Ideal Waist to Hip Ratio: What You Should Aim For

Defining "Ideal" WHR

The concept of an "ideal" waist to hip ratio can be approached from two perspectives: health optimization and aesthetic preference. While these often align, they're not always identical.

From a health standpoint, the ideal WHR is one that minimizes risk for cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, and other conditions associated with abdominal obesity. The World Health Organization and the landmark INTERHEART study across 52 countries have established clear thresholds below which health risks are significantly reduced.

From an aesthetic perspective, cultural and individual preferences vary considerably. However, studies on physical attractiveness—most notably Devendra Singh's 1993 research—consistently show that certain WHR ranges are perceived as more attractive across cultures, and interestingly, these often overlap with health-optimal ranges.

This guide focuses primarily on health-based ideal values while acknowledging the aesthetic dimension. Understanding both helps you set realistic and meaningful goals for your body composition.

Ideal WHR by Health Goal

Ideal WHR for Women

For women, the ideal waist to hip ratio from a health perspective is generally considered to be 0.80 or below. According to Harvard Health, abdominal obesity is a key independent risk factor even in women with a normal BMI. Research suggests that even lower values may confer additional health benefits:

The 0.70 Sweet Spot

Research on female attractiveness has consistently found that a WHR around 0.70 is perceived as most attractive across diverse cultures. For more on women-specific factors, see our complete WHR guide for women. This happens to coincide with healthy reproductive function and optimal estrogen levels. Women with WHR around 0.70 typically have a clear waist-to-hip contrast that indicates healthy hormonal balance and good overall health.

Practical Target for Women

While 0.70 represents an "ideal" from multiple perspectives, a more practical and achievable target for most women is to maintain WHR at or below 0.80. This threshold provides substantial health protection and is achievable for women of various body types through reasonable lifestyle measures.

Ideal WHR for Men

Men have different ideal WHR values due to hormonal and physiological differences. The American Heart Association notes that abdominal obesity—even in people with a normal BMI—raises metabolic syndrome risk. The health-optimal WHR for men is generally 0.90 or below:

The 0.90 Target

For most men, maintaining a WHR at or below 0.90 is the key health target. See our complete WHR guide for men for detailed strategies. This indicates that abdominal fat accumulation is controlled and that the associated health risks are minimized. Men with WHR below 0.90 typically have better insulin sensitivity, healthier cholesterol profiles, and lower cardiovascular risk.

Athletic Ideals

Athletic men often have WHR values in the 0.80-0.90 range due to lower body fat and well-developed hip and gluteal muscles. Studies on male attractiveness show that this range, combined with broad shoulders (creating a V-shaped torso), is perceived as most attractive. However, musculature influences these measurements, so very low WHR isn't always the goal for men.

Practical Target for Men

The practical target for most men should be to maintain WHR below 0.90. Men in the 0.85-0.90 range can feel confident they're in a healthy zone. Those above 0.95 should prioritize WHR reduction through diet and exercise.

Ideal Zone Spectrum: Women vs. Men

The visual below shows how the ideal WHR zones for women and men map onto the overall ratio scale. Women's ideal range sits lower on the spectrum due to differences in hormonal fat distribution.

Factors That Influence Ideal WHR

While general guidelines apply broadly, several factors influence what constitutes an ideal WHR for a specific individual:

Age

Body composition naturally changes with age. Younger adults can more easily achieve and maintain lower WHR values. For older adults, a slightly higher WHR may be realistic while still being healthy. However, the health benefits of maintaining lower WHR apply at all ages, and age shouldn't be used as an excuse to neglect body composition.

Genetics

Genetic factors significantly influence where your body tends to store fat. Some people are predisposed to android (apple) or gynoid (pear) fat patterns. While you can't change your genetics, you can still work toward the lower end of what's achievable for your body type.

Hormonal Status

Hormones profoundly affect fat distribution. For women, estrogen promotes hip and thigh fat storage, while for men, testosterone helps prevent abdominal fat accumulation. Hormonal changes (such as menopause or andropause) can shift fat distribution patterns, potentially requiring adjusted expectations and strategies.

