Talk:Waist–hip ratio

message: Say someone has a beer belly.. How should the person measure the waist? Is it the widest part of the abdomen? Xiner 17:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beer bellies 

message: Hey. Nice picture. Much better than the one I did for hip and buttock padding. :) --AliceJMarkham 06:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But the caption uses the term "frontal WHR", which isn't defined anywhere. Presumably what is meant is the ratio of the widths, not the circumferences. Including a number in the caption that is not a WHR as defined in the text invites misinterpretation.--88.73.46.92 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 00:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nice pic 

message: Since when can men said to be fertile? Bahahaha. Virile maybe, or something along those lines. It's the soil that is fertile, not the seed. Doh! --192.139.122.66 17:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The words fertile and infertile are used for men too. --Apoc2400 13:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fertile men? 

message: Should this be combined with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hip-to-waist_ratio --Synchronizeddive 12:16am, 7 February 2007
More to the point, that redir was wrong and has now been corrected to point to this article. --AliceJMarkham 07:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hip-Waist Ratio

message: There is some controversy concerning the specific .70 ratio.  This article http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2372/is_2_39/ai_91475121 evaluates the data used to come to that ratio by Dr. Singh and found that it actually is more a range from about .667 to about .70 and includes a Playboy model (one of the categories along with Miss America winners used in the original study) with a WHR of about .78.  Should something decreasing the importance of the .70 ratio be added to this article? -- 66.68.19.44 02:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversy

message: The bit about intelligence BADLY needs to be rephrased. It seems to suggest that what is at best a hypothesis about one of the most complex issues of human development is actually fact. It's not.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.177.41.154 (talk) 00:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Rewritten I don't know but certainly not removed. If a correlation has been shown than that's that and should be mentioned. Of course correlation doesn't necessarily means causation. A simple theory could be women with more ideal whr tend to mate with higher IQ men more often. Pure speculation but it's just to show how it could be indirectly related.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.239.89.198 (talk) 03:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Intelligence

message: Add section where it is explained in practice.
See this page for info.
KVDP (talk) 09:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Practical measurement not described 

message: "Women within the 0.7 range have optimal levels of estrogen and are less susceptible to major diseases such as diabetes, cardiovascular disorders and ovarian cancers"
Claims such as this are extremely dubious, because if this were true, wouldn't 0.7 be universally rated as more attractive?
"Women with a 0.7 WHR (waist circumference that is 70% of the hip circumference) are usually rated as more attractive by men from European cultures[10]...In other cultures, preferences appear to vary according to some studies,[11] ranging from 0.6 in China,[12] to 0.8 or 0.9 in parts of South America and Africa,[13][14][15] and divergent preferences based on ethnicity, rather than nationality, have also been noted."
Are we to believe that South America and Africa have maladaptive attractiveness criteria, while North America beauty standards are conducive to good health? I sense junk-science.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soxfan267 (talk • contribs) 09:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  pov/dubious tags 

message: The topic of waist-hip ratio is something that pertains to women only, this entire article is about women, NOT men, the fact that men have much less pronounced hips is merely a sidenote and NOT worthy of male nudity on this page. 63.22.162.175 (talk) 04:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Aside from the fact that wikipedia is not censored, you're quite incorrect in stating that the article is about women and not men. While some sections are specifically about women, the overall article is most certainly about both males and females. If we were going to say that the male photo didn't belong, we'd have to say the same of the female photo. --AliceJMarkham (talk) 06:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The male is not merely a sidenote here.  It is useful to have a point of comparison.  As I noted above, the nudes are both useful and tasteful, and I say let them be. Kilyle (talk) 10:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unnecessary Male Nudity 

message: Currently article presents invention of concept to a Dr Singh in 1993, whatever his role in being a proponent in the US, Ashwell in the UK had published back in 1985:
* 
and she subsequently went on to promote a height waist ratio chart known as the "Ashwell shape chart", eg go see http://www.weetabix.co.uk/eat-smart-get-active/bmi/body-shape/ :
And a observation study from 1968 (published in 1984) also shown value of the WHR:
*
*
And the earliest hit for "waist hip ratio" on PubMed gets back to previous year of 1983:
* 
David Ruben  Talk  01:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: History

message: Genes for 'pear shape' found. Tijfo098 (talk) 08:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Genes for 'pear shape' found" 

message: The current (2013-06-27) entry reads "In a series of studies done by Singh (1993), men used WHR and fat distribution to determine a woman’s attractiveness. In her first study, men were shown a series of 12 drawings of women with various WHR’s and body fat distribution." but the biography of Davendra Singh clearly IDs Singh as a man.  The name Davendra is usually used for males.  I don't know Singh's actual gender, but I know that something is wrong somewhere.  Please fix! AdderUser (talk) 03:01, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Singh Gender Error? 

