Jump to content

Talk:Waist–hip ratio

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Beer bellies

[edit]

Say someone has a beer belly.. How should the person measure the waist? Is it the widest part of the abdomen? Xiner 17:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look at yourself standing up in a full length mirror (or a mirror where you can see your torso fully). Bend over sideways. The place where it creases is the location of your waist. 149.169.130.160 (talk) 05:37, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice pic

[edit]

Hey. Nice picture. Much better than the one I did for hip and buttock padding. :) --AliceJMarkham 06:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But the caption uses the term "frontal WHR", which isn't defined anywhere. Presumably what is meant is the ratio of the widths, not the circumferences. Including a number in the caption that is not a WHR as defined in the text invites misinterpretation.--88.73.46.92 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Fertile men?

[edit]

Since when can men said to be fertile? Bahahaha. Virile maybe, or something along those lines. It's the soil that is fertile, not the seed. Doh! --192.139.122.66 17:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The words fertile and infertile are used for men too. --Apoc2400 13:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hip-Waist Ratio

[edit]

Should this be combined with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hip-to-waist_ratio --Synchronizeddive 12:16am, 7 February 2007

More to the point, that redir was wrong and has now been corrected to point to this article. --AliceJMarkham 07:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The author of this article seems confused about the meaning of RATIO. In terms of describing Waist to Hip Ratio (WHR) in the range 0 to 1 (eg 0.7) the HIGHER the number the LOWER the RATIO. So for example a woman with a WHR of 0.9 has a LOWER WHR than a woman with a WHR of 0.7 Consequently, much of this article does not make sense as the terms "higher" and "lower" are mistakenly interchanged for ratios less than unity (1).

nudity

[edit]

Is the nudity in these pictures really neccessary? Would any information be lost by using pictures with clothed (spandex, underwear, whatever) models? I'm generally a fan of nudity but there really doesn't seem to be any reason for it to be here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.162.240.250 (talk) 20:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

We should see exactly what is being discussed in the article and not have a distracting layer of clothing cover it. To be precise this is a measurement of the human body, tight clothes can compress the soft tissues and affect the distance slightly. It is an encyclopedia after all. We don't have to cover up humans with clothes. Nastajus 00:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How many encyclopedias have you seen that have this type of nudity, even in the anatomy entries? It's unprofessional; silhouettes or drawings would be more appropriate for a serious article. Adamrmonteith (talk) 03:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not any other encyclopedia! WP:NOT 209.78.2.24 (talk)
While I am sensitive to unnecessarily sexual nudity, I hold that there is nothing inherently wrong with nudity itself, certainly not in a work discussing the human body in an objective fashion. If this were an article about the human breast, I would expect or at least not be surprised to find a picture of a naked breast. These nudes are shot from behind and not showing anything particularly immodest for an article of this type. Let them stay. Kilyle (talk) 10:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the user from 216.162.240.250. Putting pictures up like this will only lead Wikipedia being blocked by Webwasher, etc. It's not necessary to describe the subject. A drawing with measurement aspects would be even better than the pictures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.52.254.239 (talk) 20:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also have to back the original poster 216.162.240.250. I have nothing against nudity, but it has little relevance to this article. This is not an anatomy page, but the first Google link to a health question. No one should have to predict this to be NSFW. Further, for the rear nude shots to be relevant they would need to have defining measurements included in them as guide to how you measure waist/hip ratio. As it is, they're just undefined rear nudes that don't convey any knowledge. Lamergoat (talk) 18:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I got nailed on this while surfing at work today. I have no problems with nudity, pornography, etc., but it was pretty shocking to find that "waist-hip ratio" is a NSFW topic in Wikipedia. This needs some sort of change. 23:16, 2 December 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkcmkc (talk • contribs)

Comon guys! Lets get this nudity off. I do mind. It sickens me that on such a basic webpage such as this nudity would exist. Im a medical student. I look at naked people every day. However most of those pictures appear as necessary to the topic. This is not necessary to the topic at hand. What do we have to do to get rid of this? Can I just delete the pictures?--Johndheathcote (talk) 03:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy

[edit]

There is some controversy concerning the specific .70 ratio. This article http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2372/is_2_39/ai_91475121 evaluates the data used to come to that ratio by Dr. Singh and found that it actually is more a range from about .667 to about .70 and includes a Playboy model (one of the categories along with Miss America winners used in the original study) with a WHR of about .78. Should something decreasing the importance of the .70 ratio be added to this article? -- 66.68.19.44 02:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This article is full of POV. Most of the far-fetched correlations it states as fact are supported by one study at best. ONE study is not enough to state something as if it were undisputed, especially when it is challenged in other studies. Soxfan267 (talk) 08:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heart attack risk

[edit]

"If obesity is redefined using WHR instead of BMI, the proportion of people at risk of heart attack worldwide increases threefold."

