4.4 Article

Ethnic-Specific Criteria for Classification of Body Mass Index: A Perspective for Asian Indians and American Diabetes Association Position Statement

期刊

DIABETES TECHNOLOGY & THERAPEUTICS
卷 17, 期 9, 页码 667-671

出版社

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/dia.2015.0007

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Definitions for overweight and obesity are universally applied using body mass index (BMI), based on morbidity and mortality data derived from white populations. However, several studies have shown higher body fat, excess metabolic perturbations, and cardiovascular risk factors at lower value of BMI in Asian versus white populations. Definitive guidelines have been published to classify a BMI of >= 23 kg/m(2) and >= 25 kg/m(2) as overweight and obese, respectively, by the Indian Consensus Group (for Asian Indians residing in India) and a BMI of >= 23 kg/m(2) for screening for diabetes by the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence of the United Kingdom (for migrant south Asians) and, in an encouraging initiative recently (2015), by the American Diabetes Association (for all Asian ethnic groups in the United States). Overall, multiple studies, and now several guidelines, emphasize early intervention with diet and physical activity in Asian ethnic groups for prevention and management of obesity-related noncommunicable diseases. By application of these guidelines, an additional 10-15% of the population in India would be labeled as overweight/obese, and more South Asians/Asians will be diagnosed with diabetes in the United Kingdom and the United States. Additional health resources need to be allocated to deal with increasing numbers of Asians with obesity-related noncommunicable diseases, and research is needed to evolve cost-effective interventions. Finally, consensus based on data is needed so that the World Health Organization and other international agencies could take definitive steps for revision of classification of BMI for Asian populations globally.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据