message: The International System of Units (SI) ought to be given first throughout the article (and wikipedia in general), then, perhaps, in inches (&c) for the visiting residents of the USA.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.244.231.210 (talk) 16:01, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless it can be shown that a majority of the editors and readers of the English-language Wikipedia are not "visiting residents of the USA" we should continue to place inches first and cm second. — Robert Greer (talk) 01:20, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Moreover in the UK both inches and cm are widely used for everyday measurements such as clothing and hence waist & hip. So for UK visitors it doesn't matter either way. Ben Finn (talk) 12:55, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Units of measurement 

message: As noted above #Hip-Waist Ratio, the definition in the lede is mathematically incorrect. "For example, a 25" waist divided by 38" hips (25/38) yields a waist-hip ratio of 0.65+" . The :ratio is 25/38, the :quotient is 0.66 (to two decimal places). Either 1. the article is factually incorrect and should be fixed, or 2. if it is common in medicine to use the quotient value but described as a "ratio" that should be noted in a footnote. The use of "higher" etc in the article adds to the confusion. Widefox; talk 10:40, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is common in medicine and everyday speech to describe a quotient as a 'ratio'; indeed Ratio states this, so I don't think it needs noting. I have corrected the value, however. Ben Finn (talk) 12:51, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious 

message: The lead image in this article is so bad that I'm going to take the drastic measure of simply removing it. It's an aesthetic disaster and the images used for comparison are blatantly sexist in their reproduction of gender stereotypes. There has to be thousands of alternative images out there that could've been used instead of these two. While well-meaning, the choics in this case was quite inappropriate.
Peter Isotalo 14:41, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  the photo is helpful and correct, simply stop masturbating you Christian.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4111:1900:C540:70CA:2FE7:7D98 (talk) 10:09, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

text: The image is un-encyclopedic. The male is very fat, is wearing wrinkly man panties, has nebbish slouched posture, etc, while the female looks like a supermodel. This is an excessively unbalanced comparison of an attractive, idealized adult to a relatively unattractive, abnormal one. The IP from 2016 accused Peter of being a "masturbating Christian", but the issue here is not at all nudity, it's the over-exaggerrated disparity of WHR, attractiveness, posture, and attire between the two. - 2603:8080:2C00:1E00:194A:2A64:7161:D075 (talk) 23:24, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Thank you for changing the illustration to a better image.  --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:40, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

text: I have decided to WP:BEBOLD and just do it. Feel free to do a WP:BRD if is too problematic. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:16, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appropriate illustration needed 

message: Would this image of the Venus de Milo (WHR=0.76) be more broadly acceptable? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:25, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I have decided to WP:BEBOLD and just do it. Feel free to do a WP:BRD if is too problematic. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:16, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Venus de Milo

message: The DSGP source is now at S 1- Leitlinie Vorsorgeuntersuchung im Sport (2007) but has nothing about WHR that I can find
or is google translate letting me down? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:06, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  DSGP citation moved but does not appear to contain the figures given in the article 

message: In the table of the "Indicator of health" section, the WHO obesity cut-off points may need to be changed from ">" to "≥". It cites this PDF, where the info is on page 27. The PDF says "above 0.90 for males and above 0.85 for females", but later says "Based on these two WHO reports, the recommendations often attributed to WHO are shown in Table A1", which "Table A1" has "≥0.90 cm (M); ≥0.85 cm (W)". Jroberson108 (talk) 22:00, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  WHO obesity cut-off discrepancy 

message: Citation #43 has a dead link (supporting the following claim) "Women with a 0.7 WHR are usually rated as more attractive by men from Indo-European cultures"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yellowpelican (talk • contribs) 18:47, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Rescued from Archive.org. Next time, why not do it yourself? BTW, new topics go at end. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:49, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you! I think the reason I didn't is because of incompetence. Next time I will try. Yellowpelican (talk) 15:14, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, not incompetence, just inexperience. (It was an exhortation to have a go next time, not telling you off. If you run into difficulties, feel totally free to ask for help at my talk page. Or at the WP:Teahouse, if you prefer.) --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:59, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken citation link