Waist vs Hip: What’s the Difference, Where to Measure, and Why It Matters

Last updated: June 2026

Waist and hip measurements are two of the most frequently confused body measurements — not because people don’t know where their waist and hips are, but because the standard measuring points are different from where most people assume. Your waist is measured at the narrowest point of your torso, which for many people is several inches above the belly button. Your hips are measured at the widest point of your lower body, which is at the fullest part of your buttocks — not at the hip bone. Get either wrong and any ratio or tracking you do from that point will be off.

Waist vs Hip: The Key Differences

Where to Measure Your Waist

Your waist is the narrowest circumference of your torso. To find it, stand relaxed and let your hands drop to your sides — then bend slightly to one side. Your body will crease at its natural waist. That point is typically:

• Midway between the bottom of your lowest rib and the top of your hip bone (iliac crest)
• Usually 1–2 inches above the belly button, not at the belly button level
• The visually narrowest part of your torso when you look in a mirror from the front

Wrap a soft measuring tape around this point. Keep it parallel to the floor, snug but not compressing the skin. Breathe out normally before reading the number — don’t suck in, and don’t let your stomach push out further than it rests naturally.

If you have an apple-shaped body with a midsection that is wider than the hips, finding the “narrowest point” is harder because the torso may not narrow at all. In this case, measure at about 1 inch above the belly button as a practical approximation. The WHO’s clinical protocol measures at the midpoint between the lowest rib and the iliac crest — that’s the most consistent approach across body types.

Where to Measure Your Hips

Your hip measurement is taken at the widest point of your lower body — typically at the fullest protrusion of your buttocks. This is not the same as your hip bone (the bony ridge you can feel on either side of your pelvis), which sits several inches higher and is almost always narrower than the widest point of the buttocks.

To measure: stand with feet together, wrap the tape around the widest part of your buttocks, keep it parallel to the floor, and read the number while the tape sits snug (not tight) against the skin. Use a mirror to check that the tape isn’t dipping in the front or riding up in the back.

What Each Measurement Tells You About Your Health

Waist circumference and health risk

Waist circumference is a direct proxy for abdominal fat — both subcutaneous fat (under the skin) and visceral fat (surrounding the organs). Visceral fat is metabolically active: it releases inflammatory compounds and fatty acids that drive insulin resistance, raise LDL cholesterol, and increase risk of type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease.

The evidence-based thresholds from major health organisations:

• Women: Risk increases at 80 cm (31.5 in); high risk above 88 cm (35 in)
• Men: Risk increases at 94 cm (37 in); high risk above 102 cm (40 in)

These thresholds apply regardless of BMI — you can be within a “normal” BMI range but carry enough abdominal fat to exceed these thresholds and carry elevated cardiovascular risk.

Hip circumference and health risk

Hip circumference on its own is a weaker health predictor than waist. Hip fat is predominantly subcutaneous fat — fat stored under the skin in the buttocks and thighs — which is less metabolically harmful than visceral abdominal fat. In fact, a larger hip measurement relative to the waist is associated with lower cardiovascular risk, not higher risk.

This is why the ratio between the two measurements is more meaningful than either number alone.

The Waist-to-Hip Ratio: What It Tells You

The waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) is calculated by dividing your waist circumference by your hip circumference:

WHR = Waist measurement ÷ Hip measurement

Example: A waist of 75 cm and hips of 95 cm gives a WHR of 75 ÷ 95 = 0.79.

The World Health Organization defines abdominal obesity — and elevated metabolic risk — as:

• Women: WHR above 0.85
• Men: WHR above 0.90

A 2015 study of over 15,000 adults found that high WHR was linked to increased risk of early death even in people with a normal BMI — meaning the distribution of fat matters even when overall weight appears healthy. WHR picks up on this because it captures both where the fat is (waist = bad, hips = less bad) and the relative balance between the two.

Waist vs Hip: Which Should I Use for Sizing?

For clothing and sizing, the answer depends on the garment:

• Trousers, skirts, jeans, underwear: Hip measurement is the primary fit variable for these garments. If your hips are wider than your waist, the hip measurement determines whether the garment fits over your lower body. Once on, a waistband can be adjusted or belted.
• Fitted dresses and tops with a waistline seam: Both measurements matter — hips to pass over, waist for the fitted section.
• Elastic-waist garments: Hip measurement only — the elastic adjusts at the waist.

Because there is no standardised sizing across brands, raw measurements in centimetres or inches are more reliable than size labels. Compare your actual measurements to a brand’s size chart rather than defaulting to your usual size number.

How the Waist-to-Hip Ratio Differs from BMI

BMI (body mass index) compares your weight against your height. It doesn’t say anything about where fat is stored. Someone can have a normal BMI but carry most of their fat in the abdomen — an apple shape with elevated WHR and elevated metabolic risk. Conversely, a muscular person can have a high BMI due to muscle mass with a low WHR and no meaningful cardiovascular risk.

WHR picks up on fat distribution in a way BMI cannot. Research from the American Diabetes Association found WHR was more accurate than BMI at predicting cardiovascular disease risk. Multiple studies have found WHR predicts mortality better than BMI in adults over 75. This doesn’t make WHR a perfect tool — it has its own limitations — but the combination of both measurements gives a more complete picture than either alone.