Re: Waist-to-Height Ratio - WC/H

[Guest guest]

Hi folks:

In his post below Tony referenced a study which suggests that the

ratio of waist circumference to height (WC/H) is a more relevant

indicator of appropriate weight and health than BMI. (Thanks Tony).

To help the rest of us get a fix on this, could some of those at

least a year or two into CR care to share with us their WC/H ratios?

To prove I'm not shy (!) mine is 0.4938. This takes account of the

fact I am now one quarter of an inch shorter than I used to be, and

waist circumference is calculated as the average of maximum and

minimum while breathing quietly.

Many thanks.

Rodney.

> Several studies comparing body metrics seem to be settling on using

> the Waist-to-Height ratio >= 0.5 as an indication of abdominal

> adiposity. The ratio is better than just waist circumference

because

> it takes into consideration the relative size of the individual,

and

> it is applicable to both men and women.

> Here is one of those papers.

>

> Tony

> ======

>

> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?

> cmd=Retrieve & db=PubMed & list_uids=12704405 & dopt=Abstract

>

> Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2003 May;27(5):610-6.

>

> Waist-to-height ratio, a simple and practical index for assessing

> central fat distribution and metabolic risk in Japanese men and

women.

> Hsieh SD, Yoshinaga H, Muto T.

>

> Medical Center of Health Science, Toranomon Hospital, Tokyo, Japan.

> hsieh@t...

>

> OBJECTIVE: The normal body mass index (BMI) range, as defined by

the

> World Health Organization (WHO), is quite wide, and some people

> within this range may have excessive central fat accumulation and

> elevated metabolic risks. We hypothesize that the waist-to-height

> ratio (W/Ht), an effective index for assessing central fat

> distribution among Japanese people, can be used to identify

subjects

> who are at higher metabolic risk within the normal as well as the

> overweight range. METHODS: We investigated: (1). the values of BMI,

> waist circumference, and W/Ht in 6141 men and 2137 women at various

> age intervals and calculated gender (female to male) ratios for all

> these anthropometric indices; (2). the relation between age and

each

> anthropometric index, between age and morbidity index for coronary

> risk factors (sum of the scores for hyperglycemia, hypertension,

> hypertriglyceridemia, hypercholesterolemia, and low HDL

cholesterol;

> one point for each condition if present), and between morbidity

index

> for coronary risk factors and each anthropometric index; (3). the

> distributions of the subjects, using various proposed indices of

> waist circumference (those suggested by WHO, the Japan Society for

> the Study of Obesity, and the Asia-Pacific perspective), and our

> proposed boundary value, W/Ht 0.5, among the WHO categories based

on

> BMI; (4). the metabolic risks (coronary risk factors,

hyperuricemia,

> high gamma-glutamyltransferase, and fatty liver diagnosed by

> ultrasonography), and exercise habits among normal-weight subjects

> with W/Ht<0.5 or >or=0.5. RESULTS: (1). For the various

> anthropometric indices in all age groups, the gender ratio for W/Ht

> was closest to 1, indicating that a single set of values for W/Ht

can

> be used for men and women. (2). Height correlated negatively with

> age. Among the anthropometric indices, only W/Ht correlated

> positively with age for both men and women, while age and all

> anthropometric indices, except height, correlated positively with

the

> morbidity index for coronary risk factors. For both men and women,

> the highest correlation coefficient was between W/Ht and the

> morbidity index for coronary risk factors. (3). Nearly all

overweight

> men and women (BMI>or=25) had W/Ht>or=0.5 (98.5% of men and 97.5%

of

> women). None of the underweight subjects had W/Ht>or=0.5. However,

> 45.5% of men and 28.3% of women of normal weight (BMI 18.5-<25) had

> W/Ht>or=0.5. W/Ht, of all the indices investigated, was the best

> index for signaling metabolic risk in the normal-weight subjects as

> well as the overweight subjects. (4). Age- and BMI-adjusted odds

> ratios for multiple metabolic risks, and history of no habitual

> exercise were significantly higher in normal-weight men and women

> with W/Ht>or=0.5 than in others of normal weight. CONCLUSIONS:

Waist

> circumference is improved by relating it to height to categorized

fat

> distribution of different genders and ages. W/Ht is a simple and

> practical anthropometric index to identify higher metabolic risks

in

> normal and overweight Japanese men and women.

[Guest guest]

Mine is .4. Not sure why this measurement makes sense, but if it turns out

to be valid, we can put this in the files or links and add a table w/

people's WC/H before CRON and after CRON. Other comments/suggestions

welcomed.

on 6/28/2004 12:07 PM, Rodney at perspect1111@... wrote:

> Hi folks:

>

> In his post below Tony referenced a study which suggests that the

> ratio of waist circumference to height (WC/H) is a more relevant

> indicator of appropriate weight and health than BMI. (Thanks Tony).

>

> To help the rest of us get a fix on this, could some of those at

> least a year or two into CR care to share with us their WC/H ratios?

>

> To prove I'm not shy (!) mine is 0.4938. This takes account of the

> fact I am now one quarter of an inch shorter than I used to be, and

> waist circumference is calculated as the average of maximum and

> minimum while breathing quietly.

>

> Many thanks.

>

> Rodney.

[Guest guest]

35 " /70 " or .5 measured at the maximal circumference of my central

midsection. The minimal waist measurement below is 34 " /70 " , but I assume the

measurement in question is looking for the larger number. From observation

most central obesity hangs over the belt not under.

FWIW I do 300 (easy) crunches each morning before getting out of bed and my

BMI is 22. Tanita based BF measurements range from 9.7-12.5% when measured

after my 5 mile run which should leave me slightly dehydrated. I find all of

these metrics suspect other than for gauging personal progress in comparison

to myself.

JR

-----Original Message-----

From: Rodney [mailto:perspect1111@...]

Sent: Monday, June 28, 2004 11:08 AM

Subject: [ ] Re: Waist-to-Height Ratio - WC/H

Hi folks:

In his post below Tony referenced a study which suggests that the

ratio of waist circumference to height (WC/H) is a more relevant

indicator of appropriate weight and health than BMI. (Thanks Tony).

To help the rest of us get a fix on this, could some of those at

least a year or two into CR care to share with us their WC/H ratios?

To prove I'm not shy (!) mine is 0.4938. This takes account of the

fact I am now one quarter of an inch shorter than I used to be, and

waist circumference is calculated as the average of maximum and

minimum while breathing quietly.

Many thanks.

Rodney.

> Several studies comparing body metrics seem to be settling on using

> the Waist-to-Height ratio >= 0.5 as an indication of abdominal

> adiposity. The ratio is better than just waist circumference

because

> it takes into consideration the relative size of the individual,

and

> it is applicable to both men and women.

> Here is one of those papers.

>

> Tony

> ======

>

> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?

> cmd=Retrieve & db=PubMed & list_uids=12704405 & dopt=Abstract

>

> Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2003 May;27(5):610-6.

>

> Waist-to-height ratio, a simple and practical index for assessing

> central fat distribution and metabolic risk in Japanese men and

women.

> Hsieh SD, Yoshinaga H, Muto T.

>

> Medical Center of Health Science, Toranomon Hospital, Tokyo, Japan.

> hsieh@t...

>

> OBJECTIVE: The normal body mass index (BMI) range, as defined by

the

> World Health Organization (WHO), is quite wide, and some people

> within this range may have excessive central fat accumulation and

> elevated metabolic risks. We hypothesize that the waist-to-height

> ratio (W/Ht), an effective index for assessing central fat

> distribution among Japanese people, can be used to identify

subjects

> who are at higher metabolic risk within the normal as well as the

> overweight range. METHODS: We investigated: (1). the values of BMI,

> waist circumference, and W/Ht in 6141 men and 2137 women at various

> age intervals and calculated gender (female to male) ratios for all

> these anthropometric indices; (2). the relation between age and

each

> anthropometric index, between age and morbidity index for coronary

> risk factors (sum of the scores for hyperglycemia, hypertension,

> hypertriglyceridemia, hypercholesterolemia, and low HDL

cholesterol;

> one point for each condition if present), and between morbidity

index

> for coronary risk factors and each anthropometric index; (3). the

> distributions of the subjects, using various proposed indices of

> waist circumference (those suggested by WHO, the Japan Society for

> the Study of Obesity, and the Asia-Pacific perspective), and our

> proposed boundary value, W/Ht 0.5, among the WHO categories based

on

> BMI; (4). the metabolic risks (coronary risk factors,

hyperuricemia,

> high gamma-glutamyltransferase, and fatty liver diagnosed by

> ultrasonography), and exercise habits among normal-weight subjects

> with W/Ht<0.5 or >or=0.5. RESULTS: (1). For the various

> anthropometric indices in all age groups, the gender ratio for W/Ht

> was closest to 1, indicating that a single set of values for W/Ht

can

> be used for men and women. (2). Height correlated negatively with

> age. Among the anthropometric indices, only W/Ht correlated

> positively with age for both men and women, while age and all

> anthropometric indices, except height, correlated positively with

the

> morbidity index for coronary risk factors. For both men and women,

> the highest correlation coefficient was between W/Ht and the

> morbidity index for coronary risk factors. (3). Nearly all

overweight

> men and women (BMI>or=25) had W/Ht>or=0.5 (98.5% of men and 97.5%

of

> women). None of the underweight subjects had W/Ht>or=0.5. However,

> 45.5% of men and 28.3% of women of normal weight (BMI 18.5-<25) had

> W/Ht>or=0.5. W/Ht, of all the indices investigated, was the best

> index for signaling metabolic risk in the normal-weight subjects as

> well as the overweight subjects. (4). Age- and BMI-adjusted odds

> ratios for multiple metabolic risks, and history of no habitual

> exercise were significantly higher in normal-weight men and women

> with W/Ht>or=0.5 than in others of normal weight. CONCLUSIONS:

Waist

> circumference is improved by relating it to height to categorized

fat

> distribution of different genders and ages. W/Ht is a simple and

> practical anthropometric index to identify higher metabolic risks

in

> normal and overweight Japanese men and women.

