Is waist-to-hip ratio mostly determined by genetics?

estherdragonbat

I've dropped nearly 100 lbs in 15 months and am now about 15 lbs from the top of my healthy weight range. Over time, my waist and my hip circumferences have both decreased, but they seem to have decreased proportionally. My ratio hovers around 0.87. Realistically, is there anything I can do to get it down to below 0.8, or is this just the way my body is?

lorrpb

Congrats on your loss! It's an amazing accomplishment. My tips:
Focus on losing the last 15, it makes a big difference in how you look.
Follow a progressive strength training program, it makes a big difference in your shape even in maintenance.
Don't worry so much about the specific numeric ratio, it doesn't mean that much.
Great job!

marissafit06

The ratio is going to be based on your body shape. If you are naturally apple shaped you will likely have a higher W-H ratio than someone who is pear shaped. Some people use W-H as a substitute for BMI in order to indicate healthiness. My understanding is that a higher W-H ratio is also correlated with higher risk for heart disease, so they do matter.

bendyourkneekatie

There are definitely things to try, as Lorrpb outlined, but it may just be your shape. I have a ratio of .88 and I really don't think there's much I can do about it. It really can suck

sardelsa

Oh wow that's awesome, great job on the loss!

For the most part it is genetic, a lot of it has to do with bone structure. However, strength training while you lose can help maintain muscle to help, but it is no guarantee. Bodybuilding (putting on muscle) can change it to some extent.. you can increase the size of your glutes (which affects the hips). You can also build up your lats and upper body to give you more of an hour-glass shape. At my leanest I had more of a straight shape, now after building my legs/glutes I am more curvy. Of course this will still depend on genetics and how you put on muscle.

This can all take years and years though.

estherdragonbat

Thanks! I've been doing strength training for about a year, now—dumbbells mostly. I guess I'll keep at it and hope for the best (and try to keep in mind that W-H is one risk factor of several!).

estherdragonbat

marissafit06 wrote: »

The ratio is going to be based on your body shape. If you are naturally apple shaped you will likely have a higher W-H ratio than someone who is pear shaped. Some people use W-H as a substitute for BMI in order to indicate healthiness. My understanding is that a higher W-H ratio is also correlated with higher risk for heart disease, so they do matter.

I've heard the same, which concerns me a bit. That's why I was wondering if there was much I could do to impact it.

marissafit06

Forgot to say it before, but great job on your loss!

estherdragonbat

Thanks!

AnnPT77

At 5'5", 116.8bs (BMI 19.4), mine was 75.5 - inside the targets, but not dramatically, when just a few pounds above theoretically underweight BMI. Genetics is in there for sure (I have a narrow pelvis, and a straight, no-hourglass shape - not a major apple at 116, I assure you).

middlehaitch

Shucks, I was about to post what @AnnPT77 said, almost to the letter.

I'm narrow hipped, but have a large ribcage and shoulders (comparatively). It took until I was close to the bottom of my BMI range to get a 75 reading, 26 waist and 34 hip.

At the top of my normal BMI I was at 87 with a 31 waist and 36 hip.

Sometimes being an apple shape sucks, so yes genes do play a roll.

Keep doing what you are doing @estherdragonbat, you know you have good abs under there (re hospital stay), and have probably got rid of most of the visceral fat, what is left will probably be the last to go.

Cheers, h.

estherdragonbat

Thanks kindly! I will!

rheddmobile

Probably you'll continue to see some improvement. But the final result does depend a lot on genetics.

Speaking from my own experience my waist is finally starting to slim down, after 115 lbs. I'm about 10 lbs down from the top of normal weight now and the waist was the last thing to improve, but it is finally moving in the right direction. The thing is when I was super skinny enough to do modeling in high school and college I never had a delicate waist. I just have a flared lower ribcage. I was never an "apple" back then, when I was young I carried most of my weight in my hips. It wasn't until I got older and less healthy I that put on a giant belly and the insulin resistance along with it. But I never had one of those enviable slim waistlines even at my skinniest because of the way my ribcage is made.

W8WarI

Might I suggest, you determine; your frame size 1st? I use this:

https://medlineplus.gov/ency/imagepages/17182.htm

Since there's 3 frame sizes, I subtract my highest healthiest weight via my lowest then; divide the difference by 3 because the standard weight range, includes all; frame sizes!

This assigns, an even amount of weight; to each frame size & then I chose, the weight ratio; within my frame size!

