World Journal of Medical Sciences 12 (1): 21-25, 2015
ISSN 1817-3055
© IDOSI Publications, 2015
DOI: 10.5829/idosi.wjms.2015.12.1.86190
Body Mass Index (BMI) and Waist Hip Ratio (WHR)
Among Young Adults of Delta State Origin
1
L.T. Mitolo, 2W.N. Dare and 1L.E. Chris-Ozoko
Department of Human Anatomy and Cell Biology, Faculty of Basic Medical Sciences,
College of Health Sciences, Delta State University, Abraka
2
Department of Human Anatomy, Faculty of Basic Medical Sciences, College of Health Sciences,
Niger Delta University, Wilberforce Island
1
Abstract: Obesity is known worldwide as a challenger and its prevalence is rising in both developed and
developing countries and Nigeria is not an exception. To this end there is need to know if obesity is prevalence
among young adults of Delta State indigenes resident in Abraka. One thousand young adults between the ages
of 16-35years were used for this study. Their weight, height, hip and waist circumference were measured and
body mass index (BMI) as well as waist hip ratio (WHR) were calculated. The prevalence of total and abdominal
obesity was determined with standard classification recommended by World Health Organization (WHO).
Mean, standard deviation, simple percentage and F-test (ANOVA) were used to analyze data using SPSS
version 10. Resultsshow that females are more vulnerable to total and abdominal obesity than males. The result
suggests that waist hip ratio (WHR) may be a better predictive tool for obesity in females than males. In
conclusion,this study showed low prevalence of obesity among young adults of Delta State indigenes residing
in Abraka. The study also showed that, females are more vulnerable to total and abdominal obesity than males.
Key words: Body Mass Index
Waist Hip Ratio
Adults
INTRODUCTION
Delta State
and other related nutritional epidemic. Several clinical
anthropometric measures have been used for time past to
assess obesity and overweight but BMI is the most
common tool in the assessment of Obesity. BMI has gain
international recognition. It has been identified by the
World Health Organization as the most useful
epidemiological measure of Obesity [1]. Also, it has been
considered as a gold standard for defining Overweight
and Obesity. BMI is an indicator of overall adiposity [9].
In [10] Expert Consultation on Obesity recognized the
importance of abdominal, central or visceral obesity),
which can vary considerably within a narrow range of
total body fat and Body Mass Index (BMI). It also
highlighted the need for other indicators to compliment
the measurement of BMI, to identify individuals at
increaserisk of abdominal fat [2]. Waist Hip Ratio
(WHR) was suggested [11, 12] and further evaluated
in terms of fat distribution via the Waist Hip Ratio
(WHR). WHR is an indicator for abdominal adiposity.
Studies have indicated that BMI and WHR could be used
Obesity is known globally, as a health challenger and
its prevalence has risen not only in developed countries
but also in developing countries[1] like Nigeria
particularly in Delta State. It is a medical condition in
which excess body fat has accumulated to the extent that
it may have an adverse effect on health [2], that is said to
have strong association with life threatening diseases
such as cardiovascular diseases like hypertension [3-6]
Coronary heart disease [1] as well as diabetes and several
cancers like breast cancer [7, 8]. These includes:
Inspection of skin and bony structure, Auscultation and
palpation as a result of loss of landmarks due to this
excess fat.
Generally, utilization of anthropometric data has been
employed by local and international bodies for judging
nutritional conditions e.g., Obesity. Height, Weight
and Body Circumferences are examples of such
anthropometric data. They are used for assessing obesity
Corresponding Author: L.T. Mitolo, Department of Human Anatomy and Cell Biology,
Faculty of Basic Medical Sciences, College of Health Sciences,
Delta State University, Abraka.
21
World J. Med. Sci., 12 (1): 21-25, 2015
independently to identify Overweight and Obesity.
The aim of this studytherefore is to classify young
adults of delta state origin residing in Abraka as
underweight, normal weight, overweight and obese
base on their BMI and WHR values and to look at gender
differences.