Activity Level

Regular physical activity, particularly strength training, affects both muscle mass and fat distribution. Athletic individuals often achieve lower WHR values through reduced fat mass and increased lean mass in the hip and thigh region.

Existing Health Conditions

Certain medical conditions and medications can affect body composition and fat distribution. Conditions like polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), hypothyroidism, and Cushing's syndrome can make achieving ideal WHR more challenging and may require medical management alongside lifestyle changes.

WHR and Attractiveness Research

Scientific research on physical attractiveness has extensively studied waist to hip ratio, revealing interesting patterns:

Cross-Cultural Studies

Researcher Devendra Singh conducted landmark studies in 1993 showing that men across diverse cultures consistently rate women with WHR around 0.70 as most attractive. This finding held true whether subjects viewed line drawings, photographs, or videos, and across cultures from the United States to Indonesia to Africa.

Evolutionary Perspective

Evolutionary psychologists suggest that WHR preferences evolved because the ratio provides honest signals about health and fertility. In women, lower WHR correlates with higher estrogen, greater fertility, and better health outcomes during pregnancy. In men, moderate WHR indicates healthy testosterone levels and overall fitness.

Cultural Variations

While the preference for lower WHR in women appears nearly universal, there are some cultural variations. Some cultures prefer slightly higher WHR (though still below 0.80), and preferences for overall body size vary considerably. The consistent finding is that a defined waist-to-hip contrast is valued, not necessarily a specific absolute number.

Male Attractiveness

Research on male attractiveness focuses more on overall body shape (such as shoulder-to-waist ratio) than WHR specifically. However, studies show that men with WHR in the 0.80-0.95 range, combined with a V-shaped torso, are generally rated as most attractive.

Cultural and Research Ideals Across Studies

Calculating Your Target Measurements

If you know your ideal target WHR and one of your current measurements, you can calculate what your other measurement should be:

Finding Target Waist Size

If you know your hip measurement and target WHR:

Target Waist = Target WHR × Hip Measurement

For a detailed walkthrough of the math, see our WHR formula guide.

Example: A woman with 40-inch hips wants to achieve a WHR of 0.75:
Target Waist = 0.75 × 40 = 30 inches

Understanding What This Means

Using this calculation, you can set specific, measurable goals. If your current waist is 34 inches and your target is 30 inches, you know you need to reduce your waist by 4 inches while maintaining your hip measurement.

Reality Check

It's important to set realistic targets. A dramatic reduction in waist size requires significant fat loss, and your hip measurement may also change as you lose weight. Work with your body's natural tendencies rather than against them, and celebrate progress even if you don't achieve a "perfect" number.

Achieving Your Ideal WHR

Working toward your ideal WHR involves focusing on reducing waist circumference while maintaining or building hip mass:

Reduce Abdominal Fat

Cardiovascular Exercise: Regular cardio burns calories and, with sustained effort, reduces body fat including visceral abdominal fat. Activities like running, swimming, cycling, and brisk walking are effective.

High-Intensity Interval Training: HIIT has been shown to be particularly effective at targeting abdominal fat. Short bursts of intense activity followed by recovery periods produce significant results in less time than steady-state cardio.

Dietary Changes: Reduce refined carbohydrates and added sugars, which promote fat storage around the midsection. Increase protein intake to preserve muscle mass during weight loss. Eat more fiber-rich foods that promote satiety and healthy digestion.

Build Hip and Gluteal Muscles

Building muscle in the hip and gluteal region can improve WHR by increasing the denominator (hip measurement) in the equation:

Squats and Lunges: These compound exercises target the gluteal muscles, quadriceps, and hamstrings, building mass in the hip region.

Hip Thrusts: This exercise specifically targets the gluteus maximus and is effective for building hip mass.

Deadlifts: Deadlifts work the entire posterior chain, including the glutes and hamstrings.

