On the myth of the 0.7 waist-to-hip ratio


Is a 0.7 Waist-to-Hip Ratio Actually Attractive?

Nope. It’s a lie. There is not one single trait that perfectly predicts attractiveness. A number of studies have competing opinions on what trait best predicts attractiveness. A commonly held belief in attractiveness literature is that a 0.7 waist to hip ratio is the most attractive ratio on a woman. This number is cited in mainstream press, fitness content, and beauty content over and over again. How credible are the studies that came up with this number?

The 0.7 waist-to-hip ratio is the most cited number used to explain perfect proportions on a woman. It is argued that the 0.7 W.H.R has been observed throughout human history as the most attractive body proportions on a woman (Singh 2006). It is cited in the greater literature as a morphological feature that acts as a proxy to signal to good health and fertility. What is special about the W.H.R? (a) First, waist and buttocks are uniquely human features, as such may be an important adaptive trait that merits scientific inquiry; (b) both men and women need stored fat to deal with food shortage. Sex hormone encourages regional adiposity, where women store more fat around the hips and need access to this “storage” for survival and preferential access during pregnancy and lactation (Bjorntorp 1987); and (c) women who reach menopause, and are no longer fertile, begin to have W.H.R similar to men. It is a baseline assumption in evolution-based theories that what we find attractive and beautiful in women are cues to her reproductive capabilities (Buss 1987, Kenrick 1989, Symons 1979). A comparative analysis of the literature on W.H.R and B.M.I studies reveal systematic flaws within research design and raise important questions for future studies. This is a post of a research paper I wrote, it errs on the side of LONG. Jump down to conclusion if you just want the juicy bits.


Low W.H.R as an Adapted preference

 The literature on attraction and W.H.R argues that a low waist-to-hip ratio [specifically a 0.7 W.H.R] is the most attractive ratio for a woman. This argument is rooted in the logic that men and women select mates who enable them to enhance reproductive success and a low waist-to-hip ratio signals for such success. There is evidence that shows body fat distribution, when measured by W.H.R, correlates with perceived youthfulness, reproductive capabilities, endocrinological status, and long-term health risk in women (Singh 1993). Evolutionary psychologists assert that women select mates based on status, ability to protect, and good genetics [assessed from physical attributes] (Singh 1993).  The reproductive value of a woman is concealed within her body [her ovaries and uterus] (Singh 1993). Without any direct cues of her ovulating, her most fertile period, attractiveness is used as a proxy (Singh 1993).  Since women’s fertile cues are concealed, men now and historically have attached greater importance to a woman’s looks; this is, in part, adaptive behaviour (Buss 1987, Feingold 1990, and Singh 1993).

In present day however, it would be naive to say that the general fascination with attraction is entirely an evolutionary adaptation. What is considered beautiful is also influenced by culture and media. Singh however, argues that the culturally constructed notions of beauty are secondary to evolutionary preferences (1993). Culturally constructed attributes are important only after her reproductive potential has been assessed based on her morphological features (Singh 1993). W.H.R is one such morphological feature and the most important, according to Singh, that allows men to quickly assess a woman’s fecundity. A low W.H.R is therefore an adapted preference amongst men to filter and choose the most fertile and capable mother of their offspring. It is debatable if crediting this preference entirely to evolutionary behaviour is correct.

Historical Significance

A low waist-to-hip ratio has been a preferred attribute historically.  For a low W.H.R to hold water as an evolved preference it should have been documented as a celebrated trait historically with marginal change. A low W.H.R, specifically a 0.7 W.H.R, has been the ratio of models in Playboy Centerfolds (Singh 1993) , Miss America (Singh 1993), Miss Hong Kong (Singh 2006), and Miss India (Singh 2006) winners across 30-60 years and seen in historical figurines and statues across many, many decades (Singh 1993, Singh 2006). Although ideal weight for such models and pageants has decreased the 0.7 W.H.R, with a small waist being emphasized has remained the same (Singh 1993, Singh 1994, Singh and Young 1995, Singh 2006). Contrary to popular belief, the preferred silhouette of the “Miss ___” contests and Playboy Centerfolds, have not become androgynous; the W.H.R of the contestants and models is an average of 0.7  (Singh 1993, Singh 2006).