[Guest guest]

Mine is .439. I'm a 49 yr. old male.

Best,

Lee

-----Original Message-----From: Rodney [mailto:perspect1111@...]Sent: Monday, June 28, 2004 8:08 AM Subject: [ ] Re: Waist-to-Height Ratio - WC/HHi folks:In his post below Tony referenced a study which suggests that the ratio of waist circumference to height (WC/H) is a more relevant indicator of appropriate weight and health than BMI. (Thanks Tony).To help the rest of us get a fix on this, could some of those at least a year or two into CR care to share with us their WC/H ratios?To prove I'm not shy (!) mine is 0.4938. This takes account of the fact I am now one quarter of an inch shorter than I used to be, and waist circumference is calculated as the average of maximum and minimum while breathing quietly.Many thanks.Rodney.> Several studies comparing body metrics seem to be settling on using > the Waist-to-Height ratio >= 0.5 as an indication of abdominal > adiposity. The ratio is better than just waist circumference because > it takes into consideration the relative size of the individual, and > it is applicable to both men and women. > Here is one of those papers.> > Tony> ======> > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?> cmd=Retrieve & db=PubMed & list_uids=12704405 & dopt=Abstract> > Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2003 May;27(5):610-6. > > Waist-to-height ratio, a simple and practical index for assessing > central fat distribution and metabolic risk in Japanese men and women.> Hsieh SD, Yoshinaga H, Muto T.> > Medical Center of Health Science, Toranomon Hospital, Tokyo, Japan. > hsieh@t...> > OBJECTIVE: The normal body mass index (BMI) range, as defined by the > World Health Organization (WHO), is quite wide, and some people > within this range may have excessive central fat accumulation and > elevated metabolic risks. We hypothesize that the waist-to-height > ratio (W/Ht), an effective index for assessing central fat > distribution among Japanese people, can be used to identify subjects > who are at higher metabolic risk within the normal as well as the > overweight range. METHODS: We investigated: (1). the values of BMI, > waist circumference, and W/Ht in 6141 men and 2137 women at various > age intervals and calculated gender (female to male) ratios for all > these anthropometric indices; (2). the relation between age and each > anthropometric index, between age and morbidity index for coronary > risk factors (sum of the scores for hyperglycemia, hypertension, > hypertriglyceridemia, hypercholesterolemia, and low HDL cholesterol; > one point for each condition if present), and between morbidity index > for coronary risk factors and each anthropometric index; (3). the > distributions of the subjects, using various proposed indices of > waist circumference (those suggested by WHO, the Japan Society for > the Study of Obesity, and the Asia-Pacific perspective), and our > proposed boundary value, W/Ht 0.5, among the WHO categories based on > BMI; (4). the metabolic risks (coronary risk factors, hyperuricemia, > high gamma-glutamyltransferase, and fatty liver diagnosed by > ultrasonography), and exercise habits among normal-weight subjects > with W/Ht<0.5 or >or=0.5. RESULTS: (1). For the various > anthropometric indices in all age groups, the gender ratio for W/Ht > was closest to 1, indicating that a single set of values for W/Ht can > be used for men and women. (2). Height correlated negatively with > age. Among the anthropometric indices, only W/Ht correlated > positively with age for both men and women, while age and all > anthropometric indices, except height, correlated positively with the > morbidity index for coronary risk factors. For both men and women, > the highest correlation coefficient was between W/Ht and the > morbidity index for coronary risk factors. (3). Nearly all overweight > men and women (BMI>or=25) had W/Ht>or=0.5 (98.5% of men and 97.5% of > women). None of the underweight subjects had W/Ht>or=0.5. However, > 45.5% of men and 28.3% of women of normal weight (BMI 18.5-<25) had > W/Ht>or=0.5. W/Ht, of all the indices investigated, was the best > index for signaling metabolic risk in the normal-weight subjects as > well as the overweight subjects. (4). Age- and BMI-adjusted odds > ratios for multiple metabolic risks, and history of no habitual > exercise were significantly higher in normal-weight men and women > with W/Ht>or=0.5 than in others of normal weight. CONCLUSIONS: Waist > circumference is improved by relating it to height to categorized fat > distribution of different genders and ages. W/Ht is a simple and > practical anthropometric index to identify higher metabolic risks in > normal and overweight Japanese men and women.

[Guest guest]

Hi JR:

My GUESS is that use of the word " waist " implies the narrowest

section. (Or is that just my definition of the term?). If I am

right then in your case that would give a ratio as 0.486.

Lee Shurie's number is interesting, as my impression is that he is a

long way into CR (please correct that if I am mistaken).

Francesca's number doesn't give enough decimal places to be

meaningful I think ; ^ ))) We really do need three decimal places

in the ratio. As presently stated Francesca's number could encompass

a six inch range in waist sizes. (I.E. ratios anywhere from 0.3501

to 0.4499).

Rodney.

--- In , " john roberts " <johnhrob@n...>

wrote:

> 35 " /70 " or .5 measured at the maximal circumference of my central

> midsection. The minimal waist measurement below is 34 " /70 " , but I

assume the

> measurement in question is looking for the larger number. From

observation

> most central obesity hangs over the belt not under.

>

> FWIW I do 300 (easy) crunches each morning before getting out of

bed and my

> BMI is 22. Tanita based BF measurements range from 9.7-12.5% when

measured

> after my 5 mile run which should leave me slightly dehydrated. I

find all of

> these metrics suspect other than for gauging personal progress in

comparison

> to myself.

>

> JR

>

>

>

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Rodney [mailto:perspect1111@y...]

> Sent: Monday, June 28, 2004 11:08 AM

>

> Subject: [ ] Re: Waist-to-Height Ratio - WC/H

>

>

> Hi folks:

>

> In his post below Tony referenced a study which suggests that the

> ratio of waist circumference to height (WC/H) is a more relevant

> indicator of appropriate weight and health than BMI. (Thanks Tony).

>

> To help the rest of us get a fix on this, could some of those at

> least a year or two into CR care to share with us their WC/H ratios?

>

> To prove I'm not shy (!) mine is 0.4938. This takes account of the

> fact I am now one quarter of an inch shorter than I used to be, and

> waist circumference is calculated as the average of maximum and

> minimum while breathing quietly.

>

> Many thanks.

>

> Rodney.

>

> --- In , " citpeks " <citpeks@y...>

wrote:

> > Several studies comparing body metrics seem to be settling on

using

> > the Waist-to-Height ratio >= 0.5 as an indication of abdominal

> > adiposity. The ratio is better than just waist circumference

> because

> > it takes into consideration the relative size of the individual,

> and

> > it is applicable to both men and women.

> > Here is one of those papers.

> >

> > Tony

> > ======

> >

> > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?

> > cmd=Retrieve & db=PubMed & list_uids=12704405 & dopt=Abstract

> >

> > Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2003 May;27(5):610-6.

> >

> > Waist-to-height ratio, a simple and practical index for assessing

> > central fat distribution and metabolic risk in Japanese men and

> women.

> > Hsieh SD, Yoshinaga H, Muto T.

> >

> > Medical Center of Health Science, Toranomon Hospital, Tokyo,

Japan.

> > hsieh@t...

> >

> > OBJECTIVE: The normal body mass index (BMI) range, as defined by

> the

> > World Health Organization (WHO), is quite wide, and some people

> > within this range may have excessive central fat accumulation and

> > elevated metabolic risks. We hypothesize that the waist-to-height

> > ratio (W/Ht), an effective index for assessing central fat

> > distribution among Japanese people, can be used to identify

> subjects

> > who are at higher metabolic risk within the normal as well as the

> > overweight range. METHODS: We investigated: (1). the values of

BMI,

> > waist circumference, and W/Ht in 6141 men and 2137 women at

various

> > age intervals and calculated gender (female to male) ratios for

all

> > these anthropometric indices; (2). the relation between age and

> each

> > anthropometric index, between age and morbidity index for coronary

> > risk factors (sum of the scores for hyperglycemia, hypertension,

> > hypertriglyceridemia, hypercholesterolemia, and low HDL

> cholesterol;

> > one point for each condition if present), and between morbidity

> index

> > for coronary risk factors and each anthropometric index; (3). the

> > distributions of the subjects, using various proposed indices of

> > waist circumference (those suggested by WHO, the Japan Society for

> > the Study of Obesity, and the Asia-Pacific perspective), and our

> > proposed boundary value, W/Ht 0.5, among the WHO categories based

> on

> > BMI; (4). the metabolic risks (coronary risk factors,

> hyperuricemia,

> > high gamma-glutamyltransferase, and fatty liver diagnosed by

> > ultrasonography), and exercise habits among normal-weight subjects

> > with W/Ht<0.5 or >or=0.5. RESULTS: (1). For the various

> > anthropometric indices in all age groups, the gender ratio for

W/Ht

> > was closest to 1, indicating that a single set of values for W/Ht

> can

> > be used for men and women. (2). Height correlated negatively with

> > age. Among the anthropometric indices, only W/Ht correlated

> > positively with age for both men and women, while age and all

> > anthropometric indices, except height, correlated positively with

> the

> > morbidity index for coronary risk factors. For both men and women,

> > the highest correlation coefficient was between W/Ht and the

> > morbidity index for coronary risk factors. (3). Nearly all

> overweight

> > men and women (BMI>or=25) had W/Ht>or=0.5 (98.5% of men and 97.5%

> of

> > women). None of the underweight subjects had W/Ht>or=0.5. However,

> > 45.5% of men and 28.3% of women of normal weight (BMI 18.5-<25)

had

> > W/Ht>or=0.5. W/Ht, of all the indices investigated, was the best

> > index for signaling metabolic risk in the normal-weight subjects

as

> > well as the overweight subjects. (4). Age- and BMI-adjusted odds

> > ratios for multiple metabolic risks, and history of no habitual

> > exercise were significantly higher in normal-weight men and women

> > with W/Ht>or=0.5 than in others of normal weight. CONCLUSIONS:

> Waist

> > circumference is improved by relating it to height to categorized

> fat

> > distribution of different genders and ages. W/Ht is a simple and

> > practical anthropometric index to identify higher metabolic risks

> in

> > normal and overweight Japanese men and women.

