Re: Indices of abdominal obesity are better discriminators of cardiovascular risk factors than BMI

[Guest guest]

Ralph,

Sorry about the late reply people. Like you, I'm interested in

abdominal obesity. If you didn't like the formula provided

for not being simple enough, you're definitely not going to like the

one I found here:

Improved prediction of body fat by measuring skinfold thickness,

circumferences, and bone breadths.

Ada L. , Wagner, Torsten Hothorn, Corinna Koebnick, Hans-

Joachim F. Zunft, and Ulrike Trippo

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15833949

RESULTS: The final best predictive sex-specific equations combining

skinfold thicknesses (SF), circumferences, and bone breadth

measurements were as follows:

BFM(New) (kg) for men = -40.750 + {(0.397 x waist circumference) +

[6.568 x (log triceps SF + log subscapular SF + log abdominal SF)]}

and BFM(New) (kg) for women = -75.231 + {(0.512 x hip circumference)

+ [8.889 x (log chin SF + log triceps SF + log subscapular SF)] +

(1.905 x knee breadth)}.

Skinfolds (SF) are in mm, circumference in cm.

Ok, there's some math involved.

But the good part is that the formula takes into account both

abdominal and subcutaneous fat.

When comparing the formula with DXA the result is very similar. When

comparing it with skinfold only based formulas, this one is much more

accurate.

Regards,

Johan Bastiaansen

Hasselt, Belgium

>

> >

> > Subject: Re: Indices of abdominal obesity are

better discriminators of cardiovascular risk factors than BMI

> > To: Supertraining

> > Date: Thursday, September 4, 2008, 7:13 AM

> > Ralph,

> >

> > Army Regulation 600-9 uses this type of measuring for their

> > weight control program. I did a quick web search, here is

> > one of the links to find the reg. there are different ways

> > to measure for men and women. Pg 12 is where the

> > description of measuring starts

> > http://calorielab.com/news/wp-images/post-images/army-weight-

control-program.pdf

> >

> > Seibel

> > Crutice, Oh, USA

> >

> > ==============================

> >

> > Indices of abdominal obesity are

> > better discriminators of cardiovascular risk factors than

> > BMI

> >

> >

> > The following should put a smile- on 'a face.

> > What is interesting is that about 15-20 years ago I had a

> > formula which used the height to waist ratio to calculate

> > %body fat. It was a surprisingly accurate formula. I believe

> > it was either from the YMCA or the Airfore (USA? Canadian?).

> > I fortunately it got lost over the years in transitioning

> > from one computer to another.

> >

> > Ralph Giarnella MD

> > Southington Ct USA

> > ********************************

> >

> > Indices of abdominal obesity are better discriminators of

> > cardiovascular risk factors than BMI: a meta-analysis.

> > J Clin Epidemiol. 2008; 61(7):646-53 (ISSN: 0895-4356)

> >

> > Lee CM ; Huxley RR ; Wildman RP ; Woodward M

> > Nutrition and Lifestyle Division, The Institute

> > for International Health, University of Sydney, PO Box M

> > 201, Missenden Road, Sydney NSW 2050, Australia.

> > clee@...

> >

> > OBJECTIVE: To determine which simple index of overweight

> > and obesity is the best discriminator of cardiovascular risk

> > factors. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: This is a meta-analysis

> > of published literature. MEDLINE was searched. Studies that

> > used receiver-operating characteristics (ROC) curve analysis

> > and published area under the ROC curves (AUC) for overweight

> > and obesity indices with hypertension, type-2 diabetes,

> > and/or dyslipidemia were included. The AUC for each of the

> > four indices, with each risk factor, was pooled using a

> > random-effects model; male and female data were analyzed

> > separately. RESULTS: Ten studies met the inclusion criteria.

> > Body mass index (BMI) was the poorest discriminator for

> > cardiovascular risk factors. Waist-to-height ratio (WHtR)

> > was the best discriminator for hypertension, diabetes, and

> > dyslipidemia in both sexes; its pooled AUC (95% confidence

> > intervals) ranged from 0.67 (0.64, 0.69) to 0.73 (0.70,

> > 0.75) and from 0.68 (0.63, 0.72)

> > to 0.76 (0.70, 0.81) in males and females, respectively.

> > CONCLUSION: Statistical evidence supports the superiority of

> > measures of centralized obesity, especially WHtR, over BMI,

> > for detecting cardiovascular risk factors in both men and

> > women.

> >

> > PreMedline Identifier: 18359190

> >

> > ===============================

>