Why Hip Circumference and Mortality Risk Move in Opposite Directions

Hip circumference and mortality risk demonstrate an inverse relationship that contradicts everything you’ve been told about body shape. I know this because my measurements confuse every standard health assessment.

My shorts fit at 29 inches. Body fat sits at 12%. My Garmin watch claims a VO2max of 59. However, that’s likely optimistic compared with the 65 I achieved in laboratory testing at 28 years old. BMI calculations place me at 24.3, technically overweight. Yet visible abdominal definition and athletic performance tell a different story.

The confusion stems from narrow hips. My gluteofemoral circumference (measurement around the widest part of the hips and buttocks) doesn’t match typical proportions for my height. Standard charts flag this as a potential concern. But paired with an equally narrow waist, the ratio remains healthy. The absolute hip measurement means nothing without context.

Research tracking over one million adults reveals that larger hip measurements correlate with reduced death rates. Each additional centimetre predicts measurably better health outcomes. This protective pattern persists across European, Australian, and American populations. Yet the relationship only emerges after accounting for waist size and total body mass.

Two Swedish research teams stumbled upon this paradox in 1984. Their findings challenged prevailing theories about obesity and cardiovascular disease. The measurements subsequently disappeared from clinical practice despite their predictive value. Medicine moved on. Hip circumference and mortality risk relationships became buried in statistical adjustments.

Why bigger hips protect demands examining gluteofemoral tissue metabolism (chemical processes in hip and thigh fat). Why this measurement vanished requires exploring clinical pragmatism over scientific curiosity. Most importantly, why context transforms meaningless numbers into powerful indicators prevents the sort of misleading conclusions that plague body composition assessment.

The Swedish Studies That Discovered the Hip Paradox

Gothenburg hospital records revealed something peculiar in 1982. Patients with larger hip measurements experienced fewer heart attacks than those with smaller measurements. Same weight. Same age. Different outcomes. The pattern contradicted everything obesity research suggested.

Bengt Larsson’s team tracked 792 men born in 1913 for 13 years. They measured waist, hip, and multiple other anthropometric (body measurement) sites. Mortality declined as hip circumference increased. The effect persisted even amongst men classified as overweight.

Six months after Larsson published, Lars Lapidus extended the findings to 1,462 women from the same Swedish city. His 12-year follow-up study replicated the male results. Women in the highest hip circumference quartile (top 25% of measurements) demonstrated 40% fewer diabetes cases compared with the lowest quartile. Myocardial infarctions (heart attacks) dropped by 35%. Combined cardiovascular disease fell by 32%.

Both teams controlled for confounding factors. Age, smoking status, and total body weight couldn’t explain the protective effect. The inverse relationship between hip circumference and mortality risk remained statistically significant (unlikely to occur by chance) after adjustments.

The measurement protocol used flexible tape at the widest point of the buttocks. Participants stood with feet together, weight distributed evenly. Two measurements averaged together. Simple methodology. Profound implications.

Narrower than expected hips at a given body weight carried a 2-3 fold excess diabetes risk. This finding proved equally surprising. The Swedish researchers had discovered something fundamental about fat distribution rather than total adiposity (overall body fatness).

International research teams began replicating these patterns throughout the late 1980s. Studies across Europe, Australia, and North America confirmed the observations. Larger hips predicted better metabolic health. The relationship held across diverse populations and dietary patterns.

The protective effect showed particular strength for cardiovascular disease and diabetes endpoints. Mortality associations proved somewhat weaker but remained statistically significant. Hip measurements predicted health outcomes independently of other anthropometric indices.

Why Hip Circumference and Mortality Risk Move in Opposite Directions

Fat stored in your hips functions differently from fat surrounding your organs. Gluteofemoral adipose tissue (fat in hips and thighs) demonstrates high lipoprotein lipase (enzyme breaking down fats) activity. This enzyme breaks down fats circulating in your bloodstream. Simultaneously, the tissue shows low fatty acid (fat molecule) turnover. Fat stays stored rather than constantly being released into circulation.

The metabolic (relating to chemical processes in the body) profile differs dramatically from abdominal deposits. Subcutaneous adipose tissue (fat layer beneath skin) in the hip region secretes beneficial proteins.

