"The ideal waist-to-hip ratio is 0.7" is one of the most repeated claims about body attractiveness. It is also one of the most oversimplified. The idea comes from real research, but that research was narrower than the headlines suggest, and later studies changed the picture. This guide explains where the 0.7 figure came from, what later studies found, what matters for men, and what you can and cannot change.
What waist-to-hip ratio is
Waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) is your waist circumference divided by your hip circumference. A waist of 70 cm and hips of 100 cm give a WHR of 0.70. It describes where you carry fat and how your frame is shaped, and it is a standard health marker as well as a topic in attractiveness research. If you want the health side, the waist-to-hip ratio guide covers risk ranges and how to measure correctly. This guide is about the attractiveness research.
Where the 0.7 figure came from
The figure traces back to a 1993 paper by Devendra Singh in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, titled "Adaptive significance of female physical attractiveness: role of waist-to-hip ratio". It reported three studies, all based on men's judgements of women.
- Study 1 looked at Miss America winners (1923 to 1987) and Playboy centrefold models (1955 to 1965 and 1976 to 1990). Singh reported that their WHRs stayed within about 0.68 to 0.72, even though both groups became noticeably slimmer over the decades.
- Study 2 showed 106 men aged 18 to 22 a set of 12 line drawings of female figures: four WHR levels (0.7, 0.8, 0.9 and 1.0) at three body weights (normal, underweight and overweight). The normal-weight figure with a WHR of 0.7 was ranked most attractive. Men also rated low-WHR figures as healthier and of greater reproductive value.
- Study 3 repeated the approach with men aged 25 to 85, who also preferred figures with lower WHR.
Singh's argument was evolutionary: WHR is linked to youthfulness, reproductive hormone status and long-term health risk in women, so a preference for a low WHR could signal health and fertility.
That study launched a large body of research and a lasting popular myth. It is worth knowing, but it is only the start of the story.
What later studies found
| Study | What it reported |
|---|---|
| Yu and Shepard, Nature, 1998 | Among the Matsigenka, a culturally isolated population in southeast Peru, heavier women with higher WHRs were preferred. This contrasts with the low-WHR preference reported in Western samples. |
| Manning, Trivers, Singh and Thornhill, Nature, 1999 | A reply to Yu and Shepard arguing that this variation does not rule out an evolutionary explanation of beauty standards. |
| Tovée, Maisey, Emery and Cornelissen, Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 1999 | BMI was the primary determinant of attractiveness rather than WHR. The authors argue that in earlier studies BMI and WHR varied together, which led to the importance of WHR being overestimated. |
| Tovée and colleagues, 2002 | With 46 undergraduates rating 60 photographs, BMI correlated about 0.5 with attractiveness ratings, against about 0.2 for WHR. |
The honest summary is that waist-to-hip ratio is one cue that has been studied heavily, but it is entangled with overall weight, it varies in importance between populations, and the "magic number" does not hold up as a universal rule. Researchers still disagree about how much of the pattern is biology and how much is culture.
What about men?
For men the research points elsewhere. In a 2007 study, 36 British and 40 Greek women rated images of real men, and the authors reported that waist-to-chest ratio (WCR) was the primary determinant of men's physical attractiveness, with BMI playing a minor role. Greek women preferred lower waist-to-chest ratios and lower body weight than British women did. In plain terms, a broader chest and shoulders relative to the waist, the V-taper shape, is the more consistent finding. That is why this site puts so much weight on shoulder-to-waist ratio for men and why the V-taper guide focuses on shoulders and waist rather than hips.
For men, WHR is mainly useful as a health marker. The Waist-to-Hip Ratio Calculator shows where your result sits on the standard risk bands for both sexes.
A healthy range is not the same as an "ideal" one
It helps to separate three different questions that often get blurred together:
- What is healthy? Health bodies, including the World Health Organization, publish WHR thresholds for abdominal obesity and raised risk. Our waist-to-hip ratio guide lists the ranges.
- What did some studies find attractive on average? Singh's work pointed to about 0.7 among the men he surveyed, but later studies show weight and culture matter at least as much.
- What is typical for you? Frame shape varies widely between healthy people, so your natural ratio may sit well away from 0.7.
A target taken from one study is not a health goal. Pushing towards a specific number is not necessarily healthier, and for many people it is simply not their frame.
What you can and cannot change
WHR has two ingredients, and they respond differently.
- Pelvis width is fixed. The bony structure of your hips does not change in adulthood. Some people have a naturally wider pelvis and some narrower, which is a large part of why WHR varies between healthy people.
- Waist size responds to fat loss. If you carry extra fat around the abdomen, losing it narrows the waist and lowers the ratio. This is also the change with the clearest health benefit.
- Hip size responds to muscle. Glute training adds shape and circumference to the hips, which also lowers the ratio. The change is real but gradual.
Healthy, sustainable changes in fat and muscle are the sensible way to move the number. Extreme dieting, waist-training corsets or targeting a specific number can be harmful. If measuring and scoring your body makes you anxious, or you have a history of disordered eating or body dysmorphia, please skip the number and speak to a health professional instead.
How to use this
Treat the 0.7 figure as a piece of research history rather than a goal. If you are curious, measure your waist and hips correctly using the measurement guide, run the calculator and see where you fall. Then look at the full picture. The body attractiveness guide puts waist-to-hip ratio alongside shoulder-to-waist ratio, symmetry and leg proportions, and the Body Attractiveness Test measures several of those from a single photo, in your browser, without uploading it.
A single ratio cannot tell you how attractive you are. Face, grooming, style, confidence, voice and personality all carry weight, and in real life they often outweigh body shape. For a personal plan built from your own measurements, see the Body Report. Please also read our disclaimer.
Sources
- Singh D. Adaptive significance of female physical attractiveness: role of waist-to-hip ratio. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1993.
- Yu DW, Shepard GH Jr. Is beauty in the eye of the beholder? Nature. 1998.
- Manning JT, Trivers RL, Singh D, Thornhill R. The mystery of female beauty. Nature. 1999.
- Tovée MJ, Maisey DS, Emery JL, Cornelissen PL. Visual cues to female physical attractiveness. Proceedings of the Royal Society B. 1999.
- Tovée MJ, Hancock PJB, Mahmoodi S, Singleton BRR, Cornelissen PL. Human female attractiveness: waveform analysis of body shape. 2002.
- Swami V, Smith J, Tsiokris A, Georgiades C, Sangareau Y, Tovée MJ, Furnham A. Male physical attractiveness in Britain and Greece: a cross-cultural study. 2007.