Waist to height ratio 'more accurate than BMI'

[tjscott0]

Waist to height ratio 'more accurate than BMI' - Telegraph

Your waist should be no more than half the length of your height, according to experts who claim that having too large a trouser size can dramatically shorten your lifespan.

 

[heeyy_joe]

Especially with a pack of cigarettes in your pocket.

 

[braumeister]

Measuring someone's waist is important because it accounts for levels of central fat which accumulates around the organs

That seems to be the consensus lately: this internal fat in the abdomen is of far more concern than the fat under your skin.

 

[Mulligan]

I will definitely buy into this. I was borderline overweight according to BMI as recently as 5 years ago when I still had 6 pack abs (they have went into permanent retirement, also though). I knew that BMI was a farce. With this type of scale I am at 40% percent. That is more like it...

 

[Fishingmn]

46% so I like this measure

 

[someguy]

This still seems to have a correlation/causation issue, like most articles these days. That said, it seems like this is a valid additional measure and that it may also be more forgiving of different body types (especially those who have a lot of muscle).

I wonder where they measured the waist? I'm around 38% if I measure at the narrow point under my ribs and little more if I measure lower where I normally wear pants. BMI is high 17's.

 

[braumeister]

I wonder where they measured the waist?

The usual rule is "at the top of the hipbone" which is generally right at the navel in most people.

 

[CoolChange]

My waist to height ratio is 45% and my BMI floats between 22 and 24.

Ideally, I would like to get these numbers down to where they were during my undergrad years: Waist to height ratio around 40% and BMI around 20.

 

[rodi]

This makes sense to me. I've read quite a few studies that talk about weight in the abdomen/back areas being more detrimental than weight in the hips.

As a pear shaped, woman (or some would say - bottom heavy) - I hope this is the case... I've had thick thighs and a big butt since puberty... but a relatively small waist, even after having kids.

 

[Arifriekinel]

The usual rule is "at the top of the hipbone" which is generally right at the navel in most people.

I've always been told to measure where the picture at the top of the article measured, at the thinnest part of my abdomen, for the waist. This seems to come up a lot that people measure different for different purposes.

 

[braumeister]

For a lot of people in this country, the thinnest part would be just below the armpits.

 

[Arifriekinel]

For a lot of people in this country, the thinnest part would be just below the armpits.

That's true. I'm at about 36% for my smallest part, which is right at my belly button, and a couple inches above the top of the hip bone. I've got a really long torso and short legs though, so I can imagine it's higher than other normal smallest parts

 

[aaronc879]

I will definitely buy into this. I was borderline overweight according to BMI as recently as 5 years ago when I still had 6 pack abs (they have went into permanent retirement, also though). I knew that BMI was a farce. With this type of scale I am at 40% percent. That is more like it...

I must be doing something wrong. I'm very tall and very thin(6'6" &175lbs) but my % is 42.3. That seem higher than it should considering i've been told many times that i'm the thinnest adult male they've ever seen. My BMI is approx. 20.5

 

[Amethyst]

But how is that internal fat measured? If I use waist-to-height (26 to 67.5) I get .385. But I recently had my body-fat electronically measured (23.5%, which I was told was "lean" for my age, although it does not seem terribly lean to me) and the machine also indicated my visceral fat was only 5%. I really do not understand how all these measurements are related...

Amethyst

That seems to be the consensus lately: this internal fat in the abdomen is of far more concern than the fat under your skin.

 

[Mulligan]

I must be doing something wrong. I'm very tall and very thin(6'6" &175lbs) but my % is 42.3. That seem higher than it should considering i've been told many times that i'm the thinnest adult male they've ever seen. My BMI is approx. 20.5

I know these things are odd, at best.. Mine might be even lower as I just went by my jean size and I wear them very loose. My BMI is about a point from "overweight" and I am no where near overweight.

 

[haha]

But how is that internal fat measured? If I use waist-to-height (26 to 67.5) I get .385. But I recently had my body-fat electronically measured (23.5%, which I was told was "lean" for my age, although it does not seem terribly lean to me) and the machine also indicated my visceral fat was only 5%. I really do not understand how all these measurements are related...

Amethyst

You be a lean, mean, female machine.

Ha

 

[harley]

Cool, so I can quit trying to lose weight? All I need to do is start growing again. I'm off to get one of those inversion tables.

 

[HillCountry]

I think body fat is a better measure.

10 years ago, I was having 6% body fat, and my w/h ratio was 43.

Today, my body fat is 10+%, my w/h ratio is still 43.

In another 10 years, my body fat will be 20-%, and the ratio will still be the same (guesstimate from my parents).

 

[Amethyst]

I'm only mean on occasion, when people deserve it.

Amethyst

You be a lean, mean, female machine.

Ha

 

[VaCollector]

Wow....gonna need to find some way to get taller

 

[eytonxav]

Seems to me, this yet another vague and possibly misleading indicator due to different body types. Some folks have short legs/long legs, long torsos/short torsos or thick or thin torsos, and while it might be a reasonable metric for average body types if there is such a thing, I would not put much credance to it for declaring oneself as being in good shape.

 

[jon-nyc]

For those of you who just took your pants size and divided by your height, you may want to get out the measuring tape. The clothing industry has been gaming sizes for years, knowing that many people will prefer the pants where they fit into the 'smaller' size.

In other words your 34in jeans probably aren't 34"....

 

[someguy]

That's true, but cutting the other way is that with the current low rise trend, most pants are worn substantially below the waist. I wear an indicated pant size at least 2" bigger than my true waist, and figure those pants are probably actually more like 4" bigger than my true waist, because I don't wear high-rise pants and I like them to sit down lower on my hips and to be a little loose.

For those of you who just took your pants size and divided by your height, you may want to get out the measuring tape. The clothing industry has been gaming sizes for years, knowing that many people will prefer the pants where they fit into the 'smaller' size.

In other words your 34in jeans probably aren't 34"....

 

[FinanceDude]

Good thing I am 7'2"...............

 

[Arifriekinel]

That's true, but cutting the other way is that with the current low rise trend, most pants are worn substantially below the waist. I wear an indicated pant size at least 2" bigger than my true waist, and figure those pants are probably actually more like 4" bigger than my true waist, because I don't wear high-rise pants and I like them to sit down lower on my hips and to be a little loose.

I'm not sure I've ever owned a pair of pants that went all the way up to my waist!