Mal J Nutr 22(3): 345 -350, 2016

Body Adiposity Index in Relation to Body Mass Index and Central Adiposity Measures in Preschool Children from Purulia, West Bengal, India
Sudip Datta Banik1*, Subal Das2 & Paramita Bhattacharjee3


ABSTRACT

Introduction: Many indices are available to evaluate adiposity. A new index, body adiposity index (BAIp) (expressed in % fat) for children [Hip circumference (cm)/ Height (m)0.8) – 38] has been developed (El Aarbaoui et al., 2013). The objective of the present study was to use the index in a sample of preschool children to understand the association between BAIp and other anthropometric characteristics estimating adiposity.
Methods: The study was cross-sectional and the participants were 2- to 5-year-old preschoolers (505 boys and 463 girls) from Purulia district in West Bengal, India. Anthropometric measurements recorded were height, weight, waist circumference (WC), hip circumference (HC); derived indices were body mass index (BMI) and adiposity measures including waist-to-hip ratio (WHR), waist-to-height ratio (WHtR), conicity index (CI) and BAIp.
Results: Mean age of the participants was 4.03 years. Significant sex differences (p< 0.05) of anthropometric characteristics were found with respect to the mean values of body weight, BMI, HC, WHR, CI, and BAIp. Mean value of BAIp was higher in girls (13.0%fat) than in boys (12.28%fat). The BAIp was highly correlated (p< 0.05) to WHtR (r=0.87 in boys, 0.86 in girls) than to BMI (r= 0.36 in boys, 0.41 in girls) and CI (r=0.52 in boys, 0.46 in girls). In linear regression models, adiposity measures were observed to be significantly related to BAIp in preschoolers; age and sex were other predictors; coefficient was highest for WHtR (78.89) and least for WC (0.34).
Conclusion: The results confirmed the existing hypothesis that BAIp, as an index for the assessment of children’s body fatness, works with acceptable accuracy.

Keywords: Adiposity, BMI, conicity index, waist-height ratio waist-hip ratio

Download full article

March 1995, Vol1 No.1
September 1995, Vol1 No.2
March 1996, Vol2 No.1
September 1996, Vol2 No.2
March 1997, Vol3 No.1
September 1997, Vol3 No.2
December 1998, Vol4 No.1&2
December 1999, Vol5 No.1&2
March 2000, Vol6 No.1
September 2000, Vol6 No.2
Mar/Sept 2001, Vol7 No.1&2
March 2002, Vol8, No.1
September 2002, Vol8, No.2
March 2003, Vol9 No.1
September 2003, Vol9 No.2
March 2004, Vol10 No.1
September 2004, Vol10 No. 2
2005, Vol 11 No.1
2005, Vo l11 No.2
2006, Vol 12 No.1
2006, Vol 12 No.2
2007, Vol 13 No.1
2007, Vol 13 No.2
March 2008, Vol 14 No.1
2008, Vol 14 No.2
2009, Vol 15 No.1
2009, Vol 15 No.2
2010, Vol 16(1)

2010, Vol 16(2)

2010, Vol 16(3)

2011, Vol 17(1)

2011, Vol 17(2)

2011, Vol 17(3)

2012, Vol 18(1)

2012, Vol 18(2)

2012, Vol 18(3)

2013, Vol 19(1)

2013, Vol 19(2)

2013, Vol 19(3)

2014, Vol 20(1)

2014, Vol 20(2)

2014, Vol 20(3)

2015, Vol 21(1)

2015, Vol 21(2)

2015, Vol 21(3)

2016, Vol 22(1)

2016, Vol 22(2)

2016, Vol 22 Supplement

2016, Vol 22(3)

2017, Vol 23(1)

2017, Vol 23(2)