Waist Hip Measurements

[Guest guest]

OK folks:

Perhaps we had better discuss just exactly WHERE on your body are you

taking these measurements from which you are calculating your 'waist-

to-hip ratios'?

It appears that different 'authorities' define where to measure

differently.

Some define " hip " as being at a location I would define as " the

widest point of the " butt " - which in my case is about six inches

lower than my navel. Others on the other hand define it the way I

do, which is the body circumference in the middle of (about two

inches below the top of) the hard **hip** bone - which in my case is

two to three inches below navel level.

So are we measuring BUTT circumference, or HIP BONE circumference?

It probably doesn't much matter which definition we choose, but the

data will be completely useless if we don't all use the same

definitions.

My narrowest waist measure is two to three inches above my navel

level.

Here is one source which uses the definition I have been using for

making measurements:

" Where to Measure

1. Measure waist at the navel in men, and midway between the bottom

of the ribs and the top of the hip bone in women.

2. Measure hips at the tip of the hip bone in men and at the widest

point between the hips and buttocks in women.

3. Divide your waist size at its smallest by your hip size at its

largest and you get a Waist-to-Hip ratio. "

http://www.nutrition.com.sg/ha/hawhr.asp

Here is how various measurements work out for me:

Waist:

At narrowest point ......... 32.5 " .

At navel ................... 34.0 " .

Hip:

At hip bone ................ 35.0 "

At widest point of butt .... 38.9 "

So what number should I be using?

32.5 divided by 38.9 equals 0.835.

34.0 divided by 35.0 equals 0.971.

Huge difference.

So if we do not standardized the way we take the measurements, then

there is no point in doing the calculation.

And by the way, we had also all better be pulling the tape to the

same degree of tightness for both measurements, LOLOL.

Rodney.

[Guest guest]

We went from weight/height tables to using BMI as a measure of overweight and

obesity and risk.. Then, there are studies that suggest that waist

circumference may be the better measure for determining risk (CVD, DB etc).

Now, this study says that w/h is better than BMI. And % BF has been around

for a while as a measure.

I dont think we can use any one measure, nor should we. We know that BMI and

Ht/Wt dont work for everyone (ie, those who have lots of muscle) . And, you can

have a great ht/wt, great BMI, great waist circumference, but a high BF with low

muscle mass.

I have always recommended that we look at BMI, Wst Circumference, % Body Fat and

having all 3 within normal ranges is best, but 2 is better than anyone 1.

Now, add in w/h and see how we fair in relation to the 4 of them. If three out

of 4 are above normal, than there may be a problem. If only one of four are

above normal, I dont think I would worry.

Now, who is going to create the regression formula for the four variables with a

new scale of risk combining all four into one number.

I Will be glad to co write the paper with you.

Regards

Jeff

[Guest guest]

We went from weight/height tables to using BMI as a measure of overweight and

obesity and risk.. Then, there are studies that suggest that waist

circumference may be the better measure for determining risk (CVD, DB etc).

Now, this study says that w/h is better than BMI. And % BF has been around

for a while as a measure.

I dont think we can use any one measure, nor should we. We know that BMI and

Ht/Wt dont work for everyone (ie, those who have lots of muscle) . And, you can

have a great ht/wt, great BMI, great waist circumference, but a high BF with low

muscle mass.

I have always recommended that we look at BMI, Wst Circumference, % Body Fat and

having all 3 within normal ranges is best, but 2 is better than anyone 1.

Now, add in w/h and see how we fair in relation to the 4 of them. If three out

of 4 are above normal, than there may be a problem. If only one of four are

above normal, I dont think I would worry.

Now, who is going to create the regression formula for the four variables with a

new scale of risk combining all four into one number.

I Will be glad to co write the paper with you.

Regards

Jeff

[Guest guest]

I take mine at my waist defined as that point where my belt lies around my waist, not dipping into my belly. Right across my navel. Don't pull it tight.

My hip is that point where the hip bone is the widest, also seems to be at the max of the gluteus maximus.

Maybe your gluts are flat. Mine are flatter than they used to be.

Imagine trying to measure thousands of patients and enter the data. How accurate can it be? If you assume a measurement error of 10%, the variation can be 0.36 for a 36" waist, 40" hip person.

