| Literature DB >> 31902380 |
Harris Ramuth1,2, Sadhna Hunma1, Vinaysing Ramessur1,2, Magalutcheemee Ramuth1, Cathriona Monnard2, Jean-Pierre Montani2, Yves Schutz2, Noorjehan Joonas1, Abdul G Dulloo2.
Abstract
It is increasingly recognised that the use of BMI cut-off points for diagnosing obesity (OB) and proxy measures for body fatness in a given population needs to take into account the potential impact of ethnicity on the BMI-fat % relationship in order to avoid adiposity status misclassification. This relationship was studied here in 377 Mauritian schoolchildren (200 boys and 177 girls, aged 7-13 years) belonging to the two main ethnic groups: Indian (South Asian descent) and Creole (African/Malagasy descent), with body composition assessed using an isotopic 2H dilution technique as reference. The results indicate that for the same BMI, Indians have more body fat (and less lean mass) than Creoles among both boys and girls: linear regression analysis revealed significantly higher body fat % by 4-5 units (P < 0·001) in Indians than in Creoles across a wide range of BMI (11·6-34·2 kg/m2) and body fat % (5-52 %). By applying Deurenberg's Caucasian-based equation to predict body fat % from WHO-defined BMI thresholds for overweight (OW) and OB, and by recalculating the equivalent BMI values using a Mauritian-specific equation, it is shown that the WHO BMI cut-offs for OB and OW would need to be lowered by 4·6-5·9 units in Indian and 2·0-3·7 units in Creole children in the 7-13-year-old age group. These results have major implications for ethnic-based population research towards improving the early diagnosis of excess adiposity in this multi-ethnic population known to be at high risk for later development of type 2 diabetes and CVD.Entities:
Keywords: Adiposity; African children; Asian children; Ethnicity
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 31902380 PMCID: PMC7525118 DOI: 10.1017/S0007114519003404
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Br J Nutr ISSN: 0007-1145 Impact factor: 3.718
Population sample physical characteristics according to sex and ethnicity†
(Mean values and standard deviations)
| All | Boys | Girls | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Boys ( | Girls ( | Indian ( | Creole ( | Indian ( | Creole ( | |||||||
| Mean | Mean | Mean | Mean | Mean | Mean | |||||||
| Age (years) | 9·9 | 1·1 | 9·7 | 1·0 | 9·9 | 1·1 | 9·8 | 1·2 | 9·7 | 0·9 | 9·8 | 1·0 |
| Height (m) | 1·39 | 0·09 | 1·39 | 0·09 | 1·40 | 0·10 | 1·37** | 0·08 | 1·39 | 0·09 | 1·40 | 0·09 |
| Height-for-age ( | 0·26 | 1·24 | 0·33 | 1·2 | 0·46 | 1·25 | −0·01** | 1·18 | 0·32 | 1·21 | 0·36 | 1·11 |
| Weight (kg) | 35·7 | 13·1 | 35·4 | 11·8 | 38·2 | 14·3 | 32·4** | 10·6 | 34·2 | 11·3 | 37·8* | 12·5 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 18·1 | 4·6 | 18·0 | 4·4 | 18·8 | 4·9 | 17·0* | 3·9 | 17·5 | 4·2 | 18·9* | 4·5 |
| BMI-for-age ( | 0·22 | 1·90 | 0·20 | 1·62 | 0·50 | 2·0 | −0·16* | 1·78 | 0·024 | 1·66 | 0·58* | 1·50 |
Mean values were significantly different between the two ethnic groups: * P < 0·05, ** P < 0·01.
All comparisons were adjusted for age except for the comparison of age.
