4.6 Article

Associations of self-reported and actigraphy-assessed sleep characteristics with body mass index and waist circumference in adults: moderation by gender

Journal

SLEEP MEDICINE
Volume 15, Issue 1, Pages 64-70

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.sleep.2013.08.784

Keywords

Sleep duration; Actigraphy; Body mass index; Waist circumference; Gender; Women

Funding

  1. NIH/National Cancer Institute [CA150387]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: Self-reported sleep duration has been linked to body mass index (BMI) and waist circumference in previous work; however, data regarding if these associations are stronger in men or women have been mixed, and few studies have objectively measured sleep. We investigated self-reported and actigraphy-assessed sleep characteristics in relation to BMI and waist circumference and examined the extent to which these associations differ by gender. Design: Archived cross-sectional data collected from 2004 to 2006 from the National Survey of Midlife Development in the United States (MIDUS) Biomarkers Study were used. Participants included 1248 adults (43% men) who reported their habitual sleep duration, and a subset of participants (N = 441; 40% men) who underwent seven nights of wrist actigraphy. Results: Self-reported total sleep time (TST), actigraphy-assessed TST, and actigraphy-assessed sleep efficiency (SE) were inversely associated with BMI in the full sample of both men and women. Gender moderated associations between actigraphy assessments of sleep and anthropometric variables; however, TST and SE were related to BMI and waist circumference in women only. Associations between sleep and waist circumference were independent of BMI. Conclusions: Sleep duration and sleep continuity are associated with body weight and distribution of body fat, but these associations were stronger or were only present in women. (C) 2013 Elsevier B. V. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available