Which Measure of Abdominal Adiposity Best Relates with Body Mass Index Among Older Bengalee Hindus of Kolkata, India? A Comparison of Three Measures
A cross-sectional study of 410 (210 men and 200 women) older (≥55 years) Bengalee Hindus of Kolkata, India, was undertaken to determine which measure of abdominal adiposity best relates with body mass index (BMI), an indicator of overall adiposity. Three measures of abdominal adiposity were studied: waist circumference (WC), waist–hip ratio (WHR), and conicity index (CI). Results revealed that, in both sexes, WC had the strongest partial (age controlled) correlations with BMI (men = 0.56, women = 0.80). Linear regression analyses demonstrated that BMI had the strongest significant impact on WC in both sexes. BMI alone accounted for 28.2 and 61.8% variation in WC in men and women, respectively. This strongest significant impact remained even after controlling for age. In conclusion, this study provides strong evidence that WC can be preferred over WHR and CI in studies dealing with BMI among older Bengalee Hindus. In particular, BMI and WC can be useful in studies dealing with aging and anthropometric characteristics among older Bengalees.
KeywordsWaist circumference Waist–hip ratio Conicity index Body mass index
All subjects who participated in this study are gratefully acknowledged.
- 1.Bjorntorp P (1987) Classification of obese patients and complications related to the distribution of surplus fat. Am J Clin Nutr 45(Suppl 5):1120–1125Google Scholar
- 2.Bose K (1997) Coronary heart disease among migrant South Asians in Britain: an overview. J Ind Anthropol Soc 32:269–275Google Scholar
- 7.Daniel M, Marion SA, Sheps SB, Hertzman C, Gamble D (1999) Variations by body mass index and age in waist-to-hip ration associations with glycemic status in an aboriginal population at risk for type 2 diabetes in British Columbia, Canada. Am J Clin Nutr 69:455–460Google Scholar
- 10.Kopelman PG (2000) Obesity as a medical problem. Nature 404:635–643Google Scholar
- 12.Lean MEJ, Han TS, Seidell JC (1998) Impairment of health and quality of life in people with large waist circumference. BMJ 351:853–856Google Scholar
- 13.Lee RD, Nieman DC (2003) Nutritional assessment. McGraw Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- 14.Lohman TG, Roche AF, Martorell R (eds) (1988) Anthropometric standardization reference manual. Human Kinetics Books, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
- 16.Mukhopadhyay A, Bhadra M, Bose K (2005) Human obesity: a background. In: Bose K (ed) Human obesity: a major health burden. Journal of Human Ecology special issue number 13. Kamla Raj Enterprise, Delhi, pp 1–9Google Scholar
- 17.Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ (1986) Biometry: the principles and practice of statistics in biological research. WH Freeman, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- 18.Taylor RW, Jones IE, Williams SM, Goulding A (2000) Evaluation of waist circumference, waist-to-hip ratio and the conicity index as screening tools for high trunk fat mass, as measured by dual energy X-ray absorptiometry, in children aged 3–19 years. Am J Clin Nutr 72:490–495Google Scholar
- 20.Valdez R, Seidell JC, Ahn YI, Weiss KM (1993) A new index of abdominal adiposity as an indicator of risk for cardiovascular disease. A cross-population study. Int J Obes 17:77–82Google Scholar