I don't have a tape measure so I can measure mine yet. I do know that before I started cycling, my waist was more than 100 cm, which just by itself is a fairly serious risk factor. At a guess now, I would say that it is maybe 94 cm based on my trouser size. Anyway, it's a big improvement. Still a way to go though (at a guess).The best way to predict heart attack risk and other obesity-related diseases is a measurement that divides the circumference of your waist by your hips.
If you’re a woman, the waist-to-hip ratio should come out as no more than 0.8. Men have a little more wiggle room: a healthy waist-to-hip ratio for them is 0.95.
What is your waist-to-hip ratio?
The information / discussion in the Cycling Health Forum is not qualified medical advice. Please consult your doctor.
- casual_cyclist
- Posts: 7758
- Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 11:41 am
- Location: Kewdale
What is your waist-to-hip ratio?
Postby casual_cyclist » Fri Apr 15, 2011 1:56 am
- MichaelB
- Posts: 14775
- Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 9:29 am
- Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Re: What is your waist-to-hip ratio?
Postby MichaelB » Fri Apr 15, 2011 9:07 am
And I'm a bloke !!!
- Aushiker
- Posts: 22395
- Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2007 1:55 pm
- Location: Walyalup land
- Contact:
Re: What is your waist-to-hip ratio?
Postby Aushiker » Sun Apr 17, 2011 11:47 am
94 cm waist size is considered the goal waist size for men. Much more important I believe that weight measures. This Australian government website has more on the topic.casual_cyclist wrote:I don't have a tape measure so I can measure mine yet. I do know that before I started cycling, my waist was more than 100 cm, which just by itself is a fairly serious risk factor. At a guess now, I would say that it is maybe 94 cm based on my trouser size. Anyway, it's a big improvement. Still a way to go though (at a guess).
Andrew
Aushiker.com
- greyhoundtom
- Posts: 3023
- Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 6:28 am
- Location: Wherever the sun is shining
- Contact:
Re: What is your waist-to-hip ratio?
Postby greyhoundtom » Mon Apr 18, 2011 7:08 am
I have difficulty seeing the correlation between hip and waist size as a genuine guide to a healthy body shape, as most obese people also carry a fair amount of blubber around their hips.
But then according to the experts blubber below the waist does not matter, only a fat gut is a problem.
As far as i’m concerned just another excuse by an overweight nation to dodge the issue of obesity.
Tom
- Aushiker
- Posts: 22395
- Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2007 1:55 pm
- Location: Walyalup land
- Contact:
Re: What is your waist-to-hip ratio?
Postby Aushiker » Mon Apr 18, 2011 10:40 am
Which means that their waist to hip ratio will not be in the healthy range ...greyhoundtom wrote:Does my bum look big in this?
I have difficulty seeing the correlation between hip and waist size as a genuine guide to a healthy body shape, as most obese people also carry a fair amount of blubber around their hips.
Andrew
Aushiker.com
- Comedian
- Posts: 9166
- Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2010 7:35 pm
- Location: Brisbane
Re: What is your waist-to-hip ratio?
Postby Comedian » Mon Apr 18, 2011 10:45 am
-
- Posts: 202
- Joined: Tue Mar 15, 2011 10:00 pm
Re: What is your waist-to-hip ratio?
Postby gtfpv cycler » Mon Apr 18, 2011 1:22 pm
dont most mens hips and also waist start decreasing in size before thier gut .
-
- Posts: 202
- Joined: Tue Mar 15, 2011 10:00 pm
Re: What is your waist-to-hip ratio?
Postby gtfpv cycler » Mon Apr 18, 2011 1:24 pm
dont most mens hips and also waist start decreasing in size before thier gut . i'm pretty sure i'm shrinking allover . my chest for example is reducing along with my gut . atthis stage the proportions may be the same though .
- simonn
- Posts: 3763
- Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 11:46 am
- Location: Sydney
- casual_cyclist
- Posts: 7758
- Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 11:41 am
- Location: Kewdale
Re: What is your waist-to-hip ratio?
Postby casual_cyclist » Wed Apr 20, 2011 10:33 pm
Have you seen a fat person with a narrow waist? I haven't.greyhoundtom wrote:I have difficulty seeing the correlation between hip and waist size as a genuine guide to a healthy body shape, as most obese people also carry a fair amount of blubber around their hips.
No. Research indicates that abdominal fat increases the risk of disease and this is not correlated to body weight. Although the chances are that a person with high abdominal fat will fit into the "overweight" or "obese" categories, a person with a "normal" body weight can still have dangerously high levels of abdominal fat.greyhoundtom wrote:But then according to the experts blubber below the waist does not matter, only a fat gut is a problem.
I am concerned too. I am concerned that we have been lied to by the weight loss industry and weight loss drug companies that "normal" BMI is healthy. For an individual, the evidence is not there. This is a public health issue and it is very serious. There is a reason why the government is running the "Measure Up" campaign targeting waist measurement and not a BMI related campaign... there is little evidence supporting BMI as a measure of health but there is evidence supporting using Waist-to-hip ratio and waist circumference. Waist-to-hip ratio and waist circumference are superior to BMI.greyhoundtom wrote:As far as i’m concerned just another excuse by an overweight nation to dodge the issue of obesity.
