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

estherdragonbat
estherdragonbat Posts: 5,283 Member
in Health and Weight Loss
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?
«1

Replies

  • lorrpb
    lorrpb Posts: 11,464 Member
    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
    marissafit06 Posts: 1,996 Member
    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
    bendyourkneekatie Posts: 696 Member
    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
  • estherdragonbat
    estherdragonbat Posts: 5,283 Member
    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
    estherdragonbat Posts: 5,283 Member
    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
    marissafit06 Posts: 1,996 Member
    Forgot to say it before, but great job on your loss!
  • estherdragonbat
    estherdragonbat Posts: 5,283 Member
    Thanks!
  • middlehaitch
    middlehaitch Posts: 8,483 Member
    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
    estherdragonbat Posts: 5,283 Member
    Thanks kindly! I will!
  • rheddmobile
    rheddmobile Posts: 6,840 Member
    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
    W8WarI Posts: 567 Member
    edited February 2018
    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
    amusedmonkey Posts: 10,330 Member
    edited February 2018
    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
    estherdragonbat Posts: 5,283 Member
    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
    yirara Posts: 9,389 Member
    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
    middlehaitch Posts: 8,483 Member
    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
    estherdragonbat Posts: 5,283 Member
    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
    AnnPT77 Posts: 31,972 Member
    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
    bendyourkneekatie Posts: 696 Member
    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.

Categories