Relationship between adiposity and body size reveals limitations of BMI

Research Institute of Healthcare Sciences, University of Wolverhampton, WS1 3BD Walsall, UK.
American Journal of Physical Anthropology (Impact Factor: 2.51). 01/2006; 129(1):151-6. DOI: 10.1002/ajpa.20262
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The aims of this study were to assess 1) whether the stature-adjusted body mass index (BMI) is a valid proxy for adiposity across both athletic and nonathletic populations, and 2) whether skinfold measurements increase in proportion to body size, thus obeying the principle of geometric similarity. The research design was cross-sectional, allowing the relationship between skinfold calliper readings (at eight sites and between specific athletic and nonathletic groups, n = 478) and body size (either mass, stature, or both) to be explored both collectively, using proportional allometric MANCOVA, and individually (for each site) with follow-up ANCOVAs. Skinfolds increase at a much greater rate relative to body mass than that assumed by geometric similarity, but taller subjects had less rather than more adiposity, calling into question the use of the traditional skinfold-stature adjustment, 170.18/stature. The best body-size index reflective of skinfold measurements was a stature-adjusted body mass index similar to the BMI. However, sporting differences in skinfold thickness persisted, having controlled for differences in body size (approximate BMI) and age, with male strength- and speed-trained athletes having significantly lower skinfolds (32% and 23%, respectively) compared with controls. Similarly, female strength athletes had 29% lower skinfold measurements compared to controls, having controlled for body size and age. These results cast serious doubts on the validity of BMI to represent adiposity accurately and its ability to differentiate between populations. These findings suggest a more valid (less biased) assessment of fatness will be obtained using surface anthropometry such as skinfolds taken by experienced practitioners following established procedures.


Available from: Alan Michael Nevill, Dec 15, 2013
1 Follower
  • Source
    01/2013; XXII(5-6). DOI:10.2478/ssr-2013-0017
  • American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 11/2010; 92(6):1534-1535. DOI:10.3945/ajcn.110.002345 · 6.92 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: Increasing obesity among adolescents in the industrialized world may result from poor nutritional habits and inadequate exercise. Aim: To determine differences in food intake, nutritional habits, and body mass index between Spanish adolescents who engage in ski activity and those who do not. Methods: A socio-demographic survey, food frequency questionnaire, 24-hr dietary recall, and physical activity questionnaire were completed by 300 Spanish schoolchildren aged 10 to 18 yrs. Results were compared (Student's t, chi-square and Fisher's exact test) between adolescents engaged (SP) and not engaged (N-SP) in skiing according to their sex. Results: SP adolescents devoted > 4 h/day to physical activity versus < 1 h for N-SP adolescents. No significant differences were found in nutrient intake or nutritional habits between SP and N-SP adolescents. Protein and fat intakes of both groups were above recommended levels. A higher proportion of N-SP than SP males were overweight. Logistic regression analysis showed that the maintenance of a normal weight was favored by the practice of skiing, the consumption of sugar-free drinks, and supplementation with vitamins/mineral salts and was negatively associated with body weight dissatisfaction, intake of nutritional supplements other than vitamins or minerals, and the consumption of snacks. Conclusions: The diet of this adolescent population was poorly balanced. Engagement in physical activity appears to be a key factor in maintaining a healthy body mass index. Copyright AULA MEDICA EDICIONES 2014. Published by AULA MEDICA. All rights reserved.
    Nutricion hospitalaria: organo oficial de la Sociedad Espanola de Nutricion Parenteral y Enteral 01/2015; 31(2):936-943. DOI:10.3305/nh.2015.31.2.8267 · 1.25 Impact Factor