This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Medicine: Cardiology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Cardiology task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Section "Prevention and treatment" says exercise will reduce cortisol levels.

The article cited is: Kelley, George A.; Kelley, Kristi S.; Roberts, Susan; Haskell, William (2012). "Combined Effects of Aerobic Exercise and Diet on Lipids and Lipoproteins in Overweight and Obese Adults: A Meta-Analysis". Journal of Obesity. 2012: 1–16. doi:10.1155/2012/985902.

However, this article doesn't seem to mention cortisol. 82.34.54.1 (talk) 21:34, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"A single pound of fat is believed to yield approximately 3500 calories of energy, and weight loss is achieved by reducing energy intake." I bet in fact kilocalories are meant, that is a common mistake. I dont know what the source says, but if it says calories itself, i would not trust it. Two posts below mine there is the same mistake. (with the energy contained in beer)--37.24.150.206 (talk) 13:43, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The entire paragraph on the relationship between central obesity and T2DM focuses too much on resistin. Adiponectin is strongly, albeit inversely, correlated with insulin resistance, and could also be mentioned here. I suggest revwriting this paragraph without so much emphasis on resistin. Magfas (talk) 03:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. There are a number of studies showing no correlation between resistin levels and insulin resistance (see: http://www.nature.com/oby/journal/v12/n6/full/oby2004118a.html for a review) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.22.125.146 (talk) 02:31, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This comment isn't false exactly but it's misleading. Beer has a lot of calories. 3 stubbies per day = ~400 calories. Added to an otherwise balanced calorie intake that results in a weight gain of around 19kg (42 lbs) over a year! Beer doesn't make the fat deposits go to the belly but it's certainly a contributor to obesity. --irrevenant [ talk ] 09:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to ask, what does this sentence even mean? "Excluding energy under-reporters slightly attenuated these associations." Every time I read it, it gets more confusing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.163.74.63 (talk) 01:35, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am proposing merging "Love handles" and "Muffin top" into this article. It seems to me those two articles are really doing nothing but defining terms related to this topic. Following the principle that "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" I propose that these are not unique articles (or at least not sufficiently unique to merit separate articles) and that their content should be merged here. Although I do think there is some unique content there, unique content does not by itself justify a separate article (i.e. the unique content can be merged). There has to be a substantially unique topic and I do not believe that is the case here.

--Mcorazao 16:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert but I think that both love handles and muffin top are caused by subcutaneous fat whereas Central obesity is correlated with visceral fat. Also love handles and muffin top are names used by people in the street (slang ?) not necessarily referring to a medical condition where central obesity is a medical condition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.73.157.37 (talk) 20:32, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Again not an expert, but central obesity is a properly defined medical issue, and muffin top is a slang term that could technically happen to anyone even if they aren't centrally obese, or aren't obese at all, with the wrong pants! 144.137.210.156 07:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Im going to merge them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jupiter849 (talk • contribs) 09:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC) I merged them already. Jupiter849 (talk) 23:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merging while the comments in this discussion seem to be against it doesn't seem to be the right thing to me somehow. 82.73.157.37 (talk) 19:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've merged Muffin Top into this article since it replicates the information in this article. If it's separated again, I'll request page protection on Muffin Top. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 19:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Ditto on Love Handles. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 19:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A merge discussion for Muffin top can be found here.
A merge discussion for Love handles can be found here.
Please feel free to contribute!-- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 09:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cumulus Clouds merged the Love handles amd Muffin top articles to the Central obesity article with no evident discussion, despite the fact that Muffin top survived an AfD nomination in May 2007. When I restored the articles and removed the text from the Central obesity article he reverted. I split the articles again and suggested a discussion, yet the article has been reverted again. I would like the articles to remain distinct until a proper consensus can be reached.-- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 19:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bit old now, but I've cropped it so it doesn't have any background crap in it. Should display the subject a bit better =) - Boochan (talk) 06:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is the point of having a vague and unsubstantiated discussion of pejorative terms about fat in this article? The entire section is personal observation, and subtracts value and credibility from what is supposed to b an encyclopedic article and should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.239.75.159 (talk) 04:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the slang terms from the article, and in case they re-appear, I will again remove them. This article is written in a context ment to enlighten and remain neutral in tone, which the slang references negate. Approprate venues for slang can be found at other websites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.32.163.93 (talk) 20:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is said that monounsaturated fat, or MUFA, when added to every meal would help to decrease central body fat aswell. See this site. Please add in article.

