Active Low-Carber Forums
Atkins diet and low carb discussion provided free for information only, not as medical advice.
Home Plans Tips Recipes Tools Stories Studies Products
Active Low-Carber Forums
A sugar-free zone


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums.
Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!

Go Back   Active Low-Carber Forums > Main Low-Carb Diets Forums & Support > Daily Low-Carb Support > General Low-Carb
User Name
Password
FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   ^
Old Mon, May-31-21, 09:23
CallmeAnn's Avatar
CallmeAnn CallmeAnn is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,728
 
Plan: HFLC/IF
Stats: 218/176/140 Female 5'4"
BF:27%
Progress: 54%
Location: Houston area
Default Waist to Hip Ratio

I have just now gotten around to looking at this metric and I'm very surpised. My waist is 40", meaning at my smallest circumference, and the hip measure, at 46.5, is my largest. I'm assuming this is what is meant.
So, I get .86 for my ratio. The first site I used, Healthline, says the line between "moderate" and "high", is .85 and .86. When I googled with "obesity" as a search term, it reduced the precision to .8. Either way, I was surprised, as I thought I had read that simply by weight, women in their sixties were still tagged as obese in the low 160s or so. I don't know where I got that, since I now can't find any reference to classification by weight other than as a factor of BMI. By that measure, I need to come down another 1.3 or so.
So, the upshot is, I'm pretty darned close to stepping down to being simply "overweight", and not actually obese.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2   ^
Old Mon, May-31-21, 13:58
deirdra's Avatar
deirdra deirdra is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 4,324
 
Plan: vLC/GF,CF,SF
Stats: 197/136/150 Female 66 inches
BF:
Progress: 130%
Location: Alberta
Default

Crossing the line from obese to merely overweight feels great!
Reply With Quote
  #3   ^
Old Mon, May-31-21, 16:51
bluesinger's Avatar
bluesinger bluesinger is offline
Doing My Best
Posts: 4,924
 
Plan: LC/CancerRecovery
Stats: 170/135/130 Female 62 inches
BF:24%
Progress: 88%
Location: Nevada Desert, USA
Default

I never calculated that before I read your post. By all other calculations, I've been considered obese since I was 12.

The facts of my genetics are that my paternal side grandparents were 5'11 and 6'2" tall, while my maternal side grandparents were 5'2" and 5'3" tall. This makes me rather like a shetland pony if you get my drift, rather than a racehorse. LOL

I've always just done the best I can to control ballooning and LCHF has been my recipe since 1972. I've not always been successful, but I never gave up trying.
Reply With Quote
  #4   ^
Old Tue, Jun-01-21, 03:07
Kristine's Avatar
Kristine Kristine is offline
Forum Moderator
Posts: 25,581
 
Plan: Primal/P:E
Stats: 171/146/150 Female 5'7"
BF:
Progress: 119%
Location: Southern Ontario, Canada
Default

Waist to height ratio is also a good overall indicator of obesity; particularly visceral fat. Here's a Diet Doctor article with good directions on how to measure. Dr Ted Naiman likes that metric.

My problem with waist measurements are that I'm really high-waisted. Even when I was younger and way thinner, my natural waist is pretty much the bottom of my ribcage, in terms of how clothes fit.

Last edited by Kristine : Tue, Jun-01-21 at 07:07.
Reply With Quote
  #5   ^
Old Tue, Jun-01-21, 03:21
Benay's Avatar
Benay Benay is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 876
 
Plan: Protein Power/Atkins
Stats: 250/167/175 Female 5 feet 6 inches
BF:
Progress: 111%
Location: Prescott, Arizona, USA
Default

I wonder if this metric was developed more for men than women
It clearly demonstrates abdominal obesity.

Women come in different shapes - the hourglass, the straight up and down (no real difference between hips, waist and breasts) the bossomy, the women who put all their weight on their hips and thighs.

My eyes were opened to this fact when I read an excellent book on how to buy clothes for your body shape. No example of obesity - simply a matter of demonstrating the variety of shapes of women and what clothing flatters that shape. Their point was "don't buy clothes that are not suited to your shape."

I am an hourglass. My waist will forever be smaller than my hips no matter how much weight I carry. And I have carried a lot.
Reply With Quote
  #6   ^
Old Tue, Jun-01-21, 05:59
WereBear's Avatar
WereBear WereBear is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 14,606
 
Plan: EpiPaleo/Primal/LowOx
Stats: 220/125/150 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 136%
Location: USA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Benay
I wonder if this metric was developed more for men than women
It clearly demonstrates abdominal obesity.


