Talk:Waist-to-height ratio

Ambiguity

The last paragraph says "... a ratio of over 0.5 is critical." Does that mean "critical for good health" or "a medically critical condition"?

A critical warning, as I understand it (somewhere I saw something that "optimal" was 46-48%, but I can't find it now.) Perhaps it should say "a ratio under 0.5 is better." htom (talk) 00:09, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe that for three months this paragraph read "... a ratio of UNDER 0.5 is critical", because someone misunderstood the meaning of the word critical and thought it best to edit the article, changing "over" to "under". I hope the meaning is now clarified once and for all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.231.93.193 (talk) 08:02, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WHtR

i think it should be WtHR. but I'm not sure122.150.64.245 (talk) 11:34, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You'd think so, but that would still be ambiguous with "Waist-to-Hip ratio". So it's WHtR because that's how we clarify Waist to Height Ratio. --145.226.30.45 (talk) 12:53, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

chart

Can we please either source these example ratios or get rid of them? For instance, I was curious about the Marylin Monroe measurements and so read through this blog discussing Marylin's measurements: according to this, her height as measured by the corner following her death was 65 inches, and her waist seems to have varied from 24 to ~28.5 inches throughout her life as she lost and gained weight (0.37 to 0.44 waist to height--making this chart wrong). And heaven knows where the swimmer measurements came from. ChloeMellon (talk) 15:47, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

where does the chart come from? it is unsourced and does not appear to come from the last reference in the text right about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.13.232 (talk) 18:44, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The chart is appears to be misleading; the measurements for Beyonce and Marilyn Monroe are most likely taken from BWH measurements, as that is what would be publicized. Those measurements are traditionally taken at the smallest part of the waist, whereas WtHR should be measured lower on the abdomen.

Unhelpful Table

Children (up to 15)	Men	Women	Categorisation	Examples
<=0.34	<=0.34	<=0.34	Extremely Slim	Marilyn Monroe (0.3359)
0.46 to 0.51	0.43 to 0.52	0.42 to 0.48	Healthy	Female College Swimmer (0.4240) Male College Swimmer (0.4280) Body Builder (0.4580)
0.52 to 0.63	0.53 to 0.57	0.49 to 0.53	Overweight	Female at increased risk (0.4920) Male at increased risk (0.5360)
0.64 +	0.58 to 0.62	0.54 to 0.57	Very Overweight
	0.63 +	0.58 +	Morbidly Obese

The range of 0.34 to 0.42 is left out. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 23:22, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is a reliable source for this table at all. Should probably be removed. Dan88888 (talk) 13:04, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You mean apart from the two citations at the end of the sentence that introduces the table? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:46, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because if you look at those citations, they do not contain this information. Dan88888 (talk) 15:06, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dan88888: Ah... a pity you didn't attach a {{failed verification}} on it, to save my blushes. I've had a quick google for "Female College Swimmer (0.4240)" and get nothing but copies of this article. Now I agree. I will delete. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:01, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's a good suggestion. I'll try to remember to do that next time. Dan88888 (talk) 17:45, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

or just {{fv}} --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:02, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did find a reputable source for this exact table, at Fit-To-Fight: Waist vs. Waist/Height Measurements to Determine an Individual's Fitness Level a Study in Statistical Regression and Analysis (Air Force Institute of Technology, Student Thesis, 2005) on page 25. Unfortunately, the concluding sentence of page 24 reads "Some interesting waist-to-height ratios can be found on the internet." which is not exactly a ringing endorsement of a potential citation. I thought we might have a case of citogenesis but I see that the table was added to this article by Dr.nilesh physio with this edit seven years later, on 18 September 2012. So where "on the internet" the author found it in 2005 remains a mystery. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:02, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

one place i found it was https://www.mdapp.co/waist-to-height-ratio-whtr-calculator-433/ Dan88888 (talk) 17:54, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to be much the same table (without the examples column) so in principle is just what the doctor ordered. Unfortunately it doesn't say which of the four papers listed the table comes from. Without that information, there is too high a risk that it came from Wikipedia. Do you have any access to these papers? eg via University library? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:06, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All except the first one are available on the internet for free. None of those contain this information. It's possibly someone's interpretation of some of the data presented, but then not a RS. The first one is behind a paywall, but there is no hint of such a result in the abstract. Most of the papers talk about whether to use 0.5 as a universal cutoff, providing evidence. Dan88888 (talk) 10:40, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bold, revert, discussing proposed changes by Dr Margaret Ashwell

Dr Margaret Ashwell has attempted to make substantial changes to this article using weasel words like "it has been demonstrated" and "refs to come" and wp:conflict of interest editing by (apparently) citing the editor's own work [that the name is the same may be coincidental or impersonation]. This is not acceptable. Wikipedia's WP:MEDRS policy states clearly that any statements with medical implications may only be be made if they are supported by citations of the highest standard. Any edits that lack such support will be reverted without hesitation.

She has already had changes reverted for lack of such supporting evidence and was cautioned on her talk page about them – only to reinstate the unsupported changes without any explanation. Before editing the article again, Dr Ashwell is strongly advised to present at this talk page first the changes that she believes need to be made and the impeccable sources that support those changes. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:20, 14 September 2021 (UTC) [reply]

--Dr Margaret Ashwell (talk) 10:55, 15 September 2021 (UTC)My reply to John Maynard Friedman:[reply]

I would like to get this page up to date. I am a respected scientist with a good publication history in this area. If you will let me continue, I shall cite many authors who have contributed to this field. I only said 'refs to come' becasue I did not have time to complete yesterday. Please let me finish so that this page is an accuarte reflection of the state of the science. May we start an email conversation Mr Friedman so that you can tell me what ineed to do?

