4.5 Article

Comparison of body fatness measurements by BMI and skinfolds vs dual energy X-ray absorptiometry and their relation to cardiovascular risk factors in adolescents

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF OBESITY
Volume 29, Issue 11, Pages 1346-1352

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/sj.ijo.0803026

Keywords

body mass index; skinfolds; dual emission X-ray absorptiometry; cardiovascular risk

Funding

  1. NCRR NIH HHS [M01 RR00400] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NHLBI NIH HHS [HL 04000-04, HL 52851] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

OBJECTIVE: To compare estimates of adiposity by dual emission X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), skinfolds and body mass index (BMI); and to evaluate the relation of these measures to cardiovascular risk in adolescents. DESIGN: In a cohort of adolescents participating in a longitudinal study of insulin resistance, Slaughter formulas were used to estimate adiposity from skinfolds and DXA was used to estimate adiposity as % body fat (%BF) and fat mass (FBM). BMI, blood pressure, lipids and insulin resistance were measured. SUBJECTS: Male and female, 11 - 17 y old (n = 130). MEASUREMENTS: To compare DXA with two office-based methods of assessing fatness and cardiovascular risk. RESULTS: Slaughter estimates were highly correlated with DXA (%BF r = 0.92, P = 0.0001; FBM r = 0.96, P = 0.0001). Correlations were similar in heavy and thin children. BMI was also highly correlated with DXA (%BF r = 0.85, P = 0.0001; FBM r = 0.95, P = 0.0001), and these relations were stronger in heavy than thin children. BMI and the Slaughter formulas were similar to DXA in their relations to cardiovascular risk factors. CONCLUSIONS: Adiposity by BMI and Slaughter formulas are highly correlated with DXA and similarly related to cardiovascular risk factors. BMI is easy to obtain and is an acceptable method for initial office estimation of body fatness. BMI and skinfolds compare well with DXA in predicting adverse cardiovascular risk profile.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available