1994
DOI: 10.1080/03014469400003152
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Measures of body mass and of obesity from infancy to adulthood and their appropriate transformation

Abstract: In this paper we investigate first the choice of an appropriate index of body mass. The traditional indices weight/height (W/H), W/H2 and W/H3 are compared, as well as an approach due to Cole (1986) making the index W/Hp age-dependent, i.e. by allowing the power p to depend on age. While there may be no perfect index reflecting over- and underweight--irrespective of height and width--the Quetelet index W/H2 turned out to be a reasonable index from childhood to adulthood. Second, we study the development of the… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

1
19
0

Year Published

1995
1995
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 40 publications
(20 citation statements)
references
References 15 publications
1
19
0
Order By: Relevance
“…It has been shown to be superior to the simpler index WT/height, 19 and is statistically robust because WT is normalised for height by raising height to the power 2 in most age groups. 3,4 In contrast, WT/height remains negatively correlated with height, 19 and is therefore inappropriate. The main limitation of BMI is that is not a direct index of adiposity, and does not reflect individual variability in total or central fatness satisfactorily.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…It has been shown to be superior to the simpler index WT/height, 19 and is statistically robust because WT is normalised for height by raising height to the power 2 in most age groups. 3,4 In contrast, WT/height remains negatively correlated with height, 19 and is therefore inappropriate. The main limitation of BMI is that is not a direct index of adiposity, and does not reflect individual variability in total or central fatness satisfactorily.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…1 In adults, the values 25 and 30 kg/m 2 have been used to categorise overweight and obesity, respectively, 1 while for children, these cutoffs have been extrapolated backwards to younger ages using standard deviation scores. 2 The statistical validity of BMI has been addressed previously, and it has been shown that the index of weight/height 2 satisfactorily adjusts weight for height for the majority of age groups, 3,4 whereas the simpler ratio weight/height fails to do so. Thus, BMI is highly correlated with weight but negligibly correlated with height, such that the index is independent of its denominator.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As in all individuals LMI and FMI must add up to BMI, this can be achieved by including BMI in regression models. BMI is statistically valid, 23 in that it successfully adjusts WT for HT. However, its use as a proxy for fatness is more controversial.…”
Section: C Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…17 In early childhood n is near 2, so the best index is weight/height 2 . 19,20 The value of n increases during childhood and peaks during adolescence, reaching a value of three or so (namely weight/height 3 ), and then drops back to two in adulthood. 18,21 For much of Child and adolescent fatness C Power et al 508 childhood weight/height 2 is uncorrelated with height, but during adolescence it is positively correlated with height.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%