Proportion (%) of children who are underweight (UW), overweight and obese (OW+OB) or obese only (OB) using BMI-for-age z-score cut-offs of <−2sd for UW, >+1sd for OW+OB and >+2sd for OB*
(Percentages and 95 % confidence intervals)
| Population | All | Boys | Girls | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sample ( | Boys ( | Girls ( | Indian ( | Creole ( | Indian ( | Creole ( | ||||||||
| % | 95 % CI | % | 95 % CI | % | 95 % CI | % | 95 % CI | % | 95 % CI | % | 95 % CI | % | 95 % CI | |
| UW | 11·7 | 8·5, 15·0 | 13·5 | 8·5, 18·5 | 9·6 | 5·0, 14·2 | 11·3 | 5·1, 17·5 | 16·5 | 8·0, 24·9 | 13·4 | 6·9, 20·0 | 1·7 | 0·1, 5·9 |
| OW+OB | 34·5 | 29·6, 39·0 | 37·5 | 30·5, 44·5 | 31·1 | 24·0, 38·2 | 46·1 | 36·5, 55·6 | 25·9 | 16·0, 35·8 | 28·6 | 20·0, 37·1 | 36·2 | 23·0, 49·4 |
| OB | 18·8 | 14·8, 22·9 | 21·0 | 15·1, 26·9 | 16·9 | 10·6, 22·1 | 27·8 | 19·2, 36·5 | 11·8 | 4·3, 19·2 | 14·3 | 6·9, 20·0 | 22·4 | 10·8, 34·0 |
| OW | 15·7 | 12·0, 19·3 | 17·5 | 12·2, 22·8 | 14·7 | 9·5, 19·9 | 19·1 | 11·9, 26·3 | 15·3 | 7·6, 22·9 | 15·1 | 8·7, 21·6 | 13·8 | 4·9, 22·7 |
| NW | 53·8 | 48·8, 58·9 | 48·0 | 41·1, 54·9 | 58·8 | 51·5, 66·0 | 41·7 | 32·7, 50·8 | 56·5 | 45·9, 67·0 | 57·1 | 48·3, 66·0 | 62·1 | 49·6, 74·6 |
NW, normal weight.
From the data on UW, OW+OB and OB generated by WHO growth chart software, the proportion (%) of children who are overweight (OW) or NW are calculated as follows: NW = those with z-scores between −2sd and +1sd = 100 – (UW + (OW + OB)); OW = those with z-scores between +1sd and +2sd = (OW + OB) – OB.
Body composition characteristics according to sex and ethnicity†
(Mean values and standard deviations)
| All | Boys | Girls | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Boys ( | Girls ( | Indian ( | Creole ( | Indian ( | Creole ( | |||||||
| Mean | Mean | Mean | Mean | Mean | Mean | |||||||
| Body fat (%) | 25·0 | 9·5 | 29·5*** | 8·9 | 27·9 | 9·2 | 20·9*** | 8·7 | 29·8 | 8·6 | 28·8 | 9·5 |
| FM (kg) | 9·96 | 7·4 | 11·1** | 6·8 | 11·7 | 7·9 | 7·5*** | 5·8 | 10·8 | 6·4 | 11·8 | 7·5 |
| FFM (kg) | 25·8 | 6·5 | 24·3* | 6·1 | 26·4 | 7·1 | 25·0 | 5·7 | 23·3 | 5·7 | 26·3** | 6·3 |
| FMI (kg/m2) | 4·89 | 3·1 | 5·6** | 3·0 | 5·65 | 3·2 | 3·84*** | 2·5 | 5·5 | 2·9 | 5·83 | 3·2 |
| FFMI (kg/m2) | 13·2 | 2·0 | 12·4*** | 1·9 | 13·2 | 2·0 | 13·2 | 1·9 | 12·0 | 1·7 | 13·3*** | 1·9 |
FM, fat mass; FFM, fat-free mass; FMI, fat mass index; FFMI, fat-free-mass index.
Mean values were significantly different between sex and ethnic groups: * P < 0·05, ** P < 0·01, *** P < 0·001.
All comparisons were adjusted for age.