Table 1: Showing BMI(Kg/m2) distribution among young adults of Delta
State origin resident in Abraka
BMI classification (kg/m2) Categories
<18.5
18.5 – 24.9
25 – 29.9
30 – 34.9
35 – 39.9
= 40
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Frequency
Percentage
34
786
145
31
3
1
3.4
78.6
14.5
3.1
0.3
0.1
1000
100
Underweight
Normal weight
Over weight
Class I obese
Class II obese
Class III Obese
Total
One thousand (1000) apparently healthy males (416)
and females (584) of age range of 16 to 35years were used
for this study by adopting simple random sampling
technique. All participants were Delta State indigenes
residing at Abraka.An inelastic butterfly tape, graduated
in centimeters (0-150) was used to measure the waist and
hip circumferences.A vertical wooden bar calibrated in
centimeters (0-200) with a movable horizontal bar which
could be adjusted to touch the vertex of the participant’s
head was used to measure the height of participants.A
portable standard hospital weighing scale (Camry) was
used to measure body weight to the nearest kilogram, the
waist circumference was taken within 1mm mid-way
between the lowest rib and the iliac crest.Hip
circumference (HC) was measuredat the level of the
greater trochanters [13]. Height was measured as the
distance from the vertex of the head to the heel of the
foot. Weight measurements were carried out with a
standard hospital weighing balance bare footed. The BMI
and WHR were computed using the following standard
equations. Statistical analysis was done using the t-test
(ANOVA).
Table 2: showing WHR distribution among adults in Abraka
WHR classification
Categories
<18.5
> 0.85
< 0.95
> 0.95
Female normal
Female*
Male normal
Male**
Total
Frequency
Percentage
492
88
409
11
49.2
8.8
40.9
1.1
1000
100
* = female risk of abdominal obesity
** = male risk of abdominal obesity.
Table 3: Showing mean/standard deviation distribution among variables
Treatment
Sex
BMI(kg/m2)
WHR
Mean
SD
N
1.58
0.49
1000
21.89(2.19)
0.56
1000
2.26
1.09
1000
SD: Standard deviation
N: Total number sample
Table 4: Showing the mean/standard deviation distribution of BMI and
WHR against sex for all participants
Sex
BMI (kg/m2) = weight (Kg)/height2 (m2).
WHR = Waist Circumference (WC) cm/ Hip Circumference
(HC) cm.
RESULTS
BMI (kg/m2)
WHR
MALE
Mean
SD
N
21.83 (2.13)
0.43
416
1.03
0.22
416
FEMALE
Mean
SD
N
21.93 (2.23)
0.63
584
3.13
0.41
584
TOTAL
Mean
SD
N
21.88 (2.19)
0.56
1000
2.26
1.09
1000
BMI: Body Mass Index, WHR: Waist Hip Ratio, SD: standard deviation
and N: l sample size
Results were recorded as mean and standard
deviation and were analyze with SPSS version 10.
Weights of sampled subjects were classified into
three; Underweight 14.5%, Normal Weight 78.6% and
Overweight 14.5%. Obese were categorize by their BMI
values using the standard method of classification
recommended by WHO as in table 1, 3.5% obese (class I
obesity represents 88.6% of the total obese subjects).
Following the WHO standard method of
classification of WHR of the sampled subjects in table 2
above, 40.9% males and 49.2% femaleshad normal fat
distribution of the abdomen, while 8.8% males and 1.1%
femaleshad abdominal obesity.
Table 3, presents the mean and standard deviation
distribution among variables, with BMI mean and
standard deviation of 21.89 (2.89) and 0.56 respectively.
While WHR mean and standard deviation were 2.26 and
1.09 respectively.
Table 4 abovecompares the mean and standard
deviation of BMI and WHR in both sexes. The BMI mean
of 21.93 for males was compared with the BMI mean of
21.88 for females. Also, WHR mean value of 1.03 for the
males was compared with the mean of 3.13 of the female
counterparts. This shows that female has a higher mean
22
World J. Med. Sci., 12 (1): 21-25, 2015
in respect to their WHR in the distribution. In comparing
their standard deviation, the value (0.41) for females was
almost two times higher than males (0.22).
The above table compares BMI and WHR of obese
participants by their BMI and WHR values. 15 females
were classified as obese by their BMI and WHR values.
The above table, specify that f-ratio calculated for
both BMI and WHR are greater than the f-ratio among
participants
(male: 0.43 and female: 0.63) (Table 4). There was notable
gender significant difference in relations to their WHR in
mean and standard deviation [male: 1.03 (0.22) and female:
3.13 (0.41). This indicates that, females are more
vulnerable to obesity when compared with their male
counterparts as shown above. The minute difference
observed from their BMI of both sexes show that, though
females are more vulnerable to obesity, the difference was
not significant. This result agrees with that of [1] who
reported the mean and standard deviation of 21.76 (3.75)
for males and 22.91 (4.75) for females by their BMI values
in a population in Nigeria. To further buttress the findings
[14] reported mean and standard deviation of 25.54 (3.19)
and 23.38 (3.28) for males and females respectively.
