Premium
Comparison of body composition and body mass index on health status indicators (1031.13)
Author(s) -
Julander Kayli,
Litchfield Ruth
Publication year - 2014
Publication title -
the faseb journal
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.709
H-Index - 277
eISSN - 1530-6860
pISSN - 0892-6638
DOI - 10.1096/fasebj.28.1_supplement.1031.13
Subject(s) - overweight , underweight , medicine , bioelectrical impedance analysis , body mass index , obesity , waist , blood pressure , physical therapy , demography , sociology
Employees (n=176) from three Midwest companies completed a worksite health assessment. Mean age was 40 years (range 20‐76) with equal distribution by gender. Weight status was assessed by Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis (BIA) and Body Mass Index (BMI) with results classified as underweight, healthy/normal, overweight, or obese.Weight status classifications by BIA and BMI were: underweight (2 vs. 3); healthy/normal (28 vs. 35); overweight (45 vs. 57); and obese (100 vs. 78), respectively. Classifications were significantly different (p<0.05) with BIA identifying more as overweight and obese.Both methods identified differences by weight classification in MET scores, LDL, non‐HDL, HDL/LDL ratio, flexibility, and disease risk (waist to hip ratio). Weight classification by BIA identified differences in blood glucose, food security, and muscular endurance. In contrast, BMI classification identified differences in age, HDL, triglycerides, and diastolic blood pressure.Results confirm previous findings that weight status/adiposity negatively impact biochemical parameters, measures of physical fitness, diastolic blood pressure, and disease risk. Both classifications similarly identified differences in several of these health status indicators. Results suggest BMI is a reliable measure to assess health status while being a cost effective, less invasive method. Grant Funding Source : Supported by the Center for Industrial Research and Service