What does that mean? How can redefining a word change risk distribution? Jruderman 04:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because you've changed the parameters of the health category, so different (apparently in this case more) people fall into it. 71.223.139.118 06:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That looks like a meaningless metric to me. Sure, the definition of obesity would change, but how many more (or fewer) people would be classed as obese would depend on where the goalposts are placed. You could, after all, triple the number of "obese" people today just by changing the definition to identify those with a lower BMI than is currently used to define obesity. Rhialto 08:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a meaningless word change; it's an entirely different way of determining body composition. BMI is based on a person's height-weight ratio, which doesn't take muscle mass into consideration. A guy with a beer belly can have the same height and weight (i.e., same BMI) as a strong athlete, but obviously the former is at a greater risk for heart problems. In contrast, their respective WHRs would reflect their different levels of fitness, which is an accepted factor in judging health.
Additionally, abdominal fat places pressure on the internal organs and has been consistently linked with cardiovascular risk. Even if the BMI formula could accurately distinguish between muscle and fat (again: it doesn't), the result would only provide the percentage of total body fat and would still not be as helpful as WHR. An apple-shaped body is more dangerous to the heart than a pear-shaped body. Oddball Zoe (talk) 10:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligence

[edit]

The bit about intelligence BADLY needs to be rephrased. It seems to suggest that what is at best a hypothesis about one of the most complex issues of human development is actually fact. It's not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.177.41.154 (talk) 00:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the section needs to either be rewritten or removed, but for a different reason: correlation does not equal causation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.118.117.141 (talk) 05:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rewritten I don't know but certainly not removed. If a correlation has been shown than that's that and should be mentioned. Of course correlation doesn't necessarily means causation. A simple theory could be women with more ideal whr tend to mate with higher IQ men more often. Pure speculation but it's just to show how it could be indirectly related. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.239.89.198 (talk) 03:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't seem at all likely to me. Is there evidence of women with this supposed 'ideal' whr being more likely to mate with men who have high IQs? Firstly, IQ tests are not an accurate measure of intelligence as those from privileged backgrounds tend to perform better. Those from privileged backgrounds also tend to have better diets and consume less saturated fat due to lifestyle, and are therefore more likely to have a healthier whr. Therefore is it not more plausable that those who generally perform better in IQ tests (ie those from privileged backgrounds) will be the same people that have healthy whr's? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.171.54 (talk) 20:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This section is important and deserves further addition, due to the fact that it is new research and far more interesting than a discussion about trans fats, et cetera. Someone with some academic bravery should specifically address the real issue here: Men and women tend to pair-up based upon their "pecking order," which leaves the most attractive females (often high WHR) paired with the most wealthy and dominant (often intelligent) males. Please don't make me defend selective breeding here. I know this flies in the face of all that is politically correct, but science should not be swayed by cultural norms. --Insightfullysaid, 4/10/11. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.47.166.6 (talk) 16:14, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Also, it should be noted that WHR does not correlate to just "waist fat." Fat is fat. Adipose tissue on the waist is not any different for brain development than adipose tissue on the hips, and people of the same bodyfat percentages can have very different WHRs. The variable being studied in WHR is a combination multiple factors, such as the location of adipose tissue in relation to the hips and waist, overall body fat mass, and width of the pelvis. Inferences (and censorship!) not backed by research should be avoided. This section is important and needs further scientific study for clarification. It should be expanded to promote interest and encourage further research. The parts suggesting that "waist fat" encourages brain development should be re-written by someone who has read the original study. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.90.11.207 (talk) 22:27, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Practical measurement not described

[edit]

Add section where it is explained in practice. See this page for info.

