Talk:Waist–hip ratio

Beer bellies

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)

Nice pic

Hey. Nice picture. Much better than the one I did for hip and buttock padding. :) --AliceJMarkham 06:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Fertile men?

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)

The words fertile and infertile are used for men too. --Apoc2400 13:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Hip-Waist Ratio

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)

nudity

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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.162.240.250 (talk) 20:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

We should see exactly what is being discussed in the article and not have a distracting layer of clothing cover it. To be precise this is a measurement of the human body, tight clothes can compress the soft tissues and affect the distance slightly. It is an encyclopedia after all. We don't have to cover up humans with clothes. Nastajus 00:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

How many encyclopedias have you seen that have this type of nudity, even in the anatomy entries? It's unprofessional; silhouettes or drawings would be more appropriate for a serious article. Adamrmonteith (talk) 03:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not any other encyclopedia! WP:NOT 209.78.2.24 (talk)

Controversy

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)

Heart attack risk

"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)

Because you've changed the parameters of the health category, so different (apparently in this case more) people fall into it. 71.223.139.118 06:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

That looks like a meaningless metric to me. Sure, the definition of obesity would change, but how many more (or fewer) people would be classed as obese would depend on where the goalposts are placed. You could, after all, triple the number of "obese" people today just by changing the definition to identify those with a lower BMI than is currently used to define obesity. Rhialto 08:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Intelligence

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)

I agree the section needs to either be rewritten or removed, but for a different reason: correlation does not equal causation.