4.7 Article

Racial/ethnic differences in body fatness among children and adolescents

Journal

OBESITY
Volume 16, Issue 5, Pages 1105-1111

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1038/oby.2008.30

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NIDDK NIH HHS [DK 37352] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Although the BMI is widely used as a measure of adiposity, it is a measure of excess weight, and its association with body fatness may differ across racial or ethnic groups. Objective: To determine whether differences in body fatness between white, black, Hispanic, and Asian children vary by BMI-for-age, and whether the accuracy of overweight (BMI-for-age >= Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) 95th percentile) as an indicator of excess adiposity varies by race/ethnicity. Methods and Procedures: Total body dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) provided estimates of %body fat among 1,104 healthy 5-to 18-year-olds. Results: At equivalent levels of BMI-for-age, black children had less (mean, 3%) body fatness than white children, and Asian girls had slightly higher (1%) levels of % body fat than white girls. These differences, however, varied by BMI-for-age, with the excess body fatness of Asians evident only among relatively thin children. The ability of overweight to identify girls with excess body fatness also varied by race/ethnicity. Of the girls with excess body fatness, 89% (24/27) of black girls, but only 50% (8/16) of Asian girls, were overweight (P = 0.03). Furthermore, the proportion of overweight girls who had excess body fatness varied from 62% (8/13) among Asians to 100% (13/13) among whites. Discussion: There are racial or ethnic differences in body fatness among children, but these differences vary by BMI-for-age. If race/ethnicity differences in body fatness among adults also vary by BMI, it may be difficult to develop race-specific BMI cut points to identify equivalent levels of % body fat.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available