As for the 0.8 waist-to-hip ratio, while it does have something to do with heart health...I have also read more than once that this is the genetically-implanted "ideal" from a man's perspective, basically.
That is PRECISELY what I thought when I saw the number. Actually, what I thought was, "Ugh, that must be one of BARBIE'S stats!"
The title of that study -- "Perfect Body..." -- says it all .
Just thought this whole discussion was interesting. I haven't measured in while, but I do know that when I was somewhere around 150 lbs I had a 36" waste. This was I think before diet and exercise, so it's likely that I lost a little there. I can't remember exactly what my measurements were, but pretty sure they aren't below a .8 ratio. The study Jill posts above says that risk factors are over .85 which I think makes a big difference. I'm not sure if I keep losing weight if I'll necessarily get below a .8 and still be satisfied that I'm not frighteningly too thin. I've always had kind of a belly, and when I gain weight it goes straight to it(hopefully losing will have the opposite effect ). Though I do think the study makes sense...and I think maybe the problem with BMI is that usually it's done with just height and weight, which misses a lot of factors, or maybe select fat % checking in various parts of the body which also might overlook things. Perhaps aiming to get below a .85 is a healthy ideal, I shall have to measure tonight as now I am curious
I've always had a thick waist too, which of course got even more ridiculous with menopause and gaining weight. Even when I'm very thin, everything is always too tight around the waist. Like an earlier poster, my rib cage sits directly on my hip bones, and my hip bones go straight up at the top instead of slanting inward. I think it has actually contributed to my lifelong obsession with my weight - even when I was really thin, I felt like I was "fat" because of the tight waistbands.
BUT we apples can look very good in jeans: it's just a matter of realizing men's pants are a better fit for us. (If you're like me, as well as the long, slim legs, I have a fairly flat backside.) So shop in the men's department for jeans, preferably boot cut or another slim cut with a slightly lower waist, and you'll find a good fit.
I rarely wear skirts unless I'm skinny: anything that defines the midrift makes me look like an unattractive man in drag, whereas a straight skirt with a tunic top or long loose sweater looks cute and boyish.
Maybe there should be a support thread for those of us with big squishy middles.
I suppose I have a smaller waist comparitively (I just took my measurements because I was curious now. ). 38/32/43 I don't really think of having a "small" waist, just massive hips. lol
I am a pear!!! I have a SMALL waist and larger hips/legs. Not too bad though, I fit in my clothes good...but if I try to wear mens jeans I need a size 36 waist to fit in the legs/butt section..but then the waist is HUGE on me..lol find that most men like the heavier bottem end women...they like to have "meat" to hold on to (as my husband would say)
I measured my waist, 27" hips 38. So that would make a WHR of .71 ... But where are you supposed to measure your waist? At the smallest part or at your belly button? and your hips?
I did mine and have a .75. woohoo! Lucky me. Too bad my waist is 36"! I just need to scale it all down and I'll be set.
Jill I was going to post something very similar. We just covered this sort of thing in anthropology class. It's funny because men look for the WHR while women look for symmetry! Who would have thought? Turns out that almost all the "stars" considered sexy are almost perfectly symmetrical (think Denzel). For some reason this correlates to high sperm count so it relates to fertility like WHR does. Probably TMI
I've read that .8 is for health, and that straight men prefer close to hourglass i.e., even lower than .8. Of course, genetic predilection to a small indicator of fertility shouldn't determine your self esteem...
As for me, when I'm higher than 165, I'm an apple. From 184 to 165, I didn't have a waist. From 165 on down, I'm an hourglass, and I do have a waist. Took me about 20 lbs. I'm 5'7"... hope that info answers your question.
I've always had about 10" difference between my waist and hip measurements, no matter what size I've been. Since menopause, I had developed a huge abdomen and just the other day I decided to take my measurements as I hadn't done so for about a year. I was thrilled to see that I've lost 5" on my abdomen and an inch or two on my waist and hips. This is making my clothes fit a lot better. My legs are quite a bit thinner too, but still look like jello
When I was thin, I had a definite hourglass shape. During this current loss, however, my waist is staying stubbornly thick(er)! I recently put on my size 12 jeans (haven't put those on for years!), and the legs are loose... but the waist is pinching me. Is this just a case of losing the fat from different areas and my body is going to sort it out later? Or is my shape changing with age?
Your shape will change as you age. You start producing less estrogen so you have a relatively higher level of testosterone. This leads to carrying weight in male zones (ie the spare tire) vs hips and thighs.
I've always had about 10" difference between my waist and hip measurements, no matter what size I've been.
Actually, most clothing manufacturers, and sewing patterns design clothes with a 10" difference between the waist and hips. It is considered the average difference in an hourglass figure type. Feel very lucky-most clothes were proportioned in hte waist/hips for YOU.
Feel very lucky-most clothes were proportioned in hte waist/hips for YOU.
I was fortunate that most clothes fit my waist and hips before I hit menopause. Unfortunately, when I developed my big belly, I had a hard time to get pants and skirts that fit because they would be too loose in the waist if they fit around my stomach! This caused me to rely on elastic waisted pants (which allowed me to kid myself that I wasn't gaining weight).
I guess, in one way or another, a lot of us don't fit the "standard" model!
.
). Though I do think the study makes sense...and I think maybe the problem with BMI is that usually it's done with just height and weight, which misses a lot of factors, or maybe select fat % checking in various parts of the body which also might overlook things. Perhaps aiming to get below a .85 is a healthy ideal, I shall have to measure tonight as now I am curious 
