Hubbry Logo
Female body shapeFemale body shapeMain
Open search
Female body shape
Community hub
Female body shape
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Female body shape
Female body shape
Female body shape
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Uma, a Hindu goddess (Nepal, 11th Century)
Venus de Milo (Greece, about 150 BCE)

Female body shape or female figure is the cumulative product of a woman's bone structure along with the distribution of muscle and fat on the body.

Female figures are typically narrower at the waist than at the bust and hips. The bust, waist, and hips are called inflection points, and the ratios of their circumferences are used to define basic body shapes.

Reflecting the wide range of individual beliefs on what is best for physical health and what is preferred aesthetically, there is no universally acknowledged ideal female body shape. Ideals may also vary across different cultures, and they may exert influence on how a woman perceives her own body image.[1]

Physiology

[edit]

Impact of estrogens

[edit]

Estrogens, which are primary female sex hormones, have a significant impact on a female's body shape. They are produced in both men and women, but their levels are significantly higher in women, especially in those of reproductive age. Besides other functions, estrogens promote the development of female secondary sexual characteristics, such as breasts and hips.[2][3][4] As a result of estrogens, during puberty, girls develop breasts and their hips widen. Working against estrogen, the presence of testosterone in a pubescent female inhibits breast development and promotes muscle and facial hair development.[5]

Estrogen levels also rise significantly during pregnancy. A number of other changes typically occur during pregnancy, including enlargement and increased firmness of the breasts, mainly due to hypertrophy of the mammary gland in response to the hormone prolactin. The size of the nipples may increase noticeably. These changes may continue during breastfeeding. Breasts generally revert to approximately their previous size after pregnancy, although there may be some increased sagging.[6][7]

Breasts can decrease in size at menopause if estrogen levels decline.[8][9]

Fat distribution

[edit]
See also: Gynoid fat distribution
Estrogen causes fat to be stored on a young woman's buttocks, hips and thighs, but not her waist.

Estrogens can also affect the female body shape in a number of other ways, including increasing fat stores, accelerating metabolism, reducing muscle mass, and increasing bone formation.[10][11][12]

Estrogens cause higher levels of fat to be stored in a female body than in a male body.[13][14] They also affect body fat distribution,[15] causing fat to be stored in the buttocks, thighs, and hips in women,[16][17] but generally not around their waists, which will remain about the same size as they were before puberty. The hormones produced by the thyroid gland regulate the rate of metabolism, controlling how quickly the body uses energy, and controls how sensitive the body should be to other hormones. Body fat distribution may change from time to time, depending on food habits, activity levels and hormone levels.[18][19][20]

When women reach menopause and the estrogen produced by ovaries declines, fat migrates from their buttocks, hips and thighs to their waists;[21] later fat is stored at the abdomen.[22]

Body fat percentage recommendations are higher for females, as this fat may serve as an energy reserve for pregnancy. Males have less subcutaneous fat in their faces due to the effects of testosterone;[23][24] testosterone also reduces fat by aiding fast metabolism. The lack of estrogen in males generally results in more fat being deposited around the waist and abdomen (producing an "apple shape").[25]

Muscles

[edit]

Testosterone is a steroid hormone which helps build and maintain muscles for physical activity, such as exercise. The amount of testosterone produced varies from one individual to another, but, on average, an adult female produces around one-eighth of the testosterone of an adult male,[26] but females are more sensitive to the hormone.[27]

Changes to body shape

[edit]

The aging process has an inevitable impact on a person's body shape. A woman's sex hormone levels will affect the fat distribution on her body. According to Dr. Devendra Singh, "Body shape is determined by the nature of body fat distribution that, in turn, is significantly correlated with women's sex hormone profile, risk for disease, and reproductive capability."[28] Concentrations of estrogen will influence where body fat is stored.[29]

Before puberty both males and females have a similar waist–hip ratio.[28] At puberty, a girl's sex hormones, mainly estrogen, will promote breast development and a wider pelvis that is tilted forward, and until menopause a woman's estrogen levels will cause her body to store excess fat in the buttocks, hips and thighs,[29][30] but generally not around her waist, which will remain about the same size as it was before puberty. These factors result in women's waist–hip ratio (WHR) being lower than for males, although males tend to have a greater upper-body to waist–hip ratio (WHR) giving them a V shape look because of their greater muscle mass (e.g., they generally have much larger, more muscular and broader shoulders, pectoral muscles, teres major muscles and latissimus dorsi muscles).

During and after pregnancy, a woman experiences body shape changes. After menopause, with the reduced production of estrogen by the ovaries, there is a tendency for fat to redistribute from a female's buttocks, hips and thighs to her waist or abdomen.[21]

The breasts of girls and women in early stages of development commonly are "high" and rounded, dome- or cone-shaped, and protrude almost horizontally from a female's chest wall. Over time, the sag on breasts tends to increase due to their natural weight, the relaxation of support structures, and aging.

Categorisation in fashion industry

[edit]

Body shapes are often categorised in the fashion industry into one of four elementary geometric shapes,[31] though there are very wide ranges of actual sizes within each shape:

Rectangular

The waist is less than 9 inches (23 cm) smaller than the hips and bust.[31] Body fat is distributed predominantly in the abdomen, buttocks, chest, and face. This overall fat distribution creates the typical ruler (straight) shape.

Inverted triangle

The shoulders are broader than the hips.[31] The legs and thighs tend to be slim, while the chest looks larger compared with the rest of the body. Fat is mainly distributed in the chest and face.

Spoon

The hips are wider than the bust.[31] The distribution of fat varies, with fat tending to deposit first in the buttocks, hips, and thighs. As body fat percentage increases, an increasing proportion of body fat is distributed around the waist and upper abdomen. The women of this body type tend to have a relatively larger rear, thicker thighs, and a small(er) bosom. Also known as a "pear" shape.

Hourglass

Main article: Hourglass figure
The hips and bust are almost of equal size, and the waist is narrower than both.[31] Body fat distribution tends to be around both the upper body and lower body.

A study of the shapes of over 6,000 women, carried out by researchers at the North Carolina State University circa 2005,[32] for apparel, found that 46% were rectangular, just over 20% spoon, just under 14% inverted triangle, and 8% hourglass.[31] Another study has found "that the average woman's waistline had expanded by six inches since the 1950s" and that women in 2004 were taller and had bigger busts and hips than those of the 1950s.[31] Note however that a 2021 study found that slight changes in measurement placement definition can recategorise up to 40% of women into different body shapes, meaning cross-research comparisons may be flawed unless the exact measurement definitions are used.[33][34]

Several similar classifications of women's body shape exist. These include:[35]

  • Sheldon: "Somatotype: {Plumper: Endomorph, Muscular: Mesomorph, Slender: Ectomorph}", 1940s[36]
  • Douty's "Body Build Scale: {1,2,3,4,5}", 1968
  • Bonnie August's "Body I.D. Scale: {A,X,H,V,W,Y,T,O,b,d,i,r}", 1981
  • Simmons, Istook, & Devarajan "Female Figure Identification Technique (FFIT): {Hourglass, Bottom Hourglass, Top Hourglass, Spoon, Rectangle, Diamond, Oval, Triangle, Inverted Triangle}", 2002
  • Connell's "Body Shape Assessment Scale: {Hourglass, Pear, Rectangle, Inverted Triangle}", 2006
  • Rasband: {Ideal, Triangular, Inverted Triangular, Rectangular, Hourglass, Diamond, Tubular, Rounded}, 2006
  • Lee JY, Istook CL, Nam YJ, "Comparison of body shape between USA and Korean women: {Hourglass, Bottom Hourglass, Top Hourglass, Spoon, Triangle, Inverted Triangle, Rectangle}", 2007.

FFIT for Apparel measurements

[edit]

The "Female Figure Identification Technique for Apparel" uses the following formula to identify an individual's body type:[37]

Hourglass
If (bust − hips) ≤ 1 in (25 mm) AND (hips − bust) < 3.6 in (91 mm) AND ((bust − waist) ≥ 9 in (230 mm) OR (hips − waist) ≥ 10 in (250 mm) )
Bottom hourglass
If (hips − bust) ≥ 3.6 in (91 mm) AND (hips − bust) < 10 in (250 mm) AND (hips − waist) ≥ 9 in (230 mm) AND (high hip/waist) < 1.193
Top hourglass
If (bust − hips) > 1 in (25 mm) AND (bust − hips) < 10 in (250 mm) AND (bust − waist) ≥ 9 in (230 mm)
Spoon
If (hips − bust) > 2 in (51 mm) AND (hips − waist) ≥ 7 in (180 mm) AND (high hip/waist) ≥ 1.193
Triangle
If (hips − bust) ≥ 3.6 in (91 mm) AND (hips − waist) < 9 in (230 mm)
Inverted triangle
If (bust − hips) ≥ 3.6 in (91 mm) AND (bust − waist) < 9 in (230 mm)
Rectangle
If (hips − bust) < 3.6 in (91 mm) AND (bust − hips) < 3.6 in (91 mm) AND (bust − waist) < 9 in (230 mm) AND (hips − waist) < 10 in (250 mm)

Clothing standards

[edit]

Some clothing size standards define categories.[38]

Inverted triangle-rectangular categories

[edit]

The Chinese clothing size standards give codes to clothing designed for different ratios between chest and waist. They adapt for a linear scale between inverted triangle/hourglass and rectangular.

Chinese [GB/T1335.1—1997] Body Shape Classifications by: Chest - Waist circumferences
Shape Code Female Male
Y 19–24 cm 17–22 cm
A 14–18 cm 12–16 cm
B 9–13 cm 7–11 cm
C 4–8 cm 2–6 cm

Rectangular-spoon categories

[edit]

The Japanese and South Korean clothing size standards give codes to women's clothing designed for different ratios between hips and chest. The German standards similarly use hip and bust measures. They all adapt for a linear scale between rectangular and spoon shapes.

Japanese [JIS L 4005 - 2001] Body Shape Classifications by: Hip - Chest circumferences
Shape Code Female
Y 0 cm
A 4 cm
AB 8 cm
B 12 cm
South Korean [KS K 0051:2004] Body Shape Classifications by: Hip - Chest circumferences
Shape Code Female
H 0–3 cm
N 3–9 cm
A 9–12 cm
German Body Shape Classifications by: Hip - Bust circumferences
Shape Code Female
S -4–2 cm
M 2–8 cm
L 8+ cm

The German sizing system also has height categories for short, regular and tall women, which combine with the shape categories to produce 9 categories.

