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)

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)

WHtR

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

@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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

1. 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".
2. 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)

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)

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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)

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)

JMF, user:cmglee removed the ellipses from the silhouettes.

An old version with ellipses may still hang around in your browser cache,

but a fresh image should be without silhouettes now:

Is it now OK to reinsert the silhouettes? Uwappa (talk) 18:44, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Health arch design

How about an alternative design, based on a draft health arch that was lost in BRI talk page turmoil:

	Waist-to-height ratio
risk level	... 0.39	0.4 - 0.49	0.5 -0.59	0.6 ...
no increased health risks		healthy central adiposity
increased health risks	decreased central adiposity???		increased central adiposity
further increased health risks				high central adiposity

• health risk, WHtR values, NICE WHtR classifications from current Waist-to-height_ratio#Suggested_boundary_values
• I am not sure about the ... 0.39 decreased central adiposity. There must be a 'red-amber' zone below 0.4 for the opposite of increased central adiposity being decreased centraladiposity. See also a previous discussion above with a WHtR of 0.3359 for Marilyn_Monroe .

The lowest WHtR I can find is 0.2215 for Cathie_Jung, height 1.72m, waist 38.1cm. It is unlikely she was a subject of WHtR research, so I think the value range ... 0.39 is appropriate. The value range 0.22 - 0.39 is very small. It must be a thin line to cross from healthy to Emaciated, which is consistent with the steep blue line in Zhang's figure 2 for low BRI values. Any research with WHtR values known for Emaciated people?

Shall I remove the text 'decreased central adiposity', just show the 2 silhouettes in a colour range from dark red to amber?

• Colour gradients based on Template_talk:Body_roundness_index#New_colours
• Silhouettes should have lost their ellipses now, fresh browser cache. Kudos to user:Cmglee
• Silhouettes are based on their BRI equivalents, using

Please select in your preferences: Enables javascript Calculator template to see a working calculator.

WHtR to BRI converter

pi = π	3.141592653589793
${\text{BRI}}=364.2-365.5{\sqrt {1-{\Big (}{\frac {\text{waist}}{\;\;\pi \;\;\times \;\,{\text{height}}}}{\Big )}^{2}}}$	3.3588109427631707
${\text{WHtR}}={\frac {\text{waist}}{\text{height}}}$	0.5
Waist	80
Waist diameter = Waist / pi	25.464790894703256
Height	160

Uwappa (talk) 08:45, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Reuse BRI graphic?

The WHTR formula is so simple, it is not on the page yet. Nevertheless, should it be, so people can see it is simple?

Just like at body roundness index#Calculation the formula could be explained by , a cropped version, just steps 1 and 2. Uwappa (talk) 04:38, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

What would be the advantage? WHtR doesn't need any explanation, it is self evident. To summarise WP:IMAGES, images are to illustrate, not to decorate. Sorry, but this looks decorative to me and not at all informative or illustrative. An image of Taylor Swift would be gratuitous but illustrate the point better. No, I didn't think so either. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:15, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, given the choice I would prefer a Taylor Swift image over a math formula, ha ha ha.

I was not making a suggestion. It really is a question with question mark. My doubts here:

• yes, a formula will show how easy WHtR is. People will see that immediately without having to read any text. Especially for people that also visit the BRI page. And that may happen more often.
• no, it is so easy, it does not need a formula. If... and only if you have read and understood the text.

Uwappa (talk) 16:37, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Where to go with Calculator?

Several options:

1. The current location in See Also is not a standard link, like Template:Body_roundness_index would be. But, yes agree, a calculator is better than a link. But is this the best location?
2. My preference: Close to Waist-to-height_ratio#Recommended_boundary_values, based on the following scenarios:

• current situation: reader sees calculator in Body_roundness_index#Calculation and clicks on the WHtR field prompt. Scrolling down, a calculator again at the NICE classification. Though not retained, WHtR values start to make sense, can be manually mapped against NICE ranges. Though evident to some, a math formula could show the simplicity of the formula, making the calculators computations WP:VERIFY compliant.

• future Template:Body_roundness_index/sandbox situation: reader sees calculator in BRI page, clicks on "further increased health risk" for WHtR 0.6292134831460674. That is a deeplink to Waist-to-height_ratio#furtherIncreasedHealthRisks with the calculator next to it. It will show that the calculator risk levels are WP:VERIFY come from a reliable source.
• and vice versa: a reader in the WHtR page can click on BRI field prompt, and verify that the computed BRI value is consistent with the formula. And yes I'm stubborn: I think the WHtR bit should be taken out of the BRI formula, show that simple calculation first, then how WHtR is used in BRI. The WHtR - BRI relation will be obvious to all with basic math skills.

Uwappa (talk) 06:12, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

The issue is that the personal calculator is not encyclopedic. It doesn't provide independently- or reliably-sourced information to the article. It is a curiosity. Arguably it is a WP:notguide violation. Nevertheless, it is potentially useful to readers so we should have it somewhere but not in the body of the article. Furthermore, where you put it made it look like an illustrative example, with no clue that it is interactive.

If you disagree, I think the only recourse is to talk:MOS because this is a novel concept with (afaik) no existing policy that covers it. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 07:41, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

It is a thin line between

1. giving medical advice, a violation of WP:MEDICAL
2. giving information so it is really obvious what action is best.