Lifestyle Factors

Stress Management: Chronic stress elevates cortisol, which promotes abdominal fat storage. Meditation, yoga, adequate rest, and enjoyable activities help manage stress.

Sleep: Poor sleep disrupts hormones that regulate hunger and fat storage. Aim for 7-9 hours of quality sleep nightly.

Limit Alcohol: Alcohol contributes to abdominal fat accumulation and provides empty calories that work against your goals.

Realistic Expectations and Timeline

Understanding what's realistic helps you stay motivated and avoid discouragement:

Rate of Change

Healthy, sustainable fat loss typically occurs at a rate of 0.5-1 pound per week. This translates to relatively slow changes in WHR. Expect to see measurable WHR improvement over months, not weeks.

Typical Timeline

• 1-3 months: Establish habits; may see modest WHR reduction (0.01-0.03)
• 3-6 months: More noticeable changes; WHR may decrease 0.03-0.06
• 6-12 months: Significant improvement possible; WHR decrease of 0.05-0.10

WHR Improvement Timeline

Individual Variation

Results vary significantly based on starting point, genetics, adherence to diet and exercise, and other factors. Some people see rapid improvement; others progress more slowly. The key is consistent effort over time.

Maintenance

Once you achieve your target WHR, ongoing attention to diet and exercise maintains your results. The habits you develop during improvement become the foundation for long-term maintenance.

When "Ideal" Isn't Achievable

For some people, reaching the textbook "ideal" WHR may not be realistic or healthy to pursue:

Genetic Limitations

Some body types make achieving certain WHR values very difficult. As the Mayo Clinic explains, body shape is largely determined by genetics and hormones. A person with a naturally wider waist structure may never achieve a WHR of 0.70, regardless of body fat levels. Focus on being in the healthy range rather than a specific number.

Age-Related Changes

Hormonal changes with aging can make maintaining lower WHR more challenging. Post-menopausal women, for example, often experience shifts in fat distribution toward the abdomen. A WHR that was easily maintained at 30 may require more effort at 60.

Medical Conditions

Certain conditions affect body composition in ways that make ideal WHR difficult to achieve. Work with healthcare providers to set appropriate goals given your specific situation.

Redefining Success

If the textbook ideal isn't achievable for you, redefine success as being in the healthy range and showing improvement from your starting point. Moving from high risk to moderate risk, or from moderate to low risk, represents meaningful health improvement regardless of whether you reach a specific number.

Ideal WHR at Different Life Stages

Expectations should adjust throughout life:

Young Adults (18-30)

This is typically when achieving and maintaining ideal WHR is easiest. Young women can realistically target WHR of 0.70-0.75; young men can aim for 0.85-0.90. Establishing good habits now protects health for decades to come.

Middle Age (30-50)

Metabolic slowdown and life responsibilities make maintaining ideal WHR more challenging. Women should aim to stay below 0.80; men below 0.90. This may require more intentional effort than in younger years.

Later Years (50+)

Hormonal changes make maintaining lower WHR more difficult. The focus should shift to staying in the healthy range (below 0.85 for women, below 0.95 for men) rather than achieving the lowest possible number. Regular exercise becomes even more important for maintaining muscle mass and healthy body composition.

Measuring Progress Toward Ideal WHR

Track your journey with these strategies:

Regular Measurements

Measure your WHR consistently, ideally once per week or at minimum monthly. Use the same technique and conditions each time for accurate comparisons.

Track Trends

Don't focus on individual measurements, which can fluctuate. Look at the trend over weeks and months. A gradual downward trend in WHR indicates progress even if individual readings vary.

Non-Scale Victories

Pay attention to how your clothes fit, your energy levels, and other indicators of improving body composition. These often change before WHR measurements show significant shifts.

Progress Photos

Taking regular photos from the same angle and in the same lighting can reveal body shape changes that measurements might miss.

