Weight to height ratio better indicator than BMI, thoughts?

Options

Replies

  • soggypuppet
    soggypuppet Posts: 12 Member
    Options
    "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. "

    Well, my first thought is that I better start getting taller! Having said that, I just checked my own waist to height ratio and it is the suggested ratio. According to the BMI tool on MFP I am a healthy weight (barely) but I personally feel that I should lose at least 7 more pounds before I'm at a healthy weight. I was at that weight last year and felt fine so I know it's not too light. (I've been too light and I know what that feels like.) I'm not sure that either guideline takes body type into account.
  • Josalinn
    Josalinn Posts: 1,066 Member
    Options
    Well that puts my vanity goal of a 22" waist in the toilet
  • larryc0923
    larryc0923 Posts: 557 Member
    Options
    I am 6ft 3inches (or 75 inches) so waist size should be 37.5 inches. Current waist size is 38.75 or 1.25inces over target waist size. For me this probably means I need to lose about 8.5 lbs more because so far I have lost 1 inch of waist size for every 6.75 lbs. This would put me right at 199-200lbs. Shazam!! this is my current target and it puts me at the very high end of the healthy weight range as calculated by MFPs BMI app.
  • JohnnyCashMoney
    JohnnyCashMoney Posts: 142
    Options
    i'm agin it!
  • CMB1979
    CMB1979 Posts: 588 Member
    Options
    Doesn't take body shape or muscle mass into consideration? A good indicator but still best to get a real body composition test.
  • SmartAlec03211988
    SmartAlec03211988 Posts: 1,896 Member
    Options
    Half my height is 30 inches.

    My waist is 32 inches.

    Looks like I gotta lose a couple inches off that waist!
  • reztib
    reztib Posts: 151 Member
    Options
    I saw this earlier and posted it on my blog. I have always thought the BMI was a good ballpark for health but I knew there had to be a more accurate method. I would love to see more research on this but what I saw in the article sounds pretty much on point.
  • wild_wild_life
    wild_wild_life Posts: 1,334 Member
    Options
    Interesting, thanks for posting. I'm not sure what the BMI actually predicts, but it sounds like waist to height ratio is actually correlated with something concrete (lifespan) which is cool.

    I thought this sentence was odd:

    "The beauty is that you can do it in centimetres or inches, it doesn't matter."

    Can you do it in leagues or micrometers?

    Basically this means fat on the lower body doesn't matter, which is good news for a lot of women out there.
  • Kanlassak
    Kanlassak Posts: 101 Member
    Options
    Like any of the other simple guidelines, it's an average and will be accurate for the normal (in this case normally proportioned) people. At 5'7" and 195 lbs (and not primarily muscle) hardly anyone would say I'm at an ideal weight, but because I have a significant hourglass my waist is only 33 inches, which is fine by this standard.
  • Ge0rgiana
    Ge0rgiana Posts: 1,649 Member
    Options
    According to BMI, I'm obese. According to waist to height or waist to hip, I'm a cardiologist's dream. I like waist measurements better. :bigsmile:
  • wild_wild_life
    wild_wild_life Posts: 1,334 Member
    Options
    Like any of the other simple guidelines, it's an average and will be accurate for the normal (in this case normally proportioned) people. At 5'7" and 195 lbs (and not primarily muscle) hardly anyone would say I'm at an ideal weight, but because I have a significant hourglass my waist is only 33 inches, which is fine by this standard.

    I would interpret it as saying that visceral fat is more associated with diseases that shorten lifespan than fat in other areas. I don't think it only refers to those of "average" proportions.
  • larryc0923
    larryc0923 Posts: 557 Member
    Options
    All - very interesting comments. I agree no one measurement can tell everything about the health or fitness of a person. However, it is interesting that this measurement seems to have a close correlation to expected life span.
  • waldo56
    waldo56 Posts: 1,861 Member
    Options
    Definitely better, since it removes the skew of muscle mass for the most part (the waist is not prone to much hypertrophy).

    Especailly for men. The pear shape in women kinda blows it up, but men don't typically have the pear shape. Belly fat is generally considered more relevant to health though.

    WIth a W:H ratio of 0.50 or less, men will look slim in clothes.

    I'm at 43.5 right now (31.9":73.3")

    Though how the waist is measured really matters, as how hard you pull, location, and flexed/unflexed makes a huge difference. (I measure fully flexed, a snug pull, around the smallest spot (~1" above navel)).
  • PriceK01
    PriceK01 Posts: 834 Member
    Options
    This is really weird for tall people. I just need to fall short of 35" on my waist to be healthy???? That makes the 26" I'm at now sound emaciated :o

Categories