Posting this under the heading it deserves: Waist circumference technique and its repeatability Everything below is what sits behind that.
An honest uncertainty about Waist circumference technique rather than a disguised assertion.
I do not know the answer and I have not been able to find one. What I have is the shape of the question, which may be worth more than my guess at the answer.
Answering the question the opening post raises rather than the one it answers.
On Waist circumference technique I would separate what is worth knowing from what is worth acting on. The first list is long and the second is short, and conflating them is how threads get heated.
Seasonal patterns: some people report weight loss is slower in winter than summer. Body composition and activity changes might contribute. Noting the season is useful context.
I would want the raw data before agreeing with my own summary of it.
The most useful reply I ever got about Waist circumference technique was a request to state my units. It sounds like pedantry and it has saved me twice.
Narrowing post #4, because the general version has more than one answer.
Summarising the Waist circumference technique thread so far, since it is long and the answer is buried: the first reply has the method, the fourth has the correction to it, and the rest is people agreeing at length.
Nothing here is medical advice and a progress report is a description of what happened to one person under uncontrolled conditions.
One more thing on Waist circumference technique that took me far too long to see: the two figures people quote are not measuring the same quantity. Once you notice that, the apparent contradiction disappears.
Menstrual cycle: for people who menstruate, weight can shift by several pounds across the cycle due to fluid retention and other factors. Noting cycle phase when weighing reduces apparent noise.
I am describing what is, rather than arguing for what should be.
Circumference measurements at marked sites are cheap, reproducible within a person, and more informative than they get credit for.
Posting my Waist circumference technique numbers with the method attached so they can be discounted properly. Uncontrolled, unblinded, and collected by someone who wanted a particular answer.
Post #10 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.
The thing about Waist circumference technique that took me longest to accept is that a plausible mechanism is not evidence of an effect. It is a reason to look, not a result.
I will take the caveat as seriously as the claim, which is the point of putting it there.
Confirming post #15 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person.
I have been on both sides of the Waist circumference technique argument in this category within eighteen months, which should tell you how strong the evidence for either side is.
Self-reported intake is optimistic in a consistent direction, and saying so in your own report is more credible than not.
That is the version I would defend. It is not the version I started with.
Adding a small correction to the Waist circumference technique summary above rather than a disagreement with it. The substance holds; one of the figures is out by a factor that matters.
Maintenance series are the ones this subcategory needs most and receives least. The interesting questions all change once loss stops.
The claim about Waist circumference technique upthread is stronger than its source supports. I have read the source. The source says "associated with" and the post says "causes".
My understanding of Waist circumference technique is a few years old and may have been superseded. If it has been, I would genuinely like to know rather than keep repeating it.
I had written a reply contradicting post #25 and deleted it. Here is what survived.
The documentation on Waist circumference technique is better than this thread and I say that as someone who has posted in the thread.
Picking up post #26: that is the part I would want checked first.
The best progress reports here read as records rather than as arguments, and that difference is visible within a sentence.
Non-scale victories: muscle gain or maintenance, clothing fit, energy level, and capability (like climbing stairs without breathlessness) are measurements that scale-based weight misses.
Old habit: I write down the expected answer before I calculate it.
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
[2026 update] Reporting a disappointing outcome, and why it belongs here
On the subject in the title: Reporting a disappointing outcome, and why it belongs here Working notes rather than a conclusion. Proposing that Reporting a disappointing outcome deserves a maintained page…
|
2 | 11k | 8mo | |
|
A 40-week log with the measurement method stated — what changed since
A 40-week log with the measurement method stated — what changed since Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Posting a small dataset on 40-week log. It is mine, it…
|
+9 | 13 | 2.1k | 9h |
|
About the Progress reports category
Longitudinal self-reports with the method stated. Scales, tape measures, and their error bars. This post is a community wiki: any member at trust level 3 or above can edit it, and every edit is recorded with…
|
4 | 139 | 16mo | |
|
A 40-week log with the measurement method stated
On the subject in the title: A 40-week log with the measurement method stated Working notes rather than a conclusion. Asking about 40-week log directly, because I have read four threads on it and each…
|
+87 | 97 | 18k | 9mo |
|
A plateau that disappeared when I changed how I measured — the long version
A plateau that disappeared when I changed how I measured — the long version — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. A narrow question about plateau, deliberately narrow, because…
|
+49 | 54 | 9.4k | 1mo |
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Pen wastage and its effect on real cost
Pen wastage and its effect on real cost Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Two things I would like separated before anyone answers on pen wastage, because they…
|
+29 | 33 | 19k | 21mo |
|
Reading a chromatogram someone posted without axes
Reading a chromatogram someone posted without axes — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Posting a small dataset on reading a chromatogram. It is mine, it is uncontrolled, and…
|
+47 | 55 | 9.4k | 13mo |
|
Semaglutide half-life: where the 165 to 184 hour figure comes from — what changed since
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Semaglutide half-life: where the 165 to 184 hour figure comes from — what changed since Everything below is what sits behind that. Putting the numbers in the first…
|
+125 | 132 | 39k | 16mo |
|
Semaglutide in people without diabetes: what the evidence base looks like
Semaglutide in people without diabetes: what the evidence base looks like Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. What changes if the standard account of semaglutide…
|
+2 | 6 | 18k | 17mo |
|
A structured critique template this community uses
A structured critique template this community uses — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Structured critique template — I have the observation and I do not trust my…
|
2 | 18k | 1d |