In my previous blog post, I argued that one’s optimal weight may be the one that minimizes one’s waist-to-weight ratio. I built this argument based on the fact that body fat percentage is associated with lean body mass (and also weight) in a nonlinear way.
The fit2fat2fit experiment (), provides what seems to be an interestingly way to put this optimal waist-to-weight ratio theory to test. This is due to a fortuitous event, as I explain in this post.
In this experiment, Drew Manning, a personal trainer, decided to undergo a transformation where he went from what he argued was his fittest level, all the way to obese, and then back to fit again. He said that he wanted to do that so that he could better understand his clients’ struggles. This may be true, but it looks like he planned very well his experiment from a marketing perspective.
His fittest level was at the start, with a weight of 193 lbs, at a height of 6 ft 2 in. That was his fittest level according to his own opinion. At that point, he had a waist of 34.5 in, and looked indeed very fit (). At his fattest level, he reached the weight of 264.8 pounds, with a 47.5 waist.
As he moved back to fit, one interesting thing happened. Toward the end of this journey back to fit, he moved past the level that he felt was his optimal. He dropped down to 190.1 lbs, and a 34 in waist; which he perceived as too skinny. He talks about this in a video ().
As a self-defined “fanatic” personal trainer, I figured that he knew when he had gone too far. That is, he is probably as qualified as one can get to identify the point at which he moved past his optimal. So I thought that this would be an interesting way of putting my optimal waist-to-weight ratio theory to the test.
Below is a bar chart showing variations in waist-to-weight ratio against weight for Drew Manning during his fit2fat2fit experiment. I included only three data points in this chart because I would have to view all of his video clips to get all of the data points.
As you can see, at the point at which he felt he was too thin, his waist-to-weight ratio clearly started going up from what seems to have been its optimal at 34.5 in / 193 lbs. This is exactly what you would expect based on my optimal waist-to-weight ratio theory. You probably can’t tell that something was not right at that point, because he looked very fit.
But apparently he felt that something was not entirely right. And that is consistent with the idea that he had passed his optimal waist-to-weight ratio, and became too lean for his own good. Note that his waist decreased, and probably could go down even further, even though that was no longer optimal.
I'd suggest inverting the ratio in the future. After all, you are trying to indicate the best or optimal condition - e.g., most fit - so just go with weight/waist instead. Then you'll see a peak at the fittest condition rather than a minimum.
ReplyDeleteThat's interesting; the longer I mull over your hypothesis the more I think it much more intelligent than notions of a desirable BMI purportedly independent of age and sex: yours allows that people differ.
ReplyDeleteBut do you think it's possible to have one criterion that will fit everyone, independent of age and sex? For example, do you think that there can be compensating changes as one ages that preserve the usefulness of waist/weight? [I'll use it Tom's way up.]
If you pursue this idea, what will be your criterion of optimal fitness? Avoiding illness? Subsequent lifespan?
Lastly, even if waist/weight is useful, why would it be that the maximum will be best for, say, maximising lifespan? What if you'll live longer if you are 10% or so above peak weight/waist, say? In other words, what evidence might test your key assumption?
correction: I didn't use it Tom's way up, but I had meant to.
ReplyDeleteFascinating idea. It seems that people vary in the point at which they are able to most efficiently gain muscle. I see some of these bodybuilder types who can maintain <10% body fat & still lay on layer after layer of muscle. I would wager I'm somewhere in the range of 15%, but I have been tracking my waist for months to ensure that I don't gain too much fat. Slowly but surely, my weight is going up but my waist is staying the same. This could be an important point to bear in mind -- some people may need to temporarily go in the wrong direction (gain a bit of fat, but not too much) to get to the point where their body is primed to gain muscle.
ReplyDeleteNed,
ReplyDeleteI took the data from
http://www.johnstonefitness.com/my-transformation/measurements-stats/
John has kept accurate stats and pictures over a long period of time.
I plotted the Waist to Weight Ratio
here:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AkpCutjys1fYdEJXYnpHTWJaVS1tUnVqemthdUI0emc&usp=sharing
Cheers
Abhi
Forgot to add:
ReplyDeleteNed : Would love to get your comments based on this plot.
His pictures by month are also on the website
http://www.johnstonefitness.com/my-transformation/pictures/monthly-photos-front/
If I try to correlate the plot and the pictures:
To me it seems like John did great till Feb 2006 and seems to be the physical peak for him.