Also, there is talk of Sedentary_lifestyle as a cause of obesity. Isn't this gibberish? Obesity is caused by eating too many calories I believe (thus more than 2000 a day). Also, it is said that "overeating" is another cause; this too is wrong, no? For example, if one eats 2kg of chopped tomatoes, this still is only 400kcal's, which still is too low even for a single meal, while its can be considered "overeating". Still eating this amount of tomatoes wouldnt cause central obesity, even after doing so for a prolonged amount of time (actually you might even lose weight).

Sorry none of this makes any sense.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think that it's right that, if you search for "pot belly", it redirects here? A pot belly's not always a result of obesity. Across the poorest parts of Africa, it's very common for people to have pot bellies, which is something to do with malnutrition and is often caused by very different things from what causes obesity. Epa101 (talk) 18:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thats a valid point, perhaps the article could mention that pot bellies can be caused by low vitamin intake? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.193.15.52 (talk) 05:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Simple waist measurements, and the waist:hip ratio, are good estimates of "central obesity" but not accurate for this reason: it does not distinguish between the subcutaneous fat (under skin but over the muscles) and the intraabdominal fat (in the abdominal cavity). There is a reference article found at http://edrv.endojournals.org/cgi/content/full/21/6/697, which is an online journal of the Endocrine Society.

Subcutaneous fat has not been linked to detrimental health effects. Anecdotally, I have been told that the fat that can be pinched around the waist (the "spare tire") is not the harmful fat. 68.149.171.143 (talk) 17:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)Helen[reply]

Also, while the 40-inch maximum for men may be recommended in the US, the corresponding figure in the UK is 37 inches. See http://www.diabetes.co.uk/waist-measurement-diabetes-risk.html. It would be better to note that different standards exist and that not all authorities are American. --Dinostan (talk) 21:13, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be normal not to use the capital F for this article. Thanks. --TudorTulok (talk) 07:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only common sense. Therefore moved.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Title capitalization should not be an issue. Goesgolf20 (talk) 03:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Title capitalisation is an issue, see WP:CAPS. Cyclonenim :  Chat  17:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New name[edit]

Looking into things more I have found the issue. This page should be at Central obesity were I am moving it back to. Apr 3 2009 someone moved this page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Goesgolf20 Will place this on my watch list.

--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved Central obesity to Abdominal Fat as it is more common name. Central obesity is too much technical name, and 10 times lesser Google results. Please discuss here before revert. Goesgolf20 (talk) 03:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is preferred to use the technical term over a layman term. Will post this discussion for comments.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even in such case, article should be moved back so as to preserve article history. Since you redirected, only admin can make the move. So please dont redirect, instead we reach a conclusion and ask admin to move. Also "Excess of abdominal fat" = central obesity. So abdominal fat is more broader and appropriate. Regards. Goesgolf20 (talk) 04:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Use_common_names_of_persons_and_things, common name is preferred over technical or even official name. "France" over official "Republic of France". Goesgolf20 (talk) 04:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are over your 3 Rs Would be happy with Abdominal obesity. We would not call the Obesity page Fat. By the way I just figured out why you used a capital for Fat. The lower case was already there and did not allow your move.

By the way this is what we use for medicine Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(medicine-related_articles)#Naming_conventions--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abdominal obesity would be fine, but Abdominal fat is broader. If two articles Abdominal fat and Abdominal obesity exist, then later can be merged with the former. But to use common name is the convention in wiki, which made common people use encyclopedia. Also "Abdominal obesity" was there which was merged later with central obesity - instead of move, see history. Goesgolf20 (talk) 04:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Abdominal obesity" would be fine, which has double the google results. But the said article already has a history. So we can redirect instead of move. But "Abdominal fat" is broader term, if you get this point - and i know obesity and fat are different. Goesgolf20 (talk) 04:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also think Abdominal obesity would be a better title for the article.