Leptin (hormone regulating energy balance and appetite) and adiponectin (protein improving insulin sensitivity) levels increase with greater hip fat. These molecules reduce inflammation throughout the body. Inflammatory cytokines (signalling proteins promoting inflammation) decrease proportionally.

Research using X-ray body composition scans reveals that leg and hip fat mass inversely associate with cardiovascular disease. Someone carrying substantial lower-body fat alongside abdominal fat fares better than someone with abdominal fat alone. The protective effect operates independently.

Three components contribute to hip measurements:

• Gluteal muscle mass: Hip circumference captures gluteal muscle mass alongside fat tissue. Muscle influences glucose metabolism (how your body processes blood sugar). Greater muscle typically indicates higher physical activity levels. This independently protects against mortality. Larger hips partly reflect stronger gluteal development rather than just adipose accumulation.
• Pelvic width: Pelvic width varies substantially between individuals. Genetics and sex determine skeletal structure. Women generally possess wider pelvises than men. This anatomical difference naturally produces larger hip measurements without implying health risk. The bone framework underneath matters.
• Peripheral muscle patterns: Narrower hips sometimes signal concerning patterns. Peripheral muscle atrophy (wasting of muscle tissue in limbs) reduces the body’s capacity to clear insulin efficiently. Small skeletal frame size occasionally associates with developmental factors affecting later health. Reduced capacity for safe fat storage forces excess energy into the liver, muscle, and organ deposits.

The reasons hip circumference and mortality risk move oppositely stem from the gluteofemoral tissue providing metabolic advantages. Safe lipid storage prevents harmful accumulation elsewhere. Favourable protein secretion improves systemic insulin sensitivity. Muscle mass in the region reflects physical activity patterns.

Hormonal factors drive fat distribution throughout life. Oestrogen (primary female sex hormone) preferentially directs storage to the hips and thighs in women. This explains why women demonstrate larger hip circumferences than men at equivalent weights. The deposition pattern serves reproductive functions whilst maintaining metabolic health.

Why This Measurement Got Phased Out

Waist circumference took over during the 1990s. Research demonstrated that abdominal fat predicted cardiovascular disease more strongly than hip measurements. Clinical practice favoured simplicity. One measurement instead of two reduced assessment time whilst capturing sufficient risk information.

The waist-to-hip ratio initially gained traction as the preferred metric. Dividing the waist by the hip created a dimensionless index indicating fat distribution patterns. Ratios above specific thresholds identified individuals with central adiposity (excess abdominal fat accumulation). This calculation predicted cardiovascular events more accurately than BMI.

Healthcare systems faced practical constraints. Waist measurement required less technical skill. Hip anatomical landmarks varied between individuals. Finding the widest point of the buttocks demanded palpation and judgement. Different technicians produced inconsistent readings. Waist offered a more standardised target.

Evidence supporting waist superiority accumulated rapidly. Waist circumference correlated strongly with visceral fat measured by CT tomography scanning (an imaging technique using X-rays to create detailed cross-sectional body images). This internal abdominal fat drives metabolic dysfunction (impaired chemical processes regulating energy and metabolism) more powerfully than any other depot. Hip measurements provided no visceral fat information.

Population studies revealed that the waist alone identified high-risk individuals effectively. Adding hip improved prediction minimally after accounting for waist size. The marginal benefit rarely justifies additional measurement burden. Busy clinical settings prioritised efficiency.

Research funding shifted away from hip circumference by the early 2000s. Scientific investigations prioritised waist measurement instead. Hip circumference research remains sparse compared with other body composition indices. Few recent studies examine this measurement independently.

Major health organisations reflected this transition. The World Health Organization established waist circumference thresholds for disease risk. The National Institutes of Health published similar cut-points. Neither specified standalone hip values. The evidence didn’t support independent interpretation.

The measurement survived primarily as the denominator in waist-to-hip calculations. Its role became providing context for waist size. Hip circumference and mortality risk relationships disappeared into statistical adjustments within academic papers. For detailed measurement protocols and technical standards, see our comprehensive hip circumference guide.

