Waist/height ratio

[ukmtk]

Interesting article:

BMI outdated for measuring childhood obesity, Bristol study says

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-68490682

The table that I use which I found on the web:

Code: Select all

      WHtR          description                           
       R <  .35     abnormally slim           
.35 <= R <  .43     extremely slim           
.43 <= R <  .46     slender & healthy         
.46 <= R <  .53     healthy & normal         
.53 <= R <  .58     overweight               
.58 <= R <  .63     extremely overweight/obese
       R >= .63     highly obese             


[88V8]

BMI is an unhelpful measurement for those of athletic tendencies as muscle weighs more than fat.

However, waist measurement is more susceptible to kidding oneself.

V8

[bungeejumper]

BMI is an unhelpful measurement for those of athletic tendencies as muscle weighs more than fat.

Indeed. Muscle weighs much more than fat in relation to its volume). (Obviously, 5 kg of muscle weighs exactly the same as 5 kg of fat.) And it's a much better indicator of how fit and well you are. It's just that BMI is a stupid calculation, for treating both the same way..

The hell of it is that BMI was never intended to be used as a comparator between individual humans at all - merely as a measure of the collective members of a (large) group of people. It isn't hard to see the attraction of treating people as if they were all built the same way, but it's perfectly obvious to anybody with a grain of sense that genetic factors can swing the BMI calculation in any direction. And not just in terms of race and sex either.

So when people start insisting that "people with a BMI of over 30 shouldn't be allowed medical procedures", etc, then we need to be careful that we're not slipping unintentionally into the realms of eugenic fascism.

Me, I'm built like an all-in wrestler. Or a neanderthal, if you prefer. 175 cm tall (the same as Daniel Craig), very long torso, very wide chest, heavy bone structure, very long arms. It might explain why six generations of my ancestors were blacksmiths. Or why I didn't get much trouble from playground bullies at school,because I could beat the crap out of them.

But it totally knackers any BMI calculation based on my height. Borderline obese, according to the NHS rubric. Whereas the waist/height ratio (51%) puts me in the healthy and normal bracket, according to the scale just quoted by ukmtk. Yeah, I think I'll stick with that one.

BJ

[chas49]

Interesting article:

BMI outdated for measuring childhood obesity, Bristol study says

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-68490682

The table that I use which I found on the web:

Code: Select all

      WHtR          description                           
       R <  .35     abnormally slim           
.35 <= R <  .43     extremely slim           
.43 <= R <  .46     slender & healthy         
.46 <= R <  .53     healthy & normal         
.53 <= R <  .58     overweight               
.58 <= R <  .63     extremely overweight/obese
       R >= .63     highly obese             


Moderator Message:
Could we have a link for this table please? (It's different to the one in the linked article, so it would be useful for readers to be able to see the context.) (chas49)

[ukmtk]

I can't actually remember where I found it.
It looks like the table I have presented is for male adults only.
I found this one for women, men & children:
https://www.bmi-calculator.net/waist-to-height-ratio-calculator/
I think that the BBC article table is for children.

[Arborbridge]

I can't actually remember where I found it.
It looks like the table I have presented is for male adults only.
I found this one for women, men & children:
https://www.bmi-calculator.net/waist-to-height-ratio-calculator/
I think that the BBC article table is for children.

Fascinating - thanks. I'll just have to grow half and inch - but I seem to be shrinking!

[MuddyBoots]

However, waist measurement is more susceptible to kidding oneself.
V8

Oh dear yes! It's not obvious where to measure your waist, so I do it somewhere flattering. Or where the belt goes on my trousers. The guide below on wikihow looks to measure it rather high up.

https://www.wikihow.com/Measure-Your-Waist

[ukmtk]

I think that most guides suggest 1/2 way between the bottom of your ribs + top of your hips.
So it is in the narrower bit (not for me currently - work in progress).

