Skinfolds and coronary heart disease risk factors are more strongly associated with BMI than with the body adiposity index

Abstract

Objective: A recent, cross-sectional analysis of adults found that the hip circumference divided by height 1.5 minus 18 (the body adiposity index, BAI) was strongly correlated (r ¼ 0.79) with percent body fat determined by dual energy X-ray absorptiometry. The BAI was proposed as a more accurate index of body fatness than BMI. We examined whether BAI was more strongly related, than was BMI and waist circumference, to skinfold thicknesses and levels of various risk factors for coronary heart disease. Design and Methods: Cross-sectional analyses of adults (n ¼ 14,263 for skinfold thickness; n=6291 for fasting lipid levels) in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) III, 1988III, -1994.Results: As compared with BMI and waist circumference, we found that BAI was less strongly associated with the skinfold sum and with risk factor levels. For example, correlations with the skinfold sum were r ¼ 0.79 (BMI) vs. r ¼ 0.70 (BAI) among men, and r ¼ 0.86 (BMI) vs. r ¼ 0.79 (BAI) among women; p < 0.001 for the difference between each pair of correlations. An overall index of the 7 risk factors was also more strongly associated with BMI and waist circumference than BAI in analyses stratified by sex, race-ethnicity and age. Multivariable analyses indicated that if BMI was known, BAI provided little additional information on risk factor levels. Conclusions: Based on the observed associations with risk factor levels and skinfold thicknesses, we conclude that BAI is unlikely to be a better index of adiposity than BMI.

Validity of body adiposity index in predicting body fat in Brazilians adults

“…Highest correlation values were observed between BAI and BMI, waist circumference, skinfold thicknesses and DXA in males and BMI, waist circumference, skinfold thicknesses, bioimpedance and DXA in women. These results corroborate studies using bioimpedance (Lopez et al, ), DXA (Freedman et al, ) and skinfold thicknesses (Freedman et al, , ). The strongest correlation was found between the methods of skinfold thicknesses and DXA.…”

“…Among the various anthropometric variables, the measurements of skinfold thicknesses (Freedman et al , Freedman, Ogden, Goodman, & Blanck, ), waist circumference (Bajaj et al, ), the conicity index (Shidfar, Alborzi, Salehi, & Nojomi, ) and body mass index (BMI) (Ranasinghe et al, ) are frequently used to determine body fat in epidemiological studies. Despite their logistic advantages, these techniques also have limitations, such as the inability to differentiate fat from fat‐free mass, a well‐known limitation of BMI (Clarys, Provyn, & Marfell‐Jones, ; Rahman & Berenson, ).…”

Obesity as Assessed by Body Adiposity Index and Multivariable Cardiovascular Disease Risk

“…BAI was also less associated with CHD risk factors, compared to BMI and WC, in another study among adults in the 1988–1994 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES III) [29]. It was observed that BAI provided little additional information on risk factor levels above those provided by BMI [29]. Another cross-sectional study evaluating the predictive ability of BAI, and % body fat and CVD risk factors in a Chinese population found that BAI was not a better indicator of % body fat, hypertension, dyslipidaemia, metabolic syndrome and intima-media thickening of the common carotid arteries, compared to BMI and WC [28].…”

“…In addition, BAI had lower discriminatory capacity in diagnosing metabolic syndrome, compared to BMI [27]. BAI was also less associated with CHD risk factors, compared to BMI and WC, in another study among adults in the 1988–1994 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES III) [29]. It was observed that BAI provided little additional information on risk factor levels above those provided by BMI [29].…”

Relación entre el control autonómico cardíaco e índices antropométricos normales en hombres jóvenes. Tunja, Boyacá, Colombia, 2014

“…No obstante, se ha descrito el papel que tiene el ICC y el IMC como predictores de enfermedad cardíaca y de diabetes . Cheng et al describen que el ICC es mejor predictor de riesgo en hipertensión y diabetes tipo 2 45 ; por otra parte, Friedman et al exponen que el IMC se relaciona mejor con otros factores de riesgo cardiovascular, como dislipidemia 46 ; sin embargo, son los parámetros más usados en la valoración de consulta en un paciente, frente a la distribución de su masa corporal y que según los referentes de la OMS alertan la presencia de sobrepeso o de obesidad en el paciente.…”