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.
That is a fair summary of where the discussion has got to.
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.
Worth saying I have only my own numbers here, and n is small.
Post #4 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
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.
I would call the community position on Waist circumference technique likely rather than established, and I would be comfortable defending that hedge.
Clear enough that I do not think I have a follow-up, which is unusual.
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 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.
Adding a note of thanks rather than an opinion. I did not know most of that.
Maintenance series are the ones this subcategory needs most and receives least. The interesting questions all change once loss stops.
I would put this at better than even and not much better.
Picking up post #14: that is the part I would want checked first.
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.
Nothing here is medical advice and a progress report is a description of what happened to one person under uncontrolled conditions.
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.
A single scale used throughout beats a more accurate scale introduced halfway through. Consistency beats accuracy for a trend.
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.
Coming back to post #25, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
The documentation on Waist circumference technique is better than this thread and I say that as someone who has posted in the thread.
Post #26 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
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 |