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

>>My GUESS is that use of the word " waist " implies the narrowest

section. (Or is that just my definition of the term?).

" Waist " is defined as the narrowest part and " hip " is defined as the widest

part of the hips and buttocks.

[Guest guest]

sorry. to three decimal places: .406

I wonder if women would have naturally smaller numbers due to the

" hourglass " effect of women's builds compared to men's.

on 6/28/2004 1:30 PM, Rodney at perspect1111@... wrote:

> Hi JR:

> Francesca's number doesn't give enough decimal places to be

> meaningful I think ; ^ ))) We really do need three decimal places

> in the ratio. As presently stated Francesca's number could encompass

> a six inch range in waist sizes. (I.E. ratios anywhere from 0.3501

> to 0.4499).

>

> Rodney.

>

[Guest guest]

0.43

>From: " Rodney " <perspect1111@...>

>Reply-

>

>Subject: [ ] Re: Waist-to-Height Ratio - WC/H

>Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 16:07:55 -0000

>

>Hi folks:

>

>In his post below Tony referenced a study which suggests that the

>ratio of waist circumference to height (WC/H) is a more relevant

>indicator of appropriate weight and health than BMI. (Thanks Tony).

>

>To help the rest of us get a fix on this, could some of those at

>least a year or two into CR care to share with us their WC/H ratios?

>

>To prove I'm not shy (!) mine is 0.4938. This takes account of the

>fact I am now one quarter of an inch shorter than I used to be, and

>waist circumference is calculated as the average of maximum and

>minimum while breathing quietly.

>

>Many thanks.

>

>Rodney.

>

>

> > Several studies comparing body metrics seem to be settling on using

> > the Waist-to-Height ratio >= 0.5 as an indication of abdominal

> > adiposity. The ratio is better than just waist circumference

>because

> > it takes into consideration the relative size of the individual,

>and

> > it is applicable to both men and women.

> > Here is one of those papers.

> >

> > Tony

> > ======

> >

> > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?

> > cmd=Retrieve & db=PubMed & list_uids=12704405 & dopt=Abstract

> >

> > Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2003 May;27(5):610-6.

> >

> > Waist-to-height ratio, a simple and practical index for assessing

> > central fat distribution and metabolic risk in Japanese men and

>women.

> > Hsieh SD, Yoshinaga H, Muto T.

> >

> > Medical Center of Health Science, Toranomon Hospital, Tokyo, Japan.

> > hsieh@t...

> >

> > OBJECTIVE: The normal body mass index (BMI) range, as defined by

>the

> > World Health Organization (WHO), is quite wide, and some people

> > within this range may have excessive central fat accumulation and

> > elevated metabolic risks. We hypothesize that the waist-to-height

> > ratio (W/Ht), an effective index for assessing central fat

> > distribution among Japanese people, can be used to identify

>subjects

> > who are at higher metabolic risk within the normal as well as the

> > overweight range. METHODS: We investigated: (1). the values of BMI,

> > waist circumference, and W/Ht in 6141 men and 2137 women at various

> > age intervals and calculated gender (female to male) ratios for all

> > these anthropometric indices; (2). the relation between age and

>each

> > anthropometric index, between age and morbidity index for coronary

> > risk factors (sum of the scores for hyperglycemia, hypertension,

> > hypertriglyceridemia, hypercholesterolemia, and low HDL

>cholesterol;

> > one point for each condition if present), and between morbidity

>index

> > for coronary risk factors and each anthropometric index; (3). the

> > distributions of the subjects, using various proposed indices of

> > waist circumference (those suggested by WHO, the Japan Society for

> > the Study of Obesity, and the Asia-Pacific perspective), and our

> > proposed boundary value, W/Ht 0.5, among the WHO categories based

>on

> > BMI; (4). the metabolic risks (coronary risk factors,

>hyperuricemia,

> > high gamma-glutamyltransferase, and fatty liver diagnosed by

> > ultrasonography), and exercise habits among normal-weight subjects

> > with W/Ht<0.5 or >or=0.5. RESULTS: (1). For the various

> > anthropometric indices in all age groups, the gender ratio for W/Ht

> > was closest to 1, indicating that a single set of values for W/Ht

>can

> > be used for men and women. (2). Height correlated negatively with

> > age. Among the anthropometric indices, only W/Ht correlated

> > positively with age for both men and women, while age and all

> > anthropometric indices, except height, correlated positively with

>the

> > morbidity index for coronary risk factors. For both men and women,

> > the highest correlation coefficient was between W/Ht and the

> > morbidity index for coronary risk factors. (3). Nearly all

>overweight

> > men and women (BMI>or=25) had W/Ht>or=0.5 (98.5% of men and 97.5%

>of

> > women). None of the underweight subjects had W/Ht>or=0.5. However,

> > 45.5% of men and 28.3% of women of normal weight (BMI 18.5-<25) had

> > W/Ht>or=0.5. W/Ht, of all the indices investigated, was the best

> > index for signaling metabolic risk in the normal-weight subjects as

> > well as the overweight subjects. (4). Age- and BMI-adjusted odds

> > ratios for multiple metabolic risks, and history of no habitual

> > exercise were significantly higher in normal-weight men and women

> > with W/Ht>or=0.5 than in others of normal weight. CONCLUSIONS:

>Waist

> > circumference is improved by relating it to height to categorized

>fat

> > distribution of different genders and ages. W/Ht is a simple and

> > practical anthropometric index to identify higher metabolic risks

>in

> > normal and overweight Japanese men and women.

>

[Guest guest]

My waist is 39 going on 38.5, but my height is too short - 5'9". OTOH, My waist has been larger since I did manual labor in 1970-73. Then I was beautiful 36". 46" chest. Guys who lift weights will have larger guts, due to the muscles on the inside of the back as well as stomach muscles.

Look at:

http://www.bartleby.com/107/illus388.html

Those psoas majors and sacrospinalis can enlarge the waist as well as stomach muscles. I think the "Health Professionals Follow-up Study" may not include weightlifters.

Regards.

----- Original Message -----

From: Rodney

Sent: Monday, June 28, 2004 11:07 AM

Subject: [ ] Re: Waist-to-Height Ratio - WC/H

Hi folks:In his post below Tony referenced a study which suggests that the ratio of waist circumference to height (WC/H) is a more relevant indicator of appropriate weight and health than BMI. (Thanks Tony).To help the rest of us get a fix on this, could some of those at least a year or two into CR care to share with us their WC/H ratios?To prove I'm not shy (!) mine is 0.4938. This takes account of the fact I am now one quarter of an inch shorter than I used to be, and waist circumference is calculated as the average of maximum and minimum while breathing quietly.Many thanks.Rodney.

[Guest guest]

Yes, I'm, a long way into CR. Waist 29" divided by height 66" = .439. I'm using the "narrowest section" definition for the waist measurement.

Best,

Lee

-----Original Message-----From: Rodney [mailto:perspect1111@...]Sent: Monday, June 28, 2004 9:31 AM Subject: [ ] Re: Waist-to-Height Ratio - WC/HHi JR:My GUESS is that use of the word "waist" implies the narrowest section. (Or is that just my definition of the term?). If I am right then in your case that would give a ratio as 0.486.Lee Shurie's number is interesting, as my impression is that he is a long way into CR (please correct that if I am mistaken). Francesca's number doesn't give enough decimal places to be meaningful I think ; ^ ))) We really do need three decimal places in the ratio. As presently stated Francesca's number could encompass a six inch range in waist sizes. (I.E. ratios anywhere from 0.3501 to 0.4499).Rodney.> > Several studies comparing body metrics seem to be settling on using> > the Waist-to-Height ratio >= 0.5 as an indication of abdominal> > adiposity. The ratio is better than just waist circumference> because> > it takes into consideration the relative size of the individual,> and> > it is applicable to both men and women.> > Here is one of those papers.> >> > Tony> > ======> >> > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?> > cmd=Retrieve & db=PubMed & list_uids=12704405 & dopt=Abstract> >> > Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2003 May;27(5):610-6.> >> > Waist-to-height ratio, a simple and practical index for assessing> > central fat distribution and metabolic risk in Japanese men and> women.> > Hsieh SD, Yoshinaga H, Muto T.> >> > Medical Center of Health Science, Toranomon Hospital, Tokyo, Japan.> > hsieh@t...> >> > OBJECTIVE: The normal body mass index (BMI) range, as defined by> the> > World Health Organization (WHO), is quite wide, and some people> > within this range may have excessive central fat accumulation and> > elevated metabolic risks. We hypothesize that the waist-to-height> > ratio (W/Ht), an effective index for assessing central fat> > distribution among Japanese people, can be used to identify> subjects> > who are at higher metabolic risk within the normal as well as the> > overweight range. METHODS: We investigated: (1). the values of BMI,> > waist circumference, and W/Ht in 6141 men and 2137 women at various> > age intervals and calculated gender (female to male) ratios for all> > these anthropometric indices; (2). the relation between age and> each> > anthropometric index, between age and morbidity index for coronary> > risk factors (sum of the scores for hyperglycemia, hypertension,> > hypertriglyceridemia, hypercholesterolemia, and low HDL> cholesterol;> > one point for each condition if present), and between morbidity> index> > for coronary risk factors and each anthropometric index; (3). the> > distributions of the subjects, using various proposed indices of> > waist circumference (those suggested by WHO, the Japan Society for> > the Study of Obesity, and the Asia-Pacific perspective), and our> > proposed boundary value, W/Ht 0.5, among the WHO categories based> on> > BMI; (4). the metabolic risks (coronary risk factors,> hyperuricemia,> > high gamma-glutamyltransferase, and fatty liver diagnosed by> > ultrasonography), and exercise habits among normal-weight subjects> > with W/Ht<0.5 or >or=0.5. RESULTS: (1). For the various> > anthropometric indices in all age groups, the gender ratio for W/Ht> > was closest to 1, indicating that a single set of values for W/Ht> can> > be used for men and women. (2). Height correlated negatively with> > age. Among the anthropometric indices, only W/Ht correlated> > positively with age for both men and women, while age and all> > anthropometric indices, except height, correlated positively with> the> > morbidity index for coronary risk factors. For both men and women,> > the highest correlation coefficient was between W/Ht and the> > morbidity index for coronary risk factors. (3). Nearly all> overweight> > men and women (BMI>or=25) had W/Ht>or=0.5 (98.5% of men and 97.5%> of> > women). None of the underweight subjects had W/Ht>or=0.5. However,> > 45.5% of men and 28.3% of women of normal weight (BMI 18.5-<25) had> > W/Ht>or=0.5. W/Ht, of all the indices investigated, was the best> > index for signaling metabolic risk in the normal-weight subjects as> > well as the overweight subjects. (4). Age- and BMI-adjusted odds> > ratios for multiple metabolic risks, and history of no habitual> > exercise were significantly higher in normal-weight men and women> > with W/Ht>or=0.5 than in others of normal weight. CONCLUSIONS:> Waist> > circumference is improved by relating it to height to categorized> fat> > distribution of different genders and ages. W/Ht is a simple and> > practical anthropometric index to identify higher metabolic risks> in> > normal and overweight Japanese men and women.> > > > > >

