Ideal Female Measurements

likitisplit

Danish researchers from the Institute of Preventative Medicine in Copenhagen have quantified the ideal woman, from the standpoint of cardiovascular health. She wears a size 14, has hips that are 40 inches or greater, and is pear-shaped, with muscle and fat on her hips, but not so much on her belly.

Women who are apple shaped, with fat on their tummies, are more at risk for heart disease, diabetes, and high blood pressure. Men tend to store their fat in their bellies, so they are correspondingly more at risk than women for these diseases.

Fat stored on the stomach tends to be more readily available to the blood, while fat on the hips can produce a helpful hormone.

A Scottish researcher cautions that the new findings do not mean that women who are overweight are healthier. It’s more the distribution of the weight than the amount, and women should still strive for a body mass index (BMI) less than 25 and a waist measurement less than 32 inches (the guys should shoot for 37 inches or less).

I'm assuming that this is for an average 5' 5' female. But I found it interesting that this is a different standard than "as skinny as possible." After all, fat does have important metabolic functions.

http://calorielab.com/news/2005/06/06/ideal-woman-size-14-40-hips-pear-shaped/

neandermagnon

it is interesting from the point of view that "as skinny as possible" isn't what's best for health

but regarding size 14 and 40 inch hips - that does not take into account frame size. Some women have wider pelvises than others, and that will contribute to the hip measurement, if what they're talking about is an ideal amount of fat on the hips for hormonal reasons, then the ideal hip size is going to vary depending on the size of the pelvis and the size of the glutes, not just the amount of fat. Same with waist size, some women have thicker waists than others due to how the abdominal muscles attach to the bones, and also on the skeletal structure itself. For a woman with a totally average frame, those measurements may be ideal, but for a small framed woman they would be less than that and for a large framed woman, more than that. Plus I highly doubt there's one *exact* ideal measurement, more likely that there's a healthy range.

Also, how the body stores fat, i.e. whether you're more of an "apple" or a "pear" seems to be beyond someone's control. You can't just choose to be an apple or a pear, like you can choose to lose weight. You lose weight, you're still an apple, you still have belly flab when your hips and boobs are becoming non-existant....

likitisplit

I was keying in to the waist measurement as a measure of healthiness, but can see the issue with the "one true size."

However, I'm at 28% body fat, 5'9", an apple and have never had much of a waist. I'm just over the American recommendation of 35" and right on waist vs. height proportion. It's a pretty generous measurement.

I'm really beginning to like waist measurement as a way of informing us when a diet is truly medically necessary and when we should improve our health by eating quality foods and moving more.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/10054519/Waist-to-height-ratio-more-accurate-than-BMI.html

neandermagnon

I remember that from when I was at uni... i.e. reading studies that showed waist/height measurements were more reliable than BMI at predicting obesity.... I graduated in 2000... it begs the question why it takes so long for these things to be widely accepted. BMI is known to be a very poor tool yet it's still widely used....

I have heard some more recent research that suggests waist size alone is better than waist/height. I can see the rationale behind that up to a point, one problem with waist/height is that frame size doesn't correlate with height, i.e. you get short, large framed people and tall, small framed people. According to waist/height, my waist is only just below the acceptable size, but my body fat percentage is well in the healthy range, Jackson Pollack puts me at 20% body fat, other methods a little higher than that. My height is 61 inches and my waist is 29 inches. That is within what they say is the healthy range, but I should be within that range at up to 28% body fat. I'm short, I have a large frame and very little waist (there's about 1 inch from the bottom of my rib cage to the top of my pelvis). My rib cage is larger than average for women of any height (and huge compared to my height!), so why would my waist be smaller relative to my height if my rib cage isn't? But women with tiny rib cages (of any height) would have a smaller waist.

I think that waist size is the way to go for a quick and easy method for indicating obesity, seeing as fat around the waist is where the actual health risk is, it's just they need to adjust the measurement according to the size of the rib cage and/or pelvis.

likitisplit

So waist/hip rather than waist/height. I could go with that. I'm actually pretty on board with just waist...but I'm a standard deviation from the average female height and there are plenty of women who are the size of one of my thighs even when I'm fit.

Thanks bunches for the explanation!!!