The relation of CUN-BAE index and BMI with body fat, cardiovascular events and diabetes during a 6-year follow-up: the Hordaland Health Study

Abstract

ObjectiveWe compared Clínica Universidad de Navarra-Body Adiposity Estimator (CUN-BAE) and body mass index (BMI) as correlates of body fat percent (BF%) and the association with future risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and type 2 diabetes in a Caucasian population.MethodsWe used data from 6796 individuals (born 1925–27 and 1950–52) from the Hordaland Health Study, a prospective cohort study in Norway. The study was conducted in 1992–1993 and 1997–1999. Cross-sectional analyses were conducted with data from 1997/99, including BF% measured by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. Longitudinal analyses included BMI and CUN-BAE calculated in 1992/93, and self-reported information on CVD events and diabetes in 1997/99.ResultsThe correlation between CUN-BAE and BF% (r=0.88) was stronger than between BMI and BF% (r=0.56). In sex-stratified analyses, CUN-BAE and BMI correlated similarly with BF% in men (r=0.77 and r=0.76, respectively) and women (r=0.82 and r=0.81, respectively). In longitudinal analyses, the odds ratio (per 1 SD increase) of CVD and type 2 diabetes was higher for BMI (ORCVD =1.23 [95% CI: 1.11–1.36]; ORdiabetes =2.11 [1.82–2.45]) than for CUN-BAE (ORCVD =1.15 [1.04–1.27]; ORdiabetes =2.06 [1.72–2.47]) in the total population. In sex-stratified analyses, CUN-BAE showed higher CVD and diabetes risk than BMI: in men BMI ORCVD =1.22 (1.04–1.44), ORdiabetes =2.13 (1.64–2.83); CUN-BAE ORCVD =1.93 (1.54–2.43), ORdiabetes =4.33 (2.80–6.71); and in women BMI ORCVD =1.22 (1.07–1.39), ORdiabetes =2.11 (1.76–2.53); CUN-BAE ORCVD =2.06 (1.69–2.51), ORdiabetes =5.45 (3.87–7.67).ConclusionCUN-BAE is more strongly associated with future risk of type 2 diabetes and CVD compared with BMI in analysis stratified by sex. As a measure of adiposity in men and women separately, CUN-BAE has no advantage over BMI, except when the value of estimated BF% itself is of interest.

The Relation of CUN-BAE Index with Body Mass Index and Waist Circumference in Adults Aged 50 to 85 Years: The MCC-Spain Study

“…In the current study, the correlation between CUN-BAE and BMI was very low. It was weaker than those observed in other studies in the general population [15][16][17]19,20,27]. The results of this study are original, as well as, CUN-BAE is an indirect index of BF and we do not have a gold standard, which means that a low correlation does not imply that BMI and WC are weaker indicators.…”

“…That BMI and direct measurements of BF% are not strongly correlated has been known for over two decades [25,26]. In the general population, CUN-BAE has shown stronger correlations with direct measures of BF% than other anthropometric measures such as BMI, WC, body adiposity index (BAI), or body shape index (ABSI) [12,17,[19][20][21]. CUN-BAE-based on BMI, sex, and age-has been shown to be an independent measure of BMI [16].…”

“…This is an adiposity estimator based on BMI, sex, and age in Caucasian adults [13,14]. The CUN-BAE index was proposed as a better indicator of BF than BMI or WC in adults to predict cardiovascular disease and other outcomes, as well as, it might be better able to identify metabolically unhealthy individuals [15][16][17][18][19]. Therefore, the Spanish Society for the Study of Obesity (SEEDO) has promoted the use of CUN-BAE in strategies of obesity prevention since 2016 [11]; however, the evidence on the CUN-BAE is not convincing.…”

Dynamics of Anthropometric Indices in a Large Paired Cohort With 10 Years of Follow-Up: Paving the Way to Sarcopenic Obesity

“…Weight (kilograms) at each respective age and height (meters) at baseline were used to calculate anthropometric indices. Normal weight was defined as a BMI between 18.5 and 24.9 kg/m 2 , overweight when BMI was between 25.0 and 30.0 kg/m 2 , and obesity when BMI was higher than 30.0 kg/m 2 (18). Additionally, within the obesity range, a distinction was made between type I (BMI between 30.0 and 34.9 kg/m 2 ), type 2 (BMI between 35.0 and 39.9 kg/m 2 ), and morbid (BMI > 40 kg/m 2 ) obesity.…”

“…, where male = 0 and female = 1 for sex, and age in years (11,18). Finally, to estimate lean body mass the Hume formula was applied: 0.32810 × weight (kg) + 0.33929 × height (cm) -29.5336 (for males), and 0.29569 × weight (kg) + 0.41813 × height (cm) -43.2933 (for females) (12,19).…”