SubscribeWaist Size Matters More Than Weight
A large study of more than 44,000 nurses shows that waist size is strongly associated with death rates independently of body mass index.
Published in Circulation, the research also concludes that:
Elevated waist circumference was associated with significantly increased CVD mortality even among normal-weight women.
It seems it's more important to have a waist-to-hip ratio of less than 0.88 than it is to be "normal weight". The definition for abdominal obesity is set at a waist circumference of 34.6 inches for women (and 40 inches for men).
As an example (from WebMD)
Among women of normal weight, those with a waist larger than 34.6 inches were three times as likely to die of heart disease, compared to women with smaller waists.
Again we see the frailty of BMI as a health yardstick. This study also shows that an overweight woman (without abdominal obesity) could actually be in better shape than a normal weight woman (with ample belly fat).
More like this in Health · Apr 10, 2008
Bigger waist makes it harder for the heart to pump through the fat.
RT from RMO
ReplyIf it's harder to pump blood through fat, wouldn't that make for high blood pressure?
Just curious, because though, when at a normal weight, I have more of an hourglass figure, at my current weight (222 pounds, 5'7"), I've got a fairly good belly and hips and thighs. Waist about 44" currently, sigh.
But my blood pressure is normal. My blood work is all normal too, and my doctor says I have very low heart disease risk. And all of this was still true when I was 40 pounds heavier at my high weight of 262.
ReplyBlood pressure seems to be genetic more than anything.
ReplyI'm not sure about that.
Almost everyone in my family has hypertension. My blood pressure is 105/56 (normal). Lifestyle choices definitely influence it.. though some are more susceptible than others.
ReplyMy family is full of fat people who don't exercise and have low blood pressure and cholesterol, though, even with their lifestyle. And I have friends who eat well, exercise, and had to be put on blood pressure meds at 22. It is anecdotal, but I see less of a direct link than I see with cholesterol, with blood pressure and lifestyle.
ReplyBlood pressure probably has some genetic component, but exercise has more of an effect on it than just about any other change you could make. My whole family has hypertension, but my blood pressure is considerably lower than everyone else's because I exercise a lot. Your blood vessels are like little rubber balloons. If you take a balloon and fill it just a little bit with air and let it out again, you never really expand it much. But if you take a balloon and blow it up all the way and then deflate it and do that over and over again, the rubber will get softer and more supple and it will be easier to inflate. If you constantly pump blood fairly forcefully through your blood vessels via exercising, the pressure of your blood in them will be lower when you're resting.
ReplyThis is interesting, and mirrors several other research studies.
ReplyIf belly fat is so critical, and not all that easy to lose through dieting (spot loss), why not recommend lyposuction?
ReplyCause any liposuction that would remove more than around 5lb from a person is not safe and irresponsible, due to the blood loss caused by surgery. So blood loss + risk of death with anesthesia means it is still safer to have belly fat than to have liposuction of the radical, tumescent or vibro types necessary. Cause if all you had in your belly were 5 extra pounds, you wouldn't be at risk from your fat.
Replythis makes sense, bmi isn't that accurate; and as RT said, its harder to move blood through a thick middle
ReplyBelly fat is deadly.
ReplyWeird. SO if I'm a man with an hourglass figure that's good news?
ReplyI don't think you need an hourglass figure to have a waist of less than 40"!!
ReplyYeah. Basically I think they are saying that being "sturdy" and a bit overweight all over is ok, but that being stick thin all over with a big pot belly isn't healthy. So a big "duh" on this study - did you ever look at someone with a big pot belly and thought they were healthy?
ReplyIt's true. I just researched issues with the validity of BMI. I found that by just using BMI calculations, people like Arnold Schwarzenegger (in his weight lifting prime), Mel Gibson, and Sylvester Stallone are considered overweight.
