4.6 Article

Child-to-Adult Body Mass Index and Height Trajectories: A Comparison of 2 British Birth Cohorts

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 168, 期 9, 页码 1008-1015

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwn227

关键词

birth weight; body height; body mass index; cohort studies; growth

资金

  1. The Medical Research Council [G0000934]
  2. Great Ormond Street Hospital/University College London Institute of Child Health
  3. Department of Health's National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centres
  4. Medical Research Council [MC_U120063239, G0000934, G0601941] Funding Source: researchfish
  5. MRC [MC_U120063239, G0000934, G0601941] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Markers of growth and changes of body mass index (BMI) are associated with adult chronic disease risk. To better understand such associations, the authors examined the 1946 (n approximate to 5,300) and 1958 (n approximate to 17,000) British birth cohorts to establish how child-to-adult height and BMI have changed across generations. Individuals born in 1958 were no heavier at birth than those born in 1946, but they were taller in childhood by about 1 cm on average, grew faster thereafter, and were 3-4 cm taller by adolescence. The 1958 cohort achieved adult height earlier and were taller by 1 cm, an increase that was entirely due to their longer leg length. BMI trajectories diverged from early adulthood, with a faster rate of BMI gain in the 1958 cohort than in the 1946 cohort, although the mean BMI at 7 years and rate of childhood gain had not shown an increase. By midadulthood, the 1958 cohort had on average a greater BMI (1-2 kg/m(2)), larger waist (6-7 cm) and hip (5 cm) circumferences, and a higher prevalence of obesity (25.1% vs. 10.8% in males and 23.7% vs. 14.8% in females). Changes in height and adiposity over a relatively short period of 12 years suggest the likelihood of opposing trends of influences on later disease risk in these populations.

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

4.6
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