Data for Waist-to-Hip Ratio

November 5, 2005

Hi folks:

May I encourage everyone to enter their own data for waist-to-hip

ratio in the new column now added to Francesca's table in the

Database section (accessible by clicking 'Database' in the left

panel, then click 'BMI & WC/H info'. Simply measure waist and hip

and divide the first by the second.)

It looks like we may learn something quite significant from these

data. The two individuals who have already entered their data (JW

and Rodney) show dramatic contrasts. While JW has considerably

**higher** BMI, BF% and WC/Height, he has a considerably **lower**

waist-to-hip ratio.

The latest INTERHEART paper, posted earlier, suggests that a smaller

waist-to-hip ratio is appreciably more important for IHD health than

a lower BMI. So it would be extremely interesting to see how big the

divergences are for group members between waist-to-hip measurement

and the other three measures already in the database table.

I find it interesting that my number, 0.97, is well above the

suggested threshold of 0.90, while everyone tells me I am " slim " and

some people, including one physician, tell me that I am " too slim " .

And while I currently weigh 13 pounds less than I did (my set point?)

at age 22 when I was training six days a week for fairly high level

competitive endurance sports.

I am also puzzled, after taking some measurements and doing some

calculations, to conclude that it seems that even if I lost **all**

the remaining fat around my waist I would still not get close to the

0.90 threshold. So does that mean that in order to get down to 0.89,

and therefore register as healthy by this criterion, that I need to

lose a lot of my innards as well as fat? Currently a squeeze of the

fat around my waist varies in thickness (two layers of fat between

the fingers) between half an inch and five eighths of an inch. So

the fat layer appears to be about one quarter inch thick.

It is a pity that the INTERHEART paper compared only waist-to-hip

with BMI. It would have been interesting to have seen the results

comparing with BF% and waist-to-height also. It would also be

interesting to see the relationship between all these measures and

CVD risk factors (lipids, etc.) also. I have not seen the full text

of the paper, so perhaps they do?

TIA for any data added to the database.

Rodney.

November 5, 2005

Hi Rodney,

I wonder how applicable this waist-to-hip ratio guideline is for

people with very narrow builds - i.e. slim hips?

I watched a yoga class work out yesterday and noticed a woman who

looked like a beanpole - narrow waist and narrow hips and another who

was equally thin, but her hips were wide. (I wondered if she had knee

problems because her knees came together at such an oblique angle.)

Neither woman had much body fat. Although the woman with wide hips

had a better waist/hip ratio that the beanpole, I doubt she had a

lower risk of heart disease. There wasn't much fat around the waist

of either woman. I think you're probably safe, despite your W/H ratio.

I don't think my raio could get much smaller without shrinking my

organs. I have very small hips, which unfortunately forced me to have

two Cesarean sections. My mother-in-law is a large woman with lots of

body fat but a good W/H ratio because she has very wide hips (9 kids,

no C-sections). This W/H guideline might be good for evaluating the

heart risk of large populations, but as individuals it makes more

sense to look at the bigger picture, like your blood lipids, etc.

Diane

November 5, 2005