What’s the secret to having a slimmer waistline?‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎
‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎
‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎
‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎
‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎
‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎
‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎
‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎



<[link removed]>

August 12


 



Eat this every AM for a slimmer waistline?

Find Out More →
<[link removed]>

 






What’s the secret to having a slimmer waistline?

Believe it or not, the answer lies in the power of this 1 ordinary snack.
<[link removed]>

According to America’s leading gut expert – Dr. Steven Gundry – this snack
yields a power punch to your gut health.

And it’s not because of obvious reasons like protein, healthy fats, or
anything like that.

The reason is much simpler.

And once you understand why it’s so powerful, you could enjoy a much slimmer
waistline.

Here’s the #1 snack to eat every AM >>
<[link removed]>


If you no longer wish to get these emails, you can unsubscribe by clicking
here
<[link removed]>
.


 








CONNOR'S HEALTH NOTES

The Measurement Most Clinics Skip

Connor Hill · InsightfulWord · August 11, 2026

A study published today in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology
did something unusual for cardiovascular research: it took the cheapest tool in
the examination room and demonstrated that it outperforms the number every
chart already contains. Investigators from the Cross Cohort Collaboration
pooled more than 260,000 adults across multiple long-running cohort studies,
followed them for an average of roughly twenty years, and asked a narrow
question. Once body mass index is known, does adding a tape measure change the
risk picture.

It changes it substantially. Among adults whose BMI sits in the normal range,
5 percent were found to have a high waist circumference and 18 percent a high
waist-to-hip ratio. Among adults classified as overweight, 39 percent had a
high waist circumference and 40 percent a high waist-to-hip ratio. The traffic
ran the other direction as well: among adults classified as obese by BMI, 9
percent had a low waist circumference and 45 percent a low waist-to-hip ratio.
Roughly one in five people carrying a reassuring BMI carried a concerning
distribution of fat, and nearly half of those carrying an alarming BMI did not.

The consequences were measurable across nine separate cardiovascular endpoints
— myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure, atrial fibrillation, total
coronary heart disease, total cardiovascular disease, coronary heart disease
mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and death from any cause. Adults with
normal or overweight BMI but elevated central adiposity carried between 15 and
50 percent greater risk across most of those outcomes. The authors' summary was
blunt: waist circumference and waist-to-hip ratio reclassify risk defined by
traditional BMI thresholds, and these simple measures belong in routine
cardiovascular assessment.

None of the underlying biology is new. That abdominal fat behaves differently
from fat stored at the hip or thigh has been understood for decades — visceral
tissue sits adjacent to the portal circulation and is metabolically active in
ways subcutaneous tissue is not. What is new is the size and length of the
evidence base, arriving at a moment when the profession is already
reconsidering how obesity should be defined at all.

The practical gap is the strange part. A tape measure costs almost nothing.
The measurement takes under a minute. And it is still not performed at most
routine visits in the United States, where height and weight are captured
automatically, converted to a ratio, and recorded before the physician enters
the room. The metric that requires a person to kneel, locate a hip bone, and
read a number at the end of an exhalation loses every time to the metric a
scale produces on its own.

That is a story about workflow, not about science. And it explains why a
measurement with twenty years of outcome data behind it remains, for most
adults, something nobody in a clinical setting has ever performed on them.

What the Research Actually Shows

The limits of what this study establishes deserve stating plainly, because the
category invites overstatement. These are observational cohorts. They
demonstrate that waist circumference and waist-to-hip ratio improve the
prediction of cardiovascular events beyond BMI. They do not demonstrate that
reducing a waist measurement by a given number of inches lowers risk by a
corresponding amount. Prediction and causation are separate claims, and only
the first is supported here.

What the design does support is unusually strong for observational work.
Twenty years of average follow-up is long enough to capture hard endpoints
rather than surrogate markers, and pooling across cohorts reduces the chance
that a single population's quirks drive the result. Nine outcomes moving in the
same direction is a coherence that single-endpoint studies cannot offer.

The reclassification framing is the useful part. Reclassification asks a
specific question: among people already sorted by an existing tool, how many
end up in a different risk category when a new variable is added, and do the
reassigned people experience the outcomes their new category predicts. On both
counts the answer here was yes, and the effect was largest in exactly the group
that receives the least clinical attention — adults whose weight looks
unremarkable.