Summary

The ideal waist to hip ratio varies by gender and individual factors, but general targets are clear:

• Women: Ideal WHR is at or below 0.80, with 0.70-0.75 being optimal
• Men: Ideal WHR is at or below 0.90, with 0.85-0.90 being a healthy target

Achieving your ideal WHR involves reducing abdominal fat through diet and cardiovascular exercise while potentially building hip muscle mass through strength training. Realistic expectations and consistent effort over time produce the best results.

Use our WHR calculator to determine your current ratio and track your progress toward your ideal. Check the WHR chart to see where you fall, and learn how to measure accurately for reliable results. Remember that moving toward the healthy range provides health benefits even if you don't achieve a "perfect" number.

WHR and Fertility

One of the most compelling dimensions of the waist-to-hip ratio is its deep connection to reproductive health. Devendra Singh's 1993 research did not just measure attractiveness preferences in isolation; it proposed an evolutionary explanation for why a specific WHR is so consistently favored across cultures. The answer lies in what WHR signals about a woman's hormonal health and reproductive fitness.

Women with a WHR in the range of 0.67 to 0.80 tend to have higher levels of estrogen relative to testosterone. This hormonal profile is associated with regular ovulatory cycles, better egg quality, and higher overall fertility. Studies have found that women in this WHR range have a statistically higher probability of conception per cycle compared to women with a higher WHR, even after controlling for age and BMI. In assisted reproduction research, women with lower WHR values have also demonstrated higher success rates in IVF treatments.

The evolutionary explanation is straightforward: across millennia, men who preferred mates with lower WHR were, on average, selecting partners with better reproductive potential. This preference became ingrained and is now expressed as a near-universal aesthetic inclination. What is remarkable is that while cultural ideals for overall body weight and size vary enormously—from the preference for very slender builds in some East Asian cultures to the appreciation of larger body sizes in parts of West Africa and the Pacific Islands—the preference for a defined waist-to-hip ratio remains remarkably stable.

WHR also correlates with the estrogen-to-androgen ratio in measurable ways. Higher estrogen encourages fat deposition in the hips, thighs, and buttocks (gluteofemoral fat), while higher androgens direct fat toward the abdomen. A lower WHR therefore reflects a hormonal environment favorable to pregnancy and fetal development. Some researchers have even found that gluteofemoral fat stores contain long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids (particularly DHA) that are preferentially mobilized during late pregnancy and lactation to support fetal brain development.

It is worth noting that WHR is not a standalone fertility test. Many women with WHR above 0.80 conceive and carry pregnancies without difficulty, and many factors beyond body composition influence fertility. However, the correlation between WHR and reproductive health is robust enough that it is considered a meaningful marker in both evolutionary biology and clinical reproductive medicine.

When "Ideal" Is Not Achievable: A Deeper Look

While general WHR guidelines provide useful targets, it is important to understand the biological, medical, and psychological factors that may place the textbook "ideal" out of reach for some individuals. Recognizing these constraints is not about making excuses—it is about setting goals that are both ambitious and grounded in reality.

Genetic and Structural Factors

Bone structure varies considerably between individuals. The width of the iliac crest (the top of the pelvis), the shape of the rib cage, and the natural curvature of the lumbar spine all influence the measurements that feed into WHR. A woman with a naturally broad waist from a skeletal standpoint may never achieve a WHR of 0.70 even at very low body fat percentages. Ethnicity also plays a role: research shows that women of South Asian descent, for example, tend to carry proportionally more visceral fat at any given BMI or waist circumference compared to women of European descent, which can make achieving the same WHR targets more difficult.

Age-Related Shifts

As discussed earlier, aging changes both muscle mass and fat distribution patterns. For women, the menopausal transition typically leads to a redistribution of fat from the hips and thighs toward the abdomen, making it physiologically harder to maintain a low WHR. For men, declining testosterone levels after age 40 can have a similar effect. Realistic targets for a 60-year-old should differ from those for a 25-year-old, and there is no shame in that adjustment.

