TY - JOUR
T1 - Concordance of the recently published body adiposity index with measured body fat percent in European-American adults
AU - Johnson, William
AU - Chumlea, William C.
AU - Czerwinski, Stefan A.
AU - Demerath, Ellen W.
PY - 2012/4
Y1 - 2012/4
N2 - The body adiposity index (BAI; hip circumference (cm)/height (m) 1.5 18) has recently been shown to demonstrate a stronger correlation with percentage body fat (%fat) than that between the BMI and %fat in Mexican-American adults. Here, we compare the concordance between %fat from dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) and BAI, and between %fat and BMI, in European-American adults (n = 623). Agreement between BAI, BMI, and %fat was assessed using Lin's concordance coefficients ( c), where values 0.90 are considered poor. In the sample as a whole, the agreement between BAI and %fat ( c = 0.752) was far better than that between BMI and %fat ( c = 0.445) but was nonetheless relatively poor. There were large mean differences in %fat between the BAI and DXA %fat, particularly at lower levels of adiposity (> 20%), and further the BAI overestimated %fat in males and underestimated %fat in females. Optimizing the BAI formula for our sample only marginally improved performance. Results of the present study show that BAI provides a better indicator of adiposity in European-American adults than does BMI, but does not provide valid estimates of %fat, particularly at lower levels of body fatness. Further research is warranted to investigate the predictive ability of BAI for various health outcomes.
AB - The body adiposity index (BAI; hip circumference (cm)/height (m) 1.5 18) has recently been shown to demonstrate a stronger correlation with percentage body fat (%fat) than that between the BMI and %fat in Mexican-American adults. Here, we compare the concordance between %fat from dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) and BAI, and between %fat and BMI, in European-American adults (n = 623). Agreement between BAI, BMI, and %fat was assessed using Lin's concordance coefficients ( c), where values 0.90 are considered poor. In the sample as a whole, the agreement between BAI and %fat ( c = 0.752) was far better than that between BMI and %fat ( c = 0.445) but was nonetheless relatively poor. There were large mean differences in %fat between the BAI and DXA %fat, particularly at lower levels of adiposity (> 20%), and further the BAI overestimated %fat in males and underestimated %fat in females. Optimizing the BAI formula for our sample only marginally improved performance. Results of the present study show that BAI provides a better indicator of adiposity in European-American adults than does BMI, but does not provide valid estimates of %fat, particularly at lower levels of body fatness. Further research is warranted to investigate the predictive ability of BAI for various health outcomes.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84859215560&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84859215560&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1038/oby.2011.346
DO - 10.1038/oby.2011.346
M3 - Article
C2 - 22095112
AN - SCOPUS:84859215560
SN - 1930-7381
VL - 20
SP - 900
EP - 903
JO - Obesity
JF - Obesity
IS - 4
ER -