Singh fails to ask certain key questions: when looking at Playboy Centerfolds, an overwhelming amount of heterosexual men find these models attractive, however, would they consider them to be long-term or short-term mates? If low W.H.R is truly the best evolutionary trait to signal fecundity it should also serve to be a proxy to indicate mothering capabilities. Second, Singh throughout his 10-year+ careers in looking at W.H.R ignore runway models, which have increasingly become androgynous, with W.H.R akin to men, and are considered to be some of the most beautiful people. There are socialized beauty-forces at play that Singh consistently fails to account.

College Age Men Prefer Low W.H.R

A majority of the W.H.R studies have been carried out on college-aged men. As such these findings are often only generaliazable to them. Male ratings of female attractiveness are significantly correlated with W.H.R (Singh 1993).  A survey was conducted amongst 106 college-aged men asking them to rank 12 line drawings of women from most attractive to least (Singh 1993). They were also asked to rank them on the following attributes: good health, youthful looking, attractive, sexy, desire for children, and capability of having kids (Singh 1993). Findings reveal that W.H.R is related to health and attractiveness; however, body weight is correlated to reproductive capability. Singh concludes that fatness and thinness is not attractive and that normal weight women with 0.7 W.H.R were ranked the most attractive. Youthfulness as an attribute is an anomaly since attractive women are often considered youthful, however youthful women are not always considered attractive (Singh 1993).


To make up for the drawback of line-drawings in 1994 Singh and his research team supplemented the line drawing survey with 4 photographs of a real woman without her face. Her body varied in W.H.R [0.6, 0.7, 0.8, and 0.9] and did not vary in weight class. A sample of 64 college aged men ranked the photo on physical attractiveness, youthfulness, good health, would be a good companion, capability of having children, faithfulness, kind and understanding, intelligence, aggressiveness, and need to lose weight (Singh 1994). In this sample Singh also included a lower W.H.R [0.6] (Singh 1994). In his results the 0.6 photo was ranked as most attractive consistently, the differences in attractiveness ranking were significant (Singh 1994). Interestingly, this sample of men did not assign this figure with a high rating of intelligence, kindness, faithfulness, and understanding (Singh 1994). These results did not line up with Singh’s previous 1993 results showing that a 0.7 W.H.R predicts attractiveness.

In 1995 Singh and Young, conducted another survey, using line drawings again. 230 undergraduate college-aged men participated in a survey and were asked to rank line drawings that varied by W.H.R, weight class, and also breast and hip size. Narrow waist and small hips were rated higher than figures with large waist and large hips (Singh and Young 1995). Figures with large breasts and small hips were also rated higher than other figures (Singh and Young1995). Large breasted figures with low W.H.R are judged as highly attractive, feminine looking, and healthy, and are preferred for both short-and long-term relationships (Singh and Young 1995). These results also mimic the typical “ideal beauty” seen on T.V., in Hollywood movies, and in magazines of the late 20th and 21st century. However, a large breasted, tiny waist-ed, and narrow hipped woman do not represent the type of woman found attractive and fertile in the 15th and 16th century in Germany and Italy, respectively. The most attractive women have been represented in the artistic work of Rubens and Titian. Their artwork display: small breasted, large hipped, and heavy-set women. Although, such an example is anecdotal, Singh’s findings arguably make less of a statement about adapted evolutionary traits and more of statement about learned and socialized attraction.

There are a few methodological concerns in Singh’s studies. I address most of these in the conclusion. Of note however, is the cover story given to participants. The cover story given to participant in the above studies was a bit deceptive. The cover story indicated that physical attributes and personality traits were being studied (Singh 1993, Singh 1994, Singh and Young 1995).