Medical Conditions

Several medical conditions directly affect body fat distribution and make achieving ideal WHR considerably harder. Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) increases androgen levels in women, promoting central fat storage. Cushing's syndrome causes excess cortisol production, which directs fat toward the trunk and face. Lipodystrophy syndromes alter fat storage patterns in ways that no amount of diet or exercise can fully counteract. Certain medications—including corticosteroids, some antidepressants, and some antipsychotics—also promote abdominal weight gain.

Relative Improvement Over Absolute Numbers

The health benefits of reducing WHR are proportional, not binary. Moving from a WHR of 0.95 to 0.88 provides meaningful cardiovascular and metabolic improvements even if 0.88 is still above the textbook "ideal." Similarly, a reduction from 1.00 to 0.92 substantially lowers risk. The focus should be on the direction and magnitude of change, not solely on reaching a specific number.

Mental Health Considerations

Fixation on body measurements can become unhealthy, particularly for individuals with a history of eating disorders or body dysmorphia. WHR is a useful health metric, but it should not become an obsession. If tracking your ratio creates anxiety, diminishes your quality of life, or leads to disordered eating or exercise habits, it is time to step back and work with a mental health professional. A sustainable, enjoyable lifestyle that includes regular movement and balanced nutrition is worth far more than any single measurement.

Redefining "Ideal" as Your Personal Best

Ultimately, the most useful definition of "ideal WHR" is the best sustainable ratio you can achieve while maintaining physical health, mental well-being, and a lifestyle you enjoy. For some people, that will be 0.70; for others, it will be 0.85. Both represent success when they reflect genuine effort and a commitment to long-term health.

Disease-Specific Ideal WHR Thresholds

While general WHR guidelines from the WHO provide a useful starting point, different diseases have different WHR thresholds where risk increases significantly. Researchers have identified condition-specific cutoffs that are more precise than a single universal target. Understanding these thresholds allows you to prioritize the WHR range that matters most for your personal health risk profile.

Cardiovascular disease risk begins climbing at relatively modest WHR elevations, while metabolic syndrome uses the WHO thresholds as its diagnostic criteria. Cancer risk—particularly breast cancer in postmenopausal women—follows its own dose-response curve. The table below summarizes the key thresholds identified in large-scale epidemiological studies.

Disease-Specific Thresholds

The cardiovascular threshold for women is notably lower than the general WHO guideline of 0.85. The INTERHEART study demonstrated that women in the lowest WHR quintile (below approximately 0.76) had the lowest risk of myocardial infarction, and risk increased progressively with each quintile above that. For type 2 diabetes, the American Diabetes Association recognizes that central adiposity is a stronger predictor of insulin resistance than overall BMI, and WHR below 0.78 in women and below 0.90 in men is associated with markedly better insulin sensitivity.

The breast cancer findings from Harvie et al. (2003) are particularly relevant for women concerned about this disease. Their meta-analysis found that postmenopausal women with WHR above 0.80 had a significantly elevated risk of breast cancer, likely mediated through higher circulating estrogen levels produced by abdominal adipose tissue after menopause. For all-cause mortality, the Moghaddam et al. (2012) dose-response meta-analysis confirmed that risk of death from any cause increases continuously above WHR of 0.80 in women and 0.90 in men, with no safe upper threshold identified.

The practical takeaway is that if you have a family history or personal risk factors for a specific condition, you may want to aim for the disease-specific threshold rather than the general guideline. Use our WHR calculator to check your current ratio and see how it compares to these condition-specific targets.

Setting Realistic Personal WHR Goals

Knowing the ideal WHR thresholds is only useful if you can translate them into achievable personal goals. A common mistake is setting an aggressive target based on population-level data without accounting for your starting point, body structure, or lifestyle constraints. The result is frustration and abandonment of the effort. A structured, evidence-informed approach to goal-setting produces far better long-term outcomes.

