You can use this link to calculate both your Waist to Height Ration and Body Mass Index. (Whether WHtR is an accurate measure of health, however, is best left to a GQ or GD thread instead. This thread is more for fun than for health advice)
This thread and the usual talk about how BMI isn’t a very good indicator for certain muscular body types has me thinking about something I ponder now and then:
in general, which says people are healthier - their BMI or WHtR? There’s a fairly common claim that muscular people’s health risks can be gaged more accurately with their height-waist ratio.
BMI claims that people have “increased risk” above a BMI of 25.8
A “high risk” is a BMI of above 32.3
WHtR says people have “increased risk” at 53.6% for men, and 49.2% for women.
“Substantially increased risk” is above 58.3% for men, and 54.1% for women.
For the purpose of this not terribly scientific thread, let’s assume that “high” and “substantial” are roughly the same measurement of health risk.
So, which says you are healthier?
Me: According to my BMI (26.7) I’m marginally overweight, and according to my WHtR I’m of a healthy weight at 43.8%, so WHtR says I’m healthier, and for a woman my height I do have more muscle than average.
Poll questions coming up. Elaborate however you wish in posts, but there’s no expectation that you share either number.
Before you vote: if both numbers shake out in the same range (both underweight to normal*, both increased, or both high/severe) pick one of the last two options. Otherwise, if your numbers end up in different ranges, pick which one looks better.
WHtR considers these together, so I think we have to as well unless someone can find another cite for what % would be considered underweight
One of the things Ive always wondered about is the long term health risks of being incredibly muscular anyhow. Its something thats hard to sustain in the long run, and Ive seen a few turn into rather large people fatwise when they stopped.
Huh, I haven’t heard much about this WtHR business. I don’t think any equation involving the dimensions of the body is a reliable measure of a person’s health.
BMI: 17.5 - Underweight, by at least 10 lbs
WtHR: 35.4% - .5% away from being Underweight, but ‘healthier’ than my BMI suggests I guess
The calculators also told me I have 9% BF, which is not true. I had it tested recently and I am right around 20%. Due to the fact that I am super-skinny, my muscles are a fraction of the size of any normal-weight person’s. But I look pretty cut because I have firm little muscles and not a lot of body fat.
Thinking about it, my waist has been the same measurement since the first time I took it, 15 lbs lighter than I am now. I was definitely quite unhealthy at that weight due to awful habits. I have a small waist for any height, because of my bone structure and weight distribution. If I continue to take after my mom I will always have a proportionately very small waist, even if I’m quite fat everywhere else. So I think BMI is a slightly more useful tool for me.
Well, it’s a different measurement, anyway. I’m not convinced it’s any more accurate than BMI because when you scroll down the results it claims I have just over 17% body fat, which is low for a woman, and…it’s kind of depressing if it’s true considering the size of my hips and thighs. And if it’s true, what % bodyfat do you have to be down to in order to have a perfectly flat stomach? I don’t mean a defined six-pack (which frankly, looks odd on women), just a completely flat belly, which mine noticably isn’t when in the all together.
Fun to ponder, but I definitely think it needs to be taken with as many grains of salt as BMI does.
I never know where my waist is: I am very short waisted and have a small ribcage, so the thinnest part of my torso is about 7 inches above my navel–and that is the spot I bend from.