But please no more cut and paste moves - once we reach consensus, we can use requested move to get an administrator to keep the history. Zodon (talk) 05:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fat is an inappropriate name for a wikipedia medical based article. Also remember a lot of those google hits will be teens calling themselves or their friends fat on chat sites and other irrelevant pages and searches. People searching for medical information are as likely if not more likely to use the term obesity. So google results whilst somewhat relevant are not always relevant. I reckon Abdominal obesity would be a good choice and a good compromise.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 05:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abdominal fat has 1 million google hits compared to 100,000 of central obesity and 200,000 of abdominal obesity. 5 to 10 times more hits cant be attributed to teens. What i stress is "Abdominal obesity" is subset of "Abdominal fat", so we can leave it as the article is now. Goesgolf20 (talk) 06:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Google "abdominal fat" only gives 537,000 hits (not 1 million). vs. "abdominal obesity" 235,000 hits. (Difference is factor of 2.) Since several editors prefer "abdominal obesity" and so far all posters have agreed that abdominal obesity is an acceptable title, seems like should go with abdominal obesity. Zodon (talk) 06:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okey, now even i see it 0.5 million, donno why it is. But "belly fat"(which is mentioned in the lead section of the article) gives 3 million(hope this wont decrease next time when i search). And those who search belly fat will miss this article link since title does not match single word. So taking both into account i vote for Abdominal fat. But i agree that "abdominal obesity" is comprehensible by title by a common man. Goesgolf20 (talk) 07:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no real question here about more appropriate names, it's just you who votes for abdominal fat, whereas everyone else appears to support abdominal obesity. Fat is a term used by teenagers and people insulting their friends, not a proper scientific term. I'll take this as consensus and request that an administrator makes the move. Cyclonenim :  Chat  11:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, if it worries you so much that someone will miss the article because they're searching for either "belly fat" or "abdominal fat", we'll make those redirects. It's not a tough problem to resolve. Cyclonenim :  Chat  11:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that common usage suggests "abdominal" over "central", and "obesity" is much preferred over "fat" for an encyclopedia article title. --Scray (talk) 11:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Posted request for moving to abdominal obesity on WP:Requested moves. Zodon (talk) 19:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beerbelly.jpg Is this obesity or just someone pushing out there stomach by expanding their lungs?--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This should be a redirect to abdominal obesity as we discussed.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abdominal fat is different from abdominal obesity, just like fat and obesity. Continue discussion in article talk page, not user talk page. Regards. Goesgolf20 (talk) 04:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to start on an article on adominal fat which is different to what is meant by adominal obesity it will simply get voted for deletion based on lack of notability. We could start articles then on fat in wrists, arms, legs, ass, thighs, where do we stop?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 07:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chiming in a year later -- I think there should be a page on abdominal fat. That page would describe the main central fat pads (omental, perirenal, epididymal (I think)) and their normal functions. For every disorder or disease state we cover in articles I believe there should be a corresponding normal function page - like, instead of only having articles on pathology, I think it's also good to have articles on normal anatomy & physiology. Dcs002 (talk) 05:15, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please reference. I am more inclined to believe Dunlop Disease is in reference to Dunlop tires and the slag expression 'Spare Tire' to the excess fat around the waist. HappySchnapps (talk) 12:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fell free to fix or delete --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The meds listed in this section are either anti-obesity meds (orlistat & sibutramine) or hypoglycemics. None is intended to specifically reduce central adiposity. IMO, none should be listed in this section, nor should the bit about exercise, healthy diet, & weight loss. That's not what central obesity is about. Central obesity is about the disproportionate deposition of fat tissue into the peritoneal cavity instead of the subcutaneous depot. Hormones are involved in this pattern of fat deposition, and there's not much known yet about how to reverse this pattern. (removal by surgery has achieved mixed results.) This should not be about weight loss or diabetes management per se.

I have no problem with the "sit-ups myth" section. Dcs002 (talk) 05:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2 years late and it is still atrocious. Why are Colloquialisms listed in the Prevention and Treatment section? Why are there so few treatments mentioned? How about a sentence or two on lipsuction and tummy tucks? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.68.156 (talk) 05:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I being a beginner on wikipedia am not very much familiar with the editing. Frankly couldnt spare time in learning the process. May I request one of the editors to kindly use the following citation for which citation needed has been quoted in paragraph for index of central obesity.