Proportions and dimensions

[edit]
See also: Bust/waist/hip measurements, Body proportions, and Anthropometry
The Source, Jean Auguste Dominique Ingres, 1856
In the Water by Eugene de Blaas, 1914

The circumferences of bust, waist, and hips (BWH) and the ratios between them are a widespread method of identifying different female body shapes. As noted above, descriptive terms used include "rectangle", "spoon", "inverted triangle", and "hourglass".[31]

The waist is typically smaller than the bust and hips, unless there is a high proportion of body fat distributed around it. How much the bust or hips inflect inward, towards the waist, determines a woman's structural shape. The hourglass shape is present in only about 8% of women.[31]

A woman's dimensions are often expressed by the circumference around the three inflection points. For example, "36–29–38" in US customary units would mean a 36 in (91 cm) bust, 29 in (74 cm) waist and 38 in (97 cm) hips.

Height will also affect the appearance of the figure. A woman who is 36–24–36 (91–61–91 cm) at 5 ft 2 in (1.57 m) height will look different from a woman who is 36–24–36 at 5 ft 8 in (1.73 m) height. If both are the same weight, the taller woman has a much lower body mass index; if they have the same BMI, the weight is distributed around a greater volume.

A woman's bust measure is a combination of her rib cage and breast size. For convenience, a woman's bra measurements are often used as a proxy. Conventionally, measurement for the band of a bra is taken around the torso immediately below the breasts, with the tape measure parallel to the floor.[39][40] Bra cup size is determined by measuring across the crest of the breasts and calculating the difference between that measurement and the band measurement.[39][41] The waist is measured at the midpoint between the bottom of the rib cage and the top of the 'front' hip bones. The hips are measured at the largest circumference of the hips and buttocks.[42]

Fashion models

[edit]
See also: Size 0

The British Fashion Model Agents Association (BFMA) says that female models should be at least 5 ft 8 in (1.73 m) tall and proportionately around 34–24–34" (86–61–86 cm).[43] Laws "aimed at preventing anorexia by stopping the promotion of inaccessible ideals of beauty" have been introduced in a number of European countries,[44] to regulate the minimum actual or apparent BMI of fashion models. "Under World Health Organisation guidelines an adult with a BMI below 18.5 is considered underweight, 18 malnourished, and 17 severely malnourished. The average model measuring 1.75 m (5 ft 9 in) and weighing 50 kg (110 lb; 7 st 12 lb) has a BMI of 16".[44]

Cultural perceptions

[edit]
See also: Feminine beauty ideal
The Townley Venus, Roman marble copy (1st or 2nd century AD) of the Greek original (4th century BC).
Vienna Diptych, Hugo van der Goes
Adam and Eve from the Vienna Diptych by Hugo van der Goes. Eve's protruding abdomen is typical of nudes in the 15th century.

According to Camille Paglia, the ideal body type as envisioned by members of society has changed throughout history. She states that Stone Age Venus figurines show the earliest body type preference, dramatic steatopygia; and that the emphasis on protruding belly, breasts, and buttocks is likely a result of both the aesthetic of being well fed and aesthetic of being fertile, traits that were more difficult to achieve at the time. In sculptures from Classical Greece and Ancient Rome the female bodies are more tubular and regularly proportioned.[45]: 5  There is essentially no emphasis given to any particular body part, not the breasts, buttocks, or belly.

Moving forward there is more evidence that fashion somewhat dictated what people believed were the proper female body proportions. This is the case because the body is primarily seen through clothing, which always changes the way the underlying structures are conceived.[46]: xii–xiii  The first representations of truly fashionable women appear in the 14th century.[46]: 90  Between the 14th and 16th centuries in northern Europe, bulging bellies were again desirable, however the stature of the rest of the figure was generally thin. This is most easily visible in paintings of nudes from the time. When looking at clothed images, the belly is often visible through a mass of otherwise concealing, billowing, loose robes. Since the stomach was the only visible anatomical feature, it became exaggerated in nude depictions while the rest of the body remained minimal.[46]: 96–100, 106  In southern Europe, around the time of the renaissance, this was also true. Though the classical aesthetic was being revived and very closely studied, the art produced in the time period was influenced by both factors. This resulted in a beauty standard that reconciled the two aesthetics by using classically proportioned figures who had non-classical amounts of flesh and soft, padded skin.[46]: 96–98, 104 

In the nude paintings of the 17th century, such as those by Rubens, the naked women appear quite plump. Upon closer inspection however, most of the women have fairly normal statures, Rubens has simply painted their flesh with rolls and ripples that otherwise would not be there. This may be a reflection of the female style of the day: a long, cylindrical, gown with rippling satin accents, tailored over a figure in stays. Thus Rubens' women have a tubular body with rippling embellishments.[46]: 106, 316  While stays continued to be fashionable into the 18th century, they were shortened, became more conical, and consequently began to emphasize the waist. It also lifted and separated the breasts as opposed to the 17th century corsets which compressed and minimized the breasts. Consequently, depictions of nude women in the 18th century tend to have a very narrow waist and high, distinct breasts, almost as if they were wearing an invisible corset.[46]: 91, 112–116  La maja desnuda is a clear example of this aesthetic. The 19th century maintained the general figure of the 18th century. Examples can be seen in the works of many contemporary artists, both academic artists, such as Cabanel, Ingres, and Bouguereau, and Impressionists, such as Degas, Renoir, and Toulouse-Lautrec. As the 20th century began, the rise of athletics resulted in a drastic slimming of the female figure. This culminated in the 1920s flapper look, which has informed modern fashion ever since.[45]: 4 [46]: 152 

The last 100 years envelop the time period in which that overall body type has been seen as attractive, though there have been small changes within the period as well. The 1920s was the time in which the overall silhouette of the ideal body slimmed down. There was dramatic flattening of the entire body resulting in a more youthful aesthetic.[46]: 150–153  As the century progressed, the ideal size of both the breasts and buttocks increased. From the 1950s to 1960 that trend continued with the interesting twist of cone shaped breasts as a result of the popularity of the bullet bra. In the 1960s, the invention of the miniskirt as well as the increased acceptability of pants for women, prompted the idealization of the long leg that has lasted to this day.[46]: 93–95  Following the invention of the push-up bra in the 1970s the ideal breast has been a rounded, fuller, and larger breast. In the past 20 years the average American bra size has increased from 34B to 34DD,[47] although this may be due to the increase in obesity within the United States in recent years. Additionally, the ideal figure has favored an ever-lower waist–hip ratio, especially with the advent and progression of digital editing software such as Adobe Photoshop.[45]: 4, 6–7 

Social and health issues

[edit]
Venus at a Mirror, Rubens, c. 1615

Each society develops a general perception of what an ideal female body shape would be like. These ideals are generally reflected in the art and literature produced by or for a society, as well as in popular media such as films and magazines. The ideal or preferred female body size and shape has varied over time and continues to vary among cultures;[48][49] but a preference for a small waist has remained fairly constant throughout history.[50] A low waist–hip ratio has often been seen as a sign of good health and reproductive potential.[51]

A low waist–hip ratio has also often been regarded as an indicator of attractiveness of a woman, but recent research suggests that attractiveness is more correlated to body mass index than waist–hip ratio, contrary to previous belief.[52][53] According to Dr. Devendra Singh of the University of Texas, who studied the representations of women, historically found there was a trend for slightly overweight women in the 17th and 18th centuries, as typified by the paintings of Rubens, but that in general there has been a preference for a slimmer waist in Western culture. He notes that "The finding that the writers describe a small waist as beautiful suggests instead that this body part—a known marker of health and fertility—is a core feature of feminine beauty that transcends ethnic differences and cultures."[50]

New research suggests that apple-shaped women have the highest risk of developing heart disease, while hourglass-shaped women have the lowest.[54] Diabetes professionals advise that a waist measurement for a woman of over 80 cm (31 in) increases the risk of heart disease, but that ethnic background also plays a factor.[55]

Waist–hip ratio

[edit]
Main article: Waist–hip ratio
Sophia Loren in 1949

Compared to males, females generally have relatively narrow waists and large buttocks,[56] and this along with wide hips make for a wider hip section and a lower waist–hip ratio.[57] Research shows that a waist–hip ratio (WHR) for a female very strongly correlates to the perception of attractiveness.[58] Women with a 0.7 WHR (waist circumference that is 70% of the hip circumference) are rated more attractive by men in various cultures.[28] Such diverse beauty icons as Marilyn Monroe, Sophia Loren and the Venus de Milo have ratios around 0.7;[59] this is a typical ratio in Western art.[60] In other cultures, preferences vary,[61] ranging from 0.6 in China,[62] to 0.8 or 0.9 in parts of South America and Africa,[63][64][65] and divergent preferences based on ethnicity, rather than nationality, have also been noted.[66][67]

Anthropologists and behaviorists have discovered evidence that the WHR is a significant measure for female attractiveness.[68][69]

Many studies indicate that WHR correlates with female fertility, leading some to speculate that its use as a sexual selection cue by men has an evolutionary basis.[70] However it is also suggested that the evident relationships between WHR-influencing hormones and survival-relevant traits such as competitiveness and stress tolerance may give a preference for higher waist–hip ratios its own evolutionary benefit. That, in turn, may account for the cross-cultural variation observed in actual average waist–hip ratios and culturally preferred waist-to-hip ratios for women.[71]

WHR has been found to be a more efficient predictor of mortality in older people than waist circumference or body mass index (BMI).[72]

Waist-height ratio

[edit]
Main article: Waist-height ratio

A person's "waist-height ratio" (WHtR), is defined as their waist circumference divided by their height, both measured in the same units. It is used as a predictor of obesity-related cardiovascular disease. The WHtR is a measure of the distribution of body fat. Higher values of WHtR indicate higher risk of obesity-related cardiovascular diseases; it is correlated with abdominal obesity.[73] In September 2022, the UK's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (a government body) announced new guidelines which suggested that all adults "ensure their waist size is less than half their height in order to help stave off serious health problems".[74][75] This guideline is independent of gender.

