This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Waist鈥揾ip ratio article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources:聽 Source guidelines聽路 PubMed聽路 Cochrane聽路 DOAJ聽路 Gale聽路 OpenMD聽路 ScienceDirect聽路 Springer聽路 Trip聽路 Wiley聽路 TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
Look at yourself standing up in a full length mirror (or a mirror where you can see your torso fully). Bend over sideways. The place where it creases is the location of your waist. 149.169.130.160 ( talk) 05:37, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Hey. Nice picture. Much better than the one I did for hip and buttock padding.聽:) -- AliceJMarkham 06:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
The author of this article seems confused about the meaning of RATIO. In terms of describing Waist to Hip Ratio (WHR) in the range 0 to 1 (eg 0.7) the HIGHER the number the LOWER the RATIO. So for example a woman with a WHR of 0.9 has a LOWER WHR than a woman with a WHR of 0.7 Consequently, much of this article does not make sense as the terms "higher" and "lower" are mistakenly interchanged for ratios less than unity (1).
Is the nudity in these pictures really neccessary? Would any information be lost by using pictures with clothed (spandex, underwear, whatever) models? I'm generally a fan of nudity but there really doesn't seem to be any reason for it to be here. 鈥擳he preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.162.240.250 ( talk) 20:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC).
I agree with the user from 216.162.240.250. Putting pictures up like this will only lead Wikipedia being blocked by Webwasher, etc. It's not necessary to describe the subject. A drawing with measurement aspects would be even better than the pictures. 鈥擯receding unsigned comment added by 158.52.254.239 ( talk) 20:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I also have to back the original poster 216.162.240.250. I have nothing against nudity, but it has little relevance to this article. This is not an anatomy page, but the first Google link to a health question. No one should have to predict this to be NSFW. Further, for the rear nude shots to be relevant they would need to have defining measurements included in them as guide to how you measure waist/hip ratio. As it is, they're just undefined rear nudes that don't convey any knowledge. Lamergoat ( talk) 18:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I got nailed on this while surfing at work today. I have no problems with nudity, pornography, etc., but it was pretty shocking to find that "waist-hip ratio" is a NSFW topic in Wikipedia. This needs some sort of change. 23:16, 2 December 2010 (UTC) 鈥擯receding unsigned comment added by Mkcmkc ( talk 鈥 contribs)
Comon guys! Lets get this nudity off. I do mind. It sickens me that on such a basic webpage such as this nudity would exist. Im a medical student. I look at naked people every day. However most of those pictures appear as necessary to the topic. This is not necessary to the topic at hand. What do we have to do to get rid of this? Can I just delete the pictures?-- Johndheathcote ( talk) 03:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
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)
Agreed. This article is full of POV. Most of the far-fetched correlations it states as fact are supported by one study at best. ONE study is not enough to state something as if it were undisputed, especially when it is challenged in other studies. Soxfan267 ( talk) 08:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
"If obesity is redefined using WHR instead of BMI, the proportion of people at risk of heart attack worldwide increases threefold."
What does that mean? How can redefining a word change risk distribution? Jruderman 04:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
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. 鈥擯receding unsigned comment added by 84.177.41.154 ( talk) 00:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree the section needs to either be rewritten or removed, but for a different reason: correlation does not equal causation. 鈥擯receding unsigned comment added by 163.118.117.141 ( talk) 05:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
That doesn't seem at all likely to me. Is there evidence of women with this supposed 'ideal' whr being more likely to mate with men who have high IQs? Firstly, IQ tests are not an accurate measure of intelligence as those from privileged backgrounds tend to perform better. Those from privileged backgrounds also tend to have better diets and consume less saturated fat due to lifestyle, and are therefore more likely to have a healthier whr. Therefore is it not more plausable that those who generally perform better in IQ tests (ie those from privileged backgrounds) will be the same people that have healthy whr's? 鈥擯receding unsigned comment added by 86.139.171.54 ( talk) 20:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
This section is important and deserves further addition, due to the fact that it is new research and far more interesting than a discussion about trans fats, et cetera. Someone with some academic bravery should specifically address the real issue here: Men and women tend to pair-up based upon their "pecking order," which leaves the most attractive females (often high WHR) paired with the most wealthy and dominant (often intelligent) males. Please don't make me defend selective breeding here. I know this flies in the face of all that is politically correct, but science should not be swayed by cultural norms. --Insightfullysaid, 4/10/11. 鈥擯receding unsigned comment added by 74.47.166.6 ( talk) 16:14, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree. Also, it should be noted that WHR does not correlate to just "waist fat." Fat is fat. Adipose tissue on the waist is not any different for brain development than adipose tissue on the hips, and people of the same bodyfat percentages can have very different WHRs. The variable being studied in WHR is a combination multiple factors, such as the location of adipose tissue in relation to the hips and waist, overall body fat mass, and width of the pelvis. Inferences (and censorship!) not backed by research should be avoided. This section is important and needs further scientific study for clarification. It should be expanded to promote interest and encourage further research. The parts suggesting that "waist fat" encourages brain development should be re-written by someone who has read the original study. 鈥 Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.90.11.207 ( talk) 22:27, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Add section where it is explained in practice. See this page for info.