Index of Central Obesity (ICO) is the ratio of waist circumference and height first proposed by a Parikh et al in 2007[6][7] as a better substitute to the widely-used waist circumference in defining metabolic syndrome.[8] The National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III suggested cut off of 102 cm and 88 cm for males and females as a marker of central obesity.[9] The same was used in defining metabolic syndrome.[10] Misra et al. suggested that these cutoffs are not applicable among Indians and the cutoffs be lowered to 90 cm and 80 cm for males and females.[11, CITATION 4] Various race specific cutoffs were suggested by different groups.[CITATION 1, 2, 3, 4] The International Diabetes Federation defined central obesity based on these various race and gender specific cutoffs.[CITATION 5] The other limitation of waist circumference is that it can not be applied in children.[dubious – discuss]

Parikh et al looked at the average heights of various races and suggested that by using ICO various race- and gender-specific cutoffs of waist circumference can be discarded.[8] An ICO cutoff of more than 0.5 is suggested as a criteria to define central obesity.[citation needed] Parikh et al further tested a modified definition of of metabolic syndrome in which waist circumference was replaced with ICO in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) database and found the modified definition to be more specific and sensitive.[8]

This parameter has been used in the study of metabolic syndrome[12][13] and cardiovascular disease.[14]

1. Tan CE, Ma S, Wai D, Chew SK, Tai ES.Can we apply the National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel definition of the metabolic syndrome to Asians? Diabetes Care. 2004 May;27(5):1182-6 2. Zhou BF, Wu YF, Li Y, Zhang LF. The cut-off point of waist circumference for identifying metabolic syndrome in Chinese adults. Zhonghua Xin Xue Guan Bing Za Zhi. 2005 Jan;33(1):81-5. 3. Matsuzawa Y. Metabolic syndrome--definition and diagnostic criteria in Japan. J Atheroscler Thromb. 2005;12(6):301 4. Misra A, Wasir J S, Pandey R M, An. Evaluation of Candidate Definitions of the Metabolic Syndrome in Adult Asian Indians. Diabetes Care. 2005; (28): 398–403 5. The IDF consensus worldwide definition of the metabolic syndrome http://www.idf.org/webdata/docs/IDF_Meta_def_final.pdf Accessed on 11th June 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drrakeshparikh (talk • contribs) 09:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following link may be of interest: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez/15111542?dopt=Abstract&holding=f1000,f1000m,isrctn. Allens (talk) 17:33, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I'm new to editing wikipedia so I'm not sure if I should edit the page or edit this talk here. Let me know if I'm doing this right.

The third paragraph says that weight loss is not an effective way to treat obesity, and it cites a paper by Bacon and Aphramor. If you read that paper, and then read the citation they use, you will find that the study is not about weight loss at all - it's about low fat diets. "The intervention aimed to change diet patterns but did not encourage weight loss or caloric reduction."^[1] They are completely misconstruing a low-fat diet for a caloric restricted diet.

If we look to other sources, we find that weight loss is an effective way to treat obesity, given the proper diet is maintained. "Defined meal replacements can be used for successful, long-term weight control and improvements in certain biomarkers of disease risk."^[2]

When editing Wikipedia, it's important to remember that the goal is verifiability, not truth. Your opinion that a particular peer-reviewed journal article is biased has no place in a Wikipedia article unless you can back up that opinion with a published source. Since every assertion in a Wikipedia article should be traceable to a specific source that the article cites, it's of no concern to Wikipedia editors whether the source is correct -- the important thing is that the source is cited. SparsityProblem (talk) 07:13, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did back that up with a published source. This is the link of the citation in the third paragraph: http://www.nutritionj.com/content/10/1/9, note it is a paper which clearly states "Assumption:" at the beginning of each paragraph, and only references studies and is not a study itself.

This is the quote that is being referenced from that link: "More than 20,000 women maintained a low-fat diet, reportedly reducing their calorie intake by an average of 360 calories per day [102] and significantly increasing their activity [103]. After almost eight years on this diet, there was almost no change in weight from starting point (a loss of 0.1 kg), and average waist circumference, which is a measure of abdominal fat, had increased (0.3 cm) [102]."