[Guest guest]

Great stuff folks!

So now I can see that to get down to Lee's or 's ratio I

will need to lose another FOUR INCHES from around my waist. OUCH!

I prefer to think of it as only 2/3 of an inch shrinkage from each

side of my waist - 1.3 inches from my diameter! (That is about what

it is, I think.) Makes sense really.

Rodney.

> > > Several studies comparing body metrics seem to be settling on

> using

> > > the Waist-to-Height ratio >= 0.5 as an indication of abdominal

> > > adiposity. The ratio is better than just waist circumference

> > because

> > > it takes into consideration the relative size of the

individual,

> > and

> > > it is applicable to both men and women.

> > > Here is one of those papers.

> > >

> > > Tony

> > > ======

> > >

> > > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?

> > > cmd=Retrieve & db=PubMed & list_uids=12704405 & dopt=Abstract

> > >

> > > Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2003 May;27(5):610-6.

> > >

> > > Waist-to-height ratio, a simple and practical index for

assessing

> > > central fat distribution and metabolic risk in Japanese men

and

> > women.

> > > Hsieh SD, Yoshinaga H, Muto T.

> > >

> > > Medical Center of Health Science, Toranomon Hospital, Tokyo,

> Japan.

> > > hsieh@t...

> > >

> > > OBJECTIVE: The normal body mass index (BMI) range, as defined

by

> > the

> > > World Health Organization (WHO), is quite wide, and some

people

> > > within this range may have excessive central fat accumulation

and

> > > elevated metabolic risks. We hypothesize that the waist-to-

height

> > > ratio (W/Ht), an effective index for assessing central fat

> > > distribution among Japanese people, can be used to identify

> > subjects

> > > who are at higher metabolic risk within the normal as well as

the

> > > overweight range. METHODS: We investigated: (1). the values of

> BMI,

> > > waist circumference, and W/Ht in 6141 men and 2137 women at

> various

> > > age intervals and calculated gender (female to male) ratios

for

> all

> > > these anthropometric indices; (2). the relation between age

and

> > each

> > > anthropometric index, between age and morbidity index for

coronary

> > > risk factors (sum of the scores for hyperglycemia,

hypertension,

> > > hypertriglyceridemia, hypercholesterolemia, and low HDL

> > cholesterol;

> > > one point for each condition if present), and between

morbidity

> > index

> > > for coronary risk factors and each anthropometric index; (3).

the

> > > distributions of the subjects, using various proposed indices

of

> > > waist circumference (those suggested by WHO, the Japan

Society for

> > > the Study of Obesity, and the Asia-Pacific perspective), and

our

> > > proposed boundary value, W/Ht 0.5, among the WHO categories

based

> > on

> > > BMI; (4). the metabolic risks (coronary risk factors,

> > hyperuricemia,

> > > high gamma-glutamyltransferase, and fatty liver diagnosed by

> > > ultrasonography), and exercise habits among normal-weight

subjects

> > > with W/Ht<0.5 or >or=0.5. RESULTS: (1). For the various

> > > anthropometric indices in all age groups, the gender ratio for

> W/Ht

> > > was closest to 1, indicating that a single set of values for

W/Ht

> > can

> > > be used for men and women. (2). Height correlated negatively

with

> > > age. Among the anthropometric indices, only W/Ht correlated

> > > positively with age for both men and women, while age and all

> > > anthropometric indices, except height, correlated positively

with

> > the

> > > morbidity index for coronary risk factors. For both men and

women,

> > > the highest correlation coefficient was between W/Ht and the

> > > morbidity index for coronary risk factors. (3). Nearly all

> > overweight

> > > men and women (BMI>or=25) had W/Ht>or=0.5 (98.5% of men and

97.5%

> > of

> > > women). None of the underweight subjects had W/Ht>or=0.5.

However,

> > > 45.5% of men and 28.3% of women of normal weight (BMI 18.5-

<25)

> had

> > > W/Ht>or=0.5. W/Ht, of all the indices investigated, was the

best

> > > index for signaling metabolic risk in the normal-weight

subjects

> as

> > > well as the overweight subjects. (4). Age- and BMI-adjusted

odds

> > > ratios for multiple metabolic risks, and history of no

habitual

> > > exercise were significantly higher in normal-weight men and

women

> > > with W/Ht>or=0.5 than in others of normal weight. CONCLUSIONS:

> > Waist

> > > circumference is improved by relating it to height to

categorized

> > fat

> > > distribution of different genders and ages. W/Ht is a simple

and

> > > practical anthropometric index to identify higher metabolic

risks

> > in

> > > normal and overweight Japanese men and women.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

In my personal experience, waist measurements (pants size) fluctuates far

less than total central adiposity. To wit when I weighed 60-80 lbs more I

only wore 36 " waist pants. I have seen really fat men with relatively small

waists (apples). So I guess it depends on what you're looking for. To find

central adipose masses I'd go for the gut maxima and not the waist minima.

In my case this is only an inch difference. I've seen men with huge guts,

pretty much all fat.

Of course this is yet another one of those metrics that exists because it's

easy to measure, albeit perhaps not as flawed as BMI. Francesca is certainly

correct that women will have smaller waists than men, and I am certainly

willing to offer the fact that I lift weights 3x a week (thanks JW) in

addition to my 2,100 crunches to explain my huge (muscular :-) waist......

JR

-----Original Message-----

From: Rodney [mailto:perspect1111@...]

Sent: Monday, June 28, 2004 11:08 AM

Subject: [ ] Re: Waist-to-Height Ratio - WC/H

Hi folks:

In his post below Tony referenced a study which suggests that the

ratio of waist circumference to height (WC/H) is a more relevant

indicator of appropriate weight and health than BMI. (Thanks Tony).

To help the rest of us get a fix on this, could some of those at

least a year or two into CR care to share with us their WC/H ratios?

To prove I'm not shy (!) mine is 0.4938. This takes account of the

fact I am now one quarter of an inch shorter than I used to be, and

waist circumference is calculated as the average of maximum and

minimum while breathing quietly.

Many thanks.

Rodney.

> Several studies comparing body metrics seem to be settling on using

> the Waist-to-Height ratio >= 0.5 as an indication of abdominal

> adiposity. The ratio is better than just waist circumference

because

> it takes into consideration the relative size of the individual,

and

> it is applicable to both men and women.

> Here is one of those papers.

>

> Tony

> ======

>

> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?

> cmd=Retrieve & db=PubMed & list_uids=12704405 & dopt=Abstract

>

> Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2003 May;27(5):610-6.

>

> Waist-to-height ratio, a simple and practical index for assessing

> central fat distribution and metabolic risk in Japanese men and

women.

> Hsieh SD, Yoshinaga H, Muto T.

>

> Medical Center of Health Science, Toranomon Hospital, Tokyo, Japan.

> hsieh@t...

