OBJECTIVE: This study investigates differences in overweight and body fat distribution between Turkish and Moroccan migrants and the ethnic Dutch population, and the contribution of socio-economic status to their higher obesity prevalence. METHODS: Data were collected as part of a general health survey, in Amsterdam, the Netherlands (2004). From 1,285 adults information on physical and psychological health, lifestyle and demographic background was obtained through health interviews. In a physical examination body height and weight as well as waist and hip circumference were measured. RESULTS: Overweight was more common among Turkish migrants and Moroccan migrant women as compared to their Dutch counterparts. Obesity prevalence rates were more than twice as high among Turkish (39.6%) and Moroccan (39.1%) women than among Dutch women (16.5%). Controlling for level of education and unemployment attenuated ethnic differences in overweight. Abdominal obesity was more common among Turkish and Moroccan than among Dutch women. After controlling for BMI, migrant men had a relatively low waist circumference compared to Dutch men. CONCLUSION: Overweight is relatively common among Turkish and Moroccan migrants, especially women. Education and employment are relevant in explaining ethnic differences in overweight. Compared to Dutch men, migrant men seem to have a more favourable fat distribution with less abdominal fat.
OBJECTIVE: This study investigates differences in overweight and body fat distribution between Turkish and Moroccan migrants and the ethnic Dutch population, and the contribution of socio-economic status to their higher obesity prevalence. METHODS: Data were collected as part of a general health survey, in Amsterdam, the Netherlands (2004). From 1,285 adults information on physical and psychological health, lifestyle and demographic background was obtained through health interviews. In a physical examination body height and weight as well as waist and hip circumference were measured. RESULTS: Overweight was more common among Turkish migrants and Moroccan migrant women as compared to their Dutch counterparts. Obesity prevalence rates were more than twice as high among Turkish (39.6%) and Moroccan (39.1%) women than among Dutch women (16.5%). Controlling for level of education and unemployment attenuated ethnic differences in overweight. Abdominal obesity was more common among Turkish and Moroccan than among Dutch women. After controlling for BMI, migrant men had a relatively low waist circumference compared to Dutch men. CONCLUSION: Overweight is relatively common among Turkish and Moroccan migrants, especially women. Education and employment are relevant in explaining ethnic differences in overweight. Compared to Dutch men, migrant men seem to have a more favourable fat distribution with less abdominal fat.
Authors: J Fernandes de Souza Barbosa; C Dos Santos Gomes; J Vilton Costa; T Ahmed; M V Zunzunegui; C-L Curcio; F Gomez; R Oliveira Guerra Journal: J Nutr Health Aging Date: 2018 Impact factor: 4.075
Authors: Philippe Gautret; Marie Bauge; Fabrice Simon; Samir Benkouiten; René Valéro; Philippe Parola; Philippe Brouqui Journal: J Immigr Minor Health Date: 2013-02
Authors: Henriëtte Dijkshoorn; Joanne K Ujcic-Voortman; Lucie Viet; Arnoud P Verhoeff; Daan G Uitenbroek Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2011-05-30 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Agnes C Schrier; Joanne K Ujcic-Voortman; Matty A S de Wit; Arnoud P Verhoeff; Ralph Kupka; Jack Dekker; Aartjan T F Beekman Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2012-12-18 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Marieke LA de Hoog; Manon van Eijsden; Karien Stronks; Reinoud J B J Gemke; Tanja G M Vrijkotte Journal: Cardiovasc Diabetol Date: 2012-11-05 Impact factor: 9.951
Authors: Christine Sommer; Line Sletner; Anne K Jenum; Kjersti Mørkrid; Lene F Andersen; Kåre I Birkeland; Annhild Mosdøl Journal: Food Nutr Res Date: 2013-07-08 Impact factor: 3.894
Authors: L P Santos; K K Ong; F Day; J C K Wells; A Matijasevich; I S Santos; C G Victora; A J D Barros Journal: Int J Obes (Lond) Date: 2016-02-16 Impact factor: 5.095