Tell me your waist-hip ratio- shocked.

[waistnhips]

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.

Yes, if you hardly have any fat. But realistically that is very few of us. I'm 9 stone with a bmi somewhere around 20, and what fat I have is on my midriff. I don't think my risk (or yours, or the OPs) is huge but if you were a more average weight with this kind of ratio it is more of a risk than being heavier with a better WHR.

But surely you could keep getting thinner and thinner in the pursuit of this ratio and in the end, when there's nothing of you left, you'd be underweight and even more unhealthy and your ratio would be whatever it is when there's no fat anywhere.

When I was that thin, I couldn't shrink any more due to the basic components of my body - you know, skeleton and stuff!
But it didn't change the ratio.

Cross posted - yes I think we agree there.

I'm a short 8/10 and a little overweight at the moment ( that's a guess as I don't weigh myself)
My waist / hip is 24/36 which gives a ratio of 0.67 but I don't feel healthy at the moment and am def carrying excess on my bottom half but thanks to injury (I've been on crutches since the summer) that's proving hard to shift and waist gape has been a lifelong problem was worse when I had a 20ins waist tho!!! I am a proper hourglass shape with big boobs too, ideal for pencil skirts and ball gowns rubbish for jeans

I've got a small waist - 26 and massive hips - 39. But also have quite a bit if fat on the tummy, but it's below the waist. Go figure.

OP, I think it's an excellent indicator in the overweight, but you really have nothing to worry about - it doesn't sound as though you're storing any excess fat around your organs at all. :)

I'm v pear shaped so my ratio is 0.69, though it would have been more pre kids!

I never really put on weight on my waist, conversely, I find it impossible to lose weight on my hips (a bit but not much). My arms, rib cage and face get very thin very quickly.

My mum is the same. Tis genetic. Not much to be done bout it sadly. But I am def not apple!

27 waist 35 hips.

I look quite straight up and down but is was 0.76.

Check me out, I'm curvy!

I've got a 26 inch waist and 37 inch hips. Although my waist looks quite small I have got a bit of a fat stomach.

0.78, 5ft 2, 9 stone 4 (agggh!), waist 30, hips 38, quite flabby

is that bad?

0.74, 25 waist 34 hips, 7st 12, 5'6".

I sound like close to your ideal of 0.75, but I look too thin (illness not dieting!) as I have a bmi of 18.1.

Sounds like there is a range of figures that are OK, just like BMI !

btw I am in my late 40s, and Peri menopausal, so your waist doesn't necessarily go up at this stage of your life!

0.76, and I would say I have seriously wide hips!

As I understood it it's a two step process. Start with the waist measurement, if (for women) it's less than 32" then all is hunky dory and the WHR doesn't really matter. If however the waist measurement is over 32" then you're in the at risk zone (for abdominal obesity) if your WHR is 8.0 or above.

Posted too soon...
Carrying weight around the middle isn't a problem in itself, the issue is carrying EXCESS weight around the middle.

Ideal = waist under 32"
High = 32" - 35"
Very High = above 35"

I have seen very solid evidence to support the WHR as a health indicator for all the reasons discussed above. I do understand, and respect, the science but it does leave me with an unanswered question; because I have quite slender hips for my height, and a non-existent waist, could I overeat my way to better health by increasing my hip size relative to my waist and so reducing my WHR. Not attempting to be glib but am genuinely interested as this ratio does allow heavier pears to be healthier than lighter apples.

27" waist and 39" hips. WHR is 0.69 which is excellent. I too suffer from gaping waist syndrome, although some jeans manufacturers have now woken up to the fact that some of us actually have hips and waists

First, I'm glad some posters have linked or referred to evidence in the Lancet etc.

Second, the person I quoted is well known if you have any interest in diet etc. I don't know what her PhD is in- she keeps that quiet other than to say it;s from Cambridge but she has a BEd ( so started as a teacher?) an MA ( in an arts subject) then a PhD so I agree she is self taught in terms of health- but it's made her very rich- she charges £400 for an appt!

She has spoken on Radio 4 Woman's Hour often and is well known.

That's all a bit BTW because she is just reiterating what is already known.

I don't think it's that my waist is just 29. The whole point of this is that it's a ratio so it 's about the difference between 2 figures- not one figure on its own.

The point I was making is that even just 3-4 lbs when it's all round my waist makes a difference to my health, even though overall I am a healthy weight.

SkyFell so long as your waist measures below 32" there would be no health benefits to be gained from lowering your WHR. If you fall into the "light" apple category (they seem to suggest anyone with a waist of less than 32") you're fine because you're light . It's only once the waist measures over 32" that you may be at risk of excess fat around the organs if your WHR is 8.0 or above.

the whole 32inch thing... right, I am over 6 ft and a 31 inch waist is quite slim on someone my height (size 12 ish)

How can they just give a stupid number like that? Surely a 32 inch waist on someone 4ft10 is more worrying than on someone 6ft 3??

wtf does it all mean

But it can be likened to bra size though waistnhips, the cup size means diddly squat without the back size. In this case the ratio means nothing without the waist size. If your waist is small enough (which at 29" it is) you're not considered to be in the at risk category to start with. If you put on enough weight to increase your waist size by 3 inches (whilst keeping your WHR the same) then yes, it would be a good idea to lose a few pounds, but right now you really don't need to worry.

But it's not just about the ratio. The ratio only comes into play if your waist is bigger than a certain amount. When I'm at my fittest (read thinnest) I'm straight up and down with very little fat so my waist/hip ratio theoretically would be dangerous. When I put fat on it goes to hips and thighs before waist, so I become hourglass-like, which is what I am at the moment, and still have a defined waist. When I was laid up after doing my back in and comfort ate I piled it on round my middle and my waist:hip ratio would probably have been a health concern, justifiably.

So the principle is that you are overweight it matters where you've out it on but if you're a healthy ironing board it's probably ok.

Thanks Lthewife - that does make sense. My next problem is that when I measure my (non-existent) waist it tells me my waist is a whopping 36" but I am sitting here comfortably in a pair of Boden size 12 jeans and their size guide tells me that anyone with my size waist would be a size 20!!! I am aware of vanity sizing but really, a size 12 that is actually a 20??!! Seems a bit extreme to me. Possibly I am not finding my waist measurement? (Also wear Top Shop, M&S, Gap and New Look 12s). Off to remeasure myself :) Oh, my BMI is about 25.5.........

Oops - the girl's an idiot!! Was measuring in the "wrong" direction with my tape so had added several inches to my waist. Phew - panic over. I found this on the Internet which is quite informative in a fairly basic way :)

Damn - my waist is still (just) above the magic 32. Still - it is something to aim for and a good incentive as I try and lose another 10kg!

Well, from what I can see on Strictly Victoria Pendleton has no waist at all, and although she is straight up and down still looks great. I suspect if you are really quite skinny and fit the ratios don't apply. I have a marked tape measure from the British Heart foundation which marks 32" waist as the point of unhealthiness, ( except for asians who are not allowed to be quite so large for some reason).