It's too fat. No man, regardless of his height, should have a waist that exceeds 30.
Um, that would give him a normal body weight.
I think 34" is about the max waist size. Beyond that one likely does start to look "chunky" no matter the height.
No. I am 6'2 and 29" waist. I think that's pretty small.
A 34 waist on a fit 6'4" man does not look chunky. Just yummy.
What if the guy had a big shelf ass as well? That would make the waist look even smaller, correct? I mean, a 34" waist on a guy as tall as 6'4" is bound to look like a tiny waist, especially if he has a big butt.
34" on a 6' 4" frame is about right unless you're a bean pole or some kind of wasp.
Borderline blob territory. I was a tailor for many years and in my experience, no matter what height (and I've tailored for guys as tall as 6'7" or 6'8") a waist bigger than 32" is excessive.
r7 I know this big football player looking guy who fits that description here in San Francisco. his ass hypnotizes everybody
There is seriously ,seriously something wrong with every fifteen year old girl that posted on this thread. You all deserve each other.
Tommy Tune sounds really hawt.
I'm 6'4" and would kill to have a 34" waist again.
tiny? no. fat? no. but a 34" waist is definitely solid.
24 inch is best for a man.
19 for a woman.
Not joking, R12. I've tailored many many pairs of pants for many tall men - including athletes who were very well built and muscular and by no means undernourished - all 32" or smaller waist.
The only men I ever tailored for who has more than a 32" waist were consistently those with a "belly." No matter how big his frame or how tall, if a man has a decently flat stomach he can easily sport 32" trousers. Anything more is all belly.
I had a 33 inch waist when I weighed 178 pounds.
So 34" isn't tiny, but he's not a fat bastard.
My husband was 6'4 with 46" shoulders and a 32" waist. He could not buy suits off the rack. I think 34" is pretty damn good for a man of that height.
To determine correct waist size, take the height in inches and divide by two.
I eat poop.
"It's too fat. No man, regardless of his height, should have a waist that exceeds 30."
This is why people have eating disorders.
Nothing worse than a tall willowy queen.
Half the people on DL have mental disorders; no doubt eating disorders are well represented.
R10,please tell us more about his ass.
R9/R16, the tailor, is absolutely correct.
Lots of rationalization going on here for being tubs o' lard.
But then, DL is the place that came up with the term "fit-fat."
Dr. Oz did a show on this phenomenon not too long ago, R25. All of his guests were overweight people who used cute terms for what they are: chunky, fit-fat, big-boned, you name it. Dr. Oz says this is dangerous because it makes people fool themselves into thinking they are normal sized and healthy.
One by one he made each guest look in a mirror and say "I am fat" over and over until they could say it without hesitating. It was powerful.
The rationalizers out there - not surprised they are out full force on a thread like this.
Dr. Oz is a bully and should be ashamed of himself. He's also a Muslim.
Not tiny; it should look normal. What you are really looking for when talking about a tiny waist is a good ratio between shoulder size and waist. If he is fit, it should look compact. If he has a tummy or a paunch, it will never look right (the fat roll will protrude over belts and ruin the effect of technically having a normal waist size), so the most important questions are whether he is broad shouldered and/or fat.
R19: That's right.
I'm 6'4", pretty normal weight, and I wear 36". I've been a thin as 155 lbs in younger years and I was still a 35" waist.
Who cares his religion R28 - this is a medical issue not a religious one.
Speaking of religion, however it's worth pointing out that every major and minor religion and moral code since the beginning of time have all recognized gluttony as a path to misery and self destruction. A lot of fatties get in so deep they can't help themselves.
I know there is a controversial movement going around now to try to start a "tell someone they're fat day" - at first I thought it was lunatic and mean, now I kind of support it since I see delusional people on this thread trying to rationalize (looking at you, R30).
God, I wish I still had a 34 inch waist. 6'5" here - even 36 inch. Played ball in HS and college that's the right waist for an athlete.
If a guy is 6'4" tall and has a waist that actually measures 34", he's in very good shape.
However, if a guy is 6'4" and wears a size 34 trouser, he's probably a fatty.
r24 I wish I could tell you more. it's such an unintentional tease, he has to buy pants with bigger waists to accompany his majestic ass, so there's this gap in the back and you just want to stick your hand down it.
he looks like a bull that I want to pet
6'4" with a size 34 waist is the exact description of Cal Ripken Jr.'s physique when he was an active baseball player. He usually teetered around the 225 lbs. mark, and he was by no means fat. He actually had a pretty small waist, and he definitely had a big butt.
Here's a pic of the inside of a pair of his uniform pants with the size sewn into the waistband (size 34), and of him circa 1982.
Forgive my ignorance, but why, all other things being equal, does a taller man generally have a bigger waist than his shorter counterpart?
How big is your cock?
[quote]6'4" with a size 34 waist is the exact description of Cal Ripken Jr.'s physique when he was an active baseball player. He usually teetered around the 225 lbs. mark, and he was by no means fat. He actually had a pretty small waist, and he definitely had a big butt.
That's what I think a lot of people don't factor in - the size of someone's ass.
I'm 5'10" and slim, but I have to wear a size 33 because I have a bubble butt (I'm black and we're not known for having flat asses).
R4 is right. 34 is about average but good weight. I don't think I've been lower than a 32.
Actually just checking the sizes on Amazon, maybe others are right.
XS 28-30 inches
S 30-32 inches
M 32-34 inches
L 34-36 inches
XL 36-38 inches
As long as it's below 40!
R39 You are going to go by Amazon...Amazon?! Might as well just check the sizes at Wal Mart while you're at it.
Average American is 30% overweight - so that's what you're getting with on that size chart.
Ignore Dachau Davey at R40.
amazon.co.uk R40. From the discussion it looks like waist sizes are one thing that's the same compared to shoe sizes. Cm was included but I pasted inches.
No, UK wouldn't be using metric, dear.
Considering their severe lack of fitness in that country, I would imagine they're not too far behind America in terms of the battle of bulging. Their main diet consists of sausage, mashed potato, fried fish, beer, and the occasional curry (tailored to their tastes i.e. loaded with added salts and fats).
Bump for tiny-waisted tall men
The stench of fat permeates this husky thread.
Well what junk food free non obese people utopia do you live in bigoted xenophobic sterotyping racist food snobbery troll R43? Are you Gwyneth Paltrow perchance?
Def no reason for any man to be more than a 32". Fat guys always try to claim its muscle, when its fat.
To paraphrase Sterling from Jeffrey:
"A ballerina with a 36-inch waist is a problem but for a gay man, it's a disaster!"
Actual waist size versus the size of a pair of pants are two entirely different things. Someone who is wearing 34" pants has a real waist size that is a few inches bigger.
Yes, but still, R49, on an in-shape man that is 6'4", even a waist slightly bigger than 34" is bound to look small.