>

> OBJECTIVE: The normal body mass index (BMI) range, as defined by

the

> World Health Organization (WHO), is quite wide, and some people

> within this range may have excessive central fat accumulation and

> elevated metabolic risks. We hypothesize that the waist-to-height

> ratio (W/Ht), an effective index for assessing central fat

> distribution among Japanese people, can be used to identify

subjects

> who are at higher metabolic risk within the normal as well as the

> overweight range. METHODS: We investigated: (1). the values of BMI,

> waist circumference, and W/Ht in 6141 men and 2137 women at various

> age intervals and calculated gender (female to male) ratios for all

> these anthropometric indices; (2). the relation between age and

each

> anthropometric index, between age and morbidity index for coronary

> risk factors (sum of the scores for hyperglycemia, hypertension,

> hypertriglyceridemia, hypercholesterolemia, and low HDL

cholesterol;

> one point for each condition if present), and between morbidity

index

> for coronary risk factors and each anthropometric index; (3). the

> distributions of the subjects, using various proposed indices of

> waist circumference (those suggested by WHO, the Japan Society for

> the Study of Obesity, and the Asia-Pacific perspective), and our

> proposed boundary value, W/Ht 0.5, among the WHO categories based

on

> BMI; (4). the metabolic risks (coronary risk factors,

hyperuricemia,

> high gamma-glutamyltransferase, and fatty liver diagnosed by

> ultrasonography), and exercise habits among normal-weight subjects

> with W/Ht<0.5 or >or=0.5. RESULTS: (1). For the various

> anthropometric indices in all age groups, the gender ratio for W/Ht

> was closest to 1, indicating that a single set of values for W/Ht

can

> be used for men and women. (2). Height correlated negatively with

> age. Among the anthropometric indices, only W/Ht correlated

> positively with age for both men and women, while age and all

> anthropometric indices, except height, correlated positively with

the

> morbidity index for coronary risk factors. For both men and women,

> the highest correlation coefficient was between W/Ht and the

> morbidity index for coronary risk factors. (3). Nearly all

overweight

> men and women (BMI>or=25) had W/Ht>or=0.5 (98.5% of men and 97.5%

of

> women). None of the underweight subjects had W/Ht>or=0.5. However,

> 45.5% of men and 28.3% of women of normal weight (BMI 18.5-<25) had

> W/Ht>or=0.5. W/Ht, of all the indices investigated, was the best

> index for signaling metabolic risk in the normal-weight subjects as

> well as the overweight subjects. (4). Age- and BMI-adjusted odds

> ratios for multiple metabolic risks, and history of no habitual

> exercise were significantly higher in normal-weight men and women

> with W/Ht>or=0.5 than in others of normal weight. CONCLUSIONS:

Waist

> circumference is improved by relating it to height to categorized

fat

> distribution of different genders and ages. W/Ht is a simple and

> practical anthropometric index to identify higher metabolic risks

in

> normal and overweight Japanese men and women.

[Guest guest]

I'm not proud or shy. Just another data point

Mine is .4214 (W=29.5, H=70)

By more conventional measures, my BMI is 19.5 (135 pounds)

Mark

Hi folks:

In his post below Tony referenced a study which suggests that the

ratio of waist circumference to height (WC/H) is a more relevant

indicator of appropriate weight and health than BMI. (Thanks Tony).

To help the rest of us get a fix on this, could some of those at

least a year or two into CR care to share with us their WC/H ratios?

To prove I'm not shy (!) mine is 0.4938. This takes account of the

fact I am now one quarter of an inch shorter than I used to be, and

waist circumference is calculated as the average of maximum and

minimum while breathing quietly.

Many thanks.

Rodney.

> Several studies comparing body metrics seem to be settling on using

> the Waist-to-Height ratio >= 0.5 as an indication of abdominal

> adiposity. The ratio is better than just waist circumference

because

> it takes into consideration the relative size of the individual,

and

> it is applicable to both men and women.

> Here is one of those papers.

>

> Tony

> ======

>

> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?

> cmd=Retrieve & db=PubMed & list_uids=12704405 & dopt=Abstract

>

> Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2003 May;27(5):610-6.

>

> Waist-to-height ratio, a simple and practical index for assessing

> central fat distribution and metabolic risk in Japanese men and

women.

> Hsieh SD, Yoshinaga H, Muto T.

>

> Medical Center of Health Science, Toranomon Hospital, Tokyo, Japan.

> hsieh@t...

>

> OBJECTIVE: The normal body mass index (BMI) range, as defined by

the

> World Health Organization (WHO), is quite wide, and some people

> within this range may have excessive central fat accumulation and

> elevated metabolic risks. We hypothesize that the waist-to-height

> ratio (W/Ht), an effective index for assessing central fat

> distribution among Japanese people, can be used to identify

subjects

> who are at higher metabolic risk within the normal as well as the

> overweight range. METHODS: We investigated: (1). the values of BMI,

> waist circumference, and W/Ht in 6141 men and 2137 women at various

> age intervals and calculated gender (female to male) ratios for all

> these anthropometric indices; (2). the relation between age and

each

> anthropometric index, between age and morbidity index for coronary

> risk factors (sum of the scores for hyperglycemia, hypertension,

> hypertriglyceridemia, hypercholesterolemia, and low HDL

cholesterol;

> one point for each condition if present), and between morbidity

index

> for coronary risk factors and each anthropometric index; (3). the

> distributions of the subjects, using various proposed indices of

> waist circumference (those suggested by WHO, the Japan Society for

> the Study of Obesity, and the Asia-Pacific perspective), and our

> proposed boundary value, W/Ht 0.5, among the WHO categories based

on

> BMI; (4). the metabolic risks (coronary risk factors,

hyperuricemia,

> high gamma-glutamyltransferase, and fatty liver diagnosed by

> ultrasonography), and exercise habits among normal-weight subjects

> with W/Ht<0.5 or >or=0.5. RESULTS: (1). For the various

> anthropometric indices in all age groups, the gender ratio for W/Ht

> was closest to 1, indicating that a single set of values for W/Ht

can

> be used for men and women. (2). Height correlated negatively with

> age. Among the anthropometric indices, only W/Ht correlated

> positively with age for both men and women, while age and all

> anthropometric indices, except height, correlated positively with

the

> morbidity index for coronary risk factors. For both men and women,

> the highest correlation coefficient was between W/Ht and the

> morbidity index for coronary risk factors. (3). Nearly all

overweight

> men and women (BMI>or=25) had W/Ht>or=0.5 (98.5% of men and 97.5%

of

> women). None of the underweight subjects had W/Ht>or=0.5. However,

> 45.5% of men and 28.3% of women of normal weight (BMI 18.5-<25) had

> W/Ht>or=0.5. W/Ht, of all the indices investigated, was the best

> index for signaling metabolic risk in the normal-weight subjects as

> well as the overweight subjects. (4). Age- and BMI-adjusted odds

> ratios for multiple metabolic risks, and history of no habitual

> exercise were significantly higher in normal-weight men and women

> with W/Ht>or=0.5 than in others of normal weight. CONCLUSIONS:

Waist

> circumference is improved by relating it to height to categorized

fat

> distribution of different genders and ages. W/Ht is a simple and

> practical anthropometric index to identify higher metabolic risks

in

> normal and overweight Japanese men and women.

[Guest guest]

..4308

It would be nice to start a database of these types of measurements

of members, as well as their average calorie intake and how they

manage CRON. Age and gender would be nice too. And city so we could

manage some other get togethers. I looked in the database and it

there's an empty table there but no info.

Maybe this has been tried in the past but didn't work out?

[Guest guest]

Yes we have had databases in the past. With minimal participation.

However this seems to be a subject of wide interest. So if you want to

start one with the proper headings as you suggest below, we can all plug in

our numbers. (One does not have to be a moderator to do this). Those who

are not yet on CRON may want to plug in numbers and see how they compare

with a few months or a year on CRON.

on 6/28/2004 3:19 PM, cdonegan264 at cdonegan264@... wrote:

> .4308

>

> It would be nice to start a database of these types of measurements

> of members, as well as their average calorie intake and how they

> manage CRON. Age and gender would be nice too. And city so we could

> manage some other get togethers. I looked in the database and it

> there's an empty table there but no info.

>

> Maybe this has been tried in the past but didn't work out?

>

[Guest guest]