There is a second, quieter finding embedded in the numbers. Nearly half of
adults meeting the BMI definition of obesity had a low waist-to-hip ratio. That
group is currently subject to intensified screening, insurance surcharges in
some markets, and clinical framing built entirely on a single ratio of weight
to height squared. Some portion of that intensity may be misdirected.


Why the Scale Won

Body mass index was not designed as a clinical instrument. It originated in
the nineteenth century as a population statistic — a way of describing the
distribution of body sizes across groups, developed by a mathematician studying
averages rather than a physician studying patients. Its migration into
individual diagnosis happened for reasons of convenience rather than evidence.

Convenience is not a trivial force in medicine. BMI requires two measurements
that every clinical setting already collects for other reasons, produces a
single number, needs no training to perform, and can be calculated by software
from data entered by a technician. Waist circumference requires a specific
anatomic landmark, a specific posture, a specific moment in the breathing
cycle, and a person willing to do it correctly on someone who may not want to
be measured.

The American Heart Association published clinician guidance on the technique
in February 2026, and the instructions themselves reveal the problem. The
patient stands. The provider locates the superior border of the iliac crest.
The tape is placed horizontally, parallel to the floor, snug without
compressing skin, and read at the end of exhalation, to the nearest eighth of
an inch. The established thresholds for abdominal obesity are88 centimeters, or
35 inches, in women and 102 centimeters, or 40 inches, in men — with the caveat
that ethnicity-specific differences apply, and that in Asian and Asian American
populations BMI can understate risk considerably.

Six discrete steps, any of which can be done sloppily, against a scale that
requires standing still. Systems optimize for what is easy to capture, and then
the captured thing becomes the definition of what matters.


🩹 Health Stat of the Day

18%

Share of adults with a normal-range BMI who nonetheless had a high
waist-to-hip ratio, in a pooled analysis of more than 260,000 people followed
roughly twenty years. Source:Journal of the American College of Cardiology,
Cross Cohort Collaboration, August 11, 2026.


Support or oppose: should the tape come out at every visit?

A large body of evidence now says a waist measurement predicts heart attacks
and strokes better than the height-and-weight number already in every chart,
and a minute of clinician time is what stands between the two. Supporters want
it made routine at annual visits; skeptics answer that it is done
inconsistently, varies between operators, and would generate anxiety without
changing what anyone is told to do. Should waist circumference be a standard
vital sign, or is that a minute better spent elsewhere?Hit reply — one line is
enough.


The Signal That Is Quietly Degrading

There is a further complication, and it comes from a different dataset
entirely. The NCD Risk Factor Collaboration published an analysis inThe Lancet
this year drawing on 110 national health surveys conducted between 1990 and
2024 across seven industrialised countries — Japan, South Korea, Taiwan,
Thailand, Finland, England, and the United States — covering 978,425 adults
aged 20 to 79.

Its finding is counterintuitive. Over three decades, several metabolic traits
that once separated people with obesity from people at normal weight have been
converging. Non-HDL cholesterol fell in both groups, with steeper declines
among those with obesity, until the two curves approached one another. Mean
systolic blood pressure declined among normal-weight adults in six of the seven
countries, with the same convergence pattern visible most clearly in adults
aged 60 to 79.

The mechanism is not mysterious, and it is not a triumph of body composition.
It is pharmacology. Among older men with class II or III obesity, 70 to 72
percent were taking cholesterol-lowering medication by the end of the study
period, against 40 to 48 percent of their normal-weight counterparts. Treatment
has partially uncoupled the traditional risk markers from the body they used to
describe.

That has an uncomfortable implication for anyone reading a lab panel as a
report card on their shape. Cholesterol and blood pressure numbers increasingly
describe a treatment regimen as much as a physiology. Anthropometric
measurement — where tissue actually sits — is one of the few signals that
pharmacology does not directly overwrite. It should go without saying that this
is an argument for measuring more, not for adjusting or stopping any prescribed
medication, a decision that belongs with a physician and can be dangerous to
make unilaterally.


What a measurement is allowed to mean

A single waist reading is a snapshot with real error bars. Technique varies
between operators, hydration and meal timing shift the number by a small
amount, and the standard thresholds were derived largely from populations that
do not represent everyone they are applied to. The value of the measure lies in
the trend and in the reclassification it triggers — a normal BMI paired with an
expanding waist is a prompt for a fuller cardiometabolic workup, not a
diagnosis on its own. A rapid, unexplained change in either direction is a
reason to see a physician rather than to interpret the tape alone.


