32 inch waist and fat? Pictures?

[Baby_Hulk]

So I've been cutting down for a while now, and had my body fat recently measured to be 12.7% (not super lean, I know, but still). For a long time I've considered a 32" inch waist to be a rather thin one, but here I am now at 182-186 lbs with a 32" waist and it looks like I STILL have a sizeable amount of fat to lose down there.


Does anyone have any pictures of themselves (at any point in time) with a 32" inch waist, but a "fatty" one? For some reason I just never imagined that I'd still have all this visible fat down there, despite my bf% and just general weight. So I'm curious to see how other might look, who are/have been in a similar position.

[DLEHMA]

Well if you got measured at 12.7% in a bod pod then you're pretty lean. If it was with calipers or a scale/handheld then it could be way off. That being said I wore 32's when my bodyfat was still in the high teens-lower twenties. It depends where people carry their fat. I'm considerably leaner now and I wear 28-30's.

[broad.stance]

When writing that you have a 32 inch waist, are you referencing your pant size or navel circumference?

[Baby_Hulk]

Well if you got measured at 12.7% in a bod pod then you're pretty lean. If it was with calipers or a scale/handheld then it could be way off. That being said I wore 32's when my bodyfat was still in the high teens-lower twenties. It depends where people carry their fat. I'm considerably leaner now and I wear 28-30's.

It was with a woman trained with calipers (believe she has her CSCS). She said it looked mostly accurate, plus or minus a few percent of course (probably plus in my case).

When writing that you have a 32 inch waist, are you referencing your pant size or navel circumference?

Navel, why?

[broad.stance]

Navel, why?

First, the waist isn't an anatomical part of the body, so there are several places to measure it depending on how the number is to be used. For men, there are two common locations, at the pelvis and at the navel. The reason is, one is used for fashion and the other in fitness.

The navel circumference is used to measure the 'waist' for all body statistics and physique assessments. Since you are on a bodybuilding and fitness related site, when waist size is mentioned this is what everyone assumes is being referenced.

Beyond that it is a fashion industry measurement, another reason why pant size isn't used is due to inconsistent 'vanity sizing'. This is where pants are marketed with sizes that do not reflect the actual circumference of the waist. So while you may wear a size 32 pant, it is likely your waist at the pelvis is larger. And we have all seen guys walking around who look like they're smuggling a basketball underneath their shirts, or have a gut hanging over their belts - so we know there is no correlation between the pelvis and navel measurements.

Go to the "Body Stat" module in your dashboard and you'll see a video series on how to measure the parts of your body. Following these guidelines will allow you to see more accurate changes over time.