Older Men Prefer Low W.H.R 

Singh and other studies did look at samples of older men. In order to make up for the pitfalls of surveying only a small sample of college age men, Singh tested older men to see if these results were common across generations (1993). For W.H.R to be a proxy to reproductive health, the results should stand Trans-generationally. He found that the results were strikingly similar for all age groups, the normal weight 0.7 W.H.R figure was ranked as most attractive amongst a sample of 89 men, of varying S.E.S backgrounds, aged 25-89 (Singh 1993). Again, the sample here is small, and likely not generaliazable to the greater North American population.

Karremans et al also looked at a small sample of older men (2010). They used a sample of 19 blind men, 19 sighted and 19 blindfolded men in the Netherlands. The blind men and blindfolded men were asked to feel the bodies of two mannequins, one with a W.H.R of 0.7 and the other with a W.H.R of 0.84.  The blind men [who are blind from birth], blindfolded, and sighted men all rated the woman with the 0.7 W.H.R as more attractive (Karremans et al 2010). However, the strength of the preference is stronger amongst sighted than blind men (Karremans et al 2010). The sample in this study is small, however it suggests that to a certain extent sighted men have and do develop preferences of attraction outside of their evolutionary desires. On the flip side [considering the preference of blind men] it also suggests that a low W.H.R is not entirely conditioned by socialization [visual media, culture etc] evolutionary forces may be at play. Essentially, attraction is explained by multiple interacting factors.

Singh in 2005 surveyed a group of older men; asking them to evaluate pre and post surgical pictures of women who had undergone buttocks augmentation. In such a surgery fat cells from the waist are injected in to the butt (Singh 2005). The W.H.R of these women went from 0.85 down to 0.7 after the surgery. The men who were evaluating the attractiveness of these pictures were not told these were pre and post images. The post surgical photos were rated to be more attractive, and this difference was significant (Singh 2005).

Singh in 2006 sampled a group of 19 male plastic surgeons [they would be categorized as “older men”]. Singh argues that since plastic surgeons help people create ideal bodies, they should be familiar with the idea of an attractive female, which, to repeat, Singh argues is shaped by the forces of natural selection. These surgeons were given a sheet of paper with six line drawings of female figures: underweight, normal, and overweight with 0.7 and 0.9 W.H.R in each weight class. They were asked to alter the body and make it more attractive. If the body was already attractive they were to leave it as is.  3 of 19 surgeons drew lines on the normal weight 0.7 figures. Breast size was increased on all models, fullness was removed from overweight models and fullness was added to underweight models (Singh 2006).

Cross-Cultural 0.7 W.H.R is Preferred

 For a trait such as a low waist-to-hip ratio to be considered an evolutionary adaptive trait it should stay consistent across cultures, because, as noted by Sugiyamauniversal standards of beauty reflect adaptations of reproductive value only if they take in to account local context” (2004).

Singh took his line drawing test and asked men in Guinea-Bissau [poor and minimum exposure to Western media], Azores Island [government controlled television], Indonesia, and U.S blacks and whites to ranke the figures from most to least attractive (Singh 2006). All groups have very similar ratings, despite cultural differences, a low 0.7 W.H.R is seen as more attractive (Singh 2006). Singh argues that this convergence of perceived attractiveness across these groups “…cannot be attributed to media exposure” (Singh, 364, 2006).

Amongst the people of Shiwiar [an Amazonian community living on the border of Ecuador and Peru], W.H.R is higher relative to women in industrialized societies, no one had a W.H.R lower than 0.8 (Sugiyama 2003). Among this group of people, heavier women were ranked as more attractive, better mothers, sexier, and more fertile (Sugiyama 2004). However, when looking only at W.H.R, low W.H.R women were ranked as most attractive, more healthy, more sexy, better mothers, and better wife’s. The issue with this study is that the sample is small, n=30, as a result the differences between perceived attraction are not significant (Sugiyama 2004).

