however, researchers don ’ metric ton always agree which method is best for quantifying whether an individual is “ besides ” corpulence. The three most normally used measures are BMI ( body mass index ), shank circumference, and waist-to-hip proportion. But is one better than the others ?
Deagreez / Getty Images
Contents
The BMI
The measuring stick most normally used to assess weight-related hazard is BMI, a ratio calculated from your weight and altitude. specifically, your BMI equals your torso ( in kilogram ) divided by your stature squared ( in meters ) .
A “ normal ” BMI is 18.5-24.9 kg/m2 ). A BMI of 25-29.9 kg/m2 is considered fleshy, from 30 – 34.9 kg/m2 is corpulent, and 35 kg/m2 or higher is very corpulent. BMI calculators are easy to use ( all you need is your acme and slant ) and are readily available on-line. ( hera ’ s one from the NIH. )
The BMI is useful because this measurement has been employed in numerous clinical studies, so lots of analysis has been done with the BMI measurement. In fact, the conventional definitions of “ fleshy, ” “ corpulent ” and “ very corpulent ” were themselves based on these BMI studies.
however, BMI is not constantly accurate in every individual. It overestimates body fatten in people with a lot of muscle mass and tends to underestimate it in aged people ( who often lose muscle multitude ) .
shank circumference
The idea of using waist circumference as a gamble predictor stems from the fact that abdominal fleshiness ( accumulation of fatso weave in the belly ) is broadly thought to be “ worse ” than accumulating fatten elsewhere ( such as the buttocks or thighs ). This is because abdominal fleshiness correlates with an increased risk for not only cardiovascular disease, but besides metabolic syndrome, high blood pressure, and diabetes .
Studies have shown that a shank circumference of 40 inches or more ( 102 centimeter ) in men, and of 35 inches or more ( 88 centimeter ) in women, is associated with raised cardiovascular risk.
Waist-to-Hip Ratio
The waist-to-hip ratio is another direction of assessing abdominal fleshiness, and studies have confirmed that this measure correlates with cardiovascular risk. To calculate your waist-to-hip ratio, measure both your shank and hip circumferences, then divide the shank measurement by the hip measurement. In women, the ratio should be 0.8 or less, and in men, it should be 1.0 or less. ( This means that in women the waist should be narrower than the hips, and in men, the waist should be narrower or the lapp as the hips. )
The waist-to-hip proportion is helpful because in smaller people waist circumference alone may underestimate risk. By comparing waist circumference to hip circumference, you can get a better reading of abdominal fleshiness .
Which Measurement Is Better at Predicting Risk ?
There is no authoritative answer to this question.
Read more: Stevia: Good or Bad?
BMI is surely the “ standard ” measuring stick of fleshiness, in that it is the bill recommended by the NIH, the American Heart Association, the American College of Cardiology, and The Obesity Society. These recommendations, again, are based on the large body of inquiry that has used BMI to predict cardiovascular outcomes .
however, it is important to realize that, while BMI is quite full at predicting overall risk in large populations, it might not be a particularly accurate measure for a given person. besides, it does not specifically take into account the degree of abdominal fleshiness a person may have .
several studies have suggested that a measure of abdominal cinch can be more accurate than BMI in predicting heart disease. In detail, while BMI is a forecaster of heart attack, it is a relatively weak predictor when other risk factors ( such as diabetes, fume, cholesterol, diet, activity, and high blood pressure ) are taken into explanation. In contrast, some studies have shown an lift waist-to-hip proportion to be a strong predictor of heart disease, specially in women.
The Bottom Line
many doctors are now relying on a combination of measures to advise patients on their weight-related risk. If your BMI is 35 or higher, that ’ s pretty much all you need to know. And if your BMI is 30-35, unless you are a bodybuilder or other type of brawny athlete, you are about surely excessively fat .
But if you ’ re in the “ overweight ” category, knowing your waist circumference or your waist-to-hip proportion can tell you something important, since abdominal fleshiness is bad for you even if your overall weight is not outlandishly high .
One advantage of the waist-to-hip ratio is that you can assess it yourself, without formally measuring anything, in the privacy of your own home. Just strip down to your skivvies and look at yourself in the mirror, both frontal and in profile. If your shank in either dimension is bigger than your hips, you ’ rhenium busted, and the surfeit poundage you ’ re carrying about in your abdomen is contributing to your overall cardiovascular risk. To reduce that risk, your weight is something you will need to address .
A Word From Verywell
Being overweight is an authoritative risk factor for cardiovascular disease and metabolic conditions such as diabetes. The question of how best to measure whether we weigh “ besides much ” is a adept one, but in most cases, it ’ s not besides difficult for us to figure out .
For people whose BMI is quite elevated ( over 30 kg/m2 ), that ’ south normally the only measure you need to know to conclude that fleshiness is posing a significant risk. But for people whose BMI is in the 25-30 kg/m2 range, a measurement of abdominal fleshiness can be quite helpful in determining whether excess fatty is contributing to their risk .