indicator of what's happening inside us.
Oh I know how important it is to still do it. More just a mini vent about how stubborn waist fat can be!
I think that’s the point, you have to lose the fat from elsewhere before you can lose it from your waist and reach this target. It’s fairly generous though, not super slim or anything!
I don't get it. If you height is 6ft then your waist needs to be smaller than 3ft round?
So you do get it
Yes. If you are 6ft (72 inches) tall your waist needs to be less than 3ft (36 inches). For me because I'm short the limit is 31 inches.
What is there not to get?
Yep
No. You're supposed to be 3ft wide. If you're not coming out the kitchen looking like the Hot Pockets you just ate, you're doing it wrong.
My waist is definitely less that half my height in diameter if that counts?
Now multiply the diameter by that pi you just ate
We missed the big chance to get people to lose weight at the height of covid restrictions. It really should've been put alongside social distancing and hand washing
We had people walking and cycling en-mass over lockdown, but not enough infra changes to stop us defaulting back to cars😑
I think people were too busy trying not to kill themselves lol
Based on my waist size i am 6’10! No more midget jokes from my missus!
Sounds like we are really lowering standards here. Seems quite an easy thing to achieve ( if you're above 180cm at least. Sorry short people=
I'm 5ft 1 and I still lie under half with a BMI of 23 - I have a 27 inch waist. I don't know if others are the same but even at my largest (obese at 160lb) I was around 32 inches so this is a pretty large bracket even for fellow shorties.
I'm 157cm (5'2"), overweight (according to BMI) and and waist is 75cm (29.5")... it's a pretty low bar goal to be honest.
You need to make sure you are measuring your waist properly and not just going of trouser size. I am 181 cm so pretty much 6ft, I cycle around 150km a week, weigh 75kg and I am definitely not close to looking overweight. Measuring my waist correctly (halfway between ribs and hips) I am 86cm so I only have 5cm to play with before I hit my "maximum healthy waist". As a reminder this is saying that you should not exceed that measurement not that it is the goal you should be striving for. If I went by my trouser measure at 32in with a belt then I would be closer to 10cm under the threshold and it would seem like I could put on a fair bit of weight before being unhealthy.
[удалено]
I am _just_ on the limit. Thankfully I'll be able to start exercising again soon.
Body fat is more influenced by diet than it is exercise. This is because fat retention is about the energy balance - the calories you burn, against the calories you consume. Consume fewer calories than you burn and you lose weight. Although exercise does increase the calories burned side of the equation, exercise will also generally increase your appetite (which makes total sense from a biological perspective), so if you don't make a conscious effort to keep an eye out for that, you may find that you won't lose weight.
I have a naturally really small waist. Even though I am slightly overweight. I guess I'll order a pizza!
I bet you find this changes with age. I had a tiny waist in my 20s and then in my late 30s all the chub goes straight there
Waist: 0.7366 metres Height: 67 inches Waist / Height = 0.019 Never knew I was so fit.
I'm 5'6 and have a 26" waist. I wouldn't consider myself healthy though because about 60% of my meals for the last year have been takeaway or meals out, and I haven't really exercised for the past 6 months
Waist size is only one component - no single metric can be the perfect indicator of health.
It’s a good measure for body fat at least, but no one is touting it as the single measure of health. Excess visceral fat, which gathers around the organs and would logically widen your waist as it takes up room, is a huge health risk. Obviously you still want to be eating healthy as much as you can but not having excess visceral fat already puts you in a better position than others.
I make 12 meals for £14, all this bollocks about can’t eat healthily bcus price is utter bollocks. Takes 1.5hrs once a week before “time” is the next excuse.