Yes, I have lost 2 inches off my waist and none off my hips or chest in the last 8 months and have not lost any weight (I fluctuate around the 160s.) 36-28-37

Strength training, strength training, strength training. Weight lifting. That's the answer. It's the way to change your shape. Also, eat breakfast and eat regularly throughout the day to keep your metabolism running high so you can build muscle.

I agree entirely. My waist is 28". Because I'm short-waisted, I doubt I can get it any smaller than that. I have no extra fat around my waist and have some visible ab definition going on.

Since I started doing the kind of exercises I mentioned upthread, my hip measurement has gone from 37 to 34 while my bust and waist measurements haven't budged. So apparently, I had the "ideal" waist-to-hip ratio before, but now I'm at risk of heart attack and diabetes. So losing a few inches from my hips due to doing very specific exercises has suddenly increased my risk of serious health problems?



Again, I gotta agree. Honestly, if your diet is OK, I wouldn't worry about it.

Quite a lot of female professional athletes have narrow hips--and consequently high waist-to-hip ratios. I really doubt that, say, Paula Radcliffe (women's marathon record-holder) or Firehiwot Dado (just won the NYC marathon) is at greater risk of heart disease than the heavy but pear-shaped chick who works in the cube next to me.

This is an issue I am very interested in. As I understand it the issue of importance of waist size and WHR on health risk is greater for those at normal weight than those overweight. Or, rather, if you are overweight then you have greater health risks overall regardless of your WHR. If you are normal weight (not underweight which has its own health risks) then you are greater risk if you have a large waist or a WHR ratio that is high. Some studies I read use a WHR of .80 and others use .78 as the dividing line.

This is important to me as I am 19 pounds from goal but have a 37 inch waist and a WHR of .84. Now, clearly, it is better for me to at my current non-obese weight and have than WHR than it was when I weighed 205 and had a similar WHR. Likewise, when I get to my goal weight of 145 I will be in normal BMI range but I expect that my waist will probably be 34 inches or so even then and my WHR will at best be around .81.

I have measurements that I took over 20 years ago. When I first joined WW 22 years ago I weighed 167 pounds - 3 pounds more than I weigh now. My waist was 34" and my WHR was about .81. It is depressing in the extreme that I am now at that similar weight and my waist and hips are each 3" larger. Some of this is in my case is due to muscle loss that occurs with the fact that I'm in my 50s now and not my 30s.

When I got to goal at WW back then my goal was 125 pounds. At my lowest I was 119 pounds and even then my WHR was .78. At 125 pounds my WHR was .78 and I had a 28" waist. I suspect that my current age I will need to get to 135 to get below .80 WHR and getting below 30" waist may not be attainable for me at all. Even getting to 125 might not do it and I know that 125 is not sustainable for me. (My plan is to get to 145 and stay there awhile and see what happens).

I've also been doing research to see what will help with the waistline beyond just losing weight. Losing weight alone doesn't really help that much with the WHR as you tend to lose weight in both the waist and hips. With a 37" waistline at 164 pounds it is hard to see how I get below 30" through weight loss alone unless I do it by getting to a weight I can't sustain.

Yet, there is no real guidance given to those of us with large waists or high WHR except to lose weight and that really doesn't allows help those issues that much. Yes, I know you can't spot reduce fat but visceral fat is different. So, I too want to find a way to reduce it so that my waist will grow smaller. I do eat lower carb and I'm currently doing indoor rowing 5 days a week.

Very interested yoyoma with any information you find out on this subject.

Look. The assumption here is that a higher WHR means a lot of visceral fat. But clearly marathon runners, as MariaMaria pointed out, have a high WHR but hardly any visceral fat. There is no reason to assume that if I or anyone else has a high WHR, it's because of high visceral fat. My belly fat is primarily subcutaneous, for example.

I don't know of any way to evaluate whether one has excess visceral fat other than MRI or some other whole-body procedure. And trying to reduce one's waist size when one is already exercising and eating healthy, and is on the low end of normal BMI, thinking that the waist size must be because of that bad old visceral fat and therefore one is in danger...

Well, it doesn't make sense to me. It seems like making a problem where there isn't one.

Jay

I believe your right. Your family history has a lot to do with body size,etc. that goes from way back to now.