Let's guess the average is 0.18. With a 5% error, the average is 0.09.

Regards.

[ ] Waist Hip Measurements

OK folks:Perhaps we had better discuss just exactly WHERE on your body are you taking these measurements from which you are calculating your 'waist-to-hip ratios'? It appears that different 'authorities' define where to measure differently. Some define "hip" as being at a location I would define as "the widest point of the "butt" - which in my case is about six inches lower than my navel. Others on the other hand define it the way I do, which is the body circumference in the middle of (about two inches below the top of) the hard **hip** bone - which in my case is two to three inches below navel level.So are we measuring BUTT circumference, or HIP BONE circumference? It probably doesn't much matter which definition we choose, but the data will be completely useless if we don't all use the same definitions.My narrowest waist measure is two to three inches above my navel level.Here is one source which uses the definition I have been using for making measurements:"Where to Measure1. Measure waist at the navel in men, and midway between the bottom of the ribs and the top of the hip bone in women.2. Measure hips at the tip of the hip bone in men and at the widest point between the hips and buttocks in women.3. Divide your waist size at its smallest by your hip size at its largest and you get a Waist-to-Hip ratio."http://www.nutrition.com.sg/ha/hawhr.aspHere is how various measurements work out for me:Waist:At narrowest point ......... 32.5".At navel ................... 34.0".Hip:At hip bone ................ 35.0"At widest point of butt .... 38.9"So what number should I be using?32.5 divided by 38.9 equals 0.835.34.0 divided by 35.0 equals 0.971.Huge difference.So if we do not standardized the way we take the measurements, then there is no point in doing the calculation.And by the way, we had also all better be pulling the tape to the same degree of tightness for both measurements, LOLOL.Rodney.

[Guest guest]

I take mine at my waist defined as that point where my belt lies around my waist, not dipping into my belly. Right across my navel. Don't pull it tight.

My hip is that point where the hip bone is the widest, also seems to be at the max of the gluteus maximus.

Maybe your gluts are flat. Mine are flatter than they used to be.

Imagine trying to measure thousands of patients and enter the data. How accurate can it be? If you assume a measurement error of 10%, the variation can be 0.36 for a 36" waist, 40" hip person.

Let's guess the average is 0.18. With a 5% error, the average is 0.09.

Regards.

[ ] Waist Hip Measurements

OK folks:Perhaps we had better discuss just exactly WHERE on your body are you taking these measurements from which you are calculating your 'waist-to-hip ratios'? It appears that different 'authorities' define where to measure differently. Some define "hip" as being at a location I would define as "the widest point of the "butt" - which in my case is about six inches lower than my navel. Others on the other hand define it the way I do, which is the body circumference in the middle of (about two inches below the top of) the hard **hip** bone - which in my case is two to three inches below navel level.So are we measuring BUTT circumference, or HIP BONE circumference? It probably doesn't much matter which definition we choose, but the data will be completely useless if we don't all use the same definitions.My narrowest waist measure is two to three inches above my navel level.Here is one source which uses the definition I have been using for making measurements:"Where to Measure1. Measure waist at the navel in men, and midway between the bottom of the ribs and the top of the hip bone in women.2. Measure hips at the tip of the hip bone in men and at the widest point between the hips and buttocks in women.3. Divide your waist size at its smallest by your hip size at its largest and you get a Waist-to-Hip ratio."http://www.nutrition.com.sg/ha/hawhr.aspHere is how various measurements work out for me:Waist:At narrowest point ......... 32.5".At navel ................... 34.0".Hip:At hip bone ................ 35.0"At widest point of butt .... 38.9"So what number should I be using?32.5 divided by 38.9 equals 0.835.34.0 divided by 35.0 equals 0.971.Huge difference.So if we do not standardized the way we take the measurements, then there is no point in doing the calculation.And by the way, we had also all better be pulling the tape to the same degree of tightness for both measurements, LOLOL.Rodney.

[Guest guest]

Even 4 diff equations is out of my league, especially for medical stuff. I would use a chaotic approach.

There is another factor - what does my doc think?

My doc no longer worries my weight, or how I look. She worries nits like the exact TSH level, or creatinine, or Hba1c. Really gets annoyed that nothing is ever wrong.

I take that as a guide for my health.