Hadza, are subsistence based tribal community outside of Tanzania. Hadza men were asked to rank women based on different weight classes W.H.R. In 1997 Hadza men showed preference for only heavier women (Westman and Marlowe 1999). In 1998 they tested the Hadza men again (Marlowe and Westman 2001). Images of women varied by weight class and W.H.R [from 0.4 to 1.0 waist-to-hip ratio]. The 1.0 waist-to-hip ratio was overwhelmingly preferred by Hadza men on characteristics of attractiveness, health, and desirability as a wife. Again the significance of this study comes in to question since the sample size is really small, n=31 [a control of 16 college aged men in the U.S. were used]. (Marlowe and Westman 2001).  In another cross-cultural study with 308 male and female subjects from Greece, Uganda, there was an over all preference for 0.7 W.H.R [when ranking 8 line drawings that varied in weight class and W.H.R from 0.4-1.0] (Furnham et al 2002).. Notably, Ugandan’s significantly preferred the 0.5 W.H.R in the heavy weight category (Furnham et al 2002). Although this study has a larger sample size relative to other cross cultural study, their selection of countries and the definition of “Cross Cultural” seems arbitrary and was not explained well in the study.


“If the utilitarian interpretation of the W.H.R hypothesis is correct, a W.H.R of 0.7 should be ranked as most attractive and fecund relative to larger and smaller W.H.Rs, regardless of waist or hip size. If the aesthetic-preference interpretation of the W.H.R hypothesis is correct, then a W.H.R of 0.5 should be ranked as the most attractive and more fecund relative to larger W.H.Rs, regardless of weight” (Tassinary and Hansen, 1998). As we will see the following review of disprove the importance of W.H.R as an adapted evolutionary preference, and instead suggest B.M.I is a better predictor for attractiveness.

B.M.I is a Significant Predictor of Attractiveness

In 1998 Tassinary and Hansen attempted to replicate Singh’s findings using the 12 line drawings from Singh’s 1993 study in addition to 27 other line drawings of the female figure that varied by weight, waist size, and hip size. 83 college-aged women and 53 college-aged men were asked to rank the drawings with respect to attractiveness. The data show little evidence in support for Singh’s conclusions. Tassinary and Hansen’ study found that relative hip size and weight are better predictors of attractiveness regardless of W.H.R. Essentially they find that  attractiveness and fertility can be related or unrelated, either positively or negatively to W.H.R depending on the waist and hip size, and the weight of a woman (Tassinary and Hansen 1998). As such they are not in agreement with the evolution-based argument that a woman’s attractiveness is necessarily a sign of mate value. There are some issues with Tassinary and Hansen study, namely the use of poor quality line drawings, and a small sample size of undergraduate students is barely representative.

Cornelissena et al, supports Tassinary and Hansen’ findings (2007). Cornelissena et al looked at the eye movement of men and women when examining photographed female bodies. When respondents were asked to rate attractiveness and judge relative body fat the eyes focused on similar parts of the body. Their eyes focused on the central and upper abdomen and chest – but not the pelvic or hip areas. When asked to judge W.H.R the eyes focused on the pelvic and hip regions. This suggests that the patterns to judge attractiveness and body fat are similar and that the pattern to view W.H.R were significantly different than the above two (Cornelissena et al 2007). This finding is consistent with the finding that W.H.R had little influence over attractiveness judgments. Again, this study should be met with some skepticism, since n=60 is a small sample the and mean age of participants is 21.

In studies where heavier bodies were made curvier– representing W.H.R as low as 0.5, B.M.I came out as a better predictor of attractiveness (Tovee et al 2002). Using 360 degree colour video clips of 43 white woman also revealed that attractiveness to both male and female respondents depend on body fat percentage and tanned skin, and not other attributes such as W.H.R and cardiovascular fitness [which was also measured in this study] (Smith et al 2007). Again the sample here is small and samples a younger group of people.

