Anthropometry and body composition of south Indian babies at birth

Abstract

Objectives: To assess the consequences on body composition of increasing birth weight in Indian babies in relation to reported values in Western babies, and to assess the relationship between maternal and neonatal anthropometry and body composition. Design: Prospective observational study. Setting: Bangalore City, India. Subjects: A total of 712 women were recruited at 12.5^3.1 weeks of gestation (mean^standard deviation, SD) and followed up until delivery; 14.5% were lost to follow-up. Maternal body weight, height, mid upper-arm circumference and skinfold thicknesses were measured at recruitment. Weight and body composition of the baby (skinfold thicknesses, mid upper-arm circumference, derived arm fat index and arm muscle index; AFI and AMI, respectively) were measured at birth in hospital. Results: The mean^SD birth weight of all newborns was 2.80^0.44 kg. Birth weight was significantly related to the triceps and subscapular skinfold thickness of the baby. In a small number of babies with large birth weight for gestational age, there was a relatively higher normalised AFI relative to AMI than for babies with lower or appropriate birth weight for gestational age. Maternal height and fat-free mass were significantly associated with the baby's length at birth. Conclusions: Skinfold thicknesses in Indian babies were similar to those reported in a Western population with comparable birth weights, and the relationship of AFI to birth weight appeared to be steeper in Indian babies. Thus, measures to increase birth weight in Indian babies should take into account possible adverse consequences on body composition. There were no significant relationships between maternal anthropometry and body composition at birth on multivariate analysis, except for sum of the baby's skinfold thicknesses and maternal fat-free mass (P , 0.02).

Early growth and markers of cardiovascular risk in Keralan children in the Integrated Child Development Scheme

“…Put another way, the trajectory of a lower-birth-weight baby would be towards a lower BMI and more adverse, centrally adipose phenotype at 8 years of age, a finding comparable to those from other studies (12)(13)(14)(15)(16)(17) .…”

“…Rapid infant growth appeared protective, but rapid later childhood growth (between 6 and 8 years of age) weakly predicted adverse WHR and systolic blood pressure. These trajectories have been identified in other studies (12)(13)(14)(15)(16)(17)(18)(19)(20) . Those in the lowest birth weight tertile remained at higher risk of a high WHR but this was attenuated by faster overall growth.…”

Relationships between Neonatal Weight, Limb Lengths, Skinfold Thicknesses, Body Breadths and Circumferences in an Australian Cohort

“…One often-cited study reported that total fat mass of neonates explained 46% of the variance in birth weight even though adipose comprises only around 12% of total birth weight [10], but whether heavier babies are also proportionally fatter remains unclear. Relative fatness, rather than absolute fat mass, is likely to be a stronger influence on later disease risk and be a more relevant indicator of neonatal nutritional status [11]–[15]. Understanding the relationship between birth weight and a wider range of neonatal anthropometric characteristics, including limb and trunk lengths, skinfolds, body breadths and circumferences, may offer novel insight into variation in the proportionality of prenatal growth across the birth weight spectrum and into prenatal growth trade-offs in the context of environmental adaptation or accommodation.…”

Body Composition of Women with Newborns Who Are Small for Gestational Age

“…However, the 10th percentile has been more frequently used as a cut-off point for identification of SGA newborns [6][7][8][9] . Similarly, newborns with a birth weight equal to or greater than the 90th percentile are considered large for gestational age (LGA) [6] or well above 2 standard deviations of the reference population. Being heavy for gestational age is related to a greater risk for type I diabetes [10] and possibly also obesity [11] .…”

“…Few studies have evaluated BC of women whose newborns are SGA. Muthayya et al [6] determined that maternal fat-free mass is closely related to BC of the newborn. However, they did not explain how the compartment of fat-free mass was altered in these women.…”