KVDP ( talk) 09:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Intelligence: I just checked the article - please correct citation, it's not Junly 2007, but January 2008 (maybe was published online earlyer, but this needs to be indicated in a correct citation).
I consent, that even though the authors found a low waist-hip ratio associated with higher intelligence, the interpretation is a bit of the mark:
If you do a little bit of literature research on obesity, you will find, (1) that the waist-hip ratio is an indicator of abdominal obesity rather than telling anything about the individual shape of the female hip. (2) that in developed countries overweight is strongly associated with poverty and low social status. Income (defining poverty), again, is associated with the level education, and the level of education correlates with the level of intelligence (simply because a particular educational degree requires a level specific minimum of brains (just get me right: poor people are not necessarily stupid, but low intelligence is a pretty certain predictor of low income).
Taking this in account, it's quite obvious that well-to-do women with a good education and an awareness of healthy nutrition have a lower mean waist-hip ratio and a higher mean IQ, and so has their offspring. Thus, the results of this study are trivial. I would expect them quite different, if the research took place in some third world country, or if the analysis was adusted for income. 84.59.105.97 ( talk) 22:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC)AMI
"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. 鈥擯receding unsigned comment added by Soxfan267 ( talk 鈥 contribs) 09:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
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)
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:
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)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/聽:
And a observation study from 1968 (published in 1984) also shown value of the WHR:
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link){{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)And the earliest hit for "waist hip ratio" on PubMed gets back to previous year of 1983:
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)David Ruben Talk 01:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Genes for 'pear shape' found. Tijfo098 ( talk) 08:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
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鈥檚 attractiveness. In her first study, men were shown a series of 12 drawings of women with various WHR鈥檚 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)
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. 鈥 Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.244.231.210 ( talk) 16:01, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
I'll just say it. That picture is gross. 鈥斅燩receding unsigned comment added by 2601:4C3:8100:1EF0:18CF:EE37:F730:8F2D ( talk) 23:56, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
In the table of the "Indicator of health" section, the WHO obesity cut-off points may need to be changed from ">" to "鈮". 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 "鈮0.90 cm (M); 鈮0.85 cm (W)". Jroberson108 ( talk) 22:00, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
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" 鈥斅燩receding unsigned comment added by Yellowpelican ( talk 鈥 contribs) 18:47, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Waist鈥揾ip ratio article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources:聽 Source guidelines聽路 PubMed聽路 Cochrane聽路 DOAJ聽路 Gale聽路 OpenMD聽路 ScienceDirect聽路 Springer聽路 Trip聽路 Wiley聽路 TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
Look at yourself standing up in a full length mirror (or a mirror where you can see your torso fully). Bend over sideways. The place where it creases is the location of your waist. 149.169.130.160 ( talk) 05:37, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Hey. Nice picture. Much better than the one I did for hip and buttock padding.聽:) -- AliceJMarkham 06:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
The author of this article seems confused about the meaning of RATIO. In terms of describing Waist to Hip Ratio (WHR) in the range 0 to 1 (eg 0.7) the HIGHER the number the LOWER the RATIO. So for example a woman with a WHR of 0.9 has a LOWER WHR than a woman with a WHR of 0.7 Consequently, much of this article does not make sense as the terms "higher" and "lower" are mistakenly interchanged for ratios less than unity (1).
Is the nudity in these pictures really neccessary? Would any information be lost by using pictures with clothed (spandex, underwear, whatever) models? I'm generally a fan of nudity but there really doesn't seem to be any reason for it to be here. 鈥擳he preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.162.240.250 ( talk) 20:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC).
I agree with the user from 216.162.240.250. Putting pictures up like this will only lead Wikipedia being blocked by Webwasher, etc. It's not necessary to describe the subject. A drawing with measurement aspects would be even better than the pictures. 鈥擯receding unsigned comment added by 158.52.254.239 ( talk) 20:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I also have to back the original poster 216.162.240.250. I have nothing against nudity, but it has little relevance to this article. This is not an anatomy page, but the first Google link to a health question. No one should have to predict this to be NSFW. Further, for the rear nude shots to be relevant they would need to have defining measurements included in them as guide to how you measure waist/hip ratio. As it is, they're just undefined rear nudes that don't convey any knowledge. Lamergoat ( talk) 18:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I got nailed on this while surfing at work today. I have no problems with nudity, pornography, etc., but it was pretty shocking to find that "waist-hip ratio" is a NSFW topic in Wikipedia. This needs some sort of change. 23:16, 2 December 2010 (UTC) 鈥擯receding unsigned comment added by Mkcmkc ( talk 鈥 contribs)
Comon guys! Lets get this nudity off. I do mind. It sickens me that on such a basic webpage such as this nudity would exist. Im a medical student. I look at naked people every day. However most of those pictures appear as necessary to the topic. This is not necessary to the topic at hand. What do we have to do to get rid of this? Can I just delete the pictures?-- Johndheathcote ( talk) 03:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
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)
Agreed. This article is full of POV. Most of the far-fetched correlations it states as fact are supported by one study at best. ONE study is not enough to state something as if it were undisputed, especially when it is challenged in other studies. Soxfan267 ( talk) 08:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
"If obesity is redefined using WHR instead of BMI, the proportion of people at risk of heart attack worldwide increases threefold."