The Definition Itself Is Being Rewritten

The clinical establishment reached a similar conclusion before this week's
data arrived. In January 2025, a Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology Commission
proposed dismantling the single-number approach outright, drawing a line
between preclinical obesity — excess adiposity without demonstrable organ
dysfunction — and clinical obesity, where that excess is producing measurable
impairment. Under the Commission's framework, BMI alone is insufficient for
diagnosis; confirmation requires a second measure of fat distribution, such as
waist circumference, waist-to-hip ratio, or waist-to-height ratio, or a direct
assessment of body fat.

The distinction has consequences well beyond nomenclature. It determines who
is counted as having a disease rather than a risk factor, which in turn shapes
treatment eligibility, insurance coverage, and the denominator of every
prevalence statistic in the field.

For scale, the CDC's most recent national estimate, from the National Health
and Nutrition Examination Survey covering August 2021 through August 2023, puts
adult obesity prevalence at40.3 percent and severe obesity at 9.4 percent, with
the highest rate — 46.4 percent — among adults aged 40 to 59. Those figures
rest entirely on BMI. If the diagnostic definition changes to require a second
measure, the national number changes with it, and not by a rounding error.


The Part That Is Actually Actionable

Strip the field down to what a person can do with today's finding, and the
list is short and unglamorous. A tape measure is inexpensive. Measured the same
way, at the same time of day, at the top of the hip bone, at the end of an
exhalation, it produces a trend line that means something. That trend belongs
in the same conversation as blood pressure and lipids, and it is worth asking a
physician to record it rather than waiting for a system that has not made room
for it.

What the evidence does not support is the idea that any single intervention
reliably moves that number. Waist circumference responds to sustained changes
in energy balance, sleep, alcohol intake, muscle mass, and medication, over
months rather than days, and it responds differently in different people.
Studies of this kind are precise about association and silent about shortcuts,
and the honest reading preserves that distinction.

The finding worth carrying is narrower and more useful than any regimen.
Roughly one in five adults whose weight reads as unremarkable is carrying a fat
distribution that predicts events their chart does not flag, and a minute with
a tape measure is the only thing standing between that person and knowing it.


The bill, not the debate

Most clinical guidelines still lead with BMI, and most annual physicals will
record height and weight while never touching a tape measure. The unresolved
question is what that omission costs the individual with a normal-looking chart
and an expanding midsection — the risk that goes unflagged, the workup never
ordered, the years of false reassurance. At the last physical, did anyone
measure your waist, and would knowing that number have changed what you asked
about?Connor Hill reads every reply.


Sources checked: Journal of the American College of Cardiology — Dardari et
al., "Risk Reclassification Beyond BMI by Waist Circumference and Waist-to-Hip
Ratio Across 9 Cardiovascular Outcomes: Results From the Cross-Cohort
Collaboration," August 11, 2026
<[link removed]> · The Lancet — NCD Risk
Factor Collaboration, "Metabolic traits in obesity and normal BMI in
industrialised countries: a multi-country analysis of national population-based
studies," 2026
<[link removed](26)00758-0/fulltext>
·The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology — Commission, "Definition and diagnostic
criteria of clinical obesity," January 2025
<[link removed](24)00316-4/fulltext>
·American Heart Association — clinician guidance, Measuring Waist Circumference
, February 2026
<[link removed]>
·CDC / National Center for Health Statistics — Data Brief No. 508, Obesity and
Severe Obesity Prevalence in Adults: United States, August 2021–August 2023
<[link removed]> · National Heart,
Lung, and Blood Institute —Assessing Your Weight and Health Risk
<[link removed]>


Connor Hill · InsightfulWord





You are receiving this email from Insightful Word (IW), a brand operated by
TerraTrance Technologies, LLC.

200 Broadway Blvd NE, Albuquerque, NM 87102



To contact us, simply reply to this message or email us at
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>



The material included in this email may not be reproduced, forwarded, shared,
or distributed without prior written permission from TerraTrance Technologies,
LLC

Privacy Policy <[link removed]>
Terms & Conditions <[link removed]>
Unsubscribe
<[link removed]>



© 2026 Insightful Word (IW). All Rights Reserved.