Exactly.

Besides, I thought that when we lose weight, the visceral fat goes first?

x 2

Perhaps the OP should have an MRI is she's really concerned about it.

Hi, Jay. As I mentioned in my first post, I'm happy to report that my WHR does now fall in the healthy range. My hips have stayed at 36". But since I'm entering menopause, fat tends to migrate there (aging is a risk factor for visceral fat), so I'd like to be proactive and work at reducing my WHR further. When it was 30" (at this weight) my WHR fell above .8, which is considered the unhealthy threshold by some agency in the US (American Diabetic Assn. I think) and European standards.

These numbers are an indirect measure, not some magic guarantee of health, as you say. But it's very hard for me to believe that I have *no* visceral fat. I think it's likely that everyone has some, and it's just a matter of how much. If I ever visit one of the countries where MRIs are cheap (like Japan, or one of the SA countries like Tim Furor suggests in 4HB), maybe I'll get one just to satisfy my curiosity!

My tummy does protrude a little. I know that what I *see* is subcutaneous fat sticking out. But when you have visceral fat, it pushes the subcutaneous fat out further. I don't think I'm a basket case, but I do think that I could use a little improvement.

Wow! That's terrific! I hadn't heard of strength training being useful for WHR. I know it's useful for lots of good reasons, but I really hadn't considered it for WHR. Thanks so much for telling me about your success (and congratulations!)!

I am having the same problem.... I have lost 40 pounds and am happy with my weight no but I think I need to firm up.... I lost my boobs and hips and find it hard to find clothes that fit the new me without altering them,

I had heard that too. As a result, I was *very* disappointed the last time I reached my current weight. Maybe I did lose visceral fat disproportionately to subcutaneous, but it's pretty clear that people don't lose all their visceral fat when they lose weight.

Maybe WHR shouldn't be the biggest health concern on my radar screen. But I think that with my history and my age, it's not a bad thing to think about. And I hope other folks with normal BMIs will give it some thought as well. If you're a marathon runner with small hips, you probably don't have to give it much thought. Similarly, if you're a competitive weight lifter (or similar, or know your bf% directly), you don't need to worry about your BMI. If MRIs were part of our regular check ups, we wouldn't have to guess about visceral fat (not that I'm advocating this, although they are a *lot* cheaper in some other countries). Without direct measures, we can only work with what we've got.

I am also concerned that reducing my WHR might be an unmanageable goal. But I am motivated at the moment, and if I pick some healthy habit (stress management? strength training?) and stick with it before I get discouraged and switch to some other goal, I figure I'm coming out ahead!

Good luck with your journey and goals!

Just a note--I was talking about excess visceral fat. Everyone has some visceral fat; we're supposed to have it. It cushions organs, helps keep them warm, etc. Having visceral fat is normal; the problem is excess.

Yoyoma, it sounds like you are convinced that you have excess visceral fat, and that's all there is to it--so there's no point in discussing it further. If I were your height and weight, and keeping fit and eating healthy, I wouldn't be wanting to change a thing. I hope that you don't slip into always wanting to "fix" some perceived body problem... All I can do is wish you the best!

Jay

Since you are still losing weight, that's probably the most important step you can take to reduce whatever visceral fat you have.

Hormones also play a role in visceral fat. Post-menopausal women have a tougher time with it. I'm 50 now myself, and that's one reason I decided to focus on my visceral fat.


Have you spoken to your doctor about it? I don't think doctors are generally fonts of great information on this topic, but with your numbers maybe you could get an MRI (probably just wishful thinking, but worth a try).

One thing I've been wondering is whether it's more a matter of time and if I could just maintain for years I'd lose the extra in the middle. Since I s*ck at maintenance, maybe visceral fat builds up each time I gain and I don't maintain long enough to get rid of all the extra. This is not what you'd expect when you hear the "visceral fat comes off first" line, but I think that might be a truism to encourage people to lose weight, or maybe it's just true for younger folks or whatever.

I'll be happy to share any new info or progress on this topic. Please let us know about anything you find out or any success you have and best of luck to you!!!

Thanks Jay. I really do appreciate your viewpoint and concerns. I'm happy to hear constructive criticism.