But I know a guy that goes to Mayo twice per year and can afford the absolute best in medical evaluation (so why not TMC I wonder-ha). His wife, 10 yrs younger, died last year of cancer. So I know the best I can do is use the evals that are available, but remember I have to do something more.

And the only thing I can think of is eat as little as possible.

Regards.

RE: [ ] Waist Hip Measurements

We went from weight/height tables to using BMI as a measure of overweight and obesity and risk.. Then, there are studies that suggest that waist circumference may be the better measure for determining risk (CVD, DB etc). Now, this study says that w/h is better than BMI. And % BF has been around for a while as a measure. I dont think we can use any one measure, nor should we. We know that BMI and Ht/Wt dont work for everyone (ie, those who have lots of muscle) . And, you can have a great ht/wt, great BMI, great waist circumference, but a high BF with low muscle mass. I have always recommended that we look at BMI, Wst Circumference, % Body Fat and having all 3 within normal ranges is best, but 2 is better than anyone 1. Now, add in w/h and see how we fair in relation to the 4 of them. If three out of 4 are above normal, than there may be a problem. If only one of four are above normal, I dont think I would worry.Now, who is going to create the regression formula for the four variables with a new scale of risk combining all four into one number. I Will be glad to co write the paper with you. :)RegardsJeff

[Guest guest]

Even 4 diff equations is out of my league, especially for medical stuff. I would use a chaotic approach.

There is another factor - what does my doc think?

My doc no longer worries my weight, or how I look. She worries nits like the exact TSH level, or creatinine, or Hba1c. Really gets annoyed that nothing is ever wrong.

I take that as a guide for my health.

But I know a guy that goes to Mayo twice per year and can afford the absolute best in medical evaluation (so why not TMC I wonder-ha). His wife, 10 yrs younger, died last year of cancer. So I know the best I can do is use the evals that are available, but remember I have to do something more.

And the only thing I can think of is eat as little as possible.

Regards.

RE: [ ] Waist Hip Measurements

We went from weight/height tables to using BMI as a measure of overweight and obesity and risk.. Then, there are studies that suggest that waist circumference may be the better measure for determining risk (CVD, DB etc). Now, this study says that w/h is better than BMI. And % BF has been around for a while as a measure. I dont think we can use any one measure, nor should we. We know that BMI and Ht/Wt dont work for everyone (ie, those who have lots of muscle) . And, you can have a great ht/wt, great BMI, great waist circumference, but a high BF with low muscle mass. I have always recommended that we look at BMI, Wst Circumference, % Body Fat and having all 3 within normal ranges is best, but 2 is better than anyone 1. Now, add in w/h and see how we fair in relation to the 4 of them. If three out of 4 are above normal, than there may be a problem. If only one of four are above normal, I dont think I would worry.Now, who is going to create the regression formula for the four variables with a new scale of risk combining all four into one number. I Will be glad to co write the paper with you. :)RegardsJeff

[Guest guest]

Hi folks:

Following up on the post below, here is how the INTERHEART Study

measured waist and hip:

" Waist and hip circumferences were measured with a non-stretchable

standard tape measure attached to a spring scale at a tension of

750g. Waist circumference was measured over the unclothed abdomen at

the narrowest point between the costal margin and the iliac crest,

and hip circumference was measured over light clothing at the level

of the widest diameter around the buttocks. "

I would encourage everyone to add their waist-to-hip ratio number to

Francesca's " BMI & WC/H info " table in the 'Database' section here

(accessed in the box at top left of the home page). It would be

helpful if we also took trouble to measure ourselves the same way

INTERHEART did, so that our numbers are relevant to the threshold

numbers they mentioned as being healthy. MTIA.

Rodney.

--- In , " Rodney " <perspect1111@y...>

wrote:

>

> OK folks:

>

> Perhaps we had better discuss just exactly WHERE on your body are

you

> taking these measurements from which you are calculating

your 'waist-

> to-hip ratios'?

>

> It appears that different 'authorities' define where to measure

> differently.

>

> Some define " hip " as being at a location I would define as " the

> widest point of the " butt " - which in my case is about six inches

> lower than my navel. Others on the other hand define it the way I

> do, which is the body circumference in the middle of (about two

> inches below the top of) the hard **hip** bone - which in my case

is

> two to three inches below navel level.