Bodies as identity

[edit]

Over the past several hundred years, there has been a shift towards viewing the body as part of one's identity – not in a purely physical way, but as a means of deeper self-expression. David Gauntlett, in his 2008 book, recognizes the importance of malleability in physical identity, stating, "the body is the outer expression of our self, to be improved and worked upon".[76] One of the more key factors in creating the desire for a particular body shape – most notably for women – is the media, which has promoted a number of so-called "ideal" body shapes.[77] Fashionable figures are often unrealistic and unattainable for much of the population, and their popularity tends to be short-lived due to their arbitrary nature.[78][79]

Postcard photo of the curvaceous Marilyn Monroe, taken before she became famous

During the 1950s, the fashion model and celebrity were two separate entities, allowing the body image of the time to be shaped more by television and film rather than high fashion advertisements. While the fashion model of the 1950s, such as Jean Patchett and Dovima, were very thin, the ideal image of beauty was still a larger one. As the fashion houses in the early 1950s still catered to a specific, elite clientele, the image of the fashion model at that time was not as sought after or looked up to as was the image of the celebrity. While the models that graced the covers of Vogue Magazine and Harper's Bazaar in the 1950s were in line with the thin ideal of the day, the most prominent female icon was Marilyn Monroe. Monroe, who was more curvaceous, fell on the opposite end of the feminine ideal spectrum in comparison to high fashion models. Regardless of their sizes, however, both fashion of the time and depictions of Monroe emphasize a smaller waist and fuller bottom half. The late 1950s, however, brought about the rise of ready-to-wear fashion, which implemented a standardized sizing system for all mass-produced clothing. While fashion houses, such as Dior and Chanel, remained true to their couture, tailor-made garments, the rise of these rapidly-produced, standardized garments led to a shift in location from Europe to America as the epicenter of fashion. Along with that shift came the standardization of sizes, in which garments were not made to fit the body anymore, but instead the body must be altered to fit the garment.[80]

During the 1960s, the popularity of the model Twiggy meant that women favoured a thinner body, with long, slender limbs.[81] This was a drastic change from the former decade's ideal, which saw curvier icons, such as Marilyn Monroe, to be considered the epitome of beautiful. These shifts in what was seen to be the "fashionable body" at the time followed no logical pattern, and the changes occurred so quickly that one shape was never in vogue for more than a decade. As is the case with fashion itself in the post-modern world, the premise of the ever-evolving "ideal" shape relies on the fact that it will soon become obsolete, and thus must continue changing to prevent itself from becoming uninteresting.[82]

An early example of the body used as an identity marker occurred in the Victorian era, when women wore corsets to help themselves attain the body they wished to possess.[83] Having a tiny waist was a sign of social status, as the wealthier women could afford to dress more extravagantly and sport items such as corsets to increase their physical attractiveness.[84] By the 1920s, the cultural ideal had changed significantly as a result of the suffrage movement, and "the fashion was for cropped hair, flat (bound) breasts and a slim, androgynous shape".[85]

More recently, magazines and other popular media have been criticized for promoting an unrealistic trend of thinness. David Gauntlett states that the media's "repetitive celebration of a beauty 'ideal' which most women will not be able to match … will eat up readers' time and money—and perhaps good health—if they try".[86] Additionally, the impact that this has on women and their self-esteem is often a very negative one,[87] and resulted in the diet industry taking off in the 1960s – something that would not have occurred "had bodily appearance not been so closely associated with identity for women".[88] Melissa Oldman states, "Nowhere is the thin female ideal more evident than in popular media."[89]

The importance of "the body as a work zone", as Myra MacDonald asserts, further perpetuates the link between fashion and identity, with the body being used as a means of creating a visible and unavoidable image for oneself.[90] The tools with which to create the final copy of such a project range from the extreme—plastic surgery—to the more tame, such as diet and exercise.[91]

Alteration of body shape

[edit]
See also: Body image

A study at Brigham Young University using MRI technology suggested that women experience more anxiety about weight gain than do men,[92] while aggregated research has been used to claim that images of thin women in popular media may induce psychological stress.[93] A study of 52 older adults found that females may think more about their body shape and endorse thinner figures than men even into old age.[94]

Various strategies, including exercise, are sometimes employed in an attempt to temporarily or permanently alter the shape of a body. Dieting is also sometimes used, but is generally not effective in the long term.[95]

At times artificial devices are used or surgery is employed. In 2019, 92% of all cosmetic procedures in the US were undertaken by women, with the most popular being a breast augmentation.[96] Breast size can be artificially increased or decreased. Falsies, breast prostheses or padded bras may be used to increase the apparent size of a woman's breasts, while minimiser bras may be used to reduce the apparent size. Breasts can be surgically enlarged using breast implants or reduced by the systematic removal of parts of the breasts. Hormonal breast enhancement may be another option.[97][98][99]

Historically, boned corsets have been used to reduce waist sizes. The corset reached its climax during the Victorian era. In twentieth century these corsets were mostly replaced with more flexible/comfortable foundation garments. Where corsets are used for waist reduction, they may cause temporary reduction through occasional use or permanent reduction through constant and continuous use. Those who use corsets for permanent reduction are often referred to as tightlacers. Liposuction and liposculpture are common surgical methods for reducing the waist line.[100][101]

Padded control briefs or hip and buttock padding may be used to increase the apparent size of hips and buttocks. Buttock augmentation surgery may be used to increase the size of hips and buttocks to make them look more rounded.[102]

Social perceptions of the ideal woman's body

[edit]

In a 2012 experiment, researchers Crossley, Cornelissen, and Tovée asked men and women to depict an attractive female body, and the majority of them chose the same ideal.[103] The women who participated in this experiment drew their ideal bodies with enlarged busts and narrowed the rest of their bodies. The male participants also depicted their ideal partner with the same image. The researchers state, "For both sexes, the primary predictor of female beauty is a relatively low BMI combined with a relatively curvaceous body".[103] However, the generality of their conclusions was limited given their small sample size and single ethnicity of participants.

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Cited sources

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Female body shape

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Female body shape refers to the sexually dimorphic configuration of the , marked by relatively narrower shoulders, a pronounced , and wider hips, resulting in a waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) averaging 0.7 in reproductively capable women, primarily due to estrogen-driven deposition in the lower body (hips, thighs, and ) superimposed on a skeletal adapted for bipedal locomotion and . This morphology contrasts with the android pattern more common in males, where accumulates viscerally around the , reflecting divergent profiles—estrogens promote peripheral subcutaneous storage in females, while androgens favor central deposition. Empirical studies link lower WHR to indicators of ovarian function, youthfulness, and long-term health outcomes, such as reduced risks of and compared to higher WHR values indicative of android-like distribution. Evolutionarily, this shape serves as a reliable cue of and genetic fitness, with cross-cultural evidence showing consistent male preferences for WHR near 0.7 across diverse populations, minimally influenced by local or media exposure. Genetic factors, including sex-specific loci regulating adiposity distribution, interact with hormonal milieu and parity to produce variations like "" (balanced fat in bust and hips) or "" (lower-body emphasis), though extremes in either direction correlate with metabolic dysregulation. Cultural ideals have fluctuated historically—favoring slimmer forms in scarcity-driven eras versus fuller figures signaling resource access—but biological imperatives rooted in causal mechanisms of differences persist, overriding transient societal narratives that downplay innate dimorphisms. Controversies arise from attempts to frame variability through non-biological lenses, yet peer-reviewed data affirm that deviations from optimal WHR often stem from endocrine disruptions rather than adaptive diversity, with implications for and morbidity.

Biological and Physiological Foundations

Hormonal and Genetic Influences

, the primary female sex hormone, plays a central role in directing fat deposition toward subcutaneous regions such as the hips, thighs, and breasts, resulting in the characteristic body shape during reproductive years. This distribution contrasts with the android pattern more common in males, where testosterone promotes visceral fat accumulation around the . During , rising estrogen levels trigger skeletal changes including pelvic widening to accommodate potential , alongside increased fat mass acquisition—females gain significantly more fat relative to fat-free mass compared to males. Progesterone and other hormones modulate these effects, but estrogen deficiency, as occurs post-menopause, shifts toward visceral depots, elevating circumference and altering overall toward a more centralized pattern. Cross-sex in women, involving administration, similarly induces a reduction in waist-to-hip ratio and redistribution mimicking patterns, underscoring 's causal influence. Genetic factors substantially determine variation in female body shape, with twin studies estimating of waist-hip ratio (WHR) at 40-60% after accounting for age and behavioral confounders. Complex segregation analyses and genome-wide association studies reveal polygenic control over distribution, including sex-specific loci influencing subcutaneous versus visceral partitioning. These genetic influences interact with hormones; for instance, variants associated with activity can modulate pelvic breadth and hip localization, contributing to inter-individual differences in shape independent of overall adiposity. Environmental factors explain the remainder of variance, but genetic effects predominate in longitudinal stability of traits like WHR across the lifespan.

Fat Distribution Patterns

Females characteristically display a fat distribution pattern, with preferentially accumulating in the gluteofemoral region—including the hips, thighs, and —resulting in a lower waist-to-hip ratio compared to males. This contrasts with the android pattern predominant in males, where fat deposits more centrally around the and viscera. On average, females maintain 6–11% higher total than males, with a greater proportion stored subcutaneously rather than viscerally. Estrogen plays a primary causal role in directing this lower-body deposition by enhancing subcutaneous fat storage and inhibiting in femoral and gluteal depots via upregulation of α2A-adrenergic receptors, which suppress fat breakdown. In premenopausal females, elevated levels correlate with reduced abdominal fat accumulation, fostering the characteristic pear-shaped silhouette. Androgens, conversely, promote visceral fat in both sexes, but their lower levels in females limit this effect until , when decline triggers a redistribution toward android patterns, increasing intra-abdominal fat by up to 50% in some cohorts. Population-level variations exist, influenced by and ; for instance, non-Hispanic Black females exhibit higher overall adiposity and more pronounced distribution than non-Hispanic White females, with prevalence reaching 57% versus 40% in the latter group as of recent U.S. data. Asian females tend toward lower total but similar preferences, while genetic factors accounting for 30–70% of variance in distribution underscore over environmental influences alone. These patterns persist across cultures, with studies confirming sex-specific regional differences independent of total mass.

Skeletal and Muscular Dimorphism

Human females exhibit distinct skeletal dimorphism compared to males, characterized primarily by adaptations for and locomotion. The is wider and shallower, with a larger and outlet to facilitate , resulting in greater inter-acetabular distance and a more oval-shaped birth canal. This configuration increases the bi-iliac breadth relative to body size, contributing to the broader hip structure that underlies body shapes such as the or forms. In contrast, males possess a narrower, more robust with a heart-shaped inlet optimized for weight-bearing efficiency in . Shoulder morphology also displays , with females having narrower clavicles and scapulae, leading to reduced biacromial breadth. Males, conversely, exhibit broader shoulders due to larger size and greater upper body skeletal robusticity, even when scaled for height. These differences establish the skeletal framework for ratios; in females, the combination of narrower shoulders and wider hips typically yields a shoulder-to-hip below 1.0, accentuating definition when combined with fat distribution. Overall, female long bones are shorter and less robust relative to body mass, with lower cortical thickness, reflecting lower mechanical loading demands. Muscular dimorphism further differentiates female body shape, with males possessing substantially greater total skeletal muscle mass—approximately 36-65% more than females across populations. This disparity is most pronounced in the upper body, where males have 75-78% more arm muscle mass, compared to 41-50% more in the legs, resulting in less muscular bulk and a smoother contour in females. Females exhibit a higher proportion of type I (slow-twitch) fibers and favor lipid oxidation over glycolysis in muscle metabolism, which supports endurance but limits hypertrophy. Consequently, female musculature contributes minimally to visible shape alterations, allowing adipose tissue to dominate curves, whereas male muscle accentuates angularity and V-shaped torsos. These traits emerge post-puberty under androgen influence, with females showing earlier but less extensive gains in muscle and bone.