One Scandinavian study examined whether reducing hip circumference over time affected outcomes. Results showed no mortality benefit from hip reduction. However, researchers didn’t assess corresponding waist changes. This limitation prevented definitive conclusions.

Why Hip Circumference and Mortality Risk Only Work as a Ratio

Let’s consider this mini case study: a 42-year-old woman weighing 73 kilograms stands 165 centimetres tall. Her hip circumference measures 98 centimetres. Her waist sits at 94 centimetres. The waist-to-hip ratio calculates to 0.96, exceeding the 0.84 threshold for her age group. Despite moderate hip size, the ratio signals elevated cardiovascular risk.

Now, compare this with another woman carrying identical 98-centimetre hips but a 76-centimetre waist. Her ratio drops to 0.78, well within healthy ranges. Same hip measurement. Completely different health implications. The context determines everything.

Statistical regression analysis (a mathematical method examining relationships whilst controlling for other variables) reveals why adjustments prove essential. Research examining hip circumference and mortality risk shows protective effects only after accounting for BMI and waist circumference. Without these controls, hip measurements correlate positively with mortality simply because larger people tend to have both bigger hips and higher death rates.

The adjustment isolates hip circumference effects independent of overall body size. Researchers ask: “At equivalent body weights and waist sizes, do larger hips predict better outcomes?” The answer consistently proves yes across multiple populations.

Someone weighing 82 kilograms with 96-centimetre hips faces different prospects than another 82-kilogram individual with 104-centimetre hips. If both carry similar waist measurements, the larger-hipped person demonstrates better metabolic profiles.

This explains my narrow hips paired with a 29-inch waist. The proportions remain healthy despite lower absolute hip circumference. Athletic individuals with proportionally narrow measurements show healthy metabolic function. Their gluteofemoral tissue volume suits their overall composition.

Narrow hips become problematic only when paired with abdominal fat accumulation. The waist-to-hip ratio captures this efficiently. Men below 60 years demonstrate very high cardiovascular risk when ratios exceed 0.95. Women face a similar risk above 0.86.

Population studies tracking mortality over decades show that individuals in the highest hip circumference quartile (top 25% of measurements) experience significantly better outcomes than those in the lowest quartile. However, this association disappears unless researchers control for total adiposity. The protective pattern emerges only through relative comparisons.

Age complicates interpretation further. Hip circumference increases until ages 60-65, then declines whilst waist continues expanding. Elderly individuals lose peripheral muscle mass and subcutaneous fat while accumulating visceral fat. Their changing proportions reflect sarcopenia (age-related muscle loss) rather than improved health.

The hip measurement paradox reveals how context transforms data into insight. Numbers alone mislead. Ratios expose patterns. My narrow hips paired with a narrow waist tell one story. The same hip measurement combined with abdominal fat tells another.

Medicine phased out hip circumference, not because it failed to predict outcomes, but because waist alone sufficed for most clinical decisions. The protective effect remains buried in statistical models, evident only after adjustments strip away confounding factors. Bigger hips correlate with longer life, but only when your waist doesn’t dominate the equation.