The 1% Per Month Rule

A sustainable and realistic rate of WHR improvement is approximately 1% of your current WHR value per month. For a woman starting at a WHR of 0.90, that means a target reduction of about 0.009 per month—roughly 0.01 when rounded. For a man starting at 0.98, the monthly target is approximately 0.01 as well. This rate of change is achievable through moderate dietary adjustments and regular exercise without extreme measures that are difficult to sustain.

This rate aligns with healthy fat loss of 0.5 to 1 pound per week. Attempting to change faster than this often leads to muscle loss, metabolic adaptation, and eventual weight regain—all of which can worsen WHR rather than improve it. Patience and consistency are the most important variables in long-term body composition change.

Genetics Set the Floor

Your skeletal structure determines the minimum WHR your body can achieve regardless of body fat percentage. The width of your pelvis, the shape of your rib cage, and the length of your torso are fixed by bone geometry. A woman with a wide rib cage and narrow pelvis will have a structurally higher minimum WHR than a woman with a narrow rib cage and wide pelvis. Similarly, men with a broad trunk may find it impossible to reach the same WHR as someone with a narrower frame, even at identical body fat levels.

This does not mean that genetics prevent improvement—virtually everyone can reduce their WHR from an unhealthy range to a healthier one. It does mean that comparing your WHR to someone else's is not particularly useful. Your goal should be to reach the healthiest WHR that your frame allows, not someone else's genetic minimum.

Goal-Setting Template

The template above assumes a consistent effort combining dietary improvement (moderate caloric deficit with adequate protein) and regular exercise (both cardiovascular and resistance training). Progress slows after the first six months as your body approaches its structural and metabolic limits. This deceleration is normal and expected—it does not mean your approach has stopped working.

What Determines Your WHR Goal Achievability

Roughly 60% of your ability to reach a given WHR target is determined by lifestyle factors that are fully within your control: diet quality, caloric balance, exercise frequency and type, sleep, and stress management. Approximately 25% is determined by your genetic frame—skeletal width, natural fat distribution tendencies, and muscle insertion points. The remaining 15% is influenced by hormonal status and age, which are partially modifiable (through medical treatment of hormonal imbalances, for example) but largely reflect biological realities.

The encouraging conclusion is that the majority of what determines your WHR is under your influence. Even if genetics and hormones set certain boundaries, the lifestyle component provides substantial room for meaningful improvement. For a deeper comparison of how WHR compares to other body composition metrics, see our guide on BMI vs waist to hip ratio.

Health vs Aesthetic Ideal: Understanding the Difference

The terms "ideal WHR" and "attractive WHR" are often used interchangeably, but they refer to related yet distinct concepts. Understanding the difference helps you set goals that are grounded in what matters to you personally—whether that is disease prevention, physical appearance, or both.

The Singh 1993 Findings on Attractiveness

Devendra Singh's 1993 research at the University of Texas demonstrated that men across multiple cultures consistently rated female figures with a WHR of approximately 0.70 as most attractive, regardless of overall body weight. This preference was observed in studies using line drawings where only the WHR was varied while other proportions remained constant. For male attractiveness, subsequent research found that a WHR around 0.90—combined with a high shoulder-to-waist ratio—was rated most favorably by women.

Singh proposed that these preferences are not arbitrary cultural constructs but evolved signals of health and reproductive fitness. A WHR of 0.70 in women correlates with optimal estrogen-to-androgen ratios, regular ovulation, and higher fertility. A WHR of 0.90 in men reflects healthy testosterone levels and cardiovascular fitness. In other words, what humans find attractive in body proportions appears to be, at least in part, a proxy for underlying health.

Where Health and Aesthetics Overlap—and Diverge

The health ideal and the aesthetic ideal overlap significantly but are not identical. The WHO health threshold for women is 0.85 (with many researchers recommending 0.80), while the aesthetic ideal from Singh's research is 0.70. For men, the overlap is nearly complete: both the health threshold (0.90) and the aesthetic ideal (0.90) converge on the same value.