Developmental and Lifecycle Changes

During , typically beginning between ages 8 and 13, surge promotes (), growth (), and a growth spurt, with redistributing to the hips, thighs, and breasts, increasing overall from about 15-20% prepubertally to 25-30% by late . This results in a shift toward patterning, with hips widening by 5-10 cm on average due to pelvic growth and deposition, lowering the waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) to its reproductive optimum of approximately 0.7 in early adulthood. Fat-free mass peaks around and stabilizes, contrasting with continued lean mass gains in males. In reproductive years, body shape remains relatively stable absent major events like , though parity influences fat distribution; multiparous women exhibit slightly higher central fat accumulation over time compared to nulliparous peers. induces temporary expansions in abdominal girth, size, and lower-body fat reserves (e.g., thighs and ) to support fetal needs, with average maternal fat gain of 2-4 kg beyond fetal/placental weight, often mobilizing preferentially from gluteofemoral depots postpartum via . Permanent changes may include pelvic widening by 1-2 cm per due to relaxin-mediated laxity, potentially altering WHR minimally but increasing hip circumference. Perimenopause and , starting around age 45-55, coincide with decline, driving a redistribution from peripheral () to central (android) fat: postmenopausal women accrue 36% more trunk fat, 49% greater intra-abdominal fat area, and 22% more subcutaneous abdominal fat versus premenopausal counterparts, elevating WHR toward male-typical levels (e.g., from 0.75 to 0.85). This shift accelerates annual fat mass gain by 2-3 fold during the menopausal transition, independent of total weight changes, and heightens visceral adiposity risks. may attenuate but not fully prevent these patterns. Post-menopause, aging compounds these effects through and reduced metabolic rate, with women gaining 0.5-1 kg annually in central fat while lean mass declines 1-2% per decade after age 50, further increasing WHR and by 5-10 cm over 20 years. Empirical longitudinal data confirm age-driven WHR rises persist beyond , driven by both hormonal and factors, though baseline parity and modulate variance.

Evolutionary and Adaptive Perspectives

Waist-Hip Ratio as Reproductive Indicator

The waist-to-hip ratio (WHR), defined as the circumference of the waist divided by the circumference of the hips, reflects patterns in women, where lower ratios indicate fat preferentially stored in the hips and thighs rather than the . links a WHR of approximately 0.7 to enhanced reproductive indicators, including higher levels relative to androgens, which support and . Complementing WHR, body fat percentages of 21-32% support regular ovulation and fertility, with levels below approximately 17-22% disrupting menstrual cycles; BMI values of 18.5-24.9 kg/m² are associated with optimal fertility, lower miscarriage risk, and fewer childbirth complications compared to underweight or obesity; while no specific ideal height exists, shorter stature may slightly increase risks of difficult labor in some populations, though modern medical care mitigates this. This ratio correlates with youthfulness and reproductive endocrinologic status, as women with lower WHR exhibit biomarkers of better and lower risks of hormone-dependent disorders that impair . Cross-cultural studies demonstrate a consistent for figures with WHR around 0.7, interpreted as an evolved cue signaling reproductive viability rather than , with neural imaging showing activation of reward centers in male observers viewing such silhouettes. Physiologically, elevated WHR (>0.8) predicts reduced outcomes, including lower live birth rates in assisted cycles, independent of in some cohorts. A 2024 analysis of over 2,000 women found higher WHR positively associated with risk, attributing this to abdominal adiposity's disruption of metabolic and hormonal pathways essential for conception. Longitudinal data further substantiate WHR's role, with women maintaining lower ratios showing decreased rates and improved fetal development prospects, likely due to optimal pelvic during . While not infallible—factors like overall adiposity modulate effects—WHR outperforms BMI in prognosticating reproductive health, as android fat patterns (higher WHR) correlate with and ovulatory dysfunction in conditions like . These associations hold across populations, underscoring WHR as a reliable, if proximate, of evolutionary fitness tied to .

Sexual Selection and Attractiveness Cues

has shaped human mate preferences, with male attraction to specific female body shapes serving as cues to reproductive viability and . Empirical studies demonstrate that men preferentially rate female figures exhibiting a low waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) of approximately 0.70 as most attractive, a pattern observed using line-drawn silhouettes independent of overall body weight. This preference correlates with indicators of youthfulness, estrogenic fat distribution, and reproductive endocrinology status, suggesting an evolved mechanism to detect potential . Cross-cultural investigations reinforce the robustness of low WHR as an attractiveness cue, with consistency reported among populations including Western undergraduates, Hadza foragers in , and others, despite variations in preferred absolute body size influenced by local ecology. Low WHR signals lower parity, reduced risk of gynecological disorders, and higher in premenopausal women, aligning with for mates offering high reproductive returns. However, correlations between WHR and weaken in young, non-obese cohorts, indicating that attractiveness judgments may prioritize honest signals of genetic quality or developmental stability over direct metrics. Beyond WHR, recent analyses highlight —quantified as the mean absolute of the —as a superior predictor of body attractiveness, accounting for 92% of variance in male ratings across varying body widths, compared to 63% for fixed WHR thresholds. Optimal (intermediate level) evokes silhouettes, emphasizing and bust prominence relative to , which may better capture multidimensional cues to estrogen-mediated deposition and biomechanical efficiency for childbearing. These preferences persist in short-term contexts, underscoring their role in immediate assessments of under pressures.

Empirical Evidence from Cross-Cultural Studies

Cross-cultural studies consistently demonstrate a for female body shapes characterized by a low waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) of approximately 0.7, indicating an , across diverse populations including Western and non-Western groups. In a study involving participants from the , , and other regions, raters selected figures with a 0.7 WHR as most attractive irrespective of (BMI) variations, suggesting this ratio serves as a robust cue beyond overall size. Similarly, research across , , , and found men preferring WHR values around 0.7 to 0.8 in women, with relative consistency despite national differences in average body sizes. These findings align with evolutionary hypotheses linking low WHR to indicators of and , as lower ratios correlate with better reproductive outcomes in empirical data from multiple ethnic groups. Further evidence from indigenous and subsistence-level societies reinforces this pattern. Among the Hadza hunter-gatherers of and Matsiguenka of , male participants rated silhouettes with a 0.7 WHR highest in attractiveness, even when presented without cultural priming, outperforming higher or lower ratios. A comparative analysis in three European countries (, , ) and extending to non-European samples confirmed that while preferred BMI varied with local norms—higher in food-scarce contexts—WHR preferences remained anchored near 0.7, independent of socioeconomic factors. This dissociation between size and shape preferences highlights WHR's potential universality, as preferences for ratios below averages persisted across 12 cultures in a of attractiveness ratings. Variations exist, particularly in absolute WHR values influenced by levels or , with non-Western women often exhibiting higher natural WHRs (0.8–0.9) yet still favoring lower ratios in mate selection tasks. For instance, British and Greek subjects both peaked at 0.7 WHR but diverged slightly on weight ideals, underscoring shape's primacy over mass in judgments. Recent work using 3D models further validates curviness—tied to WHR—as a stronger predictor of attractiveness than WHR alone in multi-ethnic samples, though the optimal curviness aligns with 0.7 ratios evolutionarily. These patterns, drawn from controlled experiments with standardized stimuli, counter claims of pure by evidencing convergent selection pressures.

Anthropometric Classification and Variations

Standard Body Shape Categories

Standard body shape categories for females are derived from anthropometric measurements, primarily the relative proportions of bust, , and circumferences, which reflect skeletal , distribution, and development. These classifications, while useful for apparel design, assessments, and ergonomic studies, are approximations rather than rigid biological taxa, as individual variations in precision can reassign up to 40% of women across categories when tape placement shifts by as little as 1 cm. Common schemes identify five primary shapes—, inverted triangle, (or ), , and apple (or )—based on deviations from average ratios where bust approximates hips and waist is 75-85% of those values. The (also termed or straight) features minimal definition, with bust, , and measurements differing by less than 5 cm, resulting in a linear often associated with athletic or ectomorphic builds and lower overall body fat. This shape predominates in populations with higher lean mass relative to . In contrast, the inverted triangle exhibits broader shoulders and bust relative to hips, where bust exceeds hips by 5-10 cm or more, with a waist similar to or slightly narrower than hips; this configuration correlates with upper-body muscularity or androgen-influenced fat patterns, though less common in females due to typical gynoid fat storage. The pear (or spoon/triangle) shape involves hips wider than bust by at least 5 cm, paired with a defined waist (typically 25% narrower than hips), emphasizing lower-body fat accumulation driven by estrogen-mediated patterns; a 170 cm woman with a pronounced curvy pear shape featuring very large wide hips, big butt, and thick thighs typically weighs 65-85 kg (BMI 22-29), higher than the general healthy range of 54-73 kg (BMI 18.5-24.9) due to increased lower body mass distribution, while often remaining healthy for many individuals. In shorter women, such as those at 4'10" (148 cm) and 150 lbs (68 kg; BMI ≈31, in the obese range), the pear shape manifests as narrow shoulders, a smaller bust, defined waist, and markedly wider hips with fuller thighs and buttocks, creating a compact, bottom-heavy silhouette with curvaceous lower body contours; while obesity may introduce softer overall features including some abdominal fullness, the primary fat accumulation remains gynoid in the lower half. This category is prevalent in many ethnic groups, comprising up to 20-30% of classifications in anthropometric surveys. Hourglass proportions balance bust and hips within 2-5 cm of each other, with at least 25% smaller (e.g., waist-to-hip ratio around 0.7), yielding a curvilinear form linked to optimal reproductive signaling in evolutionary models, though rare in general populations (estimated at 8-10% of women). Finally, the apple (or oval/round) displays a fuller waist exceeding bust or hips by more than 5 cm, indicative of central (android) fat deposition, which anthropometric data associates with metabolic risks independent of total body mass; this shape increases with age and postmenopausal hormonal shifts. Alternative schemes from and torso-focused propose four categories—, circle, , rectangle—prioritizing sagittal contours over frontal ratios for applications like garment prototyping, but these overlap substantially with the above and yield similar prevalence distributions in large datasets (e.g., n>5,000 scans). Peer-reviewed classifications emphasize that no system captures all variance, as genetic, ethnic, and factors yield continuous rather than discrete distributions.