Fig. 1.Relationship between percentage body fat (total fat %) and BMI in Mauritian children according to sex (a) and ethnicity in boys (b) and girls (c). The ethnic-specific regression equations are as follows: Indian boys: fat % = −2·64 + 1·62 × BMI; Creole boys: fat % = −7·52 + 1·67 × BMI; Indian girls: fat % = 1·79 + 1·60 × BMI; Creole girls: fat % = −2·71 + 1·65 × BMI.
Proportion (%) of children classified as overfat determined by body fatness (>25 % for boys and >30 % for girls) compared with overfat determined by BMI-for-age z-scores as either >+1sd (overweight (OW) + obesity (OB)) or >+2sd (OB)
(Numbers and percentages)
| Population | All | Boys | Girls | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sample ( | Boys ( | Girls ( | Indian ( | Creole ( | Indian ( | Creole ( | |
| Overfat by body fat (%) | 42·0 | 41·9 | 42·3 | 53·9 | 25·3 | 42·2 | 44·6 |
| Overfat by BMI (%) | |||||||
| >+2 | 18·8 | 21·0 | 16·4 | 27·8 | 11·8 | 13·4 | 22·4 |
| >+1 | 34·5 | 37·5 | 31·1 | 46·1 | 25·9 | 28·6 | 36·2 |
| Undiagnosed by BMI (%) | |||||||
| >+2 | 23·2 | 20·9 | 25·9 | 26·1 | 13·5 | 27·8 | 22·2 |
| >+1 | 7·5 | 4·4 | 11·2 | 7·8 | 0·2 | 12·6 | 8·4 |
Accuracy of BMI in the diagnosis of obesity (OB) (z-score > 2sd) as well as overweight (OW) and obesity (z-score > 1sd) relative to measured excess fat (>25 % for boys and >30 % for girls) according to ethnicity based on sex*
(Numbers and percentages)
| >2 | >1 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sensitivity (%) | Specificity (%) | PPV (%) | NPV (%) | Sensitivity (%) | Specificity (%) | PPV (%) | NPV (%) | ||
| All | 373 | 38·2 | 86·0 | 40·9 | 84·6 | 69·7 | 74·4 | 40·8 | 90·7 |
| Boys | |||||||||
| Indian | 115 | 51·6 | 100 | 100 | 63·9 | 82·2 | 96·2 | 96·2 | 82·2 |
| Creole | 83 | 42·8 | 98·4 | 90·0 | 84·0 | 76·2 | 90·6 | 72·7 | 92·0 |
| Girls | |||||||||
| Indian | 119 | 32·6 | 100 | 100 | 68·0 | 69·4 | 100 | 100 | 82·3 |
| Creole | 56 | 52·0 | 100 | 100 | 73·3 | 76·0 | 93·9 | 90·5 | 83·8 |
Computations of sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) are described in the section on data analysis and statistics.
Fig. 2.Box and whisker plot showing distribution of values for differences between measured body fat (%) in Mauritians (fat % MM) and body fat % predicted from BMI (fat % CP) using the Caucasian-based equations of Deurenberg et al.(. The data are presented according to sex (a), ethnicity in boys (b) and ethnicity in girls (c). Each box encloses the data from the second and third quartiles and is bisected by a line at the median value. The tips of the vertical lines indicate the minimum and maximum values.
