Evaluates waist-to-height ratio and its impact on physical fitness in active adults, suggesting effective screening methods.
Background For physically demanding job standards, simple anthropometric screening tools are useful. Using military personnel as a model, this study evaluated waist-to-height ratio (WHtR) for its relationship with health and performance indicators. Methods Data were analyzed from 2153 active-duty U.S. Marines (1421 men; 732 women). Relationships were assessed between WHtR, a circumference-based “tape test” (TT), body mass index (BMI), and a criterion measure of dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA)-derived percent body fat (%BF). Associations between WHtR and physical readiness were evaluated using composite scores from the Physical and Combat Fitness Tests (PFT, CFT), and individual performance metrics (pull-ups, crunches, 880-yard sprint time, 3-mile run time, ammo can overhead lifts). Results WHtR was strongly correlated with DXA %BF ( r = 0.754, p < 0.001, men; r = 0.677, p < 0.001, women) and moderately negatively with PFT ( r = −0.33, p < 0.001) and CFT ( r = −0.30, p < 0.001) scores for men. A graded decline in physical fitness scores was observed with increasing WHtR, with a clear inflection in performance outcomes occurring between WHtR values of approximately 0.48–0.50. Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) analysis to identify high %BF showed the TT (AUC: 0.889 men, 0.876 women) performed better than WHtR (AUC: 0.851 men, 0.848 women) and BMI. Conclusions WHtR is a simple and effective screening tool to identify personnel at potential risk for poor performance outcomes. These findings support use of WHtR as a screening metric and a potential replacement for traditional height-weight screening tables, with a pragmatic threshold of 0.50 to identify individuals who may benefit from secondary assessment, such as from multi-frequency bioelectrical impedance analysis.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Potter et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: