Abdominal Circumference Is Superior to Body Mass Index in Estimating Musculoskeletal Injury Risk

Nye, Nathaniel S.; Carnahan, David Hobart; Jackson, Jonathan; Covey, Carlton J.; Zarzabal, Lee Ann; Chao, Susan Y.; Bockhorst, Archie D.; Crawford, Paul

doi:10.1249/mss.0000000000000329

Cited by 22 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…When fat accumulates in the abdominal region, it can be stored in the visceral region or the subcutaneous region. In addition to increased injury risk (15,16), VAT is an independent risk factor for cardiovascular disease and insulin resistance (3,4,9,11,17,21). In this population, this accumulation occurred at different thresholds, suggesting that excess fat will be preferentially distributed to the SAAT region before VAT region.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Abdominal Body Composition Differences in NFL Football Players

Bosch

Burruss

Weir

et al. 2014

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this study was to examine visceral fat mass as well as other measures abdominal body composition in National Football League (NFL) players before the start of the season. Three hundred and seventy NFL football players were measured before the start of the season using dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry. Regional fat and lean mass was measured for each player. Players were categorized into 3 groups based on positions that mirror each other: linemen; linebackers/tight ends/running backs and wide receivers/defensive backs. Significant differences were observed between the position groups for both lean and fat regional measurements. However, the magnitude of difference was much greater for fat measures than lean measures. Additionally, a threshold was observed (∼114 kg) at which there is a greater increase in fat accumulation than lean mass accumulation. The increase in fat accumulation is distributed to the abdominal region where thresholds were observed for subcutaneous abdominal fat accumulation (12.1% body fat) and visceral abdominal fat accumulation (20.1% body fat), which likely explains the regional fat differences between groups. The results of this study suggest that as players get larger, there is more total fat than total lean mass accumulation and more fat is distributed to the abdominal region. This is of importance as increased fat mass may be detrimental to performance at certain positions. The thresholds observed for increased abdominal fat accumulation should be monitored closely given recent research observed that abdominal obesity predicts lower extremity injury risk and visceral adipose tissue's established association with cardiometabolic risk.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Abdominal Body Composition Differences in NFL Football Players

Bosch

Burruss

Weir

et al. 2014

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, often it is argued that an injury-free fitness program is, by definition, an ineffective fitness program. Among all injuries incurred by military personnel, the largest proportion (ranging from 32%–63%) are associated with engaging PT and sports, and substandard fitness and body composition are consistent PT injury predictors 24–27 . Previous reviews have examined injury incidence proportions attributable to PT in the military, with incidence proportions ranging from 16.3%–61.7% for women and 7.5%–50.7% for men in a variety of training contexts such as basic training, infantry, special warfare, and officer candidate schools 23 .…”

Section: Injury Risk In the Military And Association With Hift-rmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…The second paper cited (reference 27) is a story in the Air Force Times magazine 31 that discusses the conference about ECPs upon which the Bergeron paper 19 was based, and that anecdotal reports of injury were why the conference was convened. The Air Force Times article quotes one of the other Bergeron 19 paper’s authors (Dr. Francis O’Connor) as saying “the reason we are here is because of all of the anecdotal reports of injuries.” 31 However, anecdotal cases are inferior to systematic evaluations of injury risk with respect to more accurately characterizing the injury potential for sports and fitness activities.…”

Section: Injury Risk In the Military And Association With Hift-rmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is High-Intensity Functional Training (HIFT)/CrossFit Safe for Military Fitness Training?

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

High-intensity functional training (HIFT) is a promising fitness paradigm that gained popularity among military populations. Rather than biasing workouts toward maximizing fitness domains such as aerobic endurance, HIFT workouts are designed to promote general physical preparedness. HIFT programs have proliferated due to concerns about the relevance of traditional physical training (PT), which historically focused on aerobic condition via running. Other concerns about traditional PT include: 1) the relevance of service fitness tests given current combat demands; 2) the perception that military PT is geared toward passing service fitness tests; and 3) that training for combat requires more than just aerobic endurance. Despite its’ popularity in the military, concerns have been raised about HIFT’s injury potential, leading to some approaches being labeled as “extreme conditioning programs” by several military and civilian experts. Given HIFT programs’ popularity in the military and concerns about injury, a review of data on HIFT injury potential is needed to inform military policy. The purpose of this review is to: 1) provide an overview of scientific methods used to appropriately compare injury rates among fitness activities; and 2) evaluate scientific data regarding HIFT injury risk compared to traditional military PT and other accepted fitness activities

show abstract

“…Furthermore, BMI, which was used as a measure of obesity in this study, may not be an accurate representation of obesity since it cannot distinguish between fat and lean mass. Nye et al (2014) suggested that waist circumference is a better measure than BMI for estimating musculoskeletal injury risk. The NHIS, unfortunately, has not collected waist circumference.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This study focused on the prevalence of injury characteristics and the relationship between BMI and injuries, but not by specific occupational groups. The prevalence of obesity is different by occupation and gender (Nye et al, 2014; Schulz & Sherwood, 2008), and each occupational group is likely to have different characteristics of injury. It would be worthwhile to investigate the prevalence of injuries by occupational group and gender.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prevalence of work-site injuries and relationship between obesity and injury among U.S. workers: NHIS 2004–2012

Charles

Andrew

et al. 2016

Journal of Safety Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction Studies have reported associations between obesity and injury in a single occupation or industry. Our study estimated the prevalence of work-site injuries and investigated the association between obesity and work-site injury in a nationally representative sample of U.S. workers. Methods Self-reported weight, height, and injuries within the previous three months were collected annually for U.S. workers in the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) from 2004–2012. Participants were categorized as normal weight (BMI: 18.5–24.9 kg/m2), overweight (BMI: 25.0–29.9), obese I (BMI: 30.0–34.9), and obese II (BMI: 35+). The prevalence of injury and prevalence ratios from fitted logistic regression models was used to assess relationships between obesity and injury after adjusting for covariates. Sampling weights were incorporated using SUDAAN software. Results During the 9-year study period from 2004 to 2012, 1120 workers (78 workers per 10,000) experienced a work-related injury during the previous three months. The anatomical sites with the highest prevalence of injury were the back (14.3/10,000 ± 1.2), fingers (11.5 ± 1.3), and knees (7.1 ± 0.8). The most common types of injuries were sprains/strains/twists (41.5% of all injuries), cuts (20.0%), and fractures (11.8%). Compared to normal weight workers, overweight and obese workers were more likely to experience work-site injuries [overweight: PR = 1.25 (95% CI = 1.04–1.52); obese I: 1.41 (1.14–1.74); obese II: 1.68 (1.32–2.14)]. These injuries were more likely to affect the lower extremities [overweight: PR = 1.48, (95% CI = 1.03–2.13); obese I: 1.70 (1.13–2.55); obese II: 2.91 (1.91–4.41)] and were more likely to be due to sprains/strains/twists [overweight: PR = 1.73 (95% CI=1.29–2.31); obese I: PR = 2.24 (1.64–3.06); obese II: PR = 2.95 (2.04–4.26)]. Conclusions Among NHIS participants, overweight and obese workers were 25% to 68% more likely to experience injuries than normal weight workers. Practical applications Weight reduction policies and management programs may be effectively targeted towards overweight and obese groups to prevent or reduce work-site injuries.

show abstract

Abdominal Circumference Is Superior to Body Mass Index in Estimating Musculoskeletal Injury Risk

Cited by 22 publications

References 36 publications

Abdominal Body Composition Differences in NFL Football Players

Abdominal Body Composition Differences in NFL Football Players

Is High-Intensity Functional Training (HIFT)/CrossFit Safe for Military Fitness Training?

Prevalence of work-site injuries and relationship between obesity and injury among U.S. workers: NHIS 2004–2012

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About