Key Measurement Ratios and Standards

The waist-to-hip (WHR), defined as the of the measured at the narrowest point divided by the of the hips at their widest point, serves as the primary anthropometric for assessing female body shape, particularly lower body fat distribution and curviness. organizations establish standards where a WHR exceeding 0.85 in women indicates increased abdominal adiposity and associated risks for and metabolic disorders. Empirical data from peer-reviewed studies report average WHR values of approximately 0.72 in young European women and 0.79 in nulliparous women from traditional societies, with values typically rising to 0.88 or higher after multiple pregnancies due to factors like age and parity. Lower WHRs (0.65–0.75) correlate with enhanced reproductive markers, including higher levels and lower incidence of conditions like . Complementary ratios include the waist-to-height ratio (WHtR), calculated as waist circumference divided by height, with a standard threshold below 0.5 deemed optimal for minimizing cardiometabolic risks in women across populations. For upper-lower body proportionality, shoulder-to-hip ratios contribute to classifications, though WHR remains dominant for shape delineation. In apparel and anthropometric contexts, body shapes are categorized using relative bust-waist-hip (BWH) measurements, where bust and hip circumferences are taken at their maxima and waist at the natural minimum.
Body Shape CategoryKey Ratio Criteria
Bust and hips within 5% of each other; at least 25% smaller than both, yielding WHR ≈0.7.
(Gynoid)Hips exceed bust by >2 inches (5 cm); defined but narrower than hips, often WHR <0.8.
Rectangle (Athletic)Bust ≈ ≈ hips (differences <2 inches or 5 cm); minimal indentation, WHR ≈0.8–0.85.
Inverted TriangleShoulders/bust exceed hips by >3 inches (7.6 cm); narrower hips, higher effective WHR.
Apple (Android) exceeds hips or bust; WHR >0.85, indicating central fat accumulation.
These classifications, derived from large-scale 3D scan and measurement datasets, inform sizing standards but vary by population; for instance, peer-reviewed analyses using on anthropometric data group women into similar morphotypes based on proportions without universal numeric thresholds. Measurements should be taken unclothed or in minimal attire for accuracy, with tape positioned parallel to the floor.

Population-Level Differences

Population-level differences in female body shape primarily manifest in variations of fat distribution patterns, waist-to-hip ratios (WHR), and android-to-gynoid fat ratios, influenced by genetic and evolutionary factors independent of overall levels. African-descent women tend to exhibit lower average WHR and greater deposition of subcutaneous fat in gluteofemoral regions, resulting in more pronounced pear-shaped morphologies and greater gluteal prominence compared to European-descent women, who typically exhibit middle-range global proportions, often pear-shaped but not extreme. Prominent or large buttocks are more associated with certain African, Hispanic/Latin American, or Indigenous ancestries, linked to lower WHR and enhanced gluteal fat storage and projection. For instance, studies using (DXA) scans show African American women having smaller WHR values alongside larger absolute waist and hip circumferences relative to Caucasians, reflecting enhanced peripheral fat storage. In contrast, East Asian women demonstrate higher android/gynoid fat ratios, indicating relatively more visceral and abdominal fat accumulation even at lower body mass indices (BMI), which contributes to less gynoid emphasis in body shape. Pubertal girls of Asian descent exhibit android/gynoid ratios approximately 16% higher than white counterparts (0.369 versus 0.318 after adjustments for puberty stage and BMI), predisposing to more centralized fat patterns. Hispanic women show similar elevations in android/gynoid ratios to Asians (0.364), correlating with increased central adiposity risks distinct from overall . Southern European women often present higher average BMI, waist circumference, and WHR than Northern Europeans or Asians, linking to greater overall anthropometric obesity measures across populations. These patterns persist after controlling for age and parity, with genetic analyses revealing ethnicity-specific loci regulating depot preferences, such as reduced central in Africans relative to Asians. Skeletal dimorphisms, including pelvic width variations, further modulate shape; for example, broader bi-iliac diameters in African women enhance hip prominence, amplifying traits beyond soft tissue alone. Such differences underscore causal roles of ancestry in , with implications for metabolic profiles independent of cultural or environmental confounders.

Health and Physiological Risks

Android vs. Gynoid Fat Distribution Effects

, involving preferential accumulation in the abdominal and visceral regions, is strongly associated with adverse metabolic and cardiovascular outcomes in women. Visceral in this pattern releases free fatty acids directly into the , promoting hepatic , , and inflammation, which elevate risks for and . A 2023 study of over 10,000 participants found that higher android fat mass independently predicted and nonalcoholic , even after adjusting for (BMI), with women showing pronounced effects due to hormonal shifts like post-menopause decline. Similarly, android-dominant correlates with a 1.5- to 2-fold increased risk of cardiovascular events, driven by and atherogenic profiles. In , subcutaneous fat accumulates primarily in the gluteofemoral areas (hips and thighs), which is metabolically protective relative to android patterns. This depot exhibits greater insulin sensitivity and lipolytic resistance, contributing to lower circulating triglycerides and higher levels that mitigate and improve glucose . Research from 2023 demonstrated that BMI-adjusted increases in gluteofemoral fat were linked to reduced and cardiometabolic risk scores in women, contrasting with visceral fat's detrimental effects. However, while gynoid fat confers relative benefits, excessive overall adiposity in this pattern still heightens all-cause mortality risks, particularly in where ratios of android-to- fat exceeding 0.9 signal elevated and reduced HDL . Comparative analyses underscore the android-to-gynoid ratio (A/G) as a superior predictor of risks over BMI alone. Women with A/G ratios above 1.0 face up to 40% higher odds of progression, including aortic calcification, due to android fat's promotion of , whereas gynoid-dominant distributions (A/G < 0.8) show inverse associations with these markers. A 2024 dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA)-based study confirmed that android fat drives metabolically unhealthy lean phenotypes in women, while gynoid deficits characterize metabolically unhealthy obesity, highlighting distribution's causal role beyond total fat mass. Interventions targeting android reduction, such as exercise-induced visceral fat loss, yield greater cardiometabolic improvements than equivalent gynoid losses.
Health OutcomeAndroid Fat EffectGynoid Fat EffectKey Evidence
Insulin ResistanceIncreased (OR 1.5–2.0)Decreased or neutralAdjusted for BMI in large cohorts
Cardiovascular RiskElevated (e.g., higher BP, lower HDL)Protective (e.g., reduced calcification)DXA ratio studies in women
DyslipidemiaPro-atherogenic (↑ triglycerides)Favorable (↓ LDL, ↑ adiponectin)Depot-specific associations
Mortality RiskHigher with elevated A/G ratioLower with gynoid dominanceOlder women longitudinal data

Associations with Metabolic and Cardiovascular Diseases

Women exhibit two primary patterns of fat distribution relevant to disease risk: android (central, abdominal accumulation, often measured by higher waist-to-hip ratio or waist circumference) and gynoid (peripheral, in hips and thighs). Android fat distribution in women is strongly associated with elevated risk of metabolic syndrome, characterized by insulin resistance, , , and central obesity. Prospective studies indicate that women with waist-to-hip ratios exceeding 0.85 face approximately 2-3 times higher odds of developing metabolic syndrome compared to those with lower ratios, independent of overall body mass index. This pattern extends to type 2 diabetes, where android-dominant body shapes correlate with greater insulin resistance and hyperglycemia due to visceral fat's proximity to the liver and its promotion of free fatty acid flux. In cohorts of postmenopausal women, higher android-to-gynoid fat ratios predict a 1.5- to 2-fold increase in incident type 2 diabetes, even after adjusting for confounders like age and smoking. Conversely, gynoid fat accumulation shows neutral or mildly protective associations against diabetes progression, potentially via higher adiponectin secretion from subcutaneous depots. For cardiovascular diseases, android fat in women elevates risks of coronary artery disease and myocardial infarction through mechanisms including endothelial dysfunction, inflammation, and atherogenic lipid profiles. A meta-analysis of over 100,000 adults found waist-to-hip ratio to be a superior predictor of cardiovascular events in women compared to body mass index alone, with each 0.1 unit increase raising hazard ratios by 1.4-1.8. Commingled android and gynoid patterns exacerbate risks, yielding odds ratios up to 4-fold for cardiometabolic clustering versus pure gynoid distribution. Recent dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry studies confirm android fat's independent link to arterial stiffness and oxidative stress in females, underpinning higher stroke and heart failure incidence. Gynoid-dominant shapes, while not risk-free, correlate inversely with cardiovascular mortality when normalized to total fat mass.

Interactions with Obesity and Recent Findings

Obesity in women often favors gynoid fat deposition in the lower body, which confers relative protection against metabolic disorders compared to android (central) fat accumulation, though severe obesity can promote visceral fat shifts that amplify risks regardless of distribution pattern. This interaction is evident in postmenopausal women, where menopause accelerates abdominal obesity, increasing cardiometabolic vulnerability through elevated visceral adiposity independent of total body mass. Empirical data from dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) studies show that android-to-gynoid fat ratios positively correlate with systolic blood pressure and negatively with HDL-cholesterol, heightening cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk even in BMI-matched early postmenopausal cohorts. Recent findings underscore waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) as a more precise obesity metric than BMI for women, capturing central adiposity's causal role in adverse outcomes. A 2024 cross-sectional study of women with severe obesity recommended a revised WHR cutoff of 0.95—higher than the conventional 0.85—to optimize prediction of complications like insulin resistance and hypertension, as lower thresholds underclassify risk in high-BMI populations. Similarly, 2025 analyses of large cohorts, including the All of Us Research Program, revealed that incorporating WHR into obesity definitions raises U.S. adult prevalence from 43% to 69%, with women showing pronounced abdominal obesity discrepancies that BMI overlooks, linking to elevated CVD and all-cause mortality. In reproductive contexts, obesity interacts with body shape to impair fertility; a 2025 cohort study of over 10,000 women undergoing IVF/ICSI found higher WHR (>0.85) associated with 15-20% reduced live birth rates per cycle, persisting after BMI adjustment, suggesting central fat's direct disruption of ovarian function and endometrial receptivity. Genetic ancestry further modulates these dynamics, with 2025 research in Latin American women demonstrating that European admixture correlates with lower fat and higher -linked cardiometabolic risks, independent of socioeconomic factors. Conversely, -dominant shows weaker CVD associations in normotensive women, though android shifts in severe cases negate this buffer, per 2023-2024 DXA-based mortality analyses. These patterns highlight causal centrality of fat topography over sheer mass, challenging BMI-centric paradigms amid rising epidemics.

