Weight to Waist Ratio

[7Wannabe5]

If you were looking for a simple metric to track muscle gain, wouldn't weight to waist ratio serve reasonably well, at least for any given individual seeking personal improvement? Or am I missing something?

[JL13]

I feel like that might be a bit too simplistic. You probably want to figure out BF% and weight so you can monitor your lean mass. At least for me, waist circumference seems to be a pretty accurate gauge for body fat %.

[JL13]

Exmaple:

150lbs/30" = 5? and 160lbs/32" = 5. These appear to be the same, but the former is roughly 11% body fat and the later is roughly 15% body fat. So lean mass is 133.5lbs and the later is 136lbs lean mass.

You get the same "score" with weight to waist ratio but body composition is quite different.

[7Wannabe5]

@JL13: Gotcha. But, if we are considering the same individual over time, or two identical twins, if weight were to stay steady and waist circumference was reduced, that would generally tend towards correlating with an increase in muscular mass or body density, right? Actually, now that I think about it, I guess that might only be a good rule of thumb for middle-aged people swinging right below and above healthy BMI. Somebody starting out young and skinny might increase waist measure with muscle gain, and maybe somebody who was very obese might exhibit muscular gain relatively more in the extremities?

[jacob]

https://www.healthstatus.com/calculate/ ... lator-navy

(google US navy bodyfat)

[7Wannabe5]

@jacob: Thanks, that's easy enough.

[JL13]

@7WB5

Yes you're right but the problem is you're assuming weight stays the same. If you hold one variable constant and change the other, then it's a perfect gauge. But in real humans both variables are going to move around so you won't know the full story.

[7Wannabe5]

@JL13: That would generally be true, but since I am an individual that suffers from sloth, sugar and spread-sheet addiction, I have records of previous weights and measurements. Unfortunately, ever since I read the book "Younger Next Year for Women" and observed what happened to my sister after her ovaries were removed, I have become more obsessed with avoiding the possibility of hip fracture at 80 than avoiding the possibility of heart attack at 65, but I am also concerned about that. So, my goal is maintenance of estrogen level, bone density and gluteal muscle/fat while reducing visceral and subcutaneous belly fat. When I weigh 164 lbs. my measurements are approximately 39/29/41 which is pretty much ideal for ME in terms of appearance, but still carrying 30% body fat according to that damn calculator Jacob linked. So, I'm thinking if I get back down to 164 and my waistline is wider or widening past 29 then that would be a worrisome sign that either my estrogen levels are dropping or my muscle percentage is decreasing or my visceral fat level is increasing or some combination of these health risks and vice-versa. My observations of my maternal grandmother, mother and other older women of Polish heritage in my water aerobics class would lead me to believe that there is little chance that I will lose adequate hip padding with advancing age, but better safe than sorry.

[JL13]

Sounds right. I think the waist circumference is a pretty good gauge. I personally keep an abnormally large amount of fat on my belly, so much though that even at 15% body fat my waist/hip ratio is in the risk level. It's an indicator of increased risk of a bunch of diseases. It also puts me at increased risk of not having a 6 pack

I monitor waist circumference as the main gauge of overall fitness.

[C40]

If you want the easiest way possible, get a body fat caliper (they are cheap, get the white plastic kind that clicks into place when you're squeezing hard enough) and check your fat thickness about two inches up from the top front corner of your pelvis (essentially the front of your love handle, or whee they would be)

I've found this to be very quick, easy, and an accurate indicator of getting leaner or fatter. The reading in mm will end up being in the ballpark of your body fat %, but it's definitely not the same as a real, full test. It's more useful for tracking your own personal progress

[BRUTE]

I personally keep an abnormally large amount of fat on my belly, so much though that even at 15% body fat my waist/hip ratio is in the risk level. It's an indicator of increased risk of a bunch of diseases. It also puts me at increased risk of not having a 6 pack

JL13 might try out intermittent fasting. brute just read that lower belly/back fat in men and thigh/butt fat in women has different distributions of receptors. so when the body is "burning fat", and sending out hormones to release body fat into fatty acids to use into the bloodstream, those fat deposits are less likely to respond. supposedly, fasting for 12 hours or more releases different types of hormones, that fit the other type of receptor.

brute finds this extremely interesting. the genetics of this could explain why certain ethnicities have different body types. brute has seen certain black or latin women with very flat bellies, yet enormous butts. similarly, certain asian women don't seem to have any butt fat at all. in men, americans seem to become blobs much more than other fat men. europeans seem to mostly acquire belly fat, whereas blacks and latin men often become very stocky, carrying it well. it might be that different diets/lifestyles propagate different ways of becoming fat, too, since americans would probably share european genes.

different distributions of various fat-release receptors might explain these things.

[JL13]

I'm sure all the beer and wine a drink is a factor as well as genetics. I remember trying out the Warrior Diet around this time last year and I got down to 29" waist (from 32"). It's confounded though, because I was also training for races. I may pick it up again.

[7Wannabe5]

JL13 said: I personally keep an abnormally large amount of fat on my belly, so much though that even at 15% body fat my waist/hip ratio is in the risk level. It's an indicator of increased risk of a bunch of diseases.

Due to low exposure to testosterone in the womb and other genetic factors, I am the opposite. My BMI is over 27. My waist-to-hip ratio is around .72 and my likely botched and inaccurate attempt at measuring my belly fat with make-shift calipers constructed out of scissors blunted with duct tape comes in at something under 2.5 mm. IOW, I am not very muscular, but almost all my not insignificant collection of junk is in the rear trunk and my belly is pretty flat.

[BRUTE]

it's getting hot in here

[C40]

Ooooh! I approve

[7Wannabe5]

Eh, you guys have just been brain-washed by the marketing efforts of the corn syrup industrial complex. Also, nobody is ever, ever going to pick me for their team in the pull-ups competition.

[jennypenny]

Due to low exposure to testosterone in the womb and other genetic factors, I am the opposite.

That's my biggest problem with waist-based ratios. Going by the freakish length of my ring finger, I was obviously exposed to a lot of testosterone in the womb. Even at my fittest, my torso is square, not shapely. I agree with your take on what that means for us though -- you can be healthy at the top end of the BMI range, but I need to stay at the lower end because of the tendency to accumulate belly fat.

[JL13]

How in the world do you get exposed to too much testosterone in the womb?

[jennypenny]

@JL--Usually it means your mother had a higher than normal testosterone level. It can also happen in boy/girl fraternal twins because the boy's testosterone will affect the developing girl. I'm not sure how else. 7W5 may know. Testosterone level has a huge influence on developing babies.

[BRUTE]

female parental unit was juicing