This is the citation from that link: http://www.nutritionj.com/content/10/1/9#B102, or http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/295/6/655.long, which quotes: "The intervention did not include total energy reduction or weight loss goals." The study did not even mention a reduction in calorie intake by 360 calories, but a reduction in FAT intake. The dietary intervention they are referencing did not have weight loss goals, it was to determine if low fat diets were link to decreased risk of cardiovascular disease. Please take a minute to follow through the sources, you will see I am not trying to be opinionated but I just want to ensure that the information is factual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.51.133 (talk) 03:18, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Some studies indicate central obesity is related to the excessive consumption of fructose." Formally a claim of growing consensus, which is completely made up bullshit. Cited to three primary studies by researchers known for hard opinions on the topic, which is original research. Someone with appropriate citation access, please find a few appropriate metastudies to discover the consensus view and cite them, instead of biased primary research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.110.23.234 (talk) 02:36, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The immediate cause of obesity is net energy imbalance — the organism consumes more usable calories than it expends, wastes or discards via elimination." This myth is so generally accepted, that it goes unchallenged? Citations? Proof of any kind? Tim Conway (talk) 04:20, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tim, the empirical evidence is the second law of thermodynamics. Unless you can prove that human fat can violate this law of the universe, it will be accepted that humans can only gain weight (energy) by taking in more than they expend. --86.138.158.177 (talk) 10:49, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think Tim is asking why the fat builds up under the abdominals, rather than elsewhere e.g. the thighs, or perhaps why the body does not increase its metabolic rate to conserve thermodynamic laws. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.6.152.243 (talk) 19:19, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fat does not "migrate". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.68.156 (talk) 05:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abdominal obesity is due the growth of the abdominal subcutaneus fat layer, not visceral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.59.167.202 (talk) 01:32, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really necessary to have this many pictures of belly fat? They're all showing the same thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.26.202.208 (talk) 18:01, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this. It's truly ridiculous from perusing the history of this page how many pictures have been added/taken down in the history of this article. Please do not add more images to this article without first explaining why they are necessary/how they expand the article on the talk page. I just undid a revision by Fatkidfourteenchubby (talk · contribs) of a picture of himself for this article. ירק (talk) 19:41, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just another note, apparently this same user also added his image to gynecomastia. I'm assuming good faith, but these are his only edits there's no reason for this and the extra images do not add anything to the article. Please take a look at WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE in the MOS before adding new images. ירק (talk) 19:52, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, too many photos of central fat on obese people. But it would be great to have a photo of a normal-weight person with central obesity, as this is a growing public health problem.Knoitalno (talk) 02:01, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The section on "Colloquilisms" says "One of the few studies conducted on the subject did not find that beer drinkers are more prone to central obesity..." , while the section on Alcohol consumption cites a study showing a correlation between alcohol consumption and abdominal obesity. Seems to me that either the article contradicts itself or that the section on "Colloquilisms" is misleading - granted one of the few studies found no correlation, but what about the others?

This is not my field of expertise, so I'm looking for some guidance here before editing the article. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 19:37, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Abdominal obesity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071024193506/http://health.yahoo.com:80/topic/nutrition/overview/article/womens-health/26287 to http://health.yahoo.com/topic/nutrition/overview/article/womens-health/26287

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:49, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Abdominal obesity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130209125420/http://www.washington.edu/admin/hr/benefits/wellness/weight.html to http://www.washington.edu/admin/hr/benefits/wellness/weight.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:07, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Abdominal obesity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101014014348/http://sibutramine.com/australia/en-au/ to http://sibutramine.com/australia/en-au/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110511225841/http://elib.fda.moph.go.th/fulltext2/word/41633/41633.pdf to http://elib.fda.moph.go.th/fulltext2/word/41633/41633.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:31, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Milwaukee Tumor. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Hog Farm (talk) 19:32, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• NYPD PO Oliver Liebowitz.jpg (discussion)
• Oliver Liebowitz.jpg (discussion)

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:53, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Biscuit Belly and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 16#Biscuit Belly until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TartarTorte 17:50, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Visceral fat is currently preferred over abdominal fat so I have changed that to avoid confusion across articles. Altanner1991 (talk) 19:40, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Fat upper pussy area has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 26 § Fat upper pussy area until a consensus is reached. Jennytacular (talk) 20:28, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Fupa has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 11 § Fupa until a consensus is reached. Jay 💬 19:09, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Foopa has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 11 § Foopa until a consensus is reached. Jay 💬 19:09, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Foopah has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 11 § Foopah until a consensus is reached. Jay 💬 19:09, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect F.U.P.A. has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 11 § F.U.P.A. until a consensus is reached. Jay 💬 19:09, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]