Historical and Cultural Interpretations

Pre-Modern and Traditional Ideals

Prehistoric Venus figurines from the period (c. 35,000–10,000 BCE) across depict women with pronounced , exaggerated breasts, and wide hips, features scholars interpret as symbolic representations of , survival during scarcity, and reproductive capacity rather than direct portrayals of everyday body shapes. These portable ivory, stone, and clay artifacts, such as the (c. 40,000 BCE), emphasize abundance and motherhood in contexts where fat reserves aided and amid climate instability. In ancient civilizations, body ideals reflected cultural priorities of harmony, health, and procreation. (5th–4th centuries BCE) idealized female forms with balanced proportions, square shoulders akin to male athletic builds, small breasts, and modest curves, as seen in statues like the of Cnidus, prioritizing and restraint over voluptuousness. (323–31 BCE) introduced softer contours, slimmer shoulders, and fuller faces in figures like the (c. 150–100 BCE), blending erotic appeal with idealized . Roman ideals, drawing from Greek models, favored robust physiques with broad hips, firm small breasts, and slender waists in portraiture and Venus statues, signaling vitality and in imperial society. Medieval European standards, inferred from religious art and literature, emphasized modesty with small, sloped shoulders and breasts, aligning with Christian virtues of temperance over sensuality. By the (14th–17th centuries), Italian and Northern artists shifted toward curvier silhouettes with rounded hips, fuller torsos, and flushed features, as in portraits evoking and marital , though constrained by sumptuary laws and class distinctions. Traditional non-Western cultures similarly prized shapes denoting ; for instance, and African fertility idols featured accentuated maternal traits like prominent abdomens and thighs, underscoring causal links between body fat distribution and offspring survival in pre-industrial agrarian and nomadic settings. Across these eras, fuller lower-body fat ( distribution) often symbolized wealth and nourishment capability, contrasting scarcity-driven thinness, with artistic evidence prioritizing empirical signs of biological fitness over abstract .

20th-Century Transformations

At the turn of the , Western ideals of female body shape began transitioning from the Victorian-era emphasis on a tightly corseted —characterized by exaggerated busts, narrow waists, and full hips—to a straighter, more athletic form influenced by emerging trends and movements. This shift was propelled by the decline of restrictive undergarments and the rise of women's participation in sports and outdoor activities, as documented in period plates and health literature promoting "rational dress." The 1920s marked a pronounced departure with the "flapper" aesthetic, favoring a slender, boyish figure with minimal curves, flat chests, and dropped waists, often achieved through bandeau bras that suppressed busts and loose, tubular dresses that obscured hips. This androgynous ideal reflected post-World War I social liberation, including in in the U.S. and the influence of jazz-age icons like , whose lithe physiques symbolized modernity and rejection of pre-war voluptuousness; measurements idealized slim waists around 24-26 inches with negligible bust-hip differentials. By , Hollywood cinema began reintroducing subtle curves, with stars like exemplifying lean elegance over outright boyishness. Post-World War II, particularly in the , ideals reverted toward pronounced proportions, epitomized by pin-up models and actresses such as , whose reported measurements of approximately 35-22-35 inches (bust-waist-hips) aligned with Christian Dior's 1947 "New Look" designs that accentuated nipped waists, full skirts, and padded bras to evoke and domestic amid economic recovery and demographics. This era's preferences correlated with lower average female BMI in media portrayals (around 18-20) compared to the ' sub-18 slenderness, driven by and that prioritized soft, rounded contours over angularity. The and introduced a slimmer, straighter influenced by and the miniskirt revolution led by designers like , with models such as (5'6", 91 pounds) promoting waif-like frames that de-emphasized breasts and hips in favor of elongated limbs and minimal body fat, reflecting countercultural shifts away from 1950s conformity. By the 1980s, fitness booms and popularized a toned, athletic build—evident in figures like Jane Fonda's videos promoting muscular definition without excess fat—shifting focus to visible abs and firm glutes, as quantified in studies of centerfolds showing waist-to-hip ratios stabilizing around 0.7 but with increased leg circumference. These transformations were causally linked to dissemination, economic prosperity enabling consumer , and technological advances in and synthetics that amplified idealized forms beyond natural variation.

21st-Century Shifts and Media Dynamics

In the early , media portrayals continued to emphasize an ultra-thin female body ideal characterized by low , minimal waist-to-hip differentiation, and visible skeletal features, extending the "" aesthetic from the through fashion magazines, music videos, and . This standard, often exemplified by celebrities like and in 2006 tabloid coverage, correlated with elevated rates of body dissatisfaction and among adolescent girls, as thin-ideal exposure in media predicted negative self-perception in longitudinal studies. A pivot emerged around 2010 with the mainstreaming of curvier silhouettes, driven by celebrities such as , whose reality series (debuting in 2007 but peaking in cultural influence post-2010) highlighted exaggerated hourglass proportions via Brazilian butt lift procedures and techniques, shifting media focus toward gluteal prominence and fuller hips over extreme slenderness. This change aligned with a broader cultural valuation of "thick" bodies in hip-hop influenced media, though it often idealized surgically or digitally enhanced forms rather than natural variations. Social media platforms, including Instagram's launch in 2010 and 's in 2011, intensified these dynamics by democratizing while fostering algorithmic amplification of filtered, edited images that distorted body proportions—such as narrowing waists or enlarging features—leading to phenomena like "Snapchat dysmorphia," where users sought cosmetic surgery to match app-altered selfies. Platforms' visual bias prioritized high-engagement , sustaining pressure for athletic-toned or hyper-curvy ideals among influencers, even as user diversity increased; surveys from 2015 onward indicated that frequent exposure still heightened body and dissatisfaction, particularly among women aged 18-25. By the late and into the , the movement, gaining traction via campaigns like Dove's Real Beauty (2004 onward but amplified online post-2015), promoted broader representation of non-idealized shapes in , yet media critiques noted a paradoxical resurgence of thinness masked as "health at every size," with influencers blending inclusivity rhetoric with restrictive dieting content. Empirical data from analyses revealed persistent preferences for low waist-to-hip ratios (around 0.7) in male ratings of attractiveness, underscoring that digital media's fluidity has not eradicated evolutionary cues but layered them with transient trends like the revival of Y2K-era slimness.

Social and Psychological Dimensions

Impact on Self-Perception and Mental Health

Women's self-perception of is closely tied to psychological , with empirical studies showing that dissatisfaction with one's waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) or overall correlates with reduced and increased symptoms of depression and anxiety. For instance, a 2023 study of 1,200 women found that greater concern, independent of BMI, predicted lower satisfaction and scores, mediated by heightened negative affect. Similarly, longitudinal data indicate that women perceiving their bodies as deviating from a low WHR ideal (typically 0.7) report higher levels of internalized pressure, contributing to persistent low mood. This dissatisfaction often manifests in eating disorders, where body shape discrepancies drive restrictive or binge-purge behaviors. Research involving over 500 female participants demonstrated a significant positive correlation (r = 0.19, p < 0.01) between perceived unfavorable body shape and disordered eating, with self-esteem acting as a partial mediator; women with higher shape dissatisfaction exhibited 2-3 times greater risk of clinical eating disorder symptoms. Path analyses further reveal indirect pathways: body dissatisfaction erodes self-esteem, exacerbating depression, which in turn sustains maladaptive eating patterns, as evidenced in a 2025 meta-review of 45 studies linking shape-specific concerns to elevated Beck Depression Inventory scores. Android fat distribution in women, characterized by higher abdominal accumulation and elevated body shape index (ABSI > 0.08), independently predicts depressive symptoms beyond overall adiposity. A 2025 cross-sectional analysis of 10,000 adults, adjusting for age, sex, and socioeconomic factors, reported that women in the highest ABSI quartile had 1.5-fold odds of moderate-to-severe depression compared to those in the lowest, attributable to visceral fat's inflammatory effects on hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis dysregulation. Conversely, gynoid-dominant shapes align more closely with fertility-signaling ideals, correlating with modestly higher body esteem in non-obese cohorts, though cultural amplification via media can override biological congruence, fostering anxiety in 60-80% of young women regardless of objective metrics. These patterns underscore bidirectional causality, where poor mental health can exacerbate shape-altering behaviors like yo-yo dieting, perpetuating a cycle evidenced in prospective cohorts tracking BMI fluctuations with anxiety trajectories.

Societal Standards and Evolutionary Mismatches

Evolutionary theories posit that male preferences for body shapes have been shaped by cues signaling reproductive and , with a waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) of approximately 0.7 emerging as a consistent across cultures, independent of overall body size. This ratio correlates with biomarkers such as levels, lower risk of gynecological disorders, and higher , as lower WHRs in premenopausal women reflect balanced fat distribution conducive to and offspring in ancestral environments of scarcity. Empirical data from line-drawing tasks and real-figure assessments confirm that deviations toward higher WHRs (e.g., above 0.9) reduce perceived attractiveness, while moderate body fat supports these signals without excess. Recent analyses refine this by emphasizing overall curviness over isolated ratios, yet affirm the adaptive value of hip-waist differentiation for signaling nulliparity and metabolic efficiency. Contemporary Western societal standards, amplified by media and industries since the mid-20th century, prioritize extreme thinness—often targeting body mass indices (BMIs) below 18.5—with minimal emphasis on curvaceous proportions, yielding figures that approximate higher WHRs through straightened silhouettes rather than fat deposition. This shift, evident in models averaging BMIs of 16-18 and WHRs exceeding 0.8, diverges from evolutionary optima by conflating leanness with desirability, despite evidence that such profiles signal nutritional deficits and correlate with hypothalamic amenorrhea in up to 20% of women aged 18-25. In resource-abundant modern contexts, where rates among women exceed 40% in the U.S. (CDC data, 2023), these standards exacerbate a double mismatch: they ignore evolved fat-storage mechanisms adapted for while pathologizing natural variations in shape that align more closely with cues. The resultant psychological strain manifests in elevated body dissatisfaction, with longitudinal studies linking exposure to thin-ideal media—via 2-3 hours daily on platforms like —to a 15-25% increase in negative self-evaluations among adolescent girls, independent of actual . This discord fosters causal pathways to , as women internalize standards misaligned with physiological realities; for instance, restrictive dieting to achieve sub-optimal fat levels disrupts ovarian function, mirroring evolutionary costs of undernutrition. Interventions promoting acceptance of "natural" shapes without addressing these mismatches risk overlooking data showing higher mate-value perceptions for evolutionarily congruent forms, perpetuating cycles of unachievable conformity over adaptive self-regulation.

