ObjectiveWhether the increase in prescription medication use over time differs by age and obesity status is unclear.MethodNational Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) between 1988 and 2012 was analyzed (n = 57,543).FindingsIncreased medication use over time was seen in older individuals of all body mass index (BMI) classes, with the most prominent increase in those with obesity (p<0.001). For example, older men (≥65y) with obesity took 3.1 more medications between 1988 and 2012 versus 1.5 for normal weight older men. There were minimal differences in medication use over time in younger individuals. In men, the odds of taking antihypertensives, lipid-lowering medication, antidiabetics, and antidepressants increased with age, time and BMI wherein the association between age and medication use was magnified over time (age*time, p<0.05). In women, older women with overweight or obesity had a greater increase in the likelihood of antihypertensives and antidiabetics medication over time (BMI*time, p>0.05).ConclusionOlder individuals of all BMI classes may be driving the increase in medication use over time. However, the rise in the likelihood of taking cardiometabolic medications over time was generally not different between those with or without obesity in men with some increases seen in older women. Further research may be required to assess accessibility and barriers to medication use among certain demographics.

Our findings suggest that there is no effect of cycling on PSA; however, the limited number of trials and the absence of randomized controlled trials limit the interpretation of our results. Additionally, the median sample size only consisted of 42 subjects. Therefore, our study may have low statistical power to detect a difference in PSA. Although, a higher sample size may demonstrate statistical significance, it may not be clinically significant. Studies of higher empirical quality are needed.

What is already known about this subject• Waist circumference (WC) is now widely acknowledged as a simple and reliable measure of abdominal obesity and predictor of metabolic health risk.• There is no universal standard protocol for measuring WC.• There may be differences in how WC measured at different sites relate to health risk. What this study adds• All five WC measurement sites are reasonable to recommend as we did not observe large differences in measurement error or associations with blood pressure for one WC site over another.• The commonly recommended iliac crest measurement site may be a bit more challenging for participants to self-measure. SummaryThe aim of this study was to determine (i) if adults would measure their own waist circumference (WC), (ii) which WC site(s) are the most intuitive and easy to measure and (iii) if measurement accuracy and association between WC and blood pressure differs across five measurement sites. Participants (n = 198) measured their WC first with no instruction and then using visual instructions for the iliac crest, last rib, midpoint, minimal waist and umbilicus. Without instruction, men most commonly measured their WC at the umbilicus and iliac crest, while women measured their WC at the umbilicus and minimal WC. Both men and women reported the minimal waist and umbilicus to be moderately easier to self-measure compared to the other sites (P < 0.05). Prevalence of abdominal obesity varied significantly by gender and measurement site, especially for females (normal weight: 0-18%; overweight: 51-79%). Measurement site did not influence accuracy of WC self-measurement or the association between WC and blood pressure (P > 0.05). A universal WC landmark is needed. From these results, there does not appear to be a clear clinical advantage in terms of blood pressure or practical advantage of measuring one WC site over another. However, the umbilicus may be the most intuitive and easy to measure.

Objective It is unclear to what degree acutely violating bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) measurement assumptions will alter the predicted percent fat mass (%FM) and whether this differs by sex or body mass index (BMI). Methods %FM was assessed under control, dehydration, exercise, water, food intake and non-voided bladder conditions with three BIA devices (Tanita: BC-418, TBF-314, & Omron HBF-306CN) for men (n = 23, age: 24.0 ± 5.2 years old) and women (n = 17, age: 22.5 ± 3.4 years old) separately. Results For all BIA devices, there were no differences in the %FM values between the control and the other conditions in men or women (− 1.9 to 0.4%, p > 0.05). Across the three devices and five conditions, 97% of %FM tests returned values within 5% of control (2 tests), and 86% of tests were within 2% of control despite violating an assumption. The errors were greatest with dehydration and women were more likely to have a %FM difference greater than 2% than men with dehydration using the hand-to-foot device (Tanita TBF-314: 59% versus 9%). There were no differences in %FM between control and the conditions when examined by BMI (overweight/obesity: − 2.8 to 0.1% and normal weight: − 1.7 to 0.5%; BMI*trial, p = 0.99). Conclusion %FM estimates were similar despite acutely violating the preliminary measurement BIA assumptions across a range of different BMIs. The minor variations in %FM are smaller than what would be expected with day-to-day variability or weight loss intervention but may be larger in women than men.