What does that mean? How can redefining a word change risk distribution? Jruderman 04:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
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. 鈥擯receding unsigned comment added by 84.177.41.154 ( talk) 00:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree the section needs to either be rewritten or removed, but for a different reason: correlation does not equal causation. 鈥擯receding unsigned comment added by 163.118.117.141 ( talk) 05:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
That doesn't seem at all likely to me. Is there evidence of women with this supposed 'ideal' whr being more likely to mate with men who have high IQs? Firstly, IQ tests are not an accurate measure of intelligence as those from privileged backgrounds tend to perform better. Those from privileged backgrounds also tend to have better diets and consume less saturated fat due to lifestyle, and are therefore more likely to have a healthier whr. Therefore is it not more plausable that those who generally perform better in IQ tests (ie those from privileged backgrounds) will be the same people that have healthy whr's? 鈥擯receding unsigned comment added by 86.139.171.54 ( talk) 20:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
This section is important and deserves further addition, due to the fact that it is new research and far more interesting than a discussion about trans fats, et cetera. Someone with some academic bravery should specifically address the real issue here: Men and women tend to pair-up based upon their "pecking order," which leaves the most attractive females (often high WHR) paired with the most wealthy and dominant (often intelligent) males. Please don't make me defend selective breeding here. I know this flies in the face of all that is politically correct, but science should not be swayed by cultural norms. --Insightfullysaid, 4/10/11. 鈥擯receding unsigned comment added by 74.47.166.6 ( talk) 16:14, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree. Also, it should be noted that WHR does not correlate to just "waist fat." Fat is fat. Adipose tissue on the waist is not any different for brain development than adipose tissue on the hips, and people of the same bodyfat percentages can have very different WHRs. The variable being studied in WHR is a combination multiple factors, such as the location of adipose tissue in relation to the hips and waist, overall body fat mass, and width of the pelvis. Inferences (and censorship!) not backed by research should be avoided. This section is important and needs further scientific study for clarification. It should be expanded to promote interest and encourage further research. The parts suggesting that "waist fat" encourages brain development should be re-written by someone who has read the original study. 鈥 Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.90.11.207 ( talk) 22:27, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Add section where it is explained in practice. See this page for info.
KVDP ( talk) 09:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Intelligence: I just checked the article - please correct citation, it's not Junly 2007, but January 2008 (maybe was published online earlyer, but this needs to be indicated in a correct citation).
I consent, that even though the authors found a low waist-hip ratio associated with higher intelligence, the interpretation is a bit of the mark:
If you do a little bit of literature research on obesity, you will find, (1) that the waist-hip ratio is an indicator of abdominal obesity rather than telling anything about the individual shape of the female hip. (2) that in developed countries overweight is strongly associated with poverty and low social status. Income (defining poverty), again, is associated with the level education, and the level of education correlates with the level of intelligence (simply because a particular educational degree requires a level specific minimum of brains (just get me right: poor people are not necessarily stupid, but low intelligence is a pretty certain predictor of low income).
Taking this in account, it's quite obvious that well-to-do women with a good education and an awareness of healthy nutrition have a lower mean waist-hip ratio and a higher mean IQ, and so has their offspring. Thus, the results of this study are trivial. I would expect them quite different, if the research took place in some third world country, or if the analysis was adusted for income. 84.59.105.97 ( talk) 22:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC)AMI
"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. 鈥擯receding unsigned comment added by Soxfan267 ( talk 鈥 contribs) 09:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
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)
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:
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)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/聽:
And a observation study from 1968 (published in 1984) also shown value of the WHR:
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link){{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)And the earliest hit for "waist hip ratio" on PubMed gets back to previous year of 1983:
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)David Ruben Talk 01:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Genes for 'pear shape' found. Tijfo098 ( talk) 08:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
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鈥檚 attractiveness. In her first study, men were shown a series of 12 drawings of women with various WHR鈥檚 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)
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. 鈥 Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.244.231.210 ( talk) 16:01, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
I'll just say it. That picture is gross. 鈥斅燩receding unsigned comment added by 2601:4C3:8100:1EF0:18CF:EE37:F730:8F2D ( talk) 23:56, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
In the table of the "Indicator of health" section, the WHO obesity cut-off points may need to be changed from ">" to "鈮". 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 "鈮0.90 cm (M); 鈮0.85 cm (W)". Jroberson108 ( talk) 22:00, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
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" 鈥斅燩receding unsigned comment added by Yellowpelican ( talk 鈥 contribs) 18:47, 24 May 2022 (UTC)