From the Harvard websiteso I stand by my .50 measurement

JR

ps: I'm not bald

-----Original Message-----From: Rodney [mailto:perspect1111@...]Sent: Monday, June 28, 2004 12:31 PM Subject: [ ] Re: Waist-to-Height Ratio - WC/HHi JR:My GUESS is that use of the word "waist" implies the narrowestsection. (Or is that just my definition of the term?). If I amright then in your case that would give a ratio as 0.486.Lee Shurie's number is interesting, as my impression is that he is along way into CR (please correct that if I am mistaken).Francesca's number doesn't give enough decimal places to bemeaningful I think ; ^ ))) We really do need three decimal placesin the ratio. As presently stated Francesca's number could encompassa six inch range in waist sizes. (I.E. ratios anywhere from 0.3501to 0.4499).Rodney.--- In , "john roberts" <johnhrob@n...>wrote:> 35"/70" or .5 measured at the maximal circumference of my central> midsection. The minimal waist measurement below is 34"/70", but Iassume the> measurement in question is looking for the larger number. Fromobservation> most central obesity hangs over the belt not under.>> FWIW I do 300 (easy) crunches each morning before getting out ofbed and my> BMI is 22. Tanita based BF measurements range from 9.7-12.5% whenmeasured> after my 5 mile run which should leave me slightly dehydrated. Ifind all of> these metrics suspect other than for gauging personal progress incomparison> to myself.>> JR>>>> -----Original Message-----> From: Rodney [mailto:perspect1111@y...]> Sent: Monday, June 28, 2004 11:08 AM> > Subject: [ ] Re: Waist-to-Height Ratio - WC/H>>> Hi folks:>> In his post below Tony referenced a study which suggests that the> ratio of waist circumference to height (WC/H) is a more relevant> indicator of appropriate weight and health than BMI. (Thanks Tony).>> To help the rest of us get a fix on this, could some of those at> least a year or two into CR care to share with us their WC/H ratios?>> To prove I'm not shy (!) mine is 0.4938. This takes account of the> fact I am now one quarter of an inch shorter than I used to be, and> waist circumference is calculated as the average of maximum and> minimum while breathing quietly.>> Many thanks.>> Rodney.>> --- In , "citpeks" <citpeks@y...>wrote:> > Several studies comparing body metrics seem to be settling onusing> > the Waist-to-Height ratio >= 0.5 as an indication of abdominal> > adiposity. The ratio is better than just waist circumference> because> > it takes into consideration the relative size of the individual,> and> > it is applicable to both men and women.> > Here is one of those papers.> >> > Tony> > ======> >> > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?> > cmd=Retrieve & db=PubMed & list_uids=12704405 & dopt=Abstract> >> > Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2003 May;27(5):610-6.> >> > Waist-to-height ratio, a simple and practical index for assessing> > central fat distribution and metabolic risk in Japanese men and> women.> > Hsieh SD, Yoshinaga H, Muto T.> >> > Medical Center of Health Science, Toranomon Hospital, Tokyo,Japan.> > hsieh@t...> >> > OBJECTIVE: The normal body mass index (BMI) range, as defined by> the> > World Health Organization (WHO), is quite wide, and some people> > within this range may have excessive central fat accumulation and> > elevated metabolic risks. We hypothesize that the waist-to-height> > ratio (W/Ht), an effective index for assessing central fat> > distribution among Japanese people, can be used to identify> subjects> > who are at higher metabolic risk within the normal as well as the> > overweight range. METHODS: We investigated: (1). the values ofBMI,> > waist circumference, and W/Ht in 6141 men and 2137 women atvarious> > age intervals and calculated gender (female to male) ratios forall> > these anthropometric indices; (2). the relation between age and> each> > anthropometric index, between age and morbidity index for coronary> > risk factors (sum of the scores for hyperglycemia, hypertension,> > hypertriglyceridemia, hypercholesterolemia, and low HDL> cholesterol;> > one point for each condition if present), and between morbidity> index> > for coronary risk factors and each anthropometric index; (3). the> > distributions of the subjects, using various proposed indices of> > waist circumference (those suggested by WHO, the Japan Society for> > the Study of Obesity, and the Asia-Pacific perspective), and our> > proposed boundary value, W/Ht 0.5, among the WHO categories based> on> > BMI; (4). the metabolic risks (coronary risk factors,> hyperuricemia,> > high gamma-glutamyltransferase, and fatty liver diagnosed by> > ultrasonography), and exercise habits among normal-weight subjects> > with W/Ht<0.5 or >or=0.5. RESULTS: (1). For the various> > anthropometric indices in all age groups, the gender ratio forW/Ht> > was closest to 1, indicating that a single set of values for W/Ht> can> > be used for men and women. (2). Height correlated negatively with> > age. Among the anthropometric indices, only W/Ht correlated> > positively with age for both men and women, while age and all> > anthropometric indices, except height, correlated positively with> the> > morbidity index for coronary risk factors. For both men and women,> > the highest correlation coefficient was between W/Ht and the> > morbidity index for coronary risk factors. (3). Nearly all> overweight> > men and women (BMI>or=25) had W/Ht>or=0.5 (98.5% of men and 97.5%> of> > women). None of the underweight subjects had W/Ht>or=0.5. However,> > 45.5% of men and 28.3% of women of normal weight (BMI 18.5-<25)had> > W/Ht>or=0.5. W/Ht, of all the indices investigated, was the best> > index for signaling metabolic risk in the normal-weight subjectsas> > well as the overweight subjects. (4). Age- and BMI-adjusted odds> > ratios for multiple metabolic risks, and history of no habitual> > exercise were significantly higher in normal-weight men and women> > with W/Ht>or=0.5 than in others of normal weight. CONCLUSIONS:> Waist> > circumference is improved by relating it to height to categorized> fat> > distribution of different genders and ages. W/Ht is a simple and> > practical anthropometric index to identify higher metabolic risks> in> > normal and overweight Japanese men and women.>>>>>>

[Guest guest]

>From: " john roberts " <johnhrob@...>

>Reply-

>< >

>Subject: RE: [ ] Re: Waist-to-Height Ratio - WC/H

>Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 14:05:47 -0500

>..... in

>addition to my 2,100 crunches to explain my huge (muscular :-) waist......

>

>JR

2,100 crunches per what? day? week? Seems a bit excessive to me, and I

exercise 7 days/week.

[Guest guest]

I seriously doubt carrying the calculation to 3 decimel places adds any

meaningful information. One's height may change fairly significantly during

the course of the day (people often lose up to 1.5 inches by the end of the

day), and one's waist circumference is, I'll bet, similarly fluxuating.

>From: " Rodney " <perspect1111@...>

>Reply-

>

>Subject: [ ] Re: Waist-to-Height Ratio - WC/H

>Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 17:30:56 -0000

>

>Hi JR:

>

>My GUESS is that use of the word " waist " implies the narrowest

>section. (Or is that just my definition of the term?). If I am

>right then in your case that would give a ratio as 0.486.

>

>Lee Shurie's number is interesting, as my impression is that he is a

>long way into CR (please correct that if I am mistaken).

>

>Francesca's number doesn't give enough decimal places to be

>meaningful I think ; ^ ))) We really do need three decimal places

>in the ratio. As presently stated Francesca's number could encompass

>a six inch range in waist sizes. (I.E. ratios anywhere from 0.3501

>to 0.4499).

>

>Rodney.

>

>

>

>--- In , " john roberts " <johnhrob@n...>

>wrote:

> > 35 " /70 " or .5 measured at the maximal circumference of my central

> > midsection. The minimal waist measurement below is 34 " /70 " , but I

>assume the

> > measurement in question is looking for the larger number. From

>observation

> > most central obesity hangs over the belt not under.

> >

> > FWIW I do 300 (easy) crunches each morning before getting out of

>bed and my

> > BMI is 22. Tanita based BF measurements range from 9.7-12.5% when

>measured

> > after my 5 mile run which should leave me slightly dehydrated. I

>find all of

> > these metrics suspect other than for gauging personal progress in

>comparison

> > to myself.

> >

> > JR

> >

> >

> >

> > -----Original Message-----

> > From: Rodney [mailto:perspect1111@y...]

> > Sent: Monday, June 28, 2004 11:08 AM

> >

> > Subject: [ ] Re: Waist-to-Height Ratio - WC/H

> >

> >

> > Hi folks:

> >

> > In his post below Tony referenced a study which suggests that the

> > ratio of waist circumference to height (WC/H) is a more relevant

> > indicator of appropriate weight and health than BMI. (Thanks Tony).

> >

> > To help the rest of us get a fix on this, could some of those at

> > least a year or two into CR care to share with us their WC/H ratios?

> >

> > To prove I'm not shy (!) mine is 0.4938. This takes account of the

> > fact I am now one quarter of an inch shorter than I used to be, and

> > waist circumference is calculated as the average of maximum and

> > minimum while breathing quietly.

> >

> > Many thanks.

> >

> > Rodney.

> >

> > --- In , " citpeks " <citpeks@y...>

>wrote:

> > > Several studies comparing body metrics seem to be settling on

>using

> > > the Waist-to-Height ratio >= 0.5 as an indication of abdominal

> > > adiposity. The ratio is better than just waist circumference

> > because

> > > it takes into consideration the relative size of the individual,

> > and

> > > it is applicable to both men and women.

> > > Here is one of those papers.

> > >

> > > Tony

> > > ======

> > >

> > > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?

> > > cmd=Retrieve & db=PubMed & list_uids=12704405 & dopt=Abstract

> > >

> > > Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2003 May;27(5):610-6.

> > >

> > > Waist-to-height ratio, a simple and practical index for assessing

> > > central fat distribution and metabolic risk in Japanese men and

> > women.

> > > Hsieh SD, Yoshinaga H, Muto T.

> > >

> > > Medical Center of Health Science, Toranomon Hospital, Tokyo,

>Japan.

> > > hsieh@t...

> > >

> > > OBJECTIVE: The normal body mass index (BMI) range, as defined by

> > the

> > > World Health Organization (WHO), is quite wide, and some people

> > > within this range may have excessive central fat accumulation and

> > > elevated metabolic risks. We hypothesize that the waist-to-height

> > > ratio (W/Ht), an effective index for assessing central fat

> > > distribution among Japanese people, can be used to identify

> > subjects

> > > who are at higher metabolic risk within the normal as well as the

> > > overweight range. METHODS: We investigated: (1). the values of

>BMI,

> > > waist circumference, and W/Ht in 6141 men and 2137 women at

>various

> > > age intervals and calculated gender (female to male) ratios for

>all

> > > these anthropometric indices; (2). the relation between age and

> > each

> > > anthropometric index, between age and morbidity index for coronary

> > > risk factors (sum of the scores for hyperglycemia, hypertension,

> > > hypertriglyceridemia, hypercholesterolemia, and low HDL

> > cholesterol;

> > > one point for each condition if present), and between morbidity

> > index

> > > for coronary risk factors and each anthropometric index; (3). the

> > > distributions of the subjects, using various proposed indices of

> > > waist circumference (those suggested by WHO, the Japan Society for

> > > the Study of Obesity, and the Asia-Pacific perspective), and our

> > > proposed boundary value, W/Ht 0.5, among the WHO categories based

> > on

> > > BMI; (4). the metabolic risks (coronary risk factors,

> > hyperuricemia,

> > > high gamma-glutamyltransferase, and fatty liver diagnosed by

> > > ultrasonography), and exercise habits among normal-weight subjects

> > > with W/Ht<0.5 or >or=0.5. RESULTS: (1). For the various

> > > anthropometric indices in all age groups, the gender ratio for

>W/Ht

> > > was closest to 1, indicating that a single set of values for W/Ht

> > can

> > > be used for men and women. (2). Height correlated negatively with

> > > age. Among the anthropometric indices, only W/Ht correlated

> > > positively with age for both men and women, while age and all

> > > anthropometric indices, except height, correlated positively with

> > the

> > > morbidity index for coronary risk factors. For both men and women,

> > > the highest correlation coefficient was between W/Ht and the

> > > morbidity index for coronary risk factors. (3). Nearly all

> > overweight

> > > men and women (BMI>or=25) had W/Ht>or=0.5 (98.5% of men and 97.5%

> > of

> > > women). None of the underweight subjects had W/Ht>or=0.5. However,

> > > 45.5% of men and 28.3% of women of normal weight (BMI 18.5-<25)

>had

> > > W/Ht>or=0.5. W/Ht, of all the indices investigated, was the best

> > > index for signaling metabolic risk in the normal-weight subjects

>as

> > > well as the overweight subjects. (4). Age- and BMI-adjusted odds

> > > ratios for multiple metabolic risks, and history of no habitual

> > > exercise were significantly higher in normal-weight men and women

> > > with W/Ht>or=0.5 than in others of normal weight. CONCLUSIONS:

> > Waist

> > > circumference is improved by relating it to height to categorized

> > fat

> > > distribution of different genders and ages. W/Ht is a simple and

> > > practical anthropometric index to identify higher metabolic risks

> > in

> > > normal and overweight Japanese men and women.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Sorry, I mentioned in an earlier post that I do 300 easy crunches every

morning before getting out of bed. Rather than an excessive workout it helps

jump start me for the day and only takes 3 minutes. Since I still don't have

6-packs, at least on the outside, I don't feel like I'm overdoing it. The

smiley face was supposed to suggest that I was joking about my muscular

characterization.