KVDP (talk) 09:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligence: I just checked the article - please correct citation, it's not Junly 2007, but January 2008 (maybe was published online earlyer, but this needs to be indicated in a correct citation).

I consent, that even though the authors found a low waist-hip ratio associated with higher intelligence, the interpretation is a bit of the mark:

If you do a little bit of literature research on obesity, you will find, (1) that the waist-hip ratio is an indicator of abdominal obesity rather than telling anything about the individual shape of the female hip. (2) that in developed countries overweight is strongly associated with poverty and low social status. Income (defining poverty), again, is associated with the level education, and the level of education correlates with the level of intelligence (simply because a particular educational degree requires a level specific minimum of brains (just get me right: poor people are not necessarily stupid, but low intelligence is a pretty certain predictor of low income).

Taking this in account, it's quite obvious that well-to-do women with a good education and an awareness of healthy nutrition have a lower mean waist-hip ratio and a higher mean IQ, and so has their offspring. Thus, the results of this study are trivial. I would expect them quite different, if the research took place in some third world country, or if the analysis was adusted for income. 84.59.105.97 (talk) 22:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC)AMI[reply]

pov/dubious tags

[edit]

"Women within the 0.7 range have optimal levels of estrogen and are less susceptible to major diseases such as diabetes, cardiovascular disorders and ovarian cancers"

Claims such as this are extremely dubious, because if this were true, wouldn't 0.7 be universally rated as more attractive?

"Women with a 0.7 WHR (waist circumference that is 70% of the hip circumference) are usually rated as more attractive by men from European cultures[10]...In other cultures, preferences appear to vary according to some studies,[11] ranging from 0.6 in China,[12] to 0.8 or 0.9 in parts of South America and Africa,[13][14][15] and divergent preferences based on ethnicity, rather than nationality, have also been noted."

Are we to believe that South America and Africa have maladaptive attractiveness criteria, while North America beauty standards are conducive to good health? I sense junk-science. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soxfan267 (talk • contribs) 09:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary Male Nudity

[edit]

The topic of waist-hip ratio is something that pertains to women only, this entire article is about women, NOT men, the fact that men have much less pronounced hips is merely a sidenote and NOT worthy of male nudity on this page. 63.22.162.175 (talk) 04:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the fact that wikipedia is not censored, you're quite incorrect in stating that the article is about women and not men. While some sections are specifically about women, the overall article is most certainly about both males and females. If we were going to say that the male photo didn't belong, we'd have to say the same of the female photo. --AliceJMarkham (talk) 06:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The male is not merely a sidenote here. It is useful to have a point of comparison. As I noted above, the nudes are both useful and tasteful, and I say let them be. Kilyle (talk) 10:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History

[edit]

Currently article presents invention of concept to a Dr Singh in 1993, whatever his role in being a proponent in the US, Ashwell in the UK had published back in 1985:

  • Ashwell M, Cole TJ, Dixon AK (1985). "Obesity: new insight into the anthropometric classification of fat distribution shown by computed tomography". Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). 290 (6483): 1692–4. PMC 1416121. PMID 3924217. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

and she subsequently went on to promote a height waist ratio chart known as the "Ashwell shape chart", eg go see http://www.weetabix.co.uk/eat-smart-get-active/bmi/body-shape/ :

And a observation study from 1968 (published in 1984) also shown value of the WHR:

And the earliest hit for "waist hip ratio" on PubMed gets back to previous year of 1983:

  • Hartz AJ, Rupley DC, Kalkhoff RD, Rimm AA (1983). "Relationship of obesity to diabetes: influence of obesity level and body fat distribution". Prev Med. 12 (2): 351–7. PMID 6878197. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

David Ruben Talk 01:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Genes for 'pear shape' found"

[edit]

Genes for 'pear shape' found. Tijfo098 (talk) 08:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Singh Gender Error?

