International Journal of Anthropology

, Volume 21, Issue 3–4, pp 247–252 | Cite as

Which Measure of Abdominal Adiposity Best Relates with Body Mass Index Among Older Bengalee Hindus of Kolkata, India? A Comparison of Three Measures

  • Kaushik Bose


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.


Waist circumference Waist–hip ratio Conicity index Body mass index 



All subjects who participated in this study are gratefully acknowledged.


  1. 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. 2.
    Bose K (1997) Coronary heart disease among migrant South Asians in Britain: an overview. J Ind Anthropol Soc 32:269–275Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bose K, Mascie-Taylor CGN (1997) Interrelationships of age and the body mass index with risk factors of non-insulin dependent diabetes in European and migrant Asian males. Am J Hum Biol 9:291–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bose K, Mascie-Taylor CGN (1998) Conicity index and waist–hip ratio and their relationship with total cholesterol and blood pressure in middle-aged European and migrant Pakistani men. Ann Hum Biol 25:11–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chilima DM, Ismail SJ (1998) Anthropometric characteristics of older people in rural Malawi. Eur J Clin Nutr 52:643–649CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cornier M-A, Tate CW, Grundwald GK, Bessesen DH (2002) Relationship between waist circumference, body mass index, and medical care costs. Obes Res 10:1167–1172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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
  8. 8.
    Derby CA, Zilber S, Brambilla D, Morales KH, McKinlay JB (2006) Body mass index, waist circumference and waist to hip ratio and change in sex steroid hormones: the Massachusetts Male Ageing Study. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf) 65:125–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ghosh A, Bose K, Das Chaudhuri AB (2001) Age and sex variations in adiposity and central fat distribution among elderly Bengalee Hindus of Calcutta, India. Ann Hum Biol 28:616–623CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kopelman PG (2000) Obesity as a medical problem. Nature 404:635–643Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kusumu YS, Babu BV, Naidu JM (2007) Chronic energy deficiency and relationships of body mass index with waist hip ratio and conicity index in some low socio-economic groups from South India. Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis 17:e3–e4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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. 13.
    Lee RD, Nieman DC (2003) Nutritional assessment. McGraw Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lohman TG, Roche AF, Martorell R (eds) (1988) Anthropometric standardization reference manual. Human Kinetics Books, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Misra A, Sharma R, Pandey RM, Khanna N (2001) Adverse profile of dietary nutrients, anthropometry and lipids in urban slum dwellers of northern India. Eur J Clin Nutr 55:727–734CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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. 17.
    Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ (1986) Biometry: the principles and practice of statistics in biological research. WH Freeman, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. 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
  19. 19.
    Ulijaszek SJ, Kerr DA (1999) Anthropometric measurement error and the assessment of nutritional status. Br J Nutr 82:165–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of AnthropologyVidyasagar UniversityMidnaporeIndia

Personalised recommendations