If anything is excessive about my regular routine it might be my still

playing pick-up basketball at 55 YO. I noticed yesterday in a 3 on 3 game

that I was approx the same age as the other team's entire age combined.

Better yet we actually won that game. Since I don't expect to be able to

keep playing like this forever, I'm enjoying it while I can. Someday I may

be reduced to playing with kids my own age.... :-) If I can find them.

JR

BTW, I only exercise 6 days a week. Even " he " rested one day a week.

-----Original Message-----

From: Dowling [mailto:dowlic@...]

Sent: Monday, June 28, 2004 5:18 PM

Subject: RE: [ ] Re: Waist-to-Height Ratio - WC/H

>From: " john roberts " <johnhrob@...>

>Reply-

>< >

>Subject: RE: [ ] Re: Waist-to-Height Ratio - WC/H

>Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 14:05:47 -0500

>..... in

>addition to my 2,100 crunches to explain my huge (muscular :-) waist......

>

>JR

2,100 crunches per what? day? week? Seems a bit excessive to me, and I

exercise 7 days/week.

[Guest guest]

Could it also be that genetic body type would play a role in deciphering

the ratio? For instance, what if two people that have the same body

fat, but one has genetically more muscular with disproportionately

lower height, while the other is taller than average & like his whole

family line he has slim muscles? Just wondering.

Dowling wrote:

>I seriously doubt carrying the calculation to 3 decimel places adds any

meaningful information. One's height may change fairly significantly during the

course of the day (people often lose up to 1.5 inches by the end of the

>day), and one's waist circumference is, I'll bet, similarly fluxuating.

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi :

You are right. I hadn't realized at the time I suggested that, that

some people had a ratio as low as 0.40. Two decimal places is enough

to show where anyone is located on that scale.

Rodney.

> I seriously doubt carrying the calculation to 3 decimel places adds

any

> meaningful information. One's height may change fairly

significantly during

> the course of the day (people often lose up to 1.5 inches by the

end of the

> day), and one's waist circumference is, I'll bet, similarly

fluxuating.

>

>

> >From: " Rodney " <perspect1111@y...>

> >Reply-

> >

> >Subject: [ ] Re: Waist-to-Height Ratio - WC/H

> >Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 17:30:56 -0000

> >

> >Hi JR:

> >

> >My GUESS is that use of the word " waist " implies the narrowest

> >section. (Or is that just my definition of the term?). If I am

> >right then in your case that would give a ratio as 0.486.

> >

> >Lee Shurie's number is interesting, as my impression is that he is

a

> >long way into CR (please correct that if I am mistaken).

> >

> >Francesca's number doesn't give enough decimal places to be

> >meaningful I think ; ^ ))) We really do need three decimal places

> >in the ratio. As presently stated Francesca's number could

encompass

> >a six inch range in waist sizes. (I.E. ratios anywhere from

0.3501

> >to 0.4499).

> >

> >Rodney.

> >

> >

> >

> >--- In , " john roberts "

<johnhrob@n...>

> >wrote:

> > > 35 " /70 " or .5 measured at the maximal circumference of my

central

> > > midsection. The minimal waist measurement below is 34 " /70 " , but

I

> >assume the

> > > measurement in question is looking for the larger number. From

> >observation

> > > most central obesity hangs over the belt not under.

> > >

> > > FWIW I do 300 (easy) crunches each morning before getting out of

> >bed and my

> > > BMI is 22. Tanita based BF measurements range from 9.7-12.5%

when

> >measured

> > > after my 5 mile run which should leave me slightly dehydrated. I

> >find all of

> > > these metrics suspect other than for gauging personal progress

in

> >comparison

> > > to myself.

> > >

> > > JR

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > -----Original Message-----

> > > From: Rodney [mailto:perspect1111@y...]

> > > Sent: Monday, June 28, 2004 11:08 AM

> > >

> > > Subject: [ ] Re: Waist-to-Height Ratio - WC/H

> > >

> > >

> > > Hi folks:

> > >

> > > In his post below Tony referenced a study which suggests that

the

> > > ratio of waist circumference to height (WC/H) is a more relevant

> > > indicator of appropriate weight and health than BMI. (Thanks

Tony).

> > >

> > > To help the rest of us get a fix on this, could some of those at

> > > least a year or two into CR care to share with us their WC/H

ratios?

> > >

> > > To prove I'm not shy (!) mine is 0.4938. This takes account of

the

> > > fact I am now one quarter of an inch shorter than I used to be,

and

> > > waist circumference is calculated as the average of maximum and

> > > minimum while breathing quietly.

> > >

> > > Many thanks.

> > >

> > > Rodney.

> > >

> > > --- In , " citpeks " <citpeks@y...>

> >wrote:

> > > > Several studies comparing body metrics seem to be settling on

> >using

> > > > the Waist-to-Height ratio >= 0.5 as an indication of abdominal

> > > > adiposity. The ratio is better than just waist circumference

> > > because

> > > > it takes into consideration the relative size of the

individual,

> > > and

> > > > it is applicable to both men and women.

> > > > Here is one of those papers.

> > > >

> > > > Tony

> > > > ======

> > > >

> > > > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?

> > > > cmd=Retrieve & db=PubMed & list_uids=12704405 & dopt=Abstract

> > > >

> > > > Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2003 May;27(5):610-6.

> > > >

> > > > Waist-to-height ratio, a simple and practical index for

assessing

> > > > central fat distribution and metabolic risk in Japanese men

and

> > > women.

> > > > Hsieh SD, Yoshinaga H, Muto T.

> > > >

> > > > Medical Center of Health Science, Toranomon Hospital, Tokyo,

> >Japan.

> > > > hsieh@t...

> > > >

> > > > OBJECTIVE: The normal body mass index (BMI) range, as defined

by

> > > the

> > > > World Health Organization (WHO), is quite wide, and some

people

> > > > within this range may have excessive central fat accumulation

and

> > > > elevated metabolic risks. We hypothesize that the waist-to-

height

> > > > ratio (W/Ht), an effective index for assessing central fat

> > > > distribution among Japanese people, can be used to identify

> > > subjects

> > > > who are at higher metabolic risk within the normal as well as

the

> > > > overweight range. METHODS: We investigated: (1). the values of

> >BMI,

> > > > waist circumference, and W/Ht in 6141 men and 2137 women at

> >various

> > > > age intervals and calculated gender (female to male) ratios

for

> >all

> > > > these anthropometric indices; (2). the relation between age

and

> > > each

> > > > anthropometric index, between age and morbidity index for

coronary

> > > > risk factors (sum of the scores for hyperglycemia,

hypertension,

> > > > hypertriglyceridemia, hypercholesterolemia, and low HDL

> > > cholesterol;

> > > > one point for each condition if present), and between

morbidity

> > > index

> > > > for coronary risk factors and each anthropometric index; (3).

the

> > > > distributions of the subjects, using various proposed indices

of

> > > > waist circumference (those suggested by WHO, the Japan

Society for

> > > > the Study of Obesity, and the Asia-Pacific perspective), and

our

> > > > proposed boundary value, W/Ht 0.5, among the WHO categories

based

> > > on

> > > > BMI; (4). the metabolic risks (coronary risk factors,

> > > hyperuricemia,

> > > > high gamma-glutamyltransferase, and fatty liver diagnosed by

> > > > ultrasonography), and exercise habits among normal-weight

subjects

> > > > with W/Ht<0.5 or >or=0.5. RESULTS: (1). For the various

> > > > anthropometric indices in all age groups, the gender ratio for

> >W/Ht

> > > > was closest to 1, indicating that a single set of values for

W/Ht

> > > can

> > > > be used for men and women. (2). Height correlated negatively

with

> > > > age. Among the anthropometric indices, only W/Ht correlated

> > > > positively with age for both men and women, while age and all

> > > > anthropometric indices, except height, correlated positively

with

> > > the

> > > > morbidity index for coronary risk factors. For both men and

women,

> > > > the highest correlation coefficient was between W/Ht and the

> > > > morbidity index for coronary risk factors. (3). Nearly all

> > > overweight

> > > > men and women (BMI>or=25) had W/Ht>or=0.5 (98.5% of men and

97.5%

> > > of

> > > > women). None of the underweight subjects had W/Ht>or=0.5.

However,

> > > > 45.5% of men and 28.3% of women of normal weight (BMI 18.5-

<25)

> >had

> > > > W/Ht>or=0.5. W/Ht, of all the indices investigated, was the

best

> > > > index for signaling metabolic risk in the normal-weight

subjects

> >as

> > > > well as the overweight subjects. (4). Age- and BMI-adjusted

odds

> > > > ratios for multiple metabolic risks, and history of no

habitual

> > > > exercise were significantly higher in normal-weight men and

women

> > > > with W/Ht>or=0.5 than in others of normal weight. CONCLUSIONS:

> > > Waist

> > > > circumference is improved by relating it to height to

categorized

> > > fat

> > > > distribution of different genders and ages. W/Ht is a simple

and

> > > > practical anthropometric index to identify higher metabolic

risks

> > > in

> > > > normal and overweight Japanese men and women.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

[Guest guest]

Just to add my #s to the pool:

-- 26.5 " /69 " (measured at 8:30 PM) = 0.384

-- BMI = 18.3

I have been practicing CR for 2 years.

