I was curious to see what other featherweights waist to hip ratio was. Mine's 0.79. I read anything above 0.80 is in the danger zone.

Mine is 0.76. I'd consider myself to be slightly pear-shaped.

Mine is 0.85 - but I'm not sure I have the right measurements. Either way - good to pay attention to it! I am however pear shaped, so my belly will be gone in no time.

0.69 here.

Mine is 0.71, which apparently is healthy. Fitmom, I wouldn't worry too much. I think it is only if you carry a significant amount of fat around your waist (and between your internal organs). You seem to be so tiny that I doubt you have enough fat to worry about.

That's the whole problem with being a ruler. Your waist is almost non-existent, lol. I'd love to get my waist down to at least 25". I think 24" is out of reach b/c my body genetically will just not cinch inward - no matter what I do. Think of Gwyneth Paltrow's figure in a two-piece bathing suit with her boyish waist and that's basically me - though she's obviously a bit leaner/toned than me due to her weight hovering around 100 lbs. compared to my 117 lbs. which does make a significant difference.

Mine was 0.82 a few months ago before I started running and my waist was 27" then so losing an inch from my waist recently I guess did help. So that's progress, right?

Am I the only ruler here? All you gals are mostly pears which makes me so envious, lol. BTW, I heard that most men prefer pears as a women's body shape. Just a little trivia to start your morning off, lol.

Eeeek mine is .66. I dont know anything about wait/hip ratios. I just googled a calculator lol What does it mean if you're really high or really low??

I would think lower is better than higher. But I'm not a doctor.

Last time I measured, mine was .85. But I think mine is more from a lack of hips than an excess of visceral fat. Maybe I'm wrong, I guess I'll see what happens to it as I lose weight.

Mine is .65, but I just read an article which said that waist-hip ratio is not an accurate indicator of health. This new study took into account overall body fat percentage (which, oddly enough, previous studies had not done) and found that waist to hip ratio tended to become higher as body fat percentage increased, and a high body fat percentage is what put people at a higher risk for cardiovascular issues- not WHR.

Obviously, there are thin/average weight people with athletic figures and high WHRs, but they are not at any increased risk.

I tend to disagree with the studies that you previously cited b/c my body fat is 18.2% which is considered on the higher end of the athletic range and my waist to hip ratio is just sneaking under the acceptable range. I think it has to do a lot with what shape your body is IMO. If I was more of an hourglass, I'd probably have a lower number overall. But who knows? They are always changing things in these studies, lol.

Mine's .72...which sounds great and all except a 38.5" hips isn't all that spectacular on someone my height! I'm an hourglass when I'm skinny but a pear when I'm carrying a lil' extra!

Sorry, I just reread my previous post- and I did not make my point clearly.

The most recent study says that waist to hip ratio does not matter, overall body fat percentage is what matters.

Sorry, fitmom- You sound perfectly healthy and I was attempting to reassure you.

Thanks okay, jens10. I do worry a bit because heart disease runs in my family but I am old enough to realize that these studies are just a starting point and there are exceptions to every rule. I think I fall under the exceptions rule in this case, lol. My bust and hips are not gonna get any bigger at this point (both are 33") so my only hope is too whittle my waist down a bit more and see what happens. No harm done.

How do you compute it? Is it your hips around the hip bone or around the butt/saddlebag area? Thanks.