Cross-Cultural Significance

For a trait such as waist-to-hip ratio to be considered an evolutionary adaptive trait it should stay consistent across cultures. A few studies conducted cross-cultural analysis to find that W.H.R was not an important predictor in attractiveness, instead B.M.I was. Swami and Tovee, point out the there is an inherent weakness in using line drawings since they are unable to properly convey to the respondent a woman’s attractiveness (2007). Their study used picture profiles of 50 real women who ranged in 5 B.M.I categories and W.H.R of 0.68 -0.98.  Malaysian men in low S.E.S, high S.E.S, and men from Great Britain evaluated the images in a similar way (Swami and Tovee 2007). Overwhelming B.M.I came out as a better predictor of attractiveness than W.H.R Swami and Tovee concludes the W.H.R is a weak predictor of female attractiveness (Swami and Tovee 2007). The sample size in this study is small; as such the findings should be read with some skepticism.


Concerns for the W.H.R Studies

(1) Causal direction: most of the studies did not take in to account causal direction. That is, a particular body could be attractive given societal norms, and the person may rank a body as more “capable of having children” because they find this body attractive. (2) Socialized factors: Many of the Singh studies make a note of factors that could be attributed to socialization and not evolutionary adaptation. For example, (a) models have gotten skinnier over the past three decades, and lower weight categories of the line drawings are seen as attractive and healthier. It is valid to infer that socialization plays some part in this assessment; (b) large breasted women are seen as attractive, this could very likely be due to socialization.

(3) Absolute conclusions: the W.H.R studies, and in particular the Singh studies, made absolute statements attributing attraction to an inherent evolutionary driving force. At times discrediting the role of visual media. This is risky given the lack of statistical rigor in their studies. A more cautious and less brash approach to their conclusions is merited. (4) Sample: Although this has been pointed out ad nausea, the sample size in most of the W.H.R studies is very small and as such the significance of the results come in to question. Furthermore, college-aged students participated, on a compulsory or voluntary basis through an undergraduate course. There is obvious sample selection bias here that should be addressed. (5) Line drawings: line drawings were used consistently in the studies that found significant relationships between low W.H.R and attractiveness. The line drawings are poor quality. The changes in W.H.R and weight class are often too subtle and errors in ranking are possible. (6) Sexuality: none of the W.H.R studies inquired about the sexuality of their participants. This seems to be a major error as perceived attraction could change dramatically with a person’s sexuality. (7) Tinkering with W.H.R say for a moment a 0.7 W.H.R was the most important trait that predicted attraction. As such, it would be possible to change men’s evaluation of a woman’s attractiveness by only manipulating her W.H.R. This was done by Tassinary and Hansen (1998) and the figure was not perceived to be attractive. [It is worth mentioning that some women would look absurd with a 0.7 W.H.R ]

Concerns for the B.M.I Studies

There are similar concerns for the B.M.I study. In general however, the researchers with the B.M.I. studies were less likely to make inflammatory conclusions and advised their readers to take caution with their findings. Line drawings were also used less frequently, and female respondents were included in most studies. (1) Socialized factors: the B.M.I studies rarely offered “socialized attraction” as an alternative explanation to their findings. (2) Sample: similar to the W.H.R studies the sample size of the B.M.I studies was consistently low and often used a sample of college age students. (3) Sexuality: none of the W.H.R studies inquired about the sexuality of their participants. This seems to be a major error as perceived attraction could change dramatically with a person’s sexuality.

Concerns for Both W.H.R and B.M.I Studies

Apart from the semantic issues within each study, the biggest flaw across the W.H.R, B.M.I and attractiveness studies is the isolated manner in which they assess attractiveness. There are many attributes and characteristics that contribute to a person’s attractiveness. The physical-body is a major one, in addition to: facial features [symmetry], poise, confidence, articulateness, intelligence, charisma, the ability to make someone feel good, the person’s relative status, and their clothes. This is not an exhaustive list; however this list does point out additional attributes that contribute to someone’s attractiveness and their potential as a mate.




The low W.H.R and attractiveness studies are interesting and should be reexamined using larger more representative samples. The review of the studies show that there is little agreement and considerable noise as to what trait predict attractiveness. Perhaps, one explanation is that there is no “one trait,” rather a confluence of traits and behaviours [some which we have been socialized to find attractive] that predict beauty. The absolute claims made in some of the low W.H.R studies and the general riskiness of such studies are the implications on beauty standards. When science and media begin to set rigid beauty standards [and when on body ignore the impact of media] the youngest women in our societies are influenced. Of course such studies should continue to be published, however the language and tone of their findings should reflect the statistical power of the study.


