Whether you’re a beauty novice or a confirmed fashionista, this topic is for consulting Mumsnetters on all things style-related. Plus, check out our Swears By page for the inside track on the next Mumsnet must-have.
I've always considered myself slim as my BMI is 19.4, and I'm a size 10. But was doing some calculations yesterday and found my shape puts me inthe apple category- and at risk of heart disease, diabetes etc.
I've been battling with a few inches round my waist for some time - used to be 24 inches when i was 21, now a whopping 29. My hips are 35-35 so this makes my ratio 0.82 (Divide waist by hips.)
Evidently anything over 8 is the danger zone, and 0.75 is the Marilyn Monroe desirable figure.
I am now trying to lose 3-4 lbs that will take me back to where I ought to be.
I'm sorry but it's not nonsense, This was on a site by Dr Marliyn Glenville who is a respected nutritionist. Fat stored around the middle is an indicator of internal fat around the major organs- which is very dangerous. This is well known and there was once a TV programme showing a guy who was pretty slim ( tiny belly) but when looked at with Mri imaging etc he was at risk because his arteries were pretty furred up.
Mine's 0.77. Waist 27, Hips 35. (5'5", size 8, 8st 11lbs for full disclosure!)
I'm not sure I really get it though...my hip/waist ratio has always been ok, even when I was a lot bigger. (Used to be almost 14st and a size 18.) Surely being obese but with a healthy hip/waist ratio doesn't make sense? And yet that's what I had...
More and more is being discovered about where fat is stored. It's much healtheir to be a pear shape ( women)- this has been known for quite some time. Fat on the hips, bum and thighs is healthier fat than that around the wasit. So yes, being obese is not good news anyway, but slim people with fat tunmmies are at risk just as much.
I know that if I lost 3-4 lbs then I;d get my ratio down to yours which is what I need to do- because my waist is bigger than it's ever been and several pairs of trousers don't fit now , when they did 4 years ago.
That's interesting. I think I'm lucky as I'm an hourglass (35-27-35) and am when heavier too, though when I look at my mum she has teeny little legs and an enormous stomach, and used to be very slender...so I'm worried that when the middle-aged-flab hits that's where it'll go!
Mine is just under I think. 29" waist and 42" hips! Definitely not an apple. As a poster up thread notes, my mother was very thin, straight up and down with slim thighs, small bust, etc. As she went past her 40s all her weight went on to her stomach. Mine seems to be going on everywhere more equally
Mine's 0.74, but tbh I'm not sure it really works like that. I'm very small boned so my ratio seems to be ok, BUT I have lots of fat on my stomach (and hips as well)- you can easily grab a handful. OTOH I am rather slim (size 8-10, 5'8").
So perhaps instead of ratio it's better to focus on getting rid of fat, as some people will have wide waists (and so undesirable waist-hips ratio) no matter what.
Gym I agree with you- 100% about her qualifications but if you look at her website she is a member of the Royal College of Medicine though I expect her PhD is in a humanities subject not dietetics- will investigate.
Fat stored around the middle is an indicator of internal fat around the major organs is true, but if you're like any --40+ mother of 3 --me my waist is big because it's flabby rather than fat. There's no fat there, it's just that the abdominal muscles are weak!
Mine is 0.72 now ( 5ft 3, 8stone 3, size 8 ish). I've always been a pear but since 40 I've found more weight has gone on my middle, so I started to look more and more solid. I recently lost a stone on a low-carb diet and measured myself regularly and it was mostly my waist measurement that dropped from 28.5 to 25.5, my hips barely changed at all and my thighs went down a bit (but nowhere near enough for my liking!!!)
Does that mean my organ fat has gone down? Hope so!
I'm not sure I believe this, I have a very low BMI and healthy weight for my height yet imagine would fail this test horribly as I have no waist (not because i have excess fat but more because I have a wide rib cage) and narrow hips - there is only a few inches difference between my waist and hip measurement.
It's true but as you age fat starts to be stored around the middle more and more. I would look at your glucose intake and insulin resistance status. If you are even slightly insulin resistant then you are more likely to store fat on the waist. Smoking also causes fat on the waist because it messes about with how your blood uses sugar and insulin. A lower sugar diet might help you. The other issue is where you measure the waist and hips. There is some controversy over this.
It's not nonsense. Unfortunately for me! WHR is way more important than bmi in assessing risk. There's a Lancet research paper on it if you want a really respected source. It is an indicator of internal fat, if you are an apple you have to remain very slim indeed to reduce your risks. It's not infallible, its a risk measure. Eg liposuction can give you a small waist by removing subcutaneous fat but won't decrease your risks.
Yes but like Rowing, and dare I suggest it the OP, some of us are so skinny that there's not really any fat anywhere and it becomes more about the ratio of your hip bones to what is left of your waist - and both are tiny.
When I was very anorexic, my waist must have been around 25 and my hips probably 28ish - though I'm guessing - and that's a tiny ratio but when you're 6 stone and 5ft7, it definitely doesn't mean you have too much fat anywhere.
I mean if you're overweight AND have a large stomach measurement and smaller hips, that might well be relevant, but when you've virtually no fat anyway - it makes no sense.