Dr Margaret Ashwell OBE DSc FAfN

Wikipedia most definitely welcomes contributions from subject experts, so your considered input is very welcome. You must appreciate, however, that we have no way to distinguish between respected authorities and charlatans, so the same rule applies to all: contributions must be founded clearly on reliable sources and the standards for medical information are particularly high because we know that many visitors trust at least this aspect of Wikipedia in the first instance.

Really the only major problem with your edits is that you are not citing as you go along. Citing your own work is not good but if it has a high citation score outside Wikipedia, it may be acceptable.

I would be very happy to have a more detailed conversation on your own talk page or on mine. Meanwhile, let me assure you that I recognize your good will and look forward to seeing the article improved. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:37, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you'll note she is the primary author of two of the papers cited by that above article. Dan88888 (talk) 10:45, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

She is a nationally (UK) recognised subject expert (it is almost certain that she was involved in establishing the UK NICE "keep below 50%" guidance) and the papers were published in peer-reviewed journals. So her input would have been highly relevant and appreciated: unfortunately she did not follow up on our initial exchange of emails. If I had had access to the papers, I would have had no hesitation in citing relevant sections from them, they are unarguably WP:RSs. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:01, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just to wrap this up for future editors: Dr Ashwell communicated off-line and the question was resolved amicably, resulting in very valuable revisions to the article. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:20, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Body roundness interpretation of NICE guideline figures: Bold, revert, discuss

Per WP:BRD, I have reverted an edit by Uwappa, in which they replaced the cited metrics with this table:

classification	Waist to height ratio
healthy central adiposity, no increased health risks	0.4 to 0.49
increased central adiposity, increased health risks	0.5 to 0.59
high central adiposity, further increased health risks	0.6 or more

I have two problems with it.

there is no reliable source for a mapping of WHtR to Body roundness index, as the table purports to show. Per WP:MEDRS, this is not acceptable and is grounds alone for reversion without further discussion. So at best it is a WP:NOR violation. But it is minimally clear from the table at Body roundness index#Range of body roundness that the "increased health risk" begins at BRI=7, so the first line of the table should show the first six figures in the BRI list, not just the first two. "Increased health risks" may correspond to BRI=7 and 8, and everything above is "further increased".
the colours are misleading: according to the many research citations given and used by NICE and their counterparts elsewhere, WHtR in the range 0.5 to 0.59 is increased risk and should thus be coloured amber. Everything above 0.6 should be coloured red. (The green and red outlines shown at c:File:Body roundness index silhouettes.svg also do not correctly reflect the source: 7 and 8 should be amber.)

Does anyone disagree? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 14:51, 20 October 2024 (UTC) revised slightly --14:55, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On point 1, it may be that the mapping is a simple mathematical one, since the source data for both indices is the same (waist circumference and height) and nothing more, so the WP:RS challenge is probably moot [in the US sense].

Meanwhile, the table at Body roundness index#Range of body roundness is under review, which seems likely to resolve the remaining issue at #1 and all of #2. Watch this space. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:44, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no doubt about the silhouettes, trust the math skills of User:Cmglee. Nobody disputed the computations, see 21:51, 9 October. The ellipse proportions come from a medical source, based on waist and height. No worries there.
The colour of the ellipses is a temporary problem. The ellipses serve no purpose here. The silhouettes show roundness and the ellipses also show roundness. See earlier comment in BRI talk page: The ellipses should go.
I too have my doubts about the colours of the ellipses. They seem to be based on a BMI->BRI mapping, which results in a lot of overlap. See my first design of BRI graph. The "Alternate table based on Thomas averages" is not my work. I welcome a review of the current table. My recommendation 19 Oct, 2023: forget weight based BMI categories, find sources for categories, value ranges that are related to roundness, WHtR, BRI.
I too have my doubts about the BRI ranges and categories in the BRI graph and welcome a review by other editors. See my doubts in BRI talk page: the no no to categories, point 5, 20:04 10 Oct, doubts about the range values and my 10:17, 11 Oct recommendation to be bold and welcome comments from other editors.
Yes the mapping is a simple mathematical one. I have zero doubts about WHtR and BRI being 2 scales for Body Roundness as they are based on the same variables: height and waist. See work in progress in a sandbox: A calculator that computes both. I firmly reject the WP:NOR accusation. Simple calculations are not OR. To me the following is obvious:

Waist 50 height 100 yields 0.5 WHtR and 3.36 BRI.
Waist 1, height 2 also yields 0.5 WHtR and 3.36 BRI.
Waist 5, height 10, same story.
Waist w80, height 160 same story.
Waist w100, height 200 same story.

No proof, no OR required for the obvious. I would support a new article Body roundness which covers its 2 units: WHtR and BRI, just like length covers the units km and miles.

Uwappa (talk) 16:16, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JMF, please have a look at: Template_talk:Body_roundness_index#c-Uwappa-20241020190300-Mismatch_NICE_WHtR_classifications_-_BRI_colours Uwappa (talk) 19:05, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]