Check out the story below:
Replyhttp://www.docshop.com/2008/04/http://www.docshop.com/2008/04/08/arnold-schwarzenegger-is-obese-problems-with-body-mass-index-bmi-calculations/
The above link is broken, so if you want to read the article, just go to DocShop.com/2008/04/08. Thanks.
ReplyVery True, I am considered obese by BMI standards and I have a 6 pack and less than 6% body fat, I am a gym rat. BMI is a height to weight ratio, so anybody with any amount of muscle is considered overweight. I am 6'-0" and weigh 210 lbs.
ReplyWell congratulations. I bet you feel all superior to us fatties.
ReplyI'm proud of you, Rick. Yes, BMI numbers are certainly misleading for a lot of people.
Don't listen to the troll. If there was any way to turn off the comments from "certain" people, I know exactly whose comments I would rather not read.
ReplyJust to let you know, though I agree BMI is horribly flawed, BMI doesn't put you as obese at 6'0 and 210 lb. That puts you at 28.5 and it's 30+ that is considered obese.
Just a random aside.
BMI doesn't work for me either-- or anyone with a high LBM. It's meant for the "average" person.
ReplyI tend to focus on somebody's health habits more than anything else. That's going to make the biggest difference in whether you live a long, healthy life.
Rick, why worry what your BMI is? You know that you're doing just fine.
The problem is that obesity is defined in terms of BMI. It should be defined in terms of percent body fat. Then, one could define indicators - BMI, waist size, navel depth maybe, and correlate them with obesity.
Of course, the problem with this is, we're still arguing about the correlation of obesity and health problems...
ReplyI think "can you still see your navel?" is a good question to define obesity. If you can't, you should lose weight.
Seriously though, my navel is like a crater. So I object to navel depth as a defining factor for obesity, haha.
ReplyIt will definitely make "outies" a popular choice :-)
Reply(there goes another "BMI" like measurement)
My mom was so creeped out by the thought of me having an outie she'd sterilize a coin and tape it to my belly button, so it wouldn't pop out when I cried. By the crater-like size I ended up with, I'm thinking she didn't use a penny. It must have been a dime at least.
ReplyAren't dimes smaller than pennys?
Perhaps she stacked several...
Strange. xD. Still, if you're gonna go around the first few days of your life with a chipclip on your tummy, I guess one can't object to a coin.
ReplyShe says it was "some coin", just one, but no idea on size. In her defense, we've had like 37 different currencies and twice as many types of coins since I was born, so it figures. I find coins from 10 years ago that make me go "when the heck did we have this coin?", so 33 years ago must all be a blur.
ReplyWhere would we be without our moms! Bless their souls :-)
ReplyThe only thing I don't get is how on earth can be of normal weight and have such a large waist?
ReplyWeight is irrelevant. Only measure BF%.
ReplyI think body shape can help.
At 5'4 and 165, my measurements were 42-28-42. I store fat all over, and am an hourglass.
ReplyOne of my friends is 5'4 and 125-- measurements of 39.5-35-37. She stores fat primarily on her stomach... Her legs and arms are way thinner than mine. (and, her hips and bust are smaller) (I tease her because I have as much lean body mass as she weighs; but honestly it's weird with her because she does workout and only eats 1200 Calories a day.)
My best advice is to talk to your doctor and let her work with you to determine your healthy weight. For me, it's all about being healthy. Don't get me wrong, looking good is great too, but it was an added bonus for me. After seeing first hand the effects weight had on my family members' health, I lost 35 pounds and have been pretty successful at keeping it off. I just want to be healthy.
ReplyI agree with this...think about it: People that are active yet overweight tend to store fat subcutaneously (around the thighs, arms, legs, buttocks, etc.) and people that are overweight and very sedentary tend to store fat viscerally (between the muscle layers, especially in the abdomen). So it's possible to be a normal weight yet have an increased waist size. My husband's family tends to be very apple-shaped...they store fat on their abdomens, but my husband's sister is very active and she doesn't have that fat-storage pattern. She's got a more pear-shaped body than the rest of them and even though she's a bit overweight, she's still got a good waist-to-hip ratio.
