OBJECTIVE: To examine the relationship between percentage of total body fat (%Fat) and body mass index (BMI) in early postmenopausal women and to evaluate the validity of the BMI standards for obesity established by the NIH. RESEARCH METHODS AND PROCEDURES: Three hundred seventeen healthy, sedentary, postmenopausal women (ages, 40 to 66 years; BMI, 18 to 35 kg/m(2); 3 to 10 years postmenopausal) participated in the study. Height, weight, BMI, and %Fat, as assessed by DXA, were measured. Receiver operating characteristic analysis was performed to evaluate the ability of BMI to discriminate obesity from non-obesity using 38%Fat as the criterion value. RESULTS: A moderately high relationship was observed between BMI and %Fat (r = 0.81; y = 1.41x + 2.65) with a SE of estimate of 3.9%. Eighty-one percent of other studies examined fell within 1 SE of estimate as derived from our study. Receiver operating characteristic analysis showed that BMI is a good diagnostic test for obesity. The cutoff for BMI corresponding to the criterion value of 38%Fat that maximized the sum of the sensitivity and specificity was 24.9 kg/m(2). The true-positive (sensitivity) and false-positive (1--specificity) rates were 84.4% and 14.6%, respectively. The area under the curve estimate for BMI was 0.914. DISCUSSION: There is a strong association between %Fat and BMI in postmenopausal women. Current NIH BMI-based classifications for obesity may be misleading based on currently proposed %Fat standards. BMI >25 kg/m(2) rather than BMI >30 kg/m(2) may be superior for diagnosing obesity in postmenopausal women.
OBJECTIVE: To examine the relationship between percentage of total body fat (%Fat) and body mass index (BMI) in early postmenopausal women and to evaluate the validity of the BMI standards for obesity established by the NIH. RESEARCH METHODS AND PROCEDURES: Three hundred seventeen healthy, sedentary, postmenopausal women (ages, 40 to 66 years; BMI, 18 to 35 kg/m(2); 3 to 10 years postmenopausal) participated in the study. Height, weight, BMI, and %Fat, as assessed by DXA, were measured. Receiver operating characteristic analysis was performed to evaluate the ability of BMI to discriminate obesity from non-obesity using 38%Fat as the criterion value. RESULTS: A moderately high relationship was observed between BMI and %Fat (r = 0.81; y = 1.41x + 2.65) with a SE of estimate of 3.9%. Eighty-one percent of other studies examined fell within 1 SE of estimate as derived from our study. Receiver operating characteristic analysis showed that BMI is a good diagnostic test for obesity. The cutoff for BMI corresponding to the criterion value of 38%Fat that maximized the sum of the sensitivity and specificity was 24.9 kg/m(2). The true-positive (sensitivity) and false-positive (1--specificity) rates were 84.4% and 14.6%, respectively. The area under the curve estimate for BMI was 0.914. DISCUSSION: There is a strong association between %Fat and BMI in postmenopausal women. Current NIH BMI-based classifications for obesity may be misleading based on currently proposed %Fat standards. BMI >25 kg/m(2) rather than BMI >30 kg/m(2) may be superior for diagnosing obesity in postmenopausal women.
Authors: Kara L Marlatt; Leanne M Redman; Robbie A Beyl; Steve R Smith; Catherine M Champagne; Fanchao Yi; Jennifer C Lovejoy Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2019-10-11 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Cara L Carty; Charles Kooperberg; Marian L Neuhouser; Lesley Tinker; Barbara Howard; Jean Wactawski-Wende; Shirley A A Beresford; Linda Snetselaar; Mara Vitolins; Matthew Allison; Nicole Budrys; Ross Prentice; Ulrike Peters Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2010-12-22 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: A Romero-Corral; V K Somers; J Sierra-Johnson; R J Thomas; M L Collazo-Clavell; J Korinek; T G Allison; J A Batsis; F H Sert-Kuniyoshi; F Lopez-Jimenez Journal: Int J Obes (Lond) Date: 2008-02-19 Impact factor: 5.095
Authors: Antonios Stavropoulos-Kalinoglou; Giorgos S Metsios; Yiannis Koutedakis; Alan M Nevill; Karen M Douglas; Athanasios Jamurtas; Jet J C S Veldhuijzen van Zanten; Mourad Labib; George D Kitas Journal: Ann Rheum Dis Date: 2007-02-08 Impact factor: 19.103