Search

The aim of this study was to determine (i) if adults would measure their own waist circumference (WC), (ii) which WC site(s) are the most intuitive and easy to measure and (iii) if measurement accuracy and association between WC and blood pressure differs across five measurement sites. Participants (n = 198) measured their WC first with no instruction and then using visual instructions for the iliac crest, last rib, midpoint, minimal waist and umbilicus. Without instruction, men most commonly measured their WC at the umbilicus and iliac crest, while women measured their WC at the umbilicus and minimal WC. Both men and women reported the minimal waist and umbilicus to be moderately easier to self-measure compared to the other sites (P < 0.05). Prevalence of abdominal obesity varied significantly by gender and measurement site, especially for females (normal weight: 0-18%; overweight: 51-79%). Measurement site did not influence accuracy of WC self-measurement or the association between WC and blood pressure (P > 0.05). A universal WC landmark is needed. From these results, there does not appear to be a clear clinical advantage in terms of blood pressure or practical advantage of measuring one WC site over another. However, the umbilicus may be the most intuitive and easy to measure., (© 2017 World Obesity Federation.)

Summary: Studies have examined mortality risk for metabolically healthy obesity, defined as zero or one metabolic risk factors but not as zero risk factors. Thus, we sought to determine the independent mortality risk associated with obesity or elevated glucose, blood pressure or lipids in isolation or clustered together. The sample included 54 089 men and women from five cohort studies (follow‐up = 12.8 ± 7.2 years and 4864 [9.0%] deaths). Individuals were categorized as having obesity or elevated glucose, blood pressure or lipids alone or clustered with obesity or another metabolic factor. In our study sample, 6% of individuals presented with obesity but no other metabolic abnormalities. General obesity (hazard ratios [HR], 95% CI = 1.10, 0.8–1.6) and abdominal obesity (HR = 1.24, 0.9–1.7) in the absence of metabolic risk factors were not associated with mortality risk compared to lean individuals. Conversely, diabetes, hypertension and dyslipidaemia in isolation were significantly associated with mortality risk (HR range = 1.17–1.94, P < 0.05). However, when using traditional approaches, obesity (HR = 1.12, 1.02–1.23) is independently associated with mortality risk after statistical adjustment for the other metabolic risk factors. Similarly, metabolically healthy obesity, when defined as zero or one risk factor, is also associated with increased mortality risk (HR = 1.15, 1.01–1.32) as compared to lean healthy individuals. Obesity in the absence of metabolic abnormalities may not be associated with higher risk for all‐cause mortality compared to lean healthy individuals. Conversely, elevation of even a single metabolic risk factor is associated with increased mortality risk. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: Background: Obesity is a heterogeneous condition, which includes a subset of individuals that can be classified as having metabolically healthy obesity (MHO), but there is no consensus on what constitutes MHO. Thus, the objective of the study is to examine the prevalence and predictors of prevalent MHO in adolescents using various definitions of MHO. Methods: Cross‐sectional data from the 1999–2010 National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys were used. Participants included 316 male and 316 female adolescents aged 12–19 years with a BMI ≥ 95th percentile. Two definitions were used to define MHO. First, MHO was defined as having ≤1 metabolic syndrome criteria (excluding waist) and being free of type 2 diabetes, hypertension and dyslipidemia. Second, MHO was defined as being free of all metabolic syndrome criteria, insulin resistance and inflammation. Results: The prevalence of MHO was 42% (male) and 74% (female) using the first definition and 7% (male) and 12% (female) using the second more conservative definition. Lower abdominal obesity (waist circumference) and lower insulin resistance predicted prevalent MHO in male and female adolescents for both definitions (p < 0.01). Associations between dietary components and MHO were weak and inconsistent, while physical activity and inflammation were not associated with MHO in male and female adolescents for both definitions (p > 0.05). Conclusions: The prevalence of MHO in adolescents varied across definitions, with lower levels of abdominal obesity and insulin resistance as the most consistent predictors of prevalent MHO status. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is currently no consensus regarding the optimal protocol for measurement of waist circumference (WC), and no scientific rationale is provided for any of the WC protocols recommended by leading health authorities. A panel of experts conducted a systematic review of 120 studies (236 samples) to determine whether measurement protocol influenced the relationship of WC with morbidity of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and diabetes and with mortality from all causes and from CVD. Statistically significant associations with WC were reported for 65% (152) of the samples across all outcomes combined. Common WC protocols performed measurement at the minimal waist (33%), midpoint (26%) and umbilicus (27%). Non-significant associations were reported for 27% (64) of the samples. Most of these protocols measured WC at the midpoint (36%), umbilicus (28%) or minimal waist (25%). Significant associations were observed for 17 of the remaining 20 samples, but these were not significant when adjustment was made for covariates. For these samples, the most common WC protocols were the midpoint (35%) and umbilicus (30%). Similar patterns of association between the outcomes and all WC protocols were observed across sample size, sex, age, race and ethnicity. Our findings suggest that WC measurement protocol has no substantial influence on the association between WC, all-cause and CVD mortality, CVD and diabetes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]