15 thoughts on “On the myth of the 0.7 waist-to-hip ratio

  1. Interesting read! It’s a bit relieving to hear there’s no “one factor” that determines beauty.

    All in all, our media’s messed up.

  2. Joe Schmoe

    Your assertation that runway models are deemed as more attractive is assinine. While I agree that reducing attractiveness to a number is minimalistic, making a carte-blanche assumption with no data corroberation to refute an actual study – regardless of smaple size – is careless.

  3. Jonah

    If I were an overweight woman, built like a man, I would also work tirelessly to refute studies that I didn’t like.

    I’m sure there are many short men who resolutely affirm that height has zero to do with a man’s attractiveness.

    There are also people, who, in moments of confusion, deny the existence of gravity. They conclude that they can fly (perhaps under the influence of drugs or a mental illness), and then they step off the roof of a tall building. Of course, we all know how these things end.

    Denial of reality does not make that reality go away.

  4. Jen

    I find it sad that people like you spend time writing about anthropology. My guess is that you likely have zero credentials on the topic. I can tell from this blog that you probably took one or two anthropology classes, so now you think you know everything about the field. You should read your scholarly articles more closely and not take the authors out of context. Your portrayal of reputable anthropologists and evolutionary psychologists work is pretty inaccurate, and it appears to be for the benefit of your own argument.

  5. K

    You’re right that “0.7” is not the magic number, there is no magic waist-to-hip ratio number that is universal. However, cross-culturally a low waist-to-hip ratio is preferred and a low waist-to-hip ratio appears to be anything below 0.9.

    You complain that samples are not cross-culturally representative, but contradict yourself by citing MANY papers that provide a diverse array of cultures. For example, papers that you cited had populations from Shiwiar, Azores Island, Guinea-Bissau, Hazda, Malyasia, Indonesia, Greece, Uganda, Netherlands, United States and the list goes on. Anyway, that is a pretty diverse sample.

    So in regards to low waist-to-hip ratio, you do not need to be thin to have a low waist-to-hip ratio. In fact, you can be overweight. Your argument HINTS that one needs to be thin to have a low waist-to-hip ratio. I realize that you don’t explicitly state that, but you imply that weight has to do with waist-to-hip ratio by stating how many cultures prefer heavier women. So what? Heavy does not mean they can’t have a low waist-to-hip ratio. You can be fat and have a low waist-to-hip ratio. You clearly made this suggestion on purpose to make your own argument appear stronger than it really is. None of the papers you cite make the claim that cross-culturally women are preferred to be thinner. So why are you even mentioning it?

    All of the papers that you refer to simply point out that men prefer a low waist-to-hip ratio. I think you missed the clear point in every paper you cited, which is low waist-to-hip ratio is found to be attractive by men. The majority of these papers that you cite are explaining that the low waist-to-hip ratio is preferred because it indicates youth. Similarly neotenous facial feautures are also cross-culturally preferred by males because it indicates youth, which shows reproductive value, and a woman’s reproductive potential. Since, the waist-to-hip ratio continues to grow with age and pregnancies, a low waist-to-hip ratio indicates high reproductive value and potential (i.e. the woman is in her prime and can have a lot of babies). Therefore, since human males unlike most other mammals invest a lot of time and energy in their partner and offspring, then it is in their best interest to select a woman who is young. This is especially so because humans are considered monogamous or mildly polygyny. So men are thus maximizing their own fitness (i.e. reproductive success) by selecting females that will make the most of their investment. A lot of this has to do with Trivers’ parental investment theory. I am not saying that men are doing this consciously either. It could be the case that these preferences have been selected for by natural selection because they provided men with fitness. So men may just have a psychological mechanism that underlies a preference to prefer females with a low waist-to-hip ratio.

    Anyway, please try to make a better effort to understand the papers you read before you go complaining about them. Thank you!!