Then until 2009 seems like he was almost trying too hard, but could not exceed the previous peak. By 2009 he seems to be pretty much back to where he was in 2006?
Fascinating to have so much data - Thanks to John!!
Thoughts?
Hi dearieme. I guess success would be a function of longevity and quality of life, both; the latter would be a bit hard to quantify.
ReplyDeleteHi aelephant. Doug Miller, a champion natural BB whose book with Glenn Ellmers I reviewed here a while ago, said that he was at his ideal anabolic state when he was much heavier than at his competition weight. I don’t recall the number, but it was something like 20 to 30 lbs above. It seems that this is a common perception among natural BBs.
ReplyDeleteHi Abhi. Very interesting indeed. One thing that jumped at me right away is that his WWR, when he looked like he had reached a very low BF percentage, was quite a lot higher than the lowest WWR point. The math doesn’t lie – his LBM/weight ratio at the time was low.
ReplyDeleteBased on WWRs, apparently John was at his best at the beginning of 2006 and 2009. The pictures are consistent with that, or so it seems, even though for BB competition he would have to cut quite a lot.
ReplyDeleteHi Ned:
ReplyDeleteInteresting post on an anthropometric measure of waist to weight instead of the usual height; I'm curious if there is active research on this particular measure; if there is, is there a link or two that you could recommend? I would love to read up more on it, thanks!
I've remarked before that advice based on BMI can't be any good if it ignores age, sex and perhaps even race.
ReplyDeleteHere's the first mention I've seen in the press of the race point.
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/one-size-fits-all-bmi-index-may-be-wrongly-applied-by-doctors-for-ethnic-groups-says-nice-8684008.html
Looking at the John Stone pictures, it is funny because I feel like I've done the same thing myself over & over. What I mean is that looking in the mirror, you might not recognize that you're at peak WWR. In fact, it is almost like one month he'll improve his ratio, then maybe he feared he was not lean enough, so the next month he'll lose some weight but move in the wrong direction WWR-wise. I wonder if, using WWR as your guide & disregarding how you FEEL about how you LOOK, you could make much more steady progress. It seems to me that the typical bodybuilding strategy of bulking & cutting is a very bad one.
ReplyDeleteHi Joyce. It is another ratio that gets a lot of attention in the health-related literature: the waist-to-hip ratio.
ReplyDeleteNatural BBs typically must increase their WWR beyond their optimal, through leaning (and dehydration), to reach their competition weight. Since they lose LBM in the process, they must bulk before. It is the nature of the sport. A natural BB at his/her optimal WWR would probably, in most cases, not be considered cut enough for posing. There are exceptions, but they are exceptions.
ReplyDeleteHaving said the above, I should also say that I am no expert in BB.
ReplyDeleteBut the WHR isn't the same as a waist-weight ratio, unless I'm really missing something here .... ? Unless it is suggested that there is a relationship between the WHR and the WWR?
ReplyDeleteI've read your full article and it was really helpful for me. I'll back to your blog again to read your upcoming article.a
ReplyDeleteThe WWR and WHR are certainly different measures. They are related though, and I would suspect that their optimal points are reached at similar weights. The WHR made a mark in the literature on sexual selection and attractiveness, particularly regarding the 0.7 ratio in women (perceived by men in general as very attractive).
ReplyDeleteThis is off topic.
ReplyDeleteHowever many of your posts mentioning intermittent fasting should also include the disclaimer that empty stomachs can lead to gastritis?
What makes you believe that IF causes gastritis?
ReplyDeleteWaist to weight ratio definitely a better indicator of health/fat% than BMI for anyone with significant lean mass.
ReplyDelete5'8, 198 pounds and 32 inch waist.
BMI 30.1 so obese apparently with a six pack.
If you want to spend a healthy life you should take a healthy diet and nutritional food.For more details on nutrition proceed to Nutritional Benefits
ReplyDeleteAwesome!
ReplyDeleteBread baking is one of those almost hypnotic businesses, like a dance from some ancient ceremony. It leaves you filled with one of the world's sweetest smells... there is no chiropractic treatment, no Yoga exercise, no hour of meditation in a music-throbbing chapel, that will leave you emptier of bad thoughts than this homely ceremony of making bread. viagra generico
ReplyDelete