A New Weight-for Height Standard based on British Anthropometric Data

Abstract

It was concluded in a previous paper (Billewicz, Kemsley, and Thomson, 1962) that the ratio of observed to standard weight is the simplest and most reliable index of adiposity, provided that the standard is suitably chosen. This ratio has obvious advantages: it is easy to calculate, the values obtained do not depend on the units of measurement, and if the mathematical model presented in the previous paper gives a good approximation to reality the ratio should also yield results which are clinically and statistically consistent. The idea of using the ratio of observed to standard weight as an index to adiposity is, of course, not new. Indices of this type have been used in the past, though lately there has been a tendency to use instead various "formula" indices, notably the "Ponderal Index". We suspect that the reluctance of research workers to use standard weights stems from the difficulty of finding suitable standards and from the idea that the use of standards implies the acceptance of standards as "ideal" or "desirable" weights. In this paper we present British weight-for-height standards, examine the properties of the ratio of observed to standard weight, and consider the applicability of this ratio to a variety of situations.The weight-for-height standard most commonly used in Britain is derived from the actuarial data collected in America towards the end of the 19th century (Medico-Actuarial Investigation, 1912

Peptic ulcer, gastric secretion, and body build

“…The finding that women with gastric ulcer have a smaller surface area and are more linear can be related to their being significantly lighter than the normal women. Their mean index of observed to age-adjusted standard weight (Kemsley, Billewicz, and Thomson, 1962) is 81 % (S.E. 3 7), that is, significantly underweight (P<0 001).…”

The Fibrinolytic Enzyme System in Anorexia Nervosa

“…Height was measured to the nearest 0.25 in (0.6 cm) and weight to the nearest 0.25 b (0.11 kg). The ratio of observed to standard weight was calculated according to the weight-for-height standards of K emsley et al [7]. This ratio was found to correlate closely with relative adiposity as estimated by body-density measure ment.…”

Obesity Indices and Their Interrelationship when Applied to Workers

“…The distributions ofobesity indices shewn in Table l (Kikuchi, 1978 (Matsuki, et aL, 1955 (Minowa & Ogawa, 1985 (Kato & Wataya, 1978 (Billewicz et al, 1962;Khosla & Lowe, 1967;Evans 1969;Florey, l97e;Benn, 1971;Keys et al, 1972;Goldbourt & Medalie, 1974;Haga et al, 1978;Moriyama & Takemoto, 1985 …”

“…Another is the method not specifically employing a standard weight, that is, the fbrm (weight)! (height)P where p is some constant, so called the power-type index (Billewicz et al, 1962;Khosla & Lowe, 1967;Evans, l969;Haga et at,, 1978 Matsuki Minowa1,2,3,4,5,8,9,10 6Matsuki 7Minowa 30-3940-4950-59 10,O0410,1037,269 9,671 9,890 9,499 10,078 6,525 7,264 6,5587,3004,988 6,309 6,493 6,803 7,287 4,380 4,987 3,4382,7992,270 3,3542,6932,135 3,3892,7872,266 i) Total occupation includes field workers, oMce workers and others. 2) The figure indicates the methed given in Table 1.…”