[edit]

The current (2013-06-27) entry reads "In a series of studies done by Singh (1993), men used WHR and fat distribution to determine a woman’s attractiveness. In her first study, men were shown a series of 12 drawings of women with various WHR’s and body fat distribution." but the biography of Davendra Singh clearly IDs Singh as a man. The name Davendra is usually used for males. I don't know Singh's actual gender, but I know that something is wrong somewhere. Please fix! AdderUser (talk) 03:01, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Units of measurement

[edit]

The International System of Units (SI) ought to be given first throughout the article (and wikipedia in general), then, perhaps, in inches (&c) for the visiting residents of the USA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.244.231.210 (talk) 16:01, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unless it can be shown that a majority of the editors and readers of the English-language Wikipedia are not "visiting residents of the USA" we should continue to place inches first and cm second. — Robert Greer (talk) 01:20, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover in the UK both inches and cm are widely used for everyday measurements such as clothing and hence waist & hip. So for UK visitors it doesn't matter either way. Ben Finn (talk) 12:55, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious

[edit]

As noted above #Hip-Waist Ratio, the definition in the lede is mathematically incorrect. "For example, a 25" waist divided by 38" hips (25/38) yields a waist-hip ratio of 0.65+" . The ratio is 25/38, the quotient is 0.66 (to two decimal places). Either 1. the article is factually incorrect and should be fixed, or 2. if it is common in medicine to use the quotient value but described as a "ratio" that should be noted in a footnote. The use of "higher" etc in the article adds to the confusion. Widefox; talk 10:40, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is common in medicine and everyday speech to describe a quotient as a 'ratio'; indeed Ratio states this, so I don't think it needs noting. I have corrected the value, however. Ben Finn (talk) 12:51, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Appropriate illustration needed

[edit]
Replacement needed urgently

The lead image in this article is so bad that I'm going to take the drastic measure of simply removing it. It's an aesthetic disaster and the images used for comparison are blatantly sexist in their reproduction of gender stereotypes. There has to be thousands of alternative images out there that could've been used instead of these two. While well-meaning, the choics in this case was quite inappropriate.

Peter Isotalo 14:41, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

the photo is helpful and correct, simply stop masturbating you Christian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4111:1900:C540:70CA:2FE7:7D98 (talk) 10:09, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just say it. That picture is gross. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:4C3:8100:1EF0:18CF:EE37:F730:8F2D (talk) 23:56, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The image is un-encyclopedic. The male is very fat, is wearing wrinkly man panties, has nebbish slouched posture, etc, while the female looks like a supermodel. This is an excessively unbalanced comparison of an attractive, idealized adult to a relatively unattractive, abnormal one. The IP from 2016 accused Peter of being a "masturbating Christian", but the issue here is not at all nudity, it's the over-exaggerrated disparity of WHR, attractiveness, posture, and attire between the two. - 2603:8080:2C00:1E00:194A:2A64:7161:D075 (talk) 23:24, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Thank you for changing the illustration to a better image. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:40, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Venus de Milo

[edit]
Venus de Milo

Would this image of the Venus de Milo (WHR=0.76) be more broadly acceptable? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:25, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have decided to WP:BEBOLD and just do it. Feel free to do a WP:BRD if is too problematic. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:16, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DSGP citation moved but does not appear to contain the figures given in the article

[edit]

The DSGP source is now at S 1- Leitlinie Vorsorgeuntersuchung im Sport (2007) but has nothing about WHR that I can find
or is google translate letting me down? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:06, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WHO obesity cut-off discrepancy

[edit]

In the table of the "Indicator of health" section, the WHO obesity cut-off points may need to be changed from ">" to "≥". It cites this PDF, where the info is on page 27. The PDF says "above 0.90 for males and above 0.85 for females", but later says "Based on these two WHO reports, the recommendations often attributed to WHO are shown in Table A1", which "Table A1" has "≥0.90 cm (M); ≥0.85 cm (W)". Jroberson108 (talk) 22:00, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Citation #43 has a dead link (supporting the following claim) "Women with a 0.7 WHR are usually rated as more attractive by men from Indo-European cultures" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yellowpelican (talk • contribs) 18:47, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Yellowpelican: Rescued from Archive.org. Next time, why not do it yourself? BTW, new topics go at end. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:49, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I think the reason I didn't is because of incompetence. Next time I will try. Yellowpelican (talk) 15:14, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Yellowpelican: No, not incompetence, just inexperience. (It was an exhortation to have a go next time, not telling you off. If you run into difficulties, feel totally free to ask for help at my talk page. Or at the WP:Teahouse, if you prefer.) --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:59, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Waist–hip_ratio&oldid=1198342795"