& congratulations!

amusedmonkey

It's mostly genetic. Unfortunately, it appears that people with a lower waist to hip ratio can get away with a little bit of extra fat, but those with high ratios need to diligently stay within a normal body fat percentage to keep certain disease risks lower. I wonder if there is any research on body shape and visceral fat, because I suspect that's the main issue. I mean someone could have a lot of visceral fat but due to wide hip bones still have a low waist to hip ratio, that person would still have worse odds than a person with less visceral fat but narrow hips and a genetically thicker waist - not from fat. I suspect that's the case but who knows.

I mean I have a waist to hip ratio of 0.74 but I'm obese, still lots of visceral fat left but very wide hip bones. My body fat percentage is higher than average for my weight so I doubt I'm better off risk-wise than someone who is my weight, with larger ratio and lower body fat.

estherdragonbat

I'm average, and, interestingly enough, my goal weight is right about there already. (I'm 5'3"; the range is 108-140. I'm on a wait-list for an RD, but if I reach 130 before I meet with them, my plan has always been to shift to maintenance there.)

yirara

I think a lot is genetics. I have a very wide pelvis (bones) and would need a massive belly to get a high number out of this. But then my hips would get wider as well. So I guess I cannot get unhealthy in that respect

I measure a bit further up on my hips as it’s easier to find the same spot again, thus the hip measurement is actually a bit too low. Hip: 93, waist 67cm.

middlehaitch

Here is a waist to height calculator. It may give a different slant on things.

https://www.health-calc.com/body-composition/waist-to-height-ratio

Cheers, h.

estherdragonbat

Thanks. That one didn't work (dials wouldn't turn) but I found a couple of other sites. It tells me (correctly) that I'm overweight. For now...

AnnPT77

W8WarI wrote: »

Might I suggest, you determine; your frame size 1st? I use this:

https://medlineplus.gov/ency/imagepages/17182.htm

Since there's 3 frame sizes, I subtract my highest healthiest weight via my lowest then; divide the difference by 3 because the standard weight range, includes all; frame sizes!

This assigns, an even amount of weight; to each frame size & then I chose, the weight ratio; within my frame size!

& congratulations!

This sort of thing soooo doesn't work for me. I'm 5'5", have huge hands (ring finger = size 10 at BMI under 20, 13-ish when fat!), 6.5" wrists (when thin - more when fat).

This would suggest, according to such calculators, medium to - more likely - large frame. Not so.

At my recent lowest, BMI 19.4, 116.8 pounds, I had narrow 34.75 hips, wider 26.25" waist, and was far from skeletal, though I prefer to weigh around 120. Not an apple, but not Twiggy (for those who remember her ), either. Even though the wrists say large frame, the important parts, hips and torso, say small frame.

Bodies are individual, even idiosyncratic.

bendyourkneekatie

middlehaitch wrote: »

Here is a waist to height calculator. It may give a different slant on things.

https://www.health-calc.com/body-composition/waist-to-height-ratio

Cheers, h.

Haha that's interesting. It put me at ok. I fiddled around with numbers and figured the highest waist I would have to aim for to get a healthy hip waist ratio, and that would put me well into the 'take care' section of waist height ratio.

Long story short: as always, it's my total and utter lack of hips that is the problem.

yirara

TeacupsAndToning wrote: »

middlehaitch wrote: »

Here is a waist to height calculator. It may give a different slant on things.

https://www.health-calc.com/body-composition/waist-to-height-ratio

Cheers, h.

This is interesting. I put in my stats and it says to "take care." I've always been smaller on-top though and my weight to height is fine. I wonder how good of a guide it is on average.

Yeah, it's equally rubbish for me. I need to take care as well. I'd like to note that I have very little fat on my waist. Actually, there's a sharp big edge between pelvis and waist, and my waist circumference only happens to be 'big' because there is very little space between my very wide pelvis bones and my ribcage. Rubbish.

middlehaitch

Personally I think all these (BMI, waist to hip, waist to height, etc) are reasonable general indicators. But, when it gets down to the nitty gritty, only the individual and their medical consultant(s) can determine if concern is needed, or action needs to be taken.

Here is a bit of a read.....

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0177175
(I am sure there are tons more)

Not a scientist, cheers, h.

rheddmobile

TeacupsAndToning wrote: »

middlehaitch wrote: »

Here is a waist to height calculator. It may give a different slant on things.

https://www.health-calc.com/body-composition/waist-to-height-ratio

Cheers, h.

This is interesting. I put in my stats and it says to "take care." I've always been smaller on-top though and my weight to height is fine. I wonder how good of a guide it is on average.

Take care is what it says when it thinks your waist is too small, not too large.

Azdak

estherdragonbat wrote: »

marissafit06 wrote: »

The ratio is going to be based on your body shape. If you are naturally apple shaped you will likely have a higher W-H ratio than someone who is pear shaped. Some people use W-H as a substitute for BMI in order to indicate healthiness. My understanding is that a higher W-H ratio is also correlated with higher risk for heart disease, so they do matter.