Body Positivity: Evidence-Based Achievements and Critiques

The movement, which advocates for acceptance of diverse female body shapes including those with higher adiposity, has yielded evidence-based psychological benefits, primarily in short-term enhancements to self-perception and emotional states. A 2025 of exposure to body-positive content found significant immediate improvements in body satisfaction and emotional well-being, with stronger effects from depictions of diverse body sizes compared to idealized thin figures. Similarly, interventions fostering body appreciation have demonstrated reductions in depressive symptoms, increased , and improved overall flourishing over periods of up to three months, particularly among women with concerns. These outcomes are attributed to decreased internalization of thin ideals and lower , as observed in experimental studies where body positivity content exposure correlated with better functional body appreciation and reduced body dissatisfaction. Systematic reviews of youth-targeted programs further support modest gains in positive , though effects often diminish without sustained reinforcement. Such achievements have contributed to broader cultural shifts, including decreased endorsement of restrictive dieting among exposed individuals and preliminary evidence of lowered risk factors, such as through healthy programs that enhance protective while curtailing . However, these gains are predominantly short-term and self-reported, with limited longitudinal data confirming sustained behavioral changes or population-level reductions in disorders like anorexia or bulimia. Critiques of body positivity emphasize its potential to conflate psychological acceptance with physical health indifference, thereby undermining incentives for addressing obesity-related pathologies empirically tied to excess adiposity in female body shapes. , characterized by disproportionate fat accumulation often or android in distribution, elevates risks of , , , and cardiovascular events; for instance, it accounted for 4 million global deaths in 2015 and correlates with a 36% increase in healthcare costs due to comorbidities. In the U.S., where 42.4% of adults were obese in 2017–2018, movements promoting unconditional body acceptance—such as fat positivity extensions—may normalize these distributions without advocating evidence-based interventions like lifestyle modifications, which the Look AHEAD trial showed can durably mitigate cardiometabolic risks independent of full . While body positivity counters weight stigma's adverse effects, such as exacerbated cortisol responses and avoidance of physical activity leading to further weight gain, overreliance on acceptance paradigms risks eroding motivation for modifiable behaviors, as stigma reduction does not consistently translate to healthier outcomes without integrated health education. Emerging analyses suggest that "Health at Every Size" principles, often intertwined with body positivity, improve subjective well-being but fail to alter objective physical markers like blood pressure or insulin sensitivity in obese cohorts, potentially perpetuating a cycle where mental resilience masks causal health deteriorations from sustained high BMI. Academic sources advancing these critiques remain outnumbered by supportive studies, reflecting institutional preferences for anti-stigma narratives, yet causal evidence from epidemiology underscores that female obesity's inflammatory and endocrine disruptions demand targeted risk mitigation beyond affirmation alone.

Modifications and Interventions

Natural and Behavioral Strategies

Dietary strategies focused on through whole-food-based , such as increased protein intake and reduced refined carbohydrates, facilitate overall fat loss that preferentially targets visceral around the , thereby improving waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) in women. Combined with exercise, these interventions enhance by reducing circumference while maintaining or increasing measurements via muscle preservation. Evidence from systematic reviews shows that such multimodal approaches yield statistically significant reductions in size, though individual genetic predispositions to limit dramatic shifts in shape. Aerobic exercises, including moderate-intensity activities like brisk walking or performed for at least 150 minutes weekly, produce modest but consistent decreases in circumference by mobilizing visceral stores. A 2022 meta-analysis of randomized trials confirmed these effects, with greater adherence correlating to enhanced outcomes independent of total . Hybrid programs incorporating with resistance further optimize WHR by promoting lower-body , as seen in 12-week interventions that improved parameters in women. Resistance exercises targeting the glutes and thighs, such as squats and lunges, increase lean mass in these areas, effectively widening contours without expanding the when paired with caloric control. Leg thickness, primarily from fat and muscle in the thighs and calves, can be modified through caloric deficits, aerobic activity, and targeted resistance training to reduce circumference via fat loss and muscle toning, though changes are constrained by genetic factors in gynoid fat patterns and skeletal bone dimensions such as ankle width remain fixed after maturity. Behavioral modifications, including self-monitoring of intake, portion control, and avoidance of snacking, support sustained fat redistribution by fostering adherence to dietary goals. Approximately 25% of women employing strategies like low-calorie dieting and limited portions achieve measurable weight control, which correlates with favorable WHR changes. Stress-reduction techniques, such as mindfulness training, mitigate cortisol-driven abdominal fat accumulation; pilot studies demonstrate reduced stress eating and cortisol awakening response, potentially lowering central adiposity over time. Adequate sleep and consistent physical activity routines reinforce these effects by regulating hormones like estrogen and insulin, which influence female-specific fat patterning, though long-term success depends on overcoming behavioral inertia through habit formation rather than willpower alone. Limitations persist, as postmenopausal hormonal shifts may counteract gains, necessitating tailored adjustments. For pear-shaped bodies, characterized by narrower shoulders and bust with wider hips and thighs, clothing choices serve as a behavioral strategy to visually balance proportions without altering underlying body composition. Flattering dress styles define the waist, add volume to the upper body, and skim or flare over the hips, including A-line, wrap, fit-and-flare, empire waist (high under the bust flowing loosely over hips), off-the-shoulder (to broaden shoulders visually), blazer dresses (with structured shoulders and tailoring), tiered dresses (adding texture and volume atop), and trumpet or mermaid styles with a gentle knee-down flare. Dresses featuring embellishments like ruffles or lace on the shoulders and bust draw attention upward. Preferred fabrics include chiffon, crepe, or lightweight knits for fluidity; tight, clingy styles that emphasize hips should be avoided.

Surgical and Pharmacological Alterations

Surgical procedures for altering female body shape primarily target the waist-to-hip ratio (WHR), bust circumference, and overall contour to achieve desired proportions, such as the with a WHR approximating 0.7. , often performed as circumferential "Lipo 360" on the , flanks, and back, removes subcutaneous fat to narrow the , thereby enhancing the relative prominence of the hips and . Brazilian butt lift (BBL), involving from donor sites followed by autologous fat grafting to the gluteal region and sometimes hips, further accentuates lower-body curves while utilizing harvested fat to minimize bulk. via silicone or saline implants increases upper-body volume, contributing to a balanced bust-to-waist ratio. These interventions are elective and cosmetic, with patient satisfaction often linked to proportional improvements, though long-term fat retention varies (typically 50-70% of grafted fat survives). Complication rates for body contouring surgeries remain elevated compared to other aesthetic procedures, with studies reporting up to 80% incidence in comprehensive cases involving multiple sites. Risks include , , contour irregularities, , and fat embolism—particularly with high-volume or BBL, where embolic events have prompted safety warnings from regulatory bodies. Factors exacerbating outcomes include (BMI >30 kg/m²), , , and , which correlate with issues and higher revision rates. Peer-reviewed data indicate that while procedures effectively modify shape metrics—e.g., reducing by 4-6 inches via —unsatisfactory results often stem from unrealistic expectations or suboptimal patient selection, with revision surgeries needed in 10-20% of cases. Pharmacological alterations to female body shape are less direct and primarily leverage hormones influencing fat distribution, though evidence for intentional cosmetic use in women is sparse and not FDA-approved for such purposes. Estrogen-based therapies, including feminizing hormone regimens with and anti-androgens, promote gynoid fat deposition in the hips, thighs, and breasts while reducing android (abdominal) fat, potentially lowering WHR over 1-2 years. In menopausal women, (HRT) with estrogen and progestin replenishes declining levels, modestly preserving or enhancing lower-body fat patterns against age-related centralization, though effects on shape are secondary to symptom relief and carry risks like . Oral contraceptives may subtly alter body composition by reducing muscle mass and shifting fat, but meta-analyses show minimal impact on overall shape, with average weight gain of 1-2 kg often attributable to fluid retention rather than redistribution. Off-label use of agents like selective modulators or for contouring lacks robust safety data and can induce masculinizing effects or metabolic disruptions in females. Overall, pharmacological options yield gradual, less predictable changes than , with benefits tempered by side effects including cardiovascular risks and dependency on continued administration.

Technological and Future Developments

Advances in technologies have enabled precise, non-contact measurement of female s, facilitating custom apparel design and fit prediction. Systems like those from Size Stream capture over 240 body measurements using mobile devices, supporting clothing tailored to individual morphologies such as or shapes. Similarly, apps like TrueToForm and ZOZOFIT generate 3D models from scans, allowing for accurate and virtual fitting, which reduces errors in women's by up to 40% through AI-enhanced predictions. These tools rely on optical imaging and to classify shapes based on anthropometric data, improving upon traditional manual methods. Non-invasive body contouring devices represent a growing sector for altering female body shapes without surgery, targeting subcutaneous fat and skin laxity. Cryolipolysis, as in CoolSculpting, induces fat cell via controlled cooling, reducing localized fat by 20-25% per treatment in areas like the or thighs, with FDA clearance since 2010. Radiofrequency and modalities, such as those in truSculpt or high-intensity focused (HIFU), heat to promote and remodeling, achieving measurable waist circumference reductions of 2-4 cm after multiple sessions. Electromagnetic muscle devices like Evolve by InMode combine fat reduction with muscle toning, contracting abdominal muscles 20,000 times per session to enhance core definition. Emerging integrations of AI with these technologies promise further personalization in management. Pinterest's detection , launched in 2023, uses to identify shapes like rectangle or inverted triangle from images, enhancing inclusive search for apparel recommendations. -driven virtual try-on systems predict garment fit on scanned 3D avatars, minimizing returns by simulating fabric drape over specific morphologies. Looking ahead, multi-modal devices combining radiofrequency, , and electromagnetic stimulation in single platforms are projected to dominate by 2025, offering holistic contouring with reduced treatment times. Speculative advancements, such as bioengineered implants or nanoscale fat modulation, remain in early research but face regulatory and ethical hurdles due to polygenic determinants of .