  6. Alyssa Hourglass

    First of all, I agree with Joe, Jonah, Jen & K, they all made valid points…

    You however, as an “author” failed to do so. The fact remains that when one does any extensive research and interprets the results, one will find that most men DO prefer a WHR of .70, or lower. I have read 4 books on this very topic, and that is what I have found to be true. You relay study after study, and basically you even state that men prefer a WHR of .70, or .60. I really do not get anything from your whole post, other than you are disputing the facts, and misconstruing the whole premise of WHR.

    This topic has always peaked my interest, as I minored in Anthropology, and my favorite professor was Dr. Donald Symons, UCSB; it is unfortunate for you that you never took one of his courses in Anthropology. WHR was a topic we discussed in great length after reading the book, “The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature” by Matt Ridley. You would understand the topic far better than you seem to at present, and would understand that WHR is a huge factor in what men (and women) find attractive, not solely mind you, but it is a huge factor, you cannot deny this fact.

    As a woman with a WHR of .617, I was highly interested in this topic, whereas you on the other hand, sound angry, resentful on the topic. Never has it been said that WHR was the ONLY factor in beauty, or in mate selection. Even when men cannot see the faces, the majority of them still manage to choose a WHR closer to .70 or under. Your statements come from a place of emotion, rather than logic, logic is support by facts and history, emotions are not. YOU are misinterpreting the results. I strongly believe that WHR is a huge factor, studies and evidence supports this belief, even in first world countries where food is readily available, a woman is most fertile, most healthy & most attractive at a lower WHR. There are a few outliers, (as in any & all studies) such as the Hadza Tribe outside of Tanzania, which were mentioned to have a preference of a 1.0 WHR. This comes to NO surprise to me, as I have traveled to many countries, Africa included, and in many areas in Africa, a heavier woman is viewed as a great symbol, it is viewed that she is healthy, comes from a wealthier family and/or one who is great hunters, can survive a famine, could provide sustenance to her future nursing children (as you may or may not know, breastfeeding can require 500+ calories from the Mother per day/per child), so obviously a woman who is heavier and breastfeeding, can do so for a longer period of time, even if she were not eating much food herself, as she would have adequate fat stores whereby to burn those 500 calories.

    Another point I feel needs to be made, is that visceral fat (mid-section area) is highly dangerous, it puts one at risk for a host of health problems including but not limited to, High Blood Pressure, High Cholesterol, Higher Heart Attack & Stroke risk. The Average Joe may not know that exact information, however he can look at a woman with a 24″ waist & 36″ hips (.6666 WHR) and see that she is in a lot better physical shape than a woman with a 36″ waist & 46″ hips (.7826 WHR).

    I will always comment on articles like yours, as I feel so much clarification is needed on the topic, and so many people continue to dispute the findings, because they don’t want to believe them.
    I believe this is for one of two reasons, stemming from the fact that their own WHR is < .70 or because we do see many people marrying & having children, and obviously all of these women do not have a WHY+R of .7 or lower. The facts are that we currently have a world population of over 7 Billion people. People want the best looking person that they can land, and WHR plays a huge role, but as I said before it is not the only factor; I honestly believe that this would be more evident if we had massive declines in population, for example another Bubonic Plaque situation.
    Meaning, I highly doubt men would just marry any fat woman they could attract when considering fat women (WHR 1.0+) have a more difficult time conceiving. Men know this, even if they don't ''know this" internally, obesity doesn't good to anyone who understands health & fertility.

    As an after thought, we have all seen these women who have difficulty conceiving, if you have not yet, just pay attention, you will see that it is always one of three factors:
    1) They are obese, and by that I mean, huge, round in the middle, with a WHR of at least 1.0.
    2) They are over age 45.
    3) They are extremely thin, but not curvy, they are the "banana shaped" women. I would imagine their WHR is above .80, even when they are this, let's not forget they're tube-shaped…
    Again, none of the three should surprise anyone who agrees with the WHR .70 Theory.

    Lastly, just because you don't agree with something, or you don't want to believe it, doesn't make it untrue; it just means that you cannot accept it, clear & simple.

