My waist to hip ratio is 0.89, which apparently puts me at risk of some diseases like diabetes, heart disease, stroke. But my BMI is healthy now, so does that mean that even though I am an apple (and it looks like I am just always going to be an apple) these risks are reduced to the same level as someone else who isnt an apple? I dont want to be at risk and have nothing i can do about it!

There's research out there that talks about waist to hip ratio, waist circumference, etc being an indicator of things.

I think there's one study that says if your waist is below 30 inches you're okay, even if you're in the "overweight" category - because BMI isn't a great indicator as it doesn't take into account muscle mass and other things (chest size). If you're in a healthy weight range and your lab work, etc is normal, I wouldn't worry about it. A trainer once told me that no one is going to have a perfect waist-hip ratio unless they're a perfect hourglass shape, which no one really is.

I have the opposite issue. I have a BMI which is still in the 'overweight' category but a waist:hip ration of 0.75. I recently had my stats done on a high end Tanita scale which put my body fat % within normal range and gave me a visceral fat score of 7 (which is very low risk). I still don't really know from this however whether I need to lose more weight and reduce my BMI to be truely 'healthy' - its just so confusing.

Kitty

I hate the BMI measurement and think it should just be thrown out. Its a "simple" calculation for something that's NOT simple.

Icon- I would focus more on your behaviors--there are plenty of fat people out there who are much healthier than someone skinny with a low wth ratio and waist circumference who doesn't eat right or work out. I think if you are eating healthy foods and getting a decent amount of exercise, and if your doctor is not worried, you don't need to be worried about just naturally being an apple--especially since you are in a healthy weight range.

I've always been confused as to where exactly to measure my waist - smaller area above the belly button or right at the belly button? For me there's quite a difference.

Me too. Like 4 to 6 inches.

The official place for health purposes is halfway between the bottom rib and your hipbone. Which is ridiculous - like the general population, or really anyone, is going to figure that out accurately and consistently, especially when obese.

I measure at my waist, because it is small, and that makes me feel good, and it's the number I grew up thinking of as my waist measurement. It's also less variable than my belly. If I'm very careful I can be pretty consistent

But I also measure at the belly button (which I just picked because it's in approximately the right area, and ensures I always measure in the same place). It has more to do with how my pants fit and look (with today's styles), it tells me a bit more about my abdominal fat (for health reasons). But it's hard for me to measure consistently (because my body is sloping in all directions, very hard to level the tape) and it's more sensitive to bloating. No matter how careful I am, the number is not the same every day.

Using my real waist, my ratio is below 0.7. Using the belly it's around 0.8. But I am slim, I have a fairly flat belly, and I'm definitely pear/hourglass not apple. So the 0.8 seems pretty bogus.

so the whole thing is crazy and I shouldnt worry about it? Sweet Why are apples at greater risk? I assume its something to do with having excess abdominal fat putting you at greater risk or something. But if thats the case, waist:hip ratios seem pretty poor indicators, wouldnt caliper measurements be better?

That's what it is - the excess fat around your midsection interferes with organ function.

That's why my liver enzymes were so high previously - I carry a lot of fat on my tummy, so I had fat on my liver. Now that a lot of it is gone, its all better.

There are studies out there that say as long as your waist measurement is below a certain number (I want to say 30.0 inches) you've reduced your risk for a lot of those diseases.

The less than 30" measurement isn't helpful either, especially for tall women who could never get to a 30" waist healthily (like me!).

One accepted rule of thumb is to have your waist be no more than half your height: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/13/health/13waist.html So at 5'5", your target would be to have a waist no more than 32.5".

They use the waist measurement as a marker for visceral fat (fat around your abdominal organs), which obviously is hard to measure directly. So even calipers wouldn't solve that problem, and would actually mean less than the waist measurement.

It's not that waist measurement a is direct or super accurate measure of the real problem, it's just a matter of it being a doable measurement, and "reasonable" substitute.

Also, there are some different standards for waist size for some ethnic groups, particularly Asian.

I suppose calipers could be used to help ascertain how much of the waist measurement is due to subcutaneous vs internal fat. One would think height and hip size would have something to do with the norms, but I guess on a population level, they feel it works well enough. At that level, simpler can be more important than accurate but complicated.

A nice article:

Harvard