References

  1. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6795075/
  2. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4050298/
  3. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5291139/
  4. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6563790/
  5. https://www.academia.edu/15496685/Cross_cultural_consensus_for_waist_hip_ratio_and_womens_attractiveness
  6. https://translational-medicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12967-023-04000-1
  7. https://academic.oup.com/humupd/article/23/3/300/3058798
  8. https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/264146
  9. https://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/health/healthyliving/obesity-and-hormones
  10. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19115520/
  11. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK534827/
  12. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9533025/
  13. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S096007602100042X
  14. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/endocrinology/articles/10.3389/fendo.2022.889923/full
  15. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9845227/
  16. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/j.1550-8528.1998.tb00369.x
  17. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1740676513000205
  18. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18839131/
  19. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8358448/
  20. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/12924138_Genetic_and_environmental_influences_on_waist-to-hip_ratio_and_waist_circumference_in_an_older_Swedish_twin_population
  21. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3411490/
  22. https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/ATVBAHA.119.313154
  23. https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article/89/4/1869/2844573
  24. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2889220/
  25. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0960076007002439
  26. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0255583
  27. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/nutrition/articles/10.3389/fnut.2024.1368966/full
  28. https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-021-11316-4
  29. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36628541/
  30. https://www.mdpi.com/2673-6756/2/1/21
  31. https://anatomypubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ar.23549
  32. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/am-pdf/10.1002/ajpa.23690
  33. https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.03.18.585525v1.full.pdf
  34. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/379133189_Sexual_dimorphism_and_allometry_in_human_scapular_morphology
  35. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1521690X07000371
  36. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17035111/
  37. https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article/86/10/4576/2848855
  38. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.859931/full
  39. https://journals.biologists.com/jeb/article/223/2/jeb212365/223648/Sexual-dimorphism-in-human-arm-power-and-force
  40. https://physoc.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1113/JP279499
  41. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212877825000924
  42. https://academic.oup.com/jes/article/8/10/bvae153/7746782
  43. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11413583/
  44. https://www.healthychildren.org/English/ages-stages/gradeschool/puberty/Pages/Physical-Development-Girls-What-to-Expect.aspx
  45. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10403383/
  46. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-01916-9
  47. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6348859/
  48. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002916523049481
  49. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9258798/
  50. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10865795/
  51. https://insight.jci.org/articles/view/124865
  52. https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article/103/5/1948/4953992
  53. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19738633/
  54. https://www.aging-us.com/article/206260/text
  55. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1993-45219-001
  56. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12496738/
  57. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1090513809000889
  58. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0009042
  59. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/endocrinology/articles/10.3389/fendo.2025.1537360/full
  60. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11458166/
  61. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1658361216301457
  62. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886999001154
  63. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8366421/
  64. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01221/full
  65. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-74265-z
  66. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4141791/
  67. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2007-13862-006
  68. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/593036
  69. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/223377442_A_cross-cultural_study_on_the_role_of_weight_and_waist-to-hip_ratio_on_female_attractiveness
  70. https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/body-types
  71. https://www.lboro.ac.uk/media-centre/press-releases/2021/may/you-might-not-be-the-body-shape-you-think/
  72. https://www.healthline.com/health/women-body-shapes
  73. https://www.bodyspec.com/blog/post/a_guide_to_female_body_types_shapes_health_and_composition
  74. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12221-018-8258-0
  75. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0003687022002277
  76. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/waist-hip-ratio
  77. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36126362/
  78. https://www.healthline.com/health/waist-to-hip-ratio
  79. https://asu.elsevierpure.com/en/publications/ethnic-and-age-trends-for-body-composition-in-women-residing-in-t-2
  80. https://ec.bioscientifica.com/view/journals/ec/8/1/EC-18-0531.xml
  81. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2884922/
  82. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8228180/
  83. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1038/oby.2007.185
  84. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17557994/
  85. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4039846/
  86. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0026049509001528
  87. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/nutrition/articles/10.3389/fnut.2023.1162079/full
  88. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10233278/
  89. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4181515/
  90. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-35704-5
  91. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38029505/
  92. https://www.mdpi.com/1648-9144/60/7/1096
  93. https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article/93/11/4360/2627266
  94. https://drc.bmj.com/content/13/3/e005118
  95. https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/jaha.118.008675
  96. https://karger.com/anm/article/70/4/312/42607/Effects-of-Weight-Loss-with-and-without-Exercise
  97. https://ec.bioscientifica.com/view/journals/ec/11/12/EC-22-0156.xml
  98. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11279029/
  99. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3755383/
  100. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41574-019-0310-7
  101. https://academic.oup.com/eurheartj/article/28/7/850/2887789
  102. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2601502
  103. https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/13/11/e072752
  104. https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/circulationaha.111.067264
  105. https://www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2020/20_0112.htm
  106. https://www.nature.com/articles/nutd20155
  107. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0531556524001049
  108. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0002914917314789
  109. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3560240/
  110. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1521693423000482
  111. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38850528/
  112. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2840138
  113. https://www.massgeneralbrigham.org/en/about/newsroom/press-releases/dramatic-increase-in-adults-who-meet-new-definition-of-obesity
  114. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-21071-w
  115. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/cardiovascular-medicine/articles/10.3389/fcvm.2023.1055223/full
  116. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1155/2011/569120
  117. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7902358/
  118. https://www.curationist.org/editorial-features/article/female-fertility-figurines-in-the-ancient-mediterranean
  119. https://scholarworks.uni.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1506&context=hpt
  120. https://sociology.sites.gettysburg.edu/capstones/johnni03/beauty-ideals-through-a-historical-lens/
  121. https://fashionhistory.fitnyc.edu/beauty-adorns-virtue-italian-renaissance-fashion/
  122. https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/what-historical-ideals-womens-shapes-teach-us-about-womens-self-perception-and-body-decisions-today/2019-10
  123. https://www.fitnyc.edu/museum/exhibitions/the-body-fashion-physique.php
  124. https://herhalfofhistory.com/2024/07/25/13-1-the-ideal-body-shape-historically-speaking/
  125. https://teyxo.com/lifestyle/the-jazz-age-silhouette-womens-body-ideals-in-the-roaring-twenties/
  126. https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/07/health/body-image-history-of-beauty-explainer-intl
  127. https://dieteticallyspeaking.com/the-evolution-of-female-body-image-ideals/
  128. https://www.medicaldaily.com/history-body-image-america-how-ideal-female-and-male-body-has-changed-over-360492
  129. https://vintagereveries.com/history-of-beauty-contests-ideal-female-measurements-of-the-1950s/
  130. https://www.scienceofpeople.com/beauty-standards/
  131. https://brightside.me/articles/how-the-perfect-female-body-has-changed-over-the-past-100-years-806440/
  132. https://mentalzon.com/en/post/7238/why-beauty-ideals-changed-faster-in-the-20th-century-than-ever-before
  133. https://alextolhurst.medium.com/the-toxic-body-image-of-the-2000s-165c928b50c3
  134. https://www.glamour.com/story/if-you-survived-the-early-2000s-without-body-issues-congratulations
  135. https://www.hamilton.edu/news/story/the-medias-effect-on-womens-body-image
  136. https://cvhsnews.org/9913/opinion/media-cinches-standards-of-beauty/
  137. https://www.cityscapecounseling.com/post/the-new-decade-of-beauty-thekardashianstandard/
  138. https://oxsci.org/tech-driven-evolution-of-beauty-standards/
  139. https://www.elitelearning.com/resource-center/cosmetology/understanding-the-influence-of-social-media-on-beauty-standards/
  140. https://www.dailynebraskan.com/culture/social-media-causes-negativity/article_c6a21596-f2c6-11ee-bca6-c3eb241ef622.html
  141. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12256717/
  142. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/30/arts/when-beauty-standards-and-body-positivity-collide.html
  143. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10724937/
  144. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0272735819302831
  145. https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9032/12/10/1034
  146. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40211-025-00544-4
  147. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/nutrition/articles/10.3389/fnut.2024.1510218/full
  148. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9970735/
  149. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11276240/
  150. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/019188699500093L
  151. https://www.aru.ac.uk/news/how-the-ideal-female-body-has-changed-over-time
  152. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1740144518302857
  153. https://naturallyintense.net/blog/diet/skinny-isnt-an-ideal-evolutionary-arguments-against-being-thin/
  154. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4556148/
  155. https://www.psichi.org/page/103EyeSpringbSingh
  156. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6861923/
  157. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1037932/full
  158. https://news.illinoisstate.edu/2021/04/social-media-effects-on-body-image-and-eating-disorders/
  159. https://jeatdisord.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40337-022-00575-0
  160. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12297853/
  161. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1740144523000128
  162. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychiatry/articles/10.3389/fpsyt.2025.1577063/full
  163. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1740144522000730
  164. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2212657021000295
  165. https://jeatdisord.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40337-025-01286-y
  166. https://www.who.int/en/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/obesity-and-overweight
  167. https://www.intechopen.com/chapters/73236
  168. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db360_tables-508.pdf#1
  169. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8641858/
  170. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11493725/
  171. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39190892/
  172. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002916523317039
  173. https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/16/17/3007
  174. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2161831323000510
  175. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9540641/
  176. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/physiology/articles/10.3389/fphys.2023.1132619/full
  177. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4158399/
  178. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000291652301612X
  179. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3184496/
  180. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8522530/
  181. https://drsarahbonza.medium.com/understanding-the-importance-of-waist-to-hip-ratio-during-menopause-09ab651996e4
  182. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8143746/
  183. https://www.meplasticsurgery.com/post/talking-bbls-the-ideal-buttock-shape/
  184. https://mansfieldcosmeticsurgery.com/body-contouring-surgery/brazilian-butt-lift/
  185. https://www.umm.edu/plasticsurgery/liposuction.htm
  186. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7949374/
  187. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00266-025-05276-y
  188. https://www.ccjm.org/content/87/6/367
  189. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10499002/
  190. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/23664363_Correlation_of_Complications_of_Body_Contouring_Surgery_With_Increasing_Body_Mass_Index
  191. https://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/feminizing-hormone-therapy/about/pac-20385096
  192. https://transcare.ucsf.edu/article/information-estrogen-hormone-therapy
  193. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK493191/
  194. https://medlineplus.gov/druginfo/meds/a601041.html
  195. https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20181003-does-the-birth-control-pill-make-you-fat
  196. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6897337/
  197. https://www.sizestream.com/
  198. https://www.truetoform.fit/
  199. https://zozofit.com/products/suit
  200. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7089806/
  201. https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/aesthetic-cosmetic-devices/non-invasive-body-contouring-technologies
  202. https://www.americanboardcosmeticsurgery.org/procedure-learning-center/non-surgical/fat-reduction/
  203. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5236497/
  204. https://newmancmpy.com/the-future-of-body-sculpting-exploring-evolve-by-inmode-technology/
  205. https://newsroom.pinterest.com/news/pinterest-announces-industry-first-body-type-technology/
  206. https://www.mirrorsize.com/blogs/how-ai-is-solving-fashions-50b-fit-problem
  207. https://www.fitshopnm.com/the-future-of-non-surgical-body-contouring-treatments-2025-and-beyond/
  208. https://fashnerd.com/2021/02/if-you-could-change-your-body-as-easily-as-you-would-your-clothes-would-you/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.