This means that for women, achieving the aesthetic ideal of 0.70 requires going well beyond the health threshold. A woman with a WHR of 0.78 is in excellent health territory but may not match the proportions rated as most attractive in research settings. Reaching 0.70 typically requires a lower overall body fat percentage (often below 22%) and favorable genetic fat distribution. It is a more demanding target that is not necessary for health optimization.

Aesthetic Ideals Vary by Culture and Era

While Singh's findings suggest a degree of universality in WHR preferences, it is important to recognize that aesthetic ideals are also shaped by culture and historical period. In Renaissance Europe, the ideal female figure had a considerably higher WHR than what is preferred today—paintings from the era depict women with soft, rounded midsections. In contemporary Western media, extremely low WHR is often emphasized, sometimes to an extent that is neither healthy nor achievable for most women without surgical intervention.

Some cultures have traditionally valued higher WHR in women as a sign of prosperity and maternal capability. In parts of West Africa and the South Pacific, a fuller figure with less waist-to-hip contrast has historically been considered more attractive. Even within the same culture, preferences shift over decades—compare the aesthetic ideals of the 1920s (boyish, minimal curves) with those of the 1950s (exaggerated hourglass) or the 2020s (athletic with pronounced glutes).

The health-based thresholds, by contrast, do not change with fashion. The disease risk associated with a WHR of 0.90 in women is the same whether the year is 1950 or 2026. This is why health-based targets provide a more stable and personally meaningful foundation for goal-setting than aesthetic ideals, which are inherently subjective and culturally contingent.

Practical Recommendation

If your primary motivation is health, aim for the WHO thresholds: below 0.80 for women and below 0.90 for men. These targets are achievable for the majority of people through sustainable lifestyle changes and provide the most significant reduction in disease risk. If aesthetics are also important to you, recognize that pursuing a WHR of 0.70 (women) or maintaining 0.90 with a V-shaped torso (men) may require additional effort, lower body fat, and favorable genetics. Neither goal is wrong—but understanding the distinction helps you calibrate your expectations and avoid unnecessary frustration. For more context on how WHR compares to BMI as a health indicator, see our BMI vs WHR comparison guide. Track your progress with the WHR calculator and consult the WHR chart to see where you currently stand. For weight management resources from the federal government, visit the NIDDK weight management page.

Sources & References

1. Singh, D. (1993). Adaptive significance of female physical attractiveness: Role of waist-to-hip ratio. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(2), 293–307. PubMed
2. Yusuf, S., Hawken, S., Ôunpuu, S., et al. (2004). Effect of potentially modifiable risk factors associated with myocardial infarction in 52 countries (the INTERHEART study). The Lancet, 364(9438), 937–952. PubMed
3. World Health Organization. Obesity and overweight fact sheet. WHO
4. Harvard Health Publishing. Abdominal obesity and your health. Harvard Health
5. American Heart Association. About Metabolic Syndrome. AHA
6. Mayo Clinic. Belly fat in women: Taking — and keeping — it off. Mayo Clinic
7. Ashwell, M., Gunn, P., & Gibson, S. (2012). Waist-to-height ratio is a better screening tool than waist circumference and BMI for adult cardiometabolic risk factors. Obesity Reviews, 13(3), 275–286.
8. Zaadstra, B. M., et al. (1993). Fat and female fecundity: Prospective study of effect of body fat distribution on conception rates. BMJ, 306(6876), 484–487.
9. Singh, D. (1993). Body shape and women's attractiveness: The critical role of waist-to-hip ratio. Human Nature, 4(3), 297–321. PubMed
10. Moghaddam, A. A., Woodward, M., & Huxley, R. (2012). Obesity and risk of colorectal cancer: A meta-analysis of 31 studies with 70,000 events. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, 16(12), 2533–2547. PubMed
11. Harvie, M., Hooper, L., & Howell, A. H. (2003). Central obesity and breast cancer risk: A systematic review. Obesity Reviews, 4(3), 157–173. PubMed
12. American Diabetes Association. Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes. ADA
13. National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Health Information: Weight Management. NIDDK