I've heard the same, which concerns me a bit. That's why I was wondering if there was much I could do to impact it.

You have already done a huge amount to “impact” it by losing the weight. I think a higher W/H ratio is more of an indicator of higher-risk conditions than a cause per se. If you are losing weight, have normal blood pressure and normal blood sugar levels, then any “risk” from a higher W/H ratio will be greatly diminished. Just artificially lowering that ratio if you are at normal weight will have little benefit.

Francl27

I do have to wonder about how true it is. I fail to see how someone who has a naturally larger waist will be more at risk than someone who has a small waist, at the same body percentage... it makes absolutely no sense to me. Sounds to me like one of those things that doctors made up to scare people into losing weight, to be honest.

At my lowest I was at 29 inch waist, 35 inch hips, for what it's worth. I do have loose skin that impacts those numbers though, but still. Will never hit that healthy ratio, lol.

LivingtheLeanDream

I think waist and hips are mostly genetics.

My waist at its smallest was 25" and that was when I was in my early 20's, fast forward to late 40s and its now a tad bigger at 25.5 and my hips are 34-35" (last I checked). I weighed around 120lbs in my early 20's and I weigh 125lbs now. (the in between years I got as heavy as 154lbs and my waist was as big as 31" and my hips 40"). As I lost weight the weight came off me fairly evenly.

netitheyeti

the only thing that ever changed my waist/hip ratio was that one year that I got *really* into working out and I guess my body fat % dropped a lot while my weight barely changed


my mom also has really wide hips and a fairly small waist and the ratio seems pretty constant even when she loses or gains some weight

collectingblues

AnnPT77 wrote: »

W8WarI wrote: »

Might I suggest, you determine; your frame size 1st? I use this:

https://medlineplus.gov/ency/imagepages/17182.htm

Since there's 3 frame sizes, I subtract my highest healthiest weight via my lowest then; divide the difference by 3 because the standard weight range, includes all; frame sizes!

This assigns, an even amount of weight; to each frame size & then I chose, the weight ratio; within my frame size!

& congratulations!

This sort of thing soooo doesn't work for me. I'm 5'5", have huge hands (ring finger = size 10 at BMI under 20, 13-ish when fat!), 6.5" wrists (when thin - more when fat).

This would suggest, according to such calculators, medium to - more likely - large frame. Not so.

At my recent lowest, BMI 19.4, 116.8 pounds, I had narrow 34.75 hips, wider 26.25" waist, and was far from skeletal, though I prefer to weigh around 120. Not an apple, but not Twiggy (for those who remember her ), either. Even though the wrists say large frame, the important parts, hips and torso, say small frame.

Bodies are individual, even idiosyncratic.

Yup. Whereas you have me, 5'4", mid 120s, 34.5 bust, 34.5 hips ... and one heck of a rib cage with a 32" underbust, and a waist of 28.5 inches where the rib cage ends and my waist technically is (I'm short waisted -- those silly organs have to go somewhere!). My pelvis is fairly narrow, but thanks to varsity swim in high school, I've got shoulders like a linebacker, and my grandfather's rib cage.

Wrist? Pretty tiny. Elbow? Widest part of my arms.

Depending on what calculator I use, I either get small (if it's wrist based) or large. I'd never consider myself large framed, but I am definitely not as petite as my wrist, hips and bust would have you believe.

MrsPinterest34

I agree with others it's based on genetics. I'm sure weight training can help with the ratio but I'm not sure how significant of an impact. If you were born pear-shaped, ruler, apple, or hourglass that's pretty much your shape for life. You can't really change your bone structure. I actually want to increase my ratio just little but it's not happening. I have wide hip bones. At 175lb, size12-14, my waist was 30in and hips 48in. My W:H ratio was 0.6. After losing 36 pounds, currently I'm 139lbs, my waist is 26.5 inch and hips 42.5in and my ratio is 0.62. Not really much of a difference after losing 36 pounds. I'm just going to embrace my pear shape for life. Great job on the weight loss op and keep it up!

estherdragonbat

That's more or less what I was expecting. It's a serenity prayer thing: "Grant me the serenity to accept the risk factors I cannot change, the courage/determination/knowledge to change the ones I can, and the wisdom to know the difference."

I know just shedding the extra pounds and getting more fit have done a lot to improve my health and reduce the risks, but I was curious as to whether there was anything else. (I'm doing progressive strength training, too, so there's that.) If not, then I guess it's serenity time and I'll keep working on hitting goal and if the W-H ratio shrinks, it'll be a bonus!