W J Brown1, A J Dobson, G Mishra. 1. Research Institute for Gender and Health, The University of Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To explore associations between body mass index (BMI) and selected indicators of health and well-being and to suggest a healthy weight range (based on BMI) for middle aged Australian women. DESIGN: Population based longitudinal study (cross-sectional baseline data). SUBJECTS: 13431 women aged 45-49 y who participated in the baseline survey for the Australian Longitudinal Study on Women's Health. RESULTS: Forty-eight percent of women had a BMI>25 kg/m2. Prevalence of medical problems (for example, hypertension, diabetes), surgical procedures (cholescystectomy, hysterectomy) and symptoms (for example, back pain) increased monotonically with BMI, while indicators of health care use (for example, visits to doctors) showed a 'J' shaped relationship with BMI. Scores for several sub-scales of the MOS short form health survey (SF36) (for example, general health, role limitations due to emotional difficulties, social function, mental health and vitality) were optimal when BMI was around 19-24 kg/m2. After adjustment for area of residence, education, smoking, exercise and menopausal status, low BMI was associated with fewer physical health problems than mid-level or higher BMI, and the nationally recommended BMI range of 20-25 was associated with optimum mental health, lower prevalence of tiredness and lowest use of health services. CONCLUSIONS: Acknowledging the limitations of the cross-sectional nature of these data, the results firmly support the benefits of leanness in terms of reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease, diabetes and gall bladder disease. The findings are moderated, however, by the observation that both low and high BMI are associated with decreased vitality and poorer mental health. The optimal range for BMI appears to be about 19-24 kg/m2. From a public health perspective this study provides strong support for the recommended BMI range of 20-25 as an appropriate target for the promotion of healthy weight in middle aged Australian women.
OBJECTIVE: To explore associations between body mass index (BMI) and selected indicators of health and well-being and to suggest a healthy weight range (based on BMI) for middle aged Australian women. DESIGN: Population based longitudinal study (cross-sectional baseline data). SUBJECTS: 13431 women aged 45-49 y who participated in the baseline survey for the Australian Longitudinal Study on Women's Health. RESULTS: Forty-eight percent of women had a BMI>25 kg/m2. Prevalence of medical problems (for example, hypertension, diabetes), surgical procedures (cholescystectomy, hysterectomy) and symptoms (for example, back pain) increased monotonically with BMI, while indicators of health care use (for example, visits to doctors) showed a 'J' shaped relationship with BMI. Scores for several sub-scales of the MOS short form health survey (SF36) (for example, general health, role limitations due to emotional difficulties, social function, mental health and vitality) were optimal when BMI was around 19-24 kg/m2. After adjustment for area of residence, education, smoking, exercise and menopausal status, low BMI was associated with fewer physical health problems than mid-level or higher BMI, and the nationally recommended BMI range of 20-25 was associated with optimum mental health, lower prevalence of tiredness and lowest use of health services. CONCLUSIONS: Acknowledging the limitations of the cross-sectional nature of these data, the results firmly support the benefits of leanness in terms of reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease, diabetes and gall bladder disease. The findings are moderated, however, by the observation that both low and high BMI are associated with decreased vitality and poorer mental health. The optimal range for BMI appears to be about 19-24 kg/m2. From a public health perspective this study provides strong support for the recommended BMI range of 20-25 as an appropriate target for the promotion of healthy weight in middle aged Australian women.
Authors: Ronette L Kolotkin; Meg Zeller; Avani C Modi; Gregory P Samsa; Nicole Polanichka Quinlan; Jack A Yanovski; Stephen K Bell; David M Maahs; Daniela Gonzales de Serna; Helmut R Roehrig Journal: Obesity (Silver Spring) Date: 2006-03 Impact factor: 5.002
Authors: Mary T Hawn; John Bian; Ruth R Leeth; Gilbert Ritchie; Nechol Allen; Kirby I Bland; Selwyn M Vickers Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2005-05 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Patricia G Moorman; Joellen M Schildkraut; Edwin S Iversen; Evan R Myers; Margaret Gradison; Nicolette Warren-White; Frances Wang Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2009-05 Impact factor: 2.681
Authors: Jacqueline Müller-Nordhorn; Rebecca Muckelbauer; Heike Englert; Ulrike Grittner; Hendrike Berger; Frank Sonntag; Heinz Völler; Christof Prugger; Karl Wegscheider; Hugo A Katus; Stefan N Willich Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-03-26 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Annemieke M A van Nunen; Eveline J M Wouters; Ad J J M Vingerhoets; Joop J Hox; Rinie Geenen Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2007-10 Impact factor: 4.129