Comparison of Waist Circumference Measured at Six Different Sites in the Adults in Ahvaz City

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Nutrition and Metabolic Diseases Research Center, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran.

2 Master of Science of Nutrition Sciences,Student Research Committee, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran.

3 Student Research Committee, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran.

Abstract

Background and Objective: The measurement of waist circumference (WC) is a simple and cost-effective method for health risk assessment and obesity. Several sites for WC measurements are used. However, there is no previous study to investigate the differences in WC measured at various sites in our country, and there is no universally accepted method of WC measurement. The aim of this study was to compare measured six different sites of WC in adults.
Subjects and Methods: WC was measured at six conventional sites, as follows: the narrowest waist (WC1), below the lowest ribs (WC2), the midpoint between the lowest rib and the iliac crest (WC3), above the iliac crest (WC4), umbilicus (WC5), 1 cm above umbilicus (WC6) in 292 females and 223 males. Differences in WC across sites were tested using repeated measures ANOVA and Bonferroni pairwise comparisons were computed to identify specific difference between paired sites.
Results: The mean values of WCs were WC2 (80.9±10.1) < WC1 (81.0±9.3) < WC6 (83.1±10.3) < WC3 (84.4±9.9) < WC5 (84.8±10.1) < WC4 (85.8±8.8) in males, and WC1 (78.6±10.3) < WC2 (78.0±10.3) < WC3 (82.4±10.9) < WC6 (85.3±11.2) < WC5 (86.8±12.2) < WC4 (87.7±12.3) in females. In females, the mean WC for all sites were significantly different from each other (p<0.001), except for WC1 and WC2. In males, significant differences between all sites were found (P<0.01). Prevalence of abdominal obesity (>80/90 cm) in different WC sites, ranging from 16.6 to 28.7% in males and 43.5 to72.9% in females.
Conclusion: WC values at six sites showed significant difference in both sexes. The estimated abdominal obesity prevalence (>80/90 cm) ranged dramatically according to measurement site.

Keywords

References

1-Pearson TA, Blair SN, Daniels SR, Eckel RH, Fair JM, Fortmann SP, et al. AHA guidelines for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease and stroke: 2002 update consensus panel guide to comprehensive risk reduction for adult patients without coronary or other atherosclerotic vascular diseases. Circulation. 2002;106(3):388-91.
2-Panel NOEIE. Clinical guidelines on the identification, evaluation, and treatment of overweight and obesity in adults. 1998.
3-Lean M, Han TS, Deurenberg P. Predicting body composition by densitometry from simple anthropometric measurements. The American journal of clinical nutrition. 1996;63(1):4-14.
4-Ross R, Berentzen T, Bradshaw AJ, Janssen I, Kahn HS, Katzmarzyk PT, et al. Does the relationship between waist circumference, morbidity and mortality depend on measurement protocol for waist circumference? Obesity reviews. 2008;9(4):312-25.
5-Mason C, Katzmarzyk PT. Variability in waist circumference measurements according to anatomic measurement site. Obesity. 2009;17(9):1789-95.
6-Wang J, Thornton JC, Bari S, Williamson B, Gallagher D, Heymsfield SB, et al. Comparisons of waist circumferences measured at 4 sites. The American journal of clinical nutrition. 2003;77(2):379-84.
7-Agarwal SK, Misra A, Aggarwal P, Bardia A, Goel R, Vikram NK, et al. Waist circumference measurement by site, posture, respiratory phase, and meal time: implications for methodology. Obesity. 2009;17(5):1056-61.
8-Mason C, Katzmarzyk PT. Effect of the site of measurement of waist circumference on the prevalence of the metabolic syndrome. The American journal of cardiology. 2009 Jun 15;103(12):1716-20. PubMed PMID: 19539081. Epub 2009/06/23. Eng.
9-Matsushita Y, Tomita K, Yokoyama T, Mizoue T. Relations between waist circumference at four sites and metabolic risk factors. Obesity. 2010;18(12):2374-8.
10-Yokoyama H, Hirose H, Kanda T, Kawabe H, Saito I. Relationship between waist circumferences measured at the umbilical level and midway between the ribs and iliac crest. Journal of atherosclerosis and thrombosis. 2011;18(9):735-43.
11-Lin C-C, Yu S-C, Wu B-J, Chang D-J. Measurement of waist circumference at different sites affects the detection of abdominal obesity and metabolic syndrome among psychiatric patients. Psychiatry research. 2012;197(3):322-6.
12-Mason C, Katzmarzyk P. Waist circumference thresholds for the prediction of cardiometabolic risk: is measurement site important&quest. European journal of clinical nutrition2010. p. 862-7.
13-Willis LH, Slentz CA, Houmard JA, Johnson JL, Duscha BD, Aiken LB, et al. Minimal versus umbilical waist circumference measures as indicators of cardiovascular disease risk. Obesity. 2007;15(3):753-9.
14-Lohman TG, Roche AF, Martorell R. Anthropometric standardization reference manual: Human Kinetics Books; 1988.
15-Organization WH. Obesity: preventing and managing the global epidemic: World Health Organization; 2000.
16-Grundy SM, Cleeman JI, Daniels SR, Donato KA, Eckel RH, Franklin BA, et al. Diagnosis and management of the metabolic syndrome an American Heart Association/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute scientific statement. Circulation. 2005;112(17):2735-52.
17-Lear SA, Humphries KH, Kohli S, Chockalingam A, Frohlich JJ, Birmingham CL. Visceral adipose tissue accumulation differs according to ethnic background: results of the Multicultural Community Health Assessment Trial (M-CHAT). The American journal of clinical nutrition. 2007;86(2):353-9.
18-Zimmet P, Alberti K, Shaw J. International Diabetes Federation: the IDF consensus worldwide definition of the metabolic syndrome. Diabetes voice. 2005;50:31-3.
 
Jundishapur Scientific Medical Journal
Volume 15, Issue 6 - Serial Number 105
January and February 2017
Pages 685-695

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 04 May 2016
  • Revise Date: 14 December 2016
  • Accept Date: 05 February 2017

Share

How to cite

Statistics