  7. janice

    The biggest flaw of 0.7 study, in my opinion is the lack of differentiation between a 0.7 wide hip/pelvic bones and a 0.7 small hips but with “protruding buttocks”. A woman can have a very muscular butt(genetics and lifestyle influenced) but is pretty much rectangular in the “frontal” body shape and have a 0.7 waist hip ratio as buttocks are part of the hip circumference, while there are also women who can have the supposed golden ratio but has flat butt but wider pelvic bones(genetics alone).

    my question now is: is that ratio largely due to.protruding buttocks or wide.pelvic bones?

    this is where evo.psych fails. it is not surprising since this is also the “science” that says women with wider hips are “genetically prone to proscuimity”.

  8. janice

    by the way alyssa, since you mentiomed obesity, it is possible.for an obese person to have “hourglass shape” and be obese by adiposity if her genetics dictate that fat be stored in the boobs and hips, not the stomach.

    the question now that I raise: which would men prefer: a “rectangular body shape” with higher whr but has a healthy amount of bodyfat (not too high, not too low, say 22%) or a person who has the golden ratio but has 45% bodyfat?

  9. janice

    medically, 45% is not healthy, and 22% is under the recommended healthy body fat levels.

    I think some people are offended by your criticism because they seek to validate themselves and their low whr.

    and to add to the comolex situation, almost half of.women have banana shape, about 20% are pear, and 8% are hourglass. Meaning, GENETICALLY, more people have ratios that are higher than the golden ratio.

    Maybe the real answer to natural selection and attractiveness is the general fitness and health, not a magic ratio that does not say if it pertains to buttocks protrution or wide pelvis where adiposity has not been taken into consideration

  10. Hill

    Interesting article, like everyone else who views this had a preconceived opinion that colored how I viewed your writing respect the questions you raised about sample size, cross cultural interpretation and media influence. The point of sexuality was a bit of a red herring as I think anyone not influenced by or towards reproduction shouldn’t be considered based on your premise. In the end I believe that your research was somewhat motivated by a disdain for the current archetypal standard of beauty. The media, our personal genetics, food supply are all factors that clearly have an influence on how we perceive attractiveness but irrespective of causality it seems safe to conclude that WHR is a significant attribute in how the vast majority of men an women judge whether a woman is attractive.

  11. Me

    If 0.7 (or between 0.6 – 0.7) waist hip ratio is evolutionary superior, why have only 30% (8% hourglass 20% pears) of women of the same BMI got those proportions? If it were EVOLUTIONARY significant surely over millions of years apple shaped, narrow hipped or straighter bodied women would have been bred out of existence or at least to a very small percentage. Seventy percent of women is statistically significant and they are still breeding the same body type.

    I would be curious to know how such anatomically inferior unsuccessful breeders have been so successful at spreading their genes and the supposed superior successful ones so unsuccessful over millions of years (without medical intervention). Very strange indeed…..if the 0.7 is ideal…..

  12. This is a terrible interpretation of the study. None of these studies claim that this ratio is the de facto definition of beauty, and it is irresponsible to claim that they do. All the studies measured was “in an abstractly symmetrical sense, what waist-to-hip ratio is most attractive, overall, to men/women” and submit hypothesis as to why. Hypothesis for other researchers to expand on. It was only measuring one aspect of many, and NONE of the researchers EVER claimed that this number was the magic number for all things beautiful.

  13. Garfield Streiner

    On the myth of the 6 foot height attractive man

    Women have been programmed by the media to believe that short men were unattractive for centuries and it’s all a grand conspiracy by tall men to force women to adapt to a preference that suits them.

    Sorry, attractive women have a WHR that is anything below 0.9, 0.7 is pretty much perfect, below that it starts to look unattractive/synthetic. My eyes don’t lie and I don’t even look at fashion magazines or magazines like Penthouse. It’s just my instincts. Same with women who are instinctually attracted to taller men.

  14. Pingback: What Does A Low Waist To Hip Ratio Mean | Pitiya3

Your turn : )

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s