Comparison of BMI cut-off points for obesity and overweight proposed by the WHO using Caucasian data (http://www.who.int/growthref/) with calculated BMI equivalents for Mauritian Indian and Creole boys and girls derived from regression equations predicting body fat % from BMI, age, sex and ethnicity
| BMI cut-offs for obesity | BMI cut-offs for overweight | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Caucasian | Mauritian equivalent | Caucasian | Mauritian equivalent | ||||||
| Age (years) | BMI (kg/m2) | Fat % | Indian | Creole | Age (years) | BMI (kg/m2) | Fat % | Indian | Creole |
| Boys | Boys | ||||||||
| 7 | 19·0 | 21·6 | 15·0 | 17·5 | 7 | 17·0 | 18·6 | 13·1 | 15·6 |
| 8 | 19·7 | 21·9 | 15·1 | 17·7 | 8 | 17·4 | 18·5 | 13·0 | 15·6 |
| 9 | 20·5 | 22·5 | 15·5 | 18·0 | 9 | 17·9 | 18·5 | 13·0 | 15·6 |
| 10 | 21·4 | 23·1 | 15·9 | 18·4 | 10 | 18·5 | 18·7 | 13·2 | 15·7 |
| 11 | 22·5 | 24·1 | 16·5 | 19·0 | 11 | 19·2 | 19·1 | 13·4 | 15·9 |
| 12 | 23·6 | 25·0 | 17·0 | 19·5 | 12 | 19·9 | 19·4 | 13·6 | 16·1 |
| 13 | 24·8 | 26·1 | 17·7 | 20·2 | 13 | 20·8 | 20·1 | 14·0 | 16·5 |
| Girls | Girls | ||||||||
| 7 | 19·8 | 26·4 | 15·4 | 17·7 | 7 | 17·3 | 22·6 | 13·0 | 15·3 |
| 8 | 20·6 | 26·9 | 15·7 | 18·0 | 8 | 17·7 | 22·5 | 12·9 | 15·3 |
| 9 | 21·5 | 27·6 | 16·1 | 18·4 | 9 | 18·3 | 22·7 | 13·1 | 15·4 |
| 10 | 22·6 | 28·5 | 16·7 | 18·9 | 10 | 19·0 | 23·1 | 13·3 | 15·6 |
| 11 | 23·7 | 29·5 | 17·3 | 19·5 | 11 | 19·9 | 23·7 | 13·7 | 16·0 |
| 12 | 25·0 | 30·7 | 18·1 | 20·3 | 12 | 20·8 | 24·4 | 14·1 | 16·4 |
| 13 | 26·2 | 31·9 | 18·8 | 21·0 | 13 | 21·8 | 25·2 | 14·6 | 16·9 |
Comparison of BMI cut-off points for obesity proposed by the WHO using Caucasian data with calculated BMI equivalents for Mauritian Indian and Creole (data from Table 6 here) and compared with the data reported by Liu et al.( for Chinese, Lebanese, Malay, Filipino and Thai*
| Boys | Girls | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years)… | 8 | 9 | 10 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
| Caucasian | ||||||
| BMI (kg/m2) | 19·7 | 20·5 | 21·4 | 20·6 | 21·5 | 22·6 |
| Body fat % | 21·9 | 22·5 | 23·1 | 26·9 | 27·6 | 28·5 |
| Predicted BMI equivalent (kg/m2) | ||||||
| From Liu | ||||||
| Chinese | 16·4 | 16·6 | 16·9 | 17·2 | 17·5 | 17·9 |
| Lebanese | 16·8 | 17·0 | 17·2 | 17·0 | 17·3 | 17·7 |
| Malay | 15·8 | 16·0 | 16·3 | 16·5 | 16·8 | 17·3 |
| Filipino | 16·6 | 16·9 | 17·3 | 16·4 | 16·8 | 17·4 |
| Thai | 15·7 | 16·0 | 16·3 | 15·8 | 16·1 | 16·5 |
| Mauritian (present study) | ||||||
| Indian | 15·1 | 15·5 | 15·9 | 15·7 | 16·1 | 16·7 |
| Creole | 17·7 | 18·0 | 18·4 | 18·0 | 18·4 | 18·9 |
| Deviation from WHO cut-offs | ||||||
| Mauritian Indian | 4·6 | 5·0 | 5·5 | 4·9 | 5·4 | 5·9 |
| Mauritian Creole | 2·0 | 2·5 | 3·0 | 2·6 | 3·1 | 3·7 |
Note that all the BMI equivalents are derived from regression equations for predicting body fat % from BMI assessed in each country where body composition was determined by the D2O dilution technique as the reference method.