Rapid responses are electronic letters to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on thebmj.com. Although a selection of rapid responses will be included online and in print as readers' letters, their first appearance online means that they are published articles. If you need the url (web address) of an individual response, perhaps for citation purposes, simply click on the response headline and copy the url from the browser window. Letters are indexed in PubMed.
Patrick Woodburn's suggestion of using self-reported trouser size unfortunately does not consider how 'vanity sizing' has normalised obesity and that trousers marked as, for example '34 inches' will now accommodate a rather more rotund belly with a waist of up to 37 inches.
May I suggest that an advantage of waist:height ratio that this article overlooks is that, for men in the UK at least, it can reasonably be estimated from a man's trouser size and self-reported height without any direct measurement? For instance, if you are 5'10 (70 inches), this means that your ideal trouser size (between 40 and 50% of your height) should be between size 28 and size 35. Below that and you have too little central adiposity; above that and you have too much.
Re: Is BMI the best measure of obesity?
Patrick Woodburn's suggestion of using self-reported trouser size unfortunately does not consider how 'vanity sizing' has normalised obesity and that trousers marked as, for example '34 inches' will now accommodate a rather more rotund belly with a waist of up to 37 inches.
I'm afraid direct measurement is needed.
Competing interests: No competing interests