Sources

• Bengtsson C, Björkelund C, Lapidus L, Lissner L. Associations of serum lipid concentrations and obesity with mortality in women: 20-year follow-up of participants in the prospective population study in Gothenburg, Sweden. Br Med J. 1993;307:1385–1388.
• Borkan GA, Hults DE, Gerzof SG, et al. Comparison of body composition in middle-aged and elderly males using computed tomography. Am J Phys Anthropol. 1985;66:289-295.
• Cameron AJ, Romaniuk H, Orellana L, Dallongeville J, Dobson AJ, Drygas W, Ferrario M, Ferrieres J, Giampaoli S, Gianfagna F, Iacoviello L, Jousilahti P, Kee F, Moitry M, Niiranen TJ, Pająk A, Palmieri L, Palosaari T, Satu M, Tamosiunas A, Thorand B, Toft U, Vanuzzo D, Veikko S, Veronesi G, Wilsgaard T, Kuulasmaa K, Söderberg S. Combined Influence of Waist and Hip Circumference on Risk of Death in a Large Cohort of European and Australian Adults. J Am Heart Assoc. 2020 Jul 7;9(13):e015189.
• Canoy D. Distribution of body fat and risk of coronary heart disease in men and women. Curr Opin Cardiol. 2008;23(6):591–8.
• de Koning L, Merchant AT, Pogue J, Anand SS. Waist circumference and waist-to-hip ratio as predictors of cardiovascular events: meta-regression analysis of prospective studies. Eur Heart J. 2007;28(7):850–6.
• Després JP. Body fat distribution and risk of cardiovascular disease: an update. Circulation. 2012;126:1301–13.
• Dunstan DW, Barr EL, Healy GN, Salmon J, Shaw JE, Balkau B, Magliano DJ, Cameron AJ, Zimmet PZ, Owen N. Television viewing time and mortality: the Australian Diabetes, Obesity and Lifestyle Study (AusDiab). Circulation. 2010;121:384–391.
• Hartz AJ, Rupley DC, Rimm AA. The association of girth measurements with disease in 32,856 women. Am J Epidemiol. 1984;119:71–80.
• Heitmann BL, Lissner L. Hip Hip Hurrah! Hip size inversely related to heart disease and total mortality. Obes Rev. 2011;12(6):478–81.
• Heyward VH, Gibson AL. Assessing body composition. In: Heyward VH, Gibson AL, editors. Advanced Fitness Assessment and Exercise Prescription. 7th ed. Champaign (IL): Human Kinetics; 2014. p. 219–65.
• Janssen I, Katzmarzyk PT, Ross R. Waist circumference and not body mass index explains obesity-related health risk. Am J Clin Nutr. 2004;79(3):379–84.
• Lanfer A, Mehlig K, Heitmann BL, Lissner L. Does change in hip circumference predict cardiovascular disease and overall mortality in Danish and Swedish women? Obesity (Silver Spring). 2014;22(3):957–63.
• Lapidus L, Bengtsson C, Larsson B, Pennert K, Rybo E, Sjöström L. Distribution of adipose tissue and risk of cardiovascular disease and death: a 12 year follow up of participants in the population study of women in Gothenburg, Sweden. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). 1984 Nov 10;289(6454):1257-61.
• Larsson B, Svärdsudd K, Welin L, Wilhelmsen L, Björntorp P, Tibblin G. Abdominal adipose tissue distribution, obesity, and risk of cardiovascular disease and death: 13 year follow up of participants in the study of men born in 1913. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). 1984 May 12;288(6428):1401-4.
• Lumish HS, O’Reilly M, Reilly MP. Sex Differences in Genomic Drivers of Adipose Distribution and Related Cardiometabolic Disorders. Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology. 2020;40(1):45–60.
• Manolopoulos KN, Karpe F, Frayn KN. Gluteofemoral body fat as a determinant of metabolic health. Int J Obes (Lond). 2010;34:949–959.
• Parker ED, Pereira MA, Stevens J, Folsom AR. Association of hip circumference with incident diabetes and coronary heart disease: the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities study. Am J Epidemiol. 2009;169:837–847.
• Piche ME, Vasan SK, Hodson L, Karpe F. Relevance of human fat distribution on lipid and lipoprotein metabolism and cardiovascular disease risk. Curr Opin Lipidol. 2018;29:285–292.
• Seidell JC, Han TS, Feskens EJM, Lean MEJ. Narrow hips and broad waist circumferences independently contribute to increased risk of non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. J Intern Med. 1997;242:401–406.
• Seidell JC, Pérusse L, Després JP, Bouchard C. Waist and hip circumferences have independent and opposite effects on cardiovascular disease risk factors: the Quebec Family Study. Am J Clin Nutr. 2001 Sep;74(3):315-21.
• Snijder MB, Zimmet PZ, Visser M, Dekker JM, Seidell JC, Shaw JE. Independent and opposite associations of waist and hip circumferences with diabetes, hypertension and dyslipidemia: the AusDiab Study. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2004;28:402–409.
• Williams MJ, Hunter GR, Kekes-Szabo T, et al. Regional fat distribution in women and risk of cardiovascular disease. Am J Clin Nutr. 1997;65:855-860.
• World Health Organization. Obesity, Preventing and Managing the Global Epidemic: Report of a WHO Consultation on Obesity. World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland. 1998.