OBJECTIVE: To test the hypothesis that for any given body mass index (BMI) category, active individuals would have a smaller waist circumference than inactive individuals. Our second objective was to examine the respective contribution of waist circumference and physical inactivity on coronary heart disease (CHD) risk. DESIGN: Prospective, population-based study with an 11.4-year follow-up. SUBJECTS: A total of 21 729 men and women aged 45-79 years, residing in Norfolk, UK. METHODS: During follow-up, 2191 CHD events were recorded. Physical activity was evaluated using a validated lifestyle questionnaire that takes into account both leisure-time and work-related physical activity. Waist circumference was measured and BMI was calculated for each participant. RESULTS: For both men and women, we observed that within each BMI category (<25.0, 25-30 and >or=30.0 kg m(-2)), active participants had a lower waist circumference than inactive participants (P<0.001). In contrast, within each waist circumference tertile, BMI did not change across physical activity categories (except for women with an elevated waist circumference). Compared with active men with a low waist circumference, inactive men with an elevated waist circumference had a hazard ratio (HR) for future CHD of 1.74 (95% confidence interval (CI), 1.34-2.27) after adjusting for age, smoking, alcohol intake and parental history of CHD. In the same model and after further adjusting for hormone replacement therapy use, compared with active women with a low waist circumference, inactive women with an elevated waist circumference had an HR for future CHD of 4.00 (95% CI, 2.04-7.86). CONCLUSION: In any BMI category, inactive participants were characterized by an increased waist circumference, a marker of abdominal adiposity, compared with active individuals. Physical inactivity and abdominal obesity were both independently associated with an increased risk of future CHD.
OBJECTIVE: To test the hypothesis that for any given body mass index (BMI) category, active individuals would have a smaller waist circumference than inactive individuals. Our second objective was to examine the respective contribution of waist circumference and physical inactivity on coronary heart disease (CHD) risk. DESIGN: Prospective, population-based study with an 11.4-year follow-up. SUBJECTS: A total of 21 729 men and women aged 45-79 years, residing in Norfolk, UK. METHODS: During follow-up, 2191 CHD events were recorded. Physical activity was evaluated using a validated lifestyle questionnaire that takes into account both leisure-time and work-related physical activity. Waist circumference was measured and BMI was calculated for each participant. RESULTS: For both men and women, we observed that within each BMI category (<25.0, 25-30 and >or=30.0 kg m(-2)), active participants had a lower waist circumference than inactive participants (P<0.001). In contrast, within each waist circumference tertile, BMI did not change across physical activity categories (except for women with an elevated waist circumference). Compared with active men with a low waist circumference, inactive men with an elevated waist circumference had a hazard ratio (HR) for future CHD of 1.74 (95% confidence interval (CI), 1.34-2.27) after adjusting for age, smoking, alcohol intake and parental history of CHD. In the same model and after further adjusting for hormone replacement therapy use, compared with active women with a low waist circumference, inactive women with an elevated waist circumference had an HR for future CHD of 4.00 (95% CI, 2.04-7.86). CONCLUSION: In any BMI category, inactive participants were characterized by an increased waist circumference, a marker of abdominal adiposity, compared with active individuals. Physical inactivity and abdominal obesity were both independently associated with an increased risk of future CHD.
Authors: Thomas W Buford; Stephen D Anton; Andrew R Judge; Emanuele Marzetti; Stephanie E Wohlgemuth; Christy S Carter; Christiaan Leeuwenburgh; Marco Pahor; Todd M Manini Journal: Ageing Res Rev Date: 2010-05-14 Impact factor: 10.895
Authors: Jamile Sanches Codogno; Bruna Camilo Turi; Han C G Kemper; Rômulo Araújo Fernandes; Diego G Destro Christofaro; Henrique Luiz Monteiro Journal: Int J Public Health Date: 2015-02-14 Impact factor: 3.380
Authors: Paulina Cruz; Bruce D Johnson; Susan C Karpinski; Katherine A Limoges; Beth A Warren; Kerry D Olsen; Virend K Somers; Michael D Jensen; Matthew M Clark; Francisco Lopez-Jimenez Journal: Obesity (Silver Spring) Date: 2011-05-12 Impact factor: 5.002
Authors: Ja K Gu; Luenda E Charles; Cecil M Burchfiel; Desta Fekedulegn; Khachatur Sarkisian; Michael E Andrew; Claudia Ma; John M Violanti Journal: J Occup Environ Med Date: 2012-11 Impact factor: 2.162
Authors: E Andreou; Pg Hajigeorgiou; K Kyriakou; Th Avraam; G Chappa; P Kallis; Ch Lazarou; Ch Philippou; C Christoforou; R Kokkinofta; C Dioghenous; Sc Savva; A Kafatos; A Zampelas; D Papandreou Journal: Hippokratia Date: 2012-07 Impact factor: 0.471