ReplySo can someone explain to me how we get from "waist-to-hip ratio of less than 0.88" to the specific numbers of "34.6 inches for women (and 40 inches for men)"? Isn't that just as generic and useless for lots of people as the BMI number? I'm picturing a tiny small-boned sedentary woman with a lot of fat around her waist, and a tall big-boned woman who does physical labor for a living, both of them with the same waist-measurement: >34.6 inches. The small woman is probably overeight, but I just can't believe that the hard-working woman from so-called "farm-stock" is equally unhealthy and overweight. I mean, where did the "waist-to-hip ratio of less than 0.88" go? And what happened to different body types and exercise levels? This sounds as bogus to me as the BMI number.
ReplyI tend to put a little more stock in the waist-to-hip ratio measurements, only because it is accurate for all builds, since you're not going solely on measurements. But even a person with a very large bone structure shouldn't have a waist measurement over about 35", which is probably why that number is used to determine the risk from obesity.
ReplyThis is something that jumped out at me too, but I'm thinking it may have had something to do with wanting to make it clear that the smaller the waist, the better.
Replyjust get on the elyptical are stairmaster . it'll target all of that unecessary stubborn fat (for the most part)
ReplyYou can not spot reduce fat.
ReplyBelly or visceral fat has some different characteristics from fat under the skin (subcutaneous). It is the different characteristics that make it much worse. It pumps out a number of compounds including hormones and pro-inflammatory cytokines. High amounts of visceral fat are associated with chronic inflammation. Consequences of continued low grade inflammation include probable eventual development of heart disease and increased blood pressure. Another consequence of a high volume of visceral fat is the development of insulin resistance leading to diabetes.
The high blood pressure is not due to difficulty pumping blood through the fat, it is due to inflammation of the endothelial lining of blood vessels.
The "less than" waist-hip ratio is different for men and women. Since this was a study in women the number is for women. I think the male ratio is 1.00
ReplyI keep hearing this about belly fat but what to do about it defeats me. When I was a tiny skinny thing the little fat I had was all on my middle and there was nothing I could do to get rid of it. I did crunches like mad. I worked out. I had great muscle tone everywhere but I still had this stupid belly. (I'm 5'3" and this is when I weighed 102 lbs). 25plus years later I am at a healthy weight, and like Heather's friend I have fairly slender muscular legs and arms, I've never had much in the way of hips or a butt, and I'm still stuck with all my body fat sitting around my middle. It drives me nuts - it's obviously a genetic thing, women on both my parents side have the same build - and I have no idea what I can do to get rid of it. It's bad enough that I hate the way it looks, I really could do without hearing over and over again that it's going to put me in an early grave!
ReplyI should add - one of my grandmothers with this body shape died peacefully of old age at 92. The other one - same shape, weighing maybe 100 lbs at all of about 4'11" - is still going strong at 90 - still lives in her own place, sharp as a tack, and walks everywhere she needs to go, everyday. So maybe the genes will be on my side despite my build!
Replysoozee--I'm thinking the reason you thought you had a big belly at 102 lbs is probably because:
A) You're fairly short, so your internal organs need a place to live...since you have less of a torso, they can kind of pooch out.
B) When you're that skinny, you're belly looks disproportionately larger because the rest of you is very skinny. But since you mentioned that even at a healthy weight, you tend to have more of a middle, it's probably just how your organs are situated in your abdomen.
ReplyI'm never sure how to measure waist, are you supposed to suck in or just stand normally?
ReplyMarina - stand normally with your stomach relaxed. Measure at the smallest location where it goes in -- if it doesn't go in, bend side to side and measure where you bend.
ReplyPull the tape taut, but not so much that it presses in on the skin at all.
Fat around the waist are signs of visceral fat which is dangerous - very often associated with diabetes and other health problems.
ReplyI think that makes complete sense. Do people still actually use the BMI as an indicator anymore? It seems so archaic?
Reply