Because I am concerned about my health and want to reduce my risk of developing cardiovascular disease I have been researching this. Here one study I found: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc1014730
This is what it says:
Here is another study: http://ftp.utalca.cl/profesores/gicaza/ ... 202004.pdfIn practical terms, the relationship between BMI and all-cause mortality remains uncertain.... Waist-to-hip ratio and waist circumference are superior to BMI in predicting all-cause mortality, the rate of death due to cardiovascular disease,2,3 and the association between obesity and myocardial infarction.4 The waist-to-hip ratio, in particular, shows a low measurement error and high precision, and it is without bias over a wide range of ethnic groups.5 Since the waist-to-hip ratio is clearly a better predictor of total mortality than BMI, it is likely to be associated with death from obesity-related cancers. Standardized measures of central obesity should be included in future population studies.
This is what it says:
Here is what the World Health Organisation says: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs311/en/Body-mass index was related to risk of myocardial infarction, but this relation was weaker than that of abdominal obesity (waist/hip ratio), with body-mass index becoming non-significant with the inclusion of waist/hip ratio in the multivariate model (data not shown). Before multivariate adjustment, abdominal obesity (top vs lowest tertile) doubled the risk of acute myocardial infarction, but the effects were substantially diminished after adjustment for other risk factors, especially apolipoproteins.
So BMI is a good measure for populations but NOT a good measure for individuals.BMI provides the most useful population-level measure of overweight and obesity as it is the same for both sexes and for all ages of adults. However, it should be considered a rough guide because it may not correspond to the same degree of fatness in different individuals.
Another study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2894715/
It is clear that excess fat, particularly abdominal fat, increases risk of disease. It is also equally clear that BMI is not useful for measuring body fat in individuals. Fat and abdominal fat can be measured with a tape measure but not with scales because scales treat fat and muscle the same. We need a way to measure our risk factors that actually works and is supported by research. There is no point reaching a "normal" BMI if real risk factors are not reduced.Although BMI is the most common method to define overweightness and obesity in both epidemiological studies and major clinical trials, clearly this method does not necessarily reflect true body fatness.
- casual_cyclist
- Posts: 7758
- Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 11:41 am
- Location: Kewdale
Re: What is your waist-to-hip ratio?
Postby casual_cyclist » Wed Apr 20, 2011 10:40 pm
I am pretty horrified that by my mid 30s I had managed to eat myself into the "Greatly increased risk" category.
- casual_cyclist
- Posts: 7758
- Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 11:41 am
- Location: Kewdale
Re: What is your waist-to-hip ratio?
Postby casual_cyclist » Thu Apr 21, 2011 12:30 am
http://www.livestrong.com/article/93638 ... alth-risk/
New research shows that the WHtR, not BMI, is the most accurate assessment tool for health risk. People with the most weight around their waists are at greatest risk of diseases such as heart disease and diabetes. Therefore, since you can't change your height, you should take special care to keep your weight and in particular, abdominal girth in a healthy range by eating nutritiously and exercising regularly.
- simonn
- Posts: 3763
- Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 11:46 am
- Location: Sydney
Re: What is your waist-to-hip ratio?
Postby simonn » Thu Apr 21, 2011 9:20 am
- mekore
- Posts: 145
- Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2011 2:45 am
- Location: Melbourne
Re: What is your waist-to-hip ratio?
Postby mekore » Fri Apr 22, 2011 5:20 pm
The most dangerous fat is abdominal fat, which resides in the abdominal cavity, not those below the skin. The abdominal fat messes with your metabolism more, directly increasing the risk of diabetes, and heart diseases, etc. Look for 'metabolic syndrome' if you wanted to know moregreyhoundtom wrote:Does my bum look big in this?
I have difficulty seeing the correlation between hip and waist size as a genuine guide to a healthy body shape, as most obese people also carry a fair amount of blubber around their hips.
But then according to the experts blubber below the waist does not matter, only a fat gut is a problem.
As far as i’m concerned just another excuse by an overweight nation to dodge the issue of obesity.
Tom
- General Australian Cycling Topics
- Info / announcements
- Buying a bike / parts
- General Cycling Discussion
- The Bike Shed
- Cycling Health
- Cycling Safety and Advocacy
- Women's Cycling
- Bike & Gear Reviews
- Cycling Trade
- Stolen Bikes
- Bicycle FAQs
- Serious Biking
- Audax / Randonneuring
- Retro biking
- Commuting
- MTB
- Recumbents
- Fixed Gear/ Single Speed
- Track
- Electric Bicycles
- Cyclocross and Gravel Grinding
- Dragsters / Lowriders / Cruisers
- Children's Bikes
- Cargo Bikes and Utility Cycling
- Road Racing
- Road Biking
- Training
- Time Trial
- Triathlon
- International and National Tours and Events
- Cycle Touring
- Touring Australia
- Touring Overseas
- Touring Bikes and Equipment
- Australia
- Western Australia
- New South Wales
- Queensland
- South Australia
- Victoria
- ACT
- Tasmania
- Northern Territory
- Country & Regional
- The Market Place
- Member to Member Bike and Gear Sales
- Want to Buy, Group Buy, Swap
- My Bikes or Gear Elsewhere
- Cycling Brands
- Cannondale
- Garmin
- Giant
- Shimano
- Trek
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
- All times are UTC+11:00
- Top
- Delete cookies
About the Australian Cycling Forums
The Australian Cycling Forums is a welcoming community where you can ask questions and talk about the type of bikes and cycling topics you like.
Bicycles Network Australia
Forum Information
Connect with BNA
This website uses affiliate links to retail platforms including ebay, amazon, proviz and ribble.