A common anthropometric measurement whose genetics are real and well-mapped — and whose relationship to disease risk runs the opposite way "bigger measurement, worse outcome" intuition suggests. Smaller hip circumference, not larger, tracks with more heart disease.
What this condition connects to
Prevalence
Not a categorical condition with a prevalence figure. Studied as a continuous anthropometric trait in up to 224,459 people (Shungin et al. 2015, PMID:25673412) and up to 267,616 people (Tachmazidou et al. 2017, PMID:28552196).
Inheritance
Polygenic: 36 common variants on this site alone across two studies, each with a modest individual effect, and showing real sex-specific differences in effect size for related waist-to-hip ratio loci in the same discovery study.
Hip circumference is a standard anthropometric measurement, usually taken at the widest point of the buttocks. It reflects a mix of skeletal frame, muscle and — the part genetics research has focused on — gluteofemoral fat, the fat stored in the hips and thighs.
Two studies, thirty-six loci
Shungin et al. 2015 ran a meta-analysis of up to 224,459 people and found 49 loci for waist-to-hip ratio adjusted for BMI, plus a further 19 loci specifically for waist and hip circumference measures on their own. Twenty of the 49 ratio loci showed significant differences between men and women, and 19 of those 20 had a stronger effect in women — body fat distribution genetics are, to a real degree, sex-specific. This same study already anchors 16 variants on this site's waist-to-hip ratio page; the loci here are its hip-circumference-specific findings, and its waist-circumference-specific findings now have their own page too: waist circumference.
Tachmazidou et al. 2017 took a different technical approach — whole-genome sequencing combined with deep imputation, rather than the standard genotyping array most GWAS use — across up to 267,616 people and 12 anthropometric traits. It found 106 genome-wide-significant signals not previously identified, including 9 low-frequency variants that a standard array would likely have missed entirely. That methodological difference is worth noting: some of what genetics research finds depends on the tool used to look.
Why bigger hips are not the bad news they might sound like
A 2011 review of a consistent body of evidence found that smaller hip circumference, not larger, independently predicts more cardiovascular disease and higher overall mortality, after statistically correcting for general body size and waist circumference. The effect may be stronger in women, but appears in both sexes. This lines up with the mechanism already described on this site's waist-to-hip ratio page: gluteofemoral fat storage acts as a relatively safe depot for surplus energy, and reduced capacity to store fat there is associated with worse metabolic outcomes — not simply having "more fat" in absolute terms.
Clinical detail
What this page is, and is not, useful for
There is no test, diagnosis or treatment built around hip circumference genotype. Hip circumference is measured directly with a tape measure when it is relevant at all — usually as one input into waist-to-hip ratio — not inferred from genotype.
The genuinely useful takeaway here is the direction of the finding, not a predictive one: hip circumference is not simply "more body size, more risk" in the way waist circumference tends to be. Reduced capacity for gluteofemoral fat storage, which shows up as a smaller hip measurement, is the pattern associated with worse cardiometabolic outcomes in the reviewed evidence — the opposite of naive intuition. None of the 36 variants on this page changes how hip circumference or its associated risk is assessed clinically; that is still done with direct measurement.
Related variants MyGeneLog™ checks for
What a 23andMe/AncestryDNA export or raw VCF can and can't tell you about Hip Circumference comes down to these specific, well-studied positions — not a diagnosis. 41 positions are linked to this page; the ones this page's own text discusses are shown first.
Obesity reviews : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity · 2011 · PMID 20663064
2
3
Questions about Hip Circumference
Do these variants predict hip circumference or disease risk for an individual?
Not usefully. Each variant has a modest, population-level effect. Hip circumference is measured directly with a tape measure when it matters, not inferred from genotype.
Is a larger hip circumference bad for health?
The evidence points the other way. A 2011 review found that smaller hip circumference, not larger, independently predicts more cardiovascular disease and higher mortality, after adjusting for general body size and waist circumference.
How is this different from this site's waist-to-hip ratio page?
That page is about the ratio and which of two routes to reach a given ratio — losing hip fat or gaining waist fat — carries more risk. This page is about hip circumference measured on its own, which shares some of the same discovery study but is a genuinely different measurement with its own genetic loci.
Why did a whole-genome sequencing study find more signals than a standard GWAS?
Tachmazidou et al. 2017 used whole-genome sequencing plus deep imputation rather than the standard genotyping array most GWAS rely on, which let it detect low-frequency variants — including 9 pointing to functional candidates — that a standard array would likely have missed.
Free to reuse. This page's text is original writing from freely-available research, licensed CC BY 4.0 — reuse it, including commercially, with attribution to MyGeneLog™. It's general research-derived information, not medical advice or a diagnosis — see Terms of Use.