Waists and hips

On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 08:54:50 +0000, Tony Raven <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Heart-attack patients had a strikingly
higher waist-to-hip ratio than people in a control group, irrespective
of other cardiovascular risk factors.

Um... what shape does a high waist-to-hip ratio equate to? Should be
aiming for wasp or column?

Wet fishes,
--
,,
(**)PeeWiglet~~
/ \ / \ pee AT [guessthisbit].co.uk

Peewiglet said:

On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 08:54:50 +0000, Tony Raven <[email hidden]>
wrote:

Quoted message said:

Um... what shape does a high waist-to-hip ratio equate to?

Apple. Big gut, small hips. This is bad (allegedly).

Quoted message said:

Should be
aiming for wasp or column?

Wasp correlates with good. However, I don't think corsets count.

...d

Peewiglet said:

Um... what shape does a high waist-to-hip ratio equate to? Should be
aiming for wasp or column?

Somewhere between the two...
Apparently more than 0.9 for men and 0.85 for women indicates a worrying
degree of risk, though I've no idea to what degree this takes into
account basic variance in human shape: some people simply have narrower
hips than others, and I'd have thought that would affect things to some
degree. I haven't seen anything in the papers about where low
thresholds suggest anorexia is a bigger potential problem.

I imagine there's still plenty of scope for wildly misusing it based on
over generalising assumptions, just as folk have always done with BMI.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Peewiglet said:

Um... what shape does a high waist-to-hip ratio equate to? Should be
aiming for wasp or column?

Gut feeling: it's probably less reliable for women than for men,
'cos your hip size varies so much with no obvious correlation to
anything else. Unless big hips really are just what you need!

Followup: wouldn't taking a ratio of paunch to other bone-size
measurements such as shoulders be a good candidate?

--
not me guv

Nick Kew said:

Followup: wouldn't taking a ratio of paunch to other bone-size
measurements such as shoulders be a good candidate?

People vary all over the place, and you can get people with relatively
outsize (up or down) shoulders as well as hips and waist.

For example, Roos is broad enough in the shoulder department that she
has found men's jackets sometimes fit her better than "womens' specific".

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Nick Kew said:

Followup: wouldn't taking a ratio of paunch to other bone-size
measurements such as shoulders be a good candidate?

Hey, don't go and spoil it. I'm quite happy that a well-padded rear end
allows for a generous corporation and gets me below the magic number,
whatever that BMI nonsense said!
--
Brian G

Brian G <[email hidden]>typed

Quoted message said:

Nick Kew wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Followup: wouldn't taking a ratio of paunch to other bone-size
measurements such as shoulders be a good candidate?

Quoted message said:

Hey, don't go and spoil it. I'm quite happy that a well-padded rear end
allows for a generous corporation and gets me below the magic number,
whatever that BMI nonsense said!

I too am happy. My waist:hip is 0.7 despite mild 'middle-aged spread'
and my BMI is 25 or so.

Indolent of Edgware.

--
Helen D. Vecht: [email hidden]
Edgware.

Nick Kew said:

Peewiglet said:

Um... what shape does a high waist-to-hip ratio equate to? Should be
aiming for wasp or column?

Gut feeling: it's probably less reliable for women than for men,
'cos your hip size varies so much with no obvious correlation to
anything else. Unless big hips really are just what you need!

Followup: wouldn't taking a ratio of paunch to other bone-size
measurements such as shoulders be a good candidate?

Apparently it's related to where you store excess fat. External
(whatever the medical name is) fat is less of an indicator of disease
than internal fat, so storing weight on your hips is medically
preferable to storing it in your stomach. Hence big hips *are* a good
thing :-)

There are, of course, about a brazillion other measurements you can
take, but this is a quick'n'easy one which looks at a risk factor that
BMI doesn't.