You are probably right. So much else is! Heart attack symptoms, testing medicines, even lab values: so much of it was based on males, it can be a shock once someone realizes the extent of the assumptions.
Reply With Quote
  #7   ^
Old Tue, Jun-01-21, 06:34
bluesinger's Avatar
bluesinger bluesinger is offline
Doing My Best
Posts: 4,924
 
Plan: LC/CancerRecovery
Stats: 170/135/130 Female 62 inches
BF:24%
Progress: 88%
Location: Nevada Desert, USA
Default

I'm on the cusp of normal weight, or so the charts say based on WThR. Oh well.
BTW, I got a page not found error on the Diet Doctor link.
Reply With Quote
  #8   ^
Old Tue, Jun-01-21, 07:08
Kristine's Avatar
Kristine Kristine is offline
Forum Moderator
Posts: 25,581
 
Plan: Primal/P:E
Stats: 171/146/150 Female 5'7"
BF:
Progress: 119%
Location: Southern Ontario, Canada
Default

Whoops! Sorry. Fixed it. That's what I get for not testing my links when I post them.
Reply With Quote
  #9   ^
Old Tue, Jun-01-21, 14:15
bluesinger's Avatar
bluesinger bluesinger is offline
Doing My Best
Posts: 4,924
 
Plan: LC/CancerRecovery
Stats: 170/135/130 Female 62 inches
BF:24%
Progress: 88%
Location: Nevada Desert, USA
Default

Thanks for the corrected link, Kristine.
Reply With Quote
  #10   ^
Old Tue, Jun-01-21, 14:29
wbahn's Avatar
wbahn wbahn is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 8,651
 
Plan: Atkins-ish, post-WLS
Stats: 408.0/288.0/168.0 Male 72 inches
BF:
Progress: 50%
Location: Southern Colorado, USA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Benay
I wonder if this metric was developed more for men than women
It clearly demonstrates abdominal obesity.


Increasingly there is an emphasis on abdominal obesity as it has a higher correlation to disease risks, largely because of the higher correlation to visceral fat.

Having said that, there also seems to be an insane drive in lots of areas to remove any distinction between men and women. It's as if by pretending that there aren't any fundamental differences we can somehow make them go away.
Reply With Quote
  #11   ^
Old Tue, Jun-01-21, 15:20
JEY100's Avatar
JEY100 JEY100 is online now
Posts: 13,370
 
Plan: P:E/DDF
Stats: 225/150/169 Female 5' 9"
BF:45%/28%/25%
Progress: 134%
Location: NC
Default

That is one of the benefits to using the waist to height ratio as an indication of Health (Kristine's link) it was based on Dr Margaret Ashwell's statistical analysis of NHS records in the UK..male, female, wide age range, the different ethnic groups like South Asian that BMI underestimates CVD risk…it all comes down to one simple measurement using a string if needed. http://www.ashwell.uk.com/images/20...th%2 0tool.pdf
Reply With Quote
  #12   ^
Old Wed, Jun-02-21, 19:29
CallmeAnn's Avatar
CallmeAnn CallmeAnn is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,728
 
Plan: HFLC/IF
Stats: 218/176/140 Female 5'4"
BF:27%
Progress: 54%
Location: Houston area
Default

Oh, darn! Me too. So, it's less accurate? Doing it per the linked article, I get .695. Still above the "female at risk" level of .492.
Sigh.
Reply With Quote
  #13   ^
Old Wed, Jun-02-21, 19:32
CallmeAnn's Avatar
CallmeAnn CallmeAnn is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,728
 
Plan: HFLC/IF
Stats: 218/176/140 Female 5'4"
BF:27%
Progress: 54%
Location: Houston area
Default

I guess I'm the same. I had a waist and hips when I was thirteen and had absolutely no bust; especially compared to the bitchy girls in my PE class in the 7th grade.
As an overweight (ok, obese) adult, I have a decent shape from the front, I just carry a pretty big belly out front.
Reply With Quote
  #14   ^
Old Wed, Jun-02-21, 19:33
CallmeAnn's Avatar
CallmeAnn CallmeAnn is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,728
 
Plan: HFLC/IF
Stats: 218/176/140 Female 5'4"
BF:27%
Progress: 54%
Location: Houston area
Default

I don't know... I didn't like it.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 15:52.


Copyright © 2000-2024 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.