Performance of body mass index and percentage of body fat in predicting cardiometabolic risk factors in Thai adults

Abstract

BackgroundBody mass index (BMI) and percentage of body fat (PBF) are used to measure obesity; however, their performance in identifying cardiometabolic risk in Southeast Asians is unclear. Generally, Asian women have higher PBF and lower BMI than do men and other ethnic populations. This study was conducted to address whether a discord exists between these measures in predicting obesity-related cardiometabolic risk in a Thai population and to test whether associations between the measures and risk factors for cardiovascular disease have a sex-specific inclination.MethodsA total of 234 (76 men and 158 women) outpatients were recruited. BMI obesity cutoff points were ≥25.0 and ≥27.0 kg/m2 and PBF cutoff points were ≥35.0% and ≥25.0% for women and men, respectively. Blood samples were analyzed for total cholesterol, triglycerides, low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein-cholesterol, lipoprotein subclasses, apolipoprotein A-I, apolipoprotein B, glucose, hemoglobin A1c, insulin, high-sensitive C-reactive protein (hsCRP), adiponectin, leptin, and 25-hydroxyvitamin D.ResultsTwenty-five percent of participants classified as normal-BMI had excessive fat, whereas 9% classified as normal-PBF had excessive BMI. Good relationships were found between BMI and PBF using sex stratification (R2 >0.5). The prevalence of metabolic syndrome was markedly increased in overweight and/or excess body fat groups compared with lean group. Logistic regression analyses showed that BMI was the best predictor of hypertension. BMI was an independent predictor of insulin resistance, hyperglycemia, hypertriglyceridemia, and hyperleptinemia in women, whereas PBF was for men. However, PBF proved to be a good indicator for atherogenic lipoprotein particles in both sexes. Notably, neither index predicted increased hsCRP or 25-hydroxyvitamin D insufficiency.ConclusionConsiderable sex-specific variations were observed between BMI and PBF in their associations with and predictability of numerous cardiometabolic biomarkers. No single measure provides a comprehensive risk predication as shown herein with the Thai population, and therefore both should be applied in screening activities.

<p>Optimal Body Fat Percentage Cut-Off Values in Predicting the Obesity-Related Cardiovascular Risk Factors: A Cross-Sectional Cohort Study</p>

“…18,19,43,44 Despite those widely acknowledged diagnostic doubts, BMI is a commonly accepted measure, extremely simple and convenient to use in clinical practice and research, indicates strong and stable relationships with BF%, and death from all causes. 23,45,46 The use of BMI in combination with other anthropometric measures is recommended as a more effective way of assessing obesity. 47 Frequently, indicators of WC and WHR adipose tissue distribution within the body are recommended with regard to detecting obesity and determining overall health hazard, in view of the strong links between abdominal obesity and CVDs.…”

Agreement and Precision Analyses of Various Estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate Formulae in Cancer Patients

“…The mean serum creatinine (SCr) was 2.5 ± 1.6 mg/dL (95% confidence interval [CI] of 1.48 to 3.29 mg/dL). In addition, the median muscle mass and soft lean mass were 22.5 ± 5.8 and 39.6 ± 8.7 kg, respectively, which was significantly lower than those in normal-weight and lean populations 26 ( p < 0.01).…”

Nutritional status and body composition in individuals with overweight or obesity using usual and unusual indicators

“…The body mass index (BMI) is the most widely used weight status measure in epidemiology, clinical care and clinical nutrition because its simplicity (the calculation includes body weight in kilograms divided by the square of an individual's height in meters (kg / m 2 ) (Vanavanan et al, 2018). However, BMI does not give information about the relative proportions of fat and lean body mass (Merli et al, 2019).…”