[Arborbridge]

However, waist measurement is more susceptible to kidding oneself.
V8

Oh dear yes! It's not obvious where to measure your waist, so I do it somewhere flattering. Or where the belt goes on my trousers. The guide below on wikihow looks to measure it rather high up.

https://www.wikihow.com/Measure-Your-Waist

"It's the narrowest part of your torso" - I wish! My trousers think I'm not far off cylindrical: they keep calling out for braces.

Arb.

[UncleEbenezer]

But it totally knackers any BMI calculation based on my height. Borderline obese, according to the NHS rubric. Whereas the waist/height ratio (51%) puts me in the healthy and normal bracket, according to the scale just quoted by ukmtk. Yeah, I think I'll stick with that one.

BJ

About 15 years ago I had, courtesy of my then-employer, a mid-life health MOT from the Nuffield folks.

BMI, 31 point something. Obese.

Body fat measurement from some kind of electric instrument: 17%. Bang in the middle of healthy range (from memory, 14-20%) for a man of my age. So evidently, obese but not fat.

Go figure. Though I expect both measures have got worse since then. I've gone through life saying I should be a natural Falstaff at age 60.

[bungeejumper]

BMI, 31 point something. Obese.

Body fat measurement from some kind of electric instrument: 17%. Bang in the middle of healthy range (from memory, 14-20%) for a man of my age. So evidently, obese but not fat.

Ah yes, the electric instrument. But brace yourself, my GP tells me that that their usefulness and accuracy is disputed.

Stand on a "smart" electronic scale, she says, and the electrical signal goes right up one leg and straight back down the other one, she says. It tries to follow the path of least resistance - so it doesn't get anywhere near your gut.

Pick up a pair of hand-held electronic terminals, and it's the same thing, except that the signal goes up one arm and down the other. And again, nowhere near your midriff. Which is a pity, because the geographical location of people's fat is probably more important in terms of risk than the quantity. (Some locations signal greater cardiac risk, while others don't mean much more than that the patient is female. )

To add insult to injury, my doc also says that these gizmos don't really distinguish well beween muscle and fat and water, so they're not that much better than BMI. Oh, and your bone mass screws up the calculation, sometimes dramatically.

Their best contribution is that,if you use them regularly, it'll focus your mind on the task in hand and perhaps instil some good habits. Personally, though, when I'm on a weight-loss campaign I resort to some rough and ready calorie counts at the end of each day. That works better for me, especially when I also take the time to walk each day. If I don't, the benefits of diet restriction alone are quite a bit less noticeable.

BJ

[Urbandreamer]

The crowdscience program had an interesting article on this subject.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3ct4y5j

Here is my basic summation, BMI is almost useless.
At best being at the far end can indicate that further investigation may be advised.

The best line from the program was that healthy was reduced from a BMI of 27-28 down to 25 as it's an easier number!

Here is a more "medical" link.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4890841/

Since others have commented about their body weight, I need to lose some. Mostly because it would make it easier to get up when I fall on the ski slopes.

[kempiejon]

I make a note of weight oops mass, BMI, blood pressure, resting heart rate (HR) and trouser tightness. I observe puffedness when late for the train or lugging heavy things about the garden. There is a relationship. I generally take note when trouser tightness exceeds 1 belt hole, look at nutrition at 2 holes will exercise at 3 and but new trousers at 4. As trouser tightness reduces from exercise and diet, BP decreases as does BMI, HR and puffedness.

New wardrobe is the biggest motivator for me though fitness and flexibility has become more interesting as it becomes effortless to lose and much hard to regain now I'm into the third age.

[ukmtk]

I use electronic scales (Renpho) with phone app.
To be honest I think that they are quite accurate - or at least a good personal indicator.
They provide some interesting data - e.g. body fat, visceral fat, body water, body muscle, bone mass.
They even give you your body age for your body composition!

I measure myself monthly.
I record all exercise activities (& weight, BP, ...) in a spreadsheet.
I have a sheet per year - it goes back 16 years. Some of the early years are sparse.
I recently decided to record the weather each day when I get up.
In that way I will understand why I might have chosen a particular activity.
I record min/max temp, min/max wind speed for midday + general weather for the day.