A calculator next to the risk level is on the safe side on that line.

See Template_talk:Body_roundness_index#AI_or_not_AI? which addresses this very question. Uwappa (talk) 13:01, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

See Template_talk:Body_roundness_index#Colours_for_Body_Roundness_4.0 for proposed idea of presenting sources. Uwappa (talk) 13:22, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Current live version does not show risk levels. Sandbox version is still in design.

See Template_talk:Body_roundness_index#Colours_for_Body_Roundness_4.0 for proposed sources.

Please

1. finish talk before any panic.
2. mature sandbox version, so people can see what they'll get.
3. The line is thin, but on the safe side.

See also proposed answers to expected panic and turmoil at:

• Template_talk:Body_roundness_index#AI_or_not_AI?
• Template_talk:Body_roundness_index#Information_hierarchy

Please help with getting things right in talk page during development. Uwappa (talk) 13:31, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

It may be worth looking at Islamic calendar, which gives today's date in both AH and CE (Gregorian) notations in a prominent position. This to me is valid in context, it is useful information, it is encylopedic and it is current. So it deserves it prominent position.

There is no panic, just MOS constraints that you have to work within. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:52, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you.

لا أرى آلة حاسبة في Islamic_calendar. من فضلك أعطني رابطًا عميقًا.

I don't see a calculator in Islamic_calendar.

Did I overlook something? Please give me a deep link.

Do you mean relative simple conversion calculators like:

• Template:Calculator
• centimeters to other units
• Inch#Equivalents

Yes, your concerns are valid.

Yes, work in progress to address all those concerns.

Yes, version 4 is still in a Sandbox, work in progress

Yes, other Wikipedians will raise the same concerns over and over again.

Yes, new concerns are welcome.

My time today was limited, sorry. Little progress today.

Done: added a Don't Panic section to the talk page of the calculator.

Don't worry about a Sandbox version in development, with a list to TODO's. This crazy 'impossible' project is now already on the TOP 100 of medical calculators and you ain't seen nothing yet... Uwappa (talk) 17:42, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

There is no calculator but there is a template, {{Today/AD/AH}}, that refreshes every day because it calculates behind the scenes. That is why I said that it is a valid illustration within the terms of the MOS. Adding an interactive calculator is new and I'm not sure it does comply, especially not beside an infobox that makes it appear to illustrate the adjacent text. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:57, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, your question is clear, valid and important, very important.

And... will come back again, again and again,

so better answer it before the masses wake up and panic sets in.

How to address this? That in itself is quite a difficult question that has kept my mind busy for weeks already.

I think I have an answer and can back it up with function psycology, the concept that seems unkonwn in the English speaking world (another problem).

I need time to phrase it in an way that is not TMI for you.

Please sit back and relax, I'll come back to it tomorrow or day after.

In the mean time, please read:

• Visual_thinking
• Language_and_thought

Uwappa (talk) 18:36, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

While I think of it, the MEDRS only supports ellipses at BRI, can't be used at WHtR. (Not that my opinion matters but it is fatally undermined by its failure to recognise that the widest part of a woman is rarely her waist.) I don't know of any MEDRS that recognises the cylinders. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:04, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

The pi for perfect circle does play a role at WHtR as well, tough it is left out for simplicity, the human waist is never a perfect circle, same story as at BRI. However the difference with a perfect circle is irrelevant, overruled by ease of use. (not based on research, but my own conclusions)

The male - female differences are ignored in version 4, make a debute in version 5, graphic ideas already been discussed,

while waiting for colours for version 4.

Please focus on 4 first and specify some colour names. It is now blocking.

Part of answer about where to go with calculator:

1. Please look at latest version of Template_talk:Body_roundness_index#Information_hierarchy
2. which part is human thinking, human action? Who is responsible for human thought?
3. which part is calculator in WP? Who is responsible for calculator calculations and output?

Please answer these questions and I'll be back tomorrow with more. Uwappa (talk) 20:27, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

False precision

We cannot write 80 / 178 = 0.449438202247191 because it is a gross example of false precision. The 80 and the 178 are not precise, pure, mathematical numbers. They are approximations. So the output must reflect the uncertain inputs: two decimal places is reasonable in this context and reader expectations: to give fifteen decimal places is... 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:39, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, you may have a point here.

1. Agree, it is a ridiculous precision, not useful
2. Yet, that is the calculator talking there, showing results of a Math formula, not real numbers for patient Mrs. Jones at 3:14:1 5 pm on 6th November 2024.
3. And... You_can't_have_your_cake_and_eat_it, you can have your cake and eat it. How about also showing rounding with just 2 decimals too?

Uwappa (talk) 19:59, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Added a rounded version, 2 decimals with ≈ in front.

That looks very good to me. What do you think? Uwappa (talk) 20:08, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

My high school physics teacher would still denounce it. Yes, you can say 80.0000000000000000 / 178.0000000000000000 = 0.449438202247191 (iff you measured the inputs to that precision ), but you cannot say 80 / 178 = 0.449438202247191. You can think it, you can even see it on your calculator, but heaven forfend that you write it down – that is precisely the point of the test question. You may only write 80 / 178 ≈ 0.45. Epic fail otherwise.

So how about ducking the issue by making the default 90/180 = 0.5 ? Or can you find some other fraction that gives a natural result of no more that two decimal places? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:23, 4 November 2024 (UTC)