This measure is interesting; I can see how it would be more accurate

to the general population, based on some mathematical problems with

calculating BMI. --> [below, I include a quickly-found quote]

" BMI is fundamentally mathematically flawed. It is based on the

assumption that the mass of a particular shaped object of fixed

density is proportional to the square of its dimension. It's

actually proportional to the cube as even the most cursory

examination of the geometry involved would show.

The effect is the any conclusions drawn from BMI become less valid

the further from the mean height the individual is. In particular,

tall people have an incorrectly high BMI and short ones have an

incorrectly low BMI. A consequence of that is that men (taller than

population mean) will be incorrectly judged as overweight or obese

as compared with women. "

[i don't know how accurate this statement is, but some " back-of-the-

envelope " math on cubes vs. squares is enough to convince me that

there is something " flawed " about BMI as a standard... which is no

argument -- it just seems to be a question of which flawed standard

is less flawed for the general populace.]

-- An item of personal note is that my waist has remained unchanged

for a year, while my BMI has dropped (significantly?) from 19.3 to

18.4. Weight fluctuates for any number of reason (mostly with

vegetable and water intake), while, of course, height does not. As

waist circumference is unlikely to fluctuate beyond a small range in

a small period of time, this seems more acceptable to me as a

standard.

I would like to know if the same sort of measurement has been

attempted with a different body part, say the area directly above

the knee. My idea for this is completely unscientifically founded

but it seems that this area tends to change more in circumference

with regard to firmness (which I tend to equate more with health

than size). *Shrug* [i'm going to add this to my list of 'curious

about it but don't know and should probably just be focusing on my

own health until I get it right'. for now]

Peace by piece all,

Eri G.

[Guest guest]

Ah problems with BMI, one of my favorite subjects along with macro nutrient

ratios. :-) Besides the basic math flaw, there is another distortion, namely

fat and muscle which have notably different specific gravity or density.

Despite my distaste for " easy " metrics perhaps there's a way to combine the

two to somewhat correct or mitigate the errors. One notable problem with BMI

shows up in athletes and weight lifters whose extra muscle mass make them

appear overweight, these same individuals are likely to have lower than

typical waist to height ratios for a given weight or BMI. Of course there

may also be sexual distortions involved in both. First because healthy women

typically carry a little more fat than men (related to supporting

pregnancy), and clearly have a different shape than men (viva la

difference).

Of course one is also inclined to yawn and say so what. I don't need a new

metric to tell me that an individual whose belly is hanging over his belt is

a candidate for heart disease and type II diabetes.

JR

-----Original Message-----

From: Eri Gentry [mailto:erica.gentry@...]

Sent: Monday, June 28, 2004 8:09 PM

Subject: [ ] Re: Waist-to-Height Ratio - WC/H

Just to add my #s to the pool:

-- 26.5 " /69 " (measured at 8:30 PM) = 0.384

-- BMI = 18.3

I have been practicing CR for 2 years.

This measure is interesting; I can see how it would be more accurate

to the general population, based on some mathematical problems with

calculating BMI. --> [below, I include a quickly-found quote]

" BMI is fundamentally mathematically flawed. It is based on the

assumption that the mass of a particular shaped object of fixed

density is proportional to the square of its dimension. It's

actually proportional to the cube as even the most cursory

examination of the geometry involved would show.

The effect is the any conclusions drawn from BMI become less valid

the further from the mean height the individual is. In particular,

tall people have an incorrectly high BMI and short ones have an

incorrectly low BMI. A consequence of that is that men (taller than

population mean) will be incorrectly judged as overweight or obese

as compared with women. "

[i don't know how accurate this statement is, but some " back-of-the-

envelope " math on cubes vs. squares is enough to convince me that

there is something " flawed " about BMI as a standard... which is no

argument -- it just seems to be a question of which flawed standard

is less flawed for the general populace.]

-- An item of personal note is that my waist has remained unchanged

for a year, while my BMI has dropped (significantly?) from 19.3 to

18.4. Weight fluctuates for any number of reason (mostly with

vegetable and water intake), while, of course, height does not. As

waist circumference is unlikely to fluctuate beyond a small range in

a small period of time, this seems more acceptable to me as a

standard.

I would like to know if the same sort of measurement has been

attempted with a different body part, say the area directly above

the knee. My idea for this is completely unscientifically founded

but it seems that this area tends to change more in circumference

with regard to firmness (which I tend to equate more with health

than size). *Shrug* [i'm going to add this to my list of 'curious

about it but don't know and should probably just be focusing on my

own health until I get it right'. for now]

Peace by piece all,

Eri G.

[Guest guest]

Hi Eri:

As a practical matter (notwithstanding that the weight of a cube or

sphere is proportional to the cube of its side/radius) weight in

humans is nowhere near proportional to the cube of height. It isn't

precisely proportional to the square of height either. But it is

closer to the square than to the cube.

(I don't believe it. Am I sort of defending the BMI here? !!!)

From the numbers I have crunched on this over the years I have come

to the conclusion that the BMI formula was the closest relatively

SIMPLE calculation that could be derived from the Metropolitan Life

weight-for-height tables - in a single number format.

This simplified things because it substituted essentially one scale -

20, 25, 30 BMIs for everyone, rather than having to have a different

set of numbers for every conceivable increment in height, for males

and for females, separately - as in the old weight-for-height

tables. But BMI doesn't exactly fit those old tabulated data either

because the relation is not linear, especially at the higher end of

the height scale.

The PRINCIPAL problem with BMI, in my view, is that it has the same

faults as the weight-for-height tables. They take no account of

higher or lower than average amounts of muscle and bone. So

the 'acceptable range' has to be hopelessly wide in order to

accomodate the most and least muscular and bony people. The result

is that the high end of the range has to be between 30% and 40% above

the low end of the range - BMIs from 18 - 25, or in the case of my

height, using the old tables, an acceptable weight range of 135 - 175

pounds.

Data like that, clearly, tell one next to nothing about what one's

appropriate is, that one couldn't have figured out just by looking in

a mirror, naked. Of course another problem with BMI and height-for-

weight tables is that the recommendation was hopelessly skewed to the

upside - as all of those with a little knowledge of CR understand.

I am sure the WC/H ratio is not perfect either. But I can well

believe it may be less bad than the others.

Rodney.

> Just to add my #s to the pool:

>

> -- 26.5 " /69 " (measured at 8:30 PM) = 0.384

>

> -- BMI = 18.3

>

> I have been practicing CR for 2 years.

>

> This measure is interesting; I can see how it would be more

accurate

> to the general population, based on some mathematical problems with

> calculating BMI. --> [below, I include a quickly-found quote]

>

> " BMI is fundamentally mathematically flawed. It is based on the

> assumption that the mass of a particular shaped object of fixed

> density is proportional to the square of its dimension. It's

> actually proportional to the cube as even the most cursory

> examination of the geometry involved would show.

>

> The effect is the any conclusions drawn from BMI become less valid

> the further from the mean height the individual is. In particular,

> tall people have an incorrectly high BMI and short ones have an

> incorrectly low BMI. A consequence of that is that men (taller than

> population mean) will be incorrectly judged as overweight or obese

> as compared with women. "

>

> [i don't know how accurate this statement is, but some " back-of-the-

> envelope " math on cubes vs. squares is enough to convince me that

> there is something " flawed " about BMI as a standard... which is no

> argument -- it just seems to be a question of which flawed standard

> is less flawed for the general populace.]

>

> -- An item of personal note is that my waist has remained unchanged

> for a year, while my BMI has dropped (significantly?) from 19.3 to

> 18.4. Weight fluctuates for any number of reason (mostly with

> vegetable and water intake), while, of course, height does not. As

> waist circumference is unlikely to fluctuate beyond a small range

in

> a small period of time, this seems more acceptable to me as a

> standard.

>

> I would like to know if the same sort of measurement has been

> attempted with a different body part, say the area directly above

> the knee. My idea for this is completely unscientifically founded

> but it seems that this area tends to change more in circumference

> with regard to firmness (which I tend to equate more with health

> than size). *Shrug* [i'm going to add this to my list of 'curious

> about it but don't know and should probably just be focusing on my

> own health until I get it right'. for now]

>

> Peace by piece all,

>

> Eri G.

[Guest guest]

I think the search for a metric to define what is health or what is longevity is fraught with all kind of exceptions. I like the metric of what I can pick up (weight - not ladies). As long as I can pick up my heaviest child/gchild (215#), I feel pretty good. Another is can I put on my shoes standing up.

A lot of my friends couldn't see their shoes.

I do another thing when I'm waiting or observing the squirrels, eg. I rise up on my toes, bend my knees slightly, lean over a bit, stretch my arms out level and balance there for a cupla minutes. Kinda like the getting ready to dive stance.

That develops strength in the calve/leg muscles to keep control of balance in cases where I might slip and fall.

I think situps are prime for back muscles (psoas) as well as abs. Some cannot do a single sit-up. These are not just good exercises - they are indicators of physical health and maybe age.

I saw a plump lady, lay on her back, arms out to the side, raise her feet into the air and then raise her pelvis (her largest part) a noticeable distance off the floor. I can't do that. I saw another plump lady place both hands flat on the floor without bending her knees. I can't do that either.

So I have to have a set of metrics that fit me. I can't out run JR, but I can pick him up. That has to suffice.

Regards.

----- Original Message -----

From: apricot85

Sent: Monday, June 28, 2004 6:50 PM

Subject: Re: [ ] Re: Waist-to-Height Ratio - WC/H

Could it also be that genetic body type would play a role in deciphering the ratio? For instance, what if two people that have the same body fat, but one has genetically more muscular with disproportionately lower height, while the other is taller than average & like his whole family line he has slim muscles? Just wondering.