China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Anthropometry in Physical Performance and Health
Published in Henry C. Lukaski, Body Composition, 2017
Linear measures of skeletal dimensions have helped classify frame size and bodily proportions, but are of limited use in assessing health, because soft tissue is more influential. As such, the brachial, crural, and androgyny indices may be more valuable in identifying suitability for sports performance than health concerns. However, other linear dimensions are valuable in a health context. The sagittal abdominal diameter (SAD) at the waist section has received increasing attention over recent years. Several studies have demonstrated its association with visceral fat, and its utility in predicting an adverse metabolic profile (Valsamakis et al. 2004), and incident diabetes (Pajunen et al. 2013). While measurement standardization is essential to compare results in different studies (due to postural and breathing artifacts), as a single measure, the SAD has much in its favor, either on its own, or in combination with other measurements.
Associations of anthropometric measures of obesity with physical limitations in older adults
Published in Disability and Rehabilitation, 2020
Rachel Meadows, Julie K. Bower
Several anthropometric measurements exist that can be utilized inexpensively and quickly within clinic settings and population-based interventions. Limited evidence shows that waist circumference (WC) or waist/hip ratio is more strongly associated with physical functioning than BMI, due to its ability to better estimate visceral fat [12–14]. There is also evidence to suggest that sagittal abdominal diameter (SAD)—the distance between the back and the highest point of the abdomen—is more informative than WC or BMI in assessing insulin resistance, cardiovascular disease risk, and inflammation [15–17]. Compared to WC or waist/hip ratio, SAD measurement may better approximate the amount of deep abdominal subcutaneous adipose tissue (near the abdominal midline), which is associated with greater adverse health outcomes compared to superficial abdominal adipose tissue that is prominent at the side of the abdomen [18]. However, SAD has not been assessed in association with physical limitations.
Associations of physical activity and sedentary behavior with cardiometabolic biomarkers in prediabetes and type 2 diabetes: a compositional data analysis
Published in The Physician and Sportsmedicine, 2020
Jenny Rossen, Philip Von Rosen, Unn-Britt Johansson, Kerstin Brismar, Maria Hagströmer
Fasting blood samples were drawn for HbAlc C-peptide, HDL cholesterol, triglycerides, HbA1c and blood glucose. These were analyzed by standardized methods at the Clinical chemistry laboratory, described elsewhere [20]. In addition, the blood samples were analyzed for insulin-like Growth Factor 1 (IGF-1) [27], Insulin-Like Growth Factor Binding protein 1 IGFBP-1 [28] and adiponectin [29]. Homeostasis model assessment for insulin resistance (HOMA)-IR was calculated using the equation: fasting glucose (nmol/L) x fasting insulin (µU/L)/22.5 [30]. IGF-1 was standardized by age to IGF standard deviation (IGF-1SD) [31]. Sagittal abdominal diameter (SAD) was measured at the level of the umbilicus with the participant in a supine position using a Holtain-Kahn abdominal caliper (Holtain, Ltd., Crosswell, Crymych, Dyfed, UK). Weight was measured with the individual in light clothing by a Tanita-300 Scale and height by a standard stadiometer at the respective primary care center. BMI was calculated by the formula: BMI = weight (kg)/height (m)2.
A long-term follow-up study of men born with very low birth weight and their reproductive hormone profile
Published in Systems Biology in Reproductive Medicine, 2018
Mats Hammar, Erika Larsson, Marie Bladh, Orvar Finnström, PO Gäddlin, Ingemar Leijon, Elvar Theodorsson, Gunilla Sydsjö
Table 2 summarizes the anthropometric data. Clearly birth weight and birth length differed between the groups. At this follow-up the participants were 26–28 years old and now no difference in weight and length was found. Sagittal abdominal diameter as well as BMI were similar between VLBW males and their controls.