>

> So are we measuring BUTT circumference, or HIP BONE circumference?

> It probably doesn't much matter which definition we choose, but the

> data will be completely useless if we don't all use the same

> definitions.

>

> My narrowest waist measure is two to three inches above my navel

> level.

>

> Here is one source which uses the definition I have been using for

> making measurements:

>

> " Where to Measure

>

> 1. Measure waist at the navel in men, and midway between the bottom

> of the ribs and the top of the hip bone in women.

>

> 2. Measure hips at the tip of the hip bone in men and at the widest

> point between the hips and buttocks in women.

>

> 3. Divide your waist size at its smallest by your hip size at its

> largest and you get a Waist-to-Hip ratio. "

>

> http://www.nutrition.com.sg/ha/hawhr.asp

>

> Here is how various measurements work out for me:

>

> Waist:

>

> At narrowest point ......... 32.5 " .

> At navel ................... 34.0 " .

>

> Hip:

>

> At hip bone ................ 35.0 "

> At widest point of butt .... 38.9 "

>

> So what number should I be using?

>

> 32.5 divided by 38.9 equals 0.835.

>

> 34.0 divided by 35.0 equals 0.971.

>

> Huge difference.

>

> So if we do not standardized the way we take the measurements, then

> there is no point in doing the calculation.

>

> And by the way, we had also all better be pulling the tape to the

> same degree of tightness for both measurements, LOLOL.

>

> Rodney.

>

[Guest guest]

Hi folks:

Following up on the post below, here is how the INTERHEART Study

measured waist and hip:

" Waist and hip circumferences were measured with a non-stretchable

standard tape measure attached to a spring scale at a tension of

750g. Waist circumference was measured over the unclothed abdomen at

the narrowest point between the costal margin and the iliac crest,

and hip circumference was measured over light clothing at the level

of the widest diameter around the buttocks. "

I would encourage everyone to add their waist-to-hip ratio number to

Francesca's " BMI & WC/H info " table in the 'Database' section here

(accessed in the box at top left of the home page). It would be

helpful if we also took trouble to measure ourselves the same way

INTERHEART did, so that our numbers are relevant to the threshold

numbers they mentioned as being healthy. MTIA.

Rodney.

--- In , " Rodney " <perspect1111@y...>

wrote:

>

> OK folks:

>

> Perhaps we had better discuss just exactly WHERE on your body are

you

> taking these measurements from which you are calculating

your 'waist-

> to-hip ratios'?

>

> It appears that different 'authorities' define where to measure

> differently.

>

> Some define " hip " as being at a location I would define as " the

> widest point of the " butt " - which in my case is about six inches

> lower than my navel. Others on the other hand define it the way I

> do, which is the body circumference in the middle of (about two

> inches below the top of) the hard **hip** bone - which in my case

is

> two to three inches below navel level.

>

> So are we measuring BUTT circumference, or HIP BONE circumference?

> It probably doesn't much matter which definition we choose, but the

> data will be completely useless if we don't all use the same

> definitions.

>

> My narrowest waist measure is two to three inches above my navel

> level.

>

> Here is one source which uses the definition I have been using for

> making measurements:

>

> " Where to Measure

>

> 1. Measure waist at the navel in men, and midway between the bottom

> of the ribs and the top of the hip bone in women.

>

> 2. Measure hips at the tip of the hip bone in men and at the widest

> point between the hips and buttocks in women.

>

> 3. Divide your waist size at its smallest by your hip size at its

> largest and you get a Waist-to-Hip ratio. "

>

> http://www.nutrition.com.sg/ha/hawhr.asp

>

> Here is how various measurements work out for me:

>

> Waist:

>

> At narrowest point ......... 32.5 " .

> At navel ................... 34.0 " .

>

> Hip:

>

> At hip bone ................ 35.0 "

> At widest point of butt .... 38.9 "

>

> So what number should I be using?

>

> 32.5 divided by 38.9 equals 0.835.

>

> 34.0 divided by 35.0 equals 0.971.

>

> Huge difference.

>

> So if we do not standardized the way we take the measurements, then

> there is no point in doing the calculation.

>

> And by the way, we had also all better be pulling the tape to the

> same degree of tightness for both measurements, LOLOL.

>

> Rodney.

>