The significant difference of the mean and standard
deviation of WHR between males and females, suggests
that WHR may be a better predictive tool of abdominal
obesity for females. The findings supported Jessica’s
suggestion.
In comparing the variables, it was observed that, 34
subjects were classified as underweight by their BMI. Out
of thisnumber, 8 males were classified as having normal
weight distribution by their WHR. None of these was
obese. However, in female subjects, seven of them were
obese at abdominal region and 19 were classified having
normal weight distributions (Table 5). It wasalso observed
that seven hundred and eighty six (786) subjects of the
sampled were classified as normal weight by their BMI.
Out of thisnumber nine (9) males were noted to be obese
and thirty nine (39) were obese by their WHR. This
buttresses the usefulness of WHR for female gender.
Furthermore, it was also noted that one hundred and
forty five (145) subjects of the sampled were overweight
in regard to their BMI. Out of this number, 44 males were
classified as normal by their WHR. Only 2 male subjects
were obese but 25 females were obese and 74 females
were classified normal, making total obese individuals to
be 35 by their BMI. Out of these 35 subjects, 31 were
classified as class I obese, 3 class II obese and 1 class III
obese. Out of the 31 class I obese, 15 females were
confirmed to be having abdominal obesity judging from
their WHR; only 10 females appeared to be normal. These
females fell into class II obesity however, 2 of them
appeared normal and one was classified as abdominal
obese with the WHR. It was further observed that none of
the obese males by their BMI falls into abdominal obesity
by WHR. Also, the only person found to be class III
obese with BMIwas femalewho had abdominal obese with
WHR.
DISCUSSION
Following the standard method of classification of
Obesity by World Health Organization, it was observed
that 3.4% of the samples were underweight, 78.6% normal
weight and 14.5% overweight. By classification, 3.1%
class (I) obese, 0.3% class (II) obese and 0.1% class (III)
obesity (Table 1). The total percentageof obese subjects
is 3.5% indicating a low prevalence of obesity among the
study population. This is closely related to what was
obtained from Delta State, 3.44% [14].
The 3.4%underweight; might be due to undernutrition
since
underweight
connotes
undernutrition.Diseases and uncomfortable circumstances can
cause reduction in weight especially when it is prolong
and chronic. The 3.4% with underweight is closely related
to the 3.5% of the subjects suffering from obesity. This
was not evaluated scientifically but by observations
(table 1). This was compared with that ofprevious study
[14]. In the search to know the number of those affected
with abdominal obesity by their WHR values, table 2
reveals that 9.9% of the subjects were obese. Out of this,
female subjects represented 8.8% and male 1.1%. This
indicates that females are more prone to abdominal
obesity than males. There are three possible reasons why
females are more prone to obesity than males: Firstly,
women who were nutritionally deprived in childhood are
more likely to be obese in adulthood, while men who were
deprived in childhood face no greater risk. Secondly,
women of higher socioeconomic status are more likely to
be obese than men. Finally, the female hormone eostrogen
is one of the reasons why females tend to be obese than
males. On the average, women have more body fat than
men. This could be attributedto impact of eostrogen as it
reduces their ability to burn energy after eating which
results in increase storage of fat in the body [15].
The study revealed that there was no significant
difference in the mean BMI between males and females.
However, there was difference in their standard deviation
23
World J. Med. Sci., 12 (1): 21-25, 2015
Table 5: Showing the comparison between BMI and WHR for all participants
WHR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------BMI Classification (kg/m2)
BMI (kg/m )
2
Male Normal
Male*
Female Normal
Female**
Total
Under weight
8
0
19
7
34
Normal weight
351
9
387
39
786
Over weight
44
2
74
25
145
Class I obese
6
0
10
15
31
Class II obese
0
0
2
1
3
Class III obese
0
0
0
1
1
409
11
492
88
1000
Total
* = female risk of abdominal obesity
** = male risk of abdominal obesity.
Table 6: Showing f- distribution between BMI and WHR by gender
Mean square
Df
between groups
2.335
1
Within groups
0.325
998
between groups
1076.907
1
Within groups
0.108
998
F –calculated
F – ratio
7.194
3.84
BMI
WHR
99.92
At 0.05 level of significance
The study revealed that WHR has predictive power
to determine obesity in females than males. This implies
that WHR can be used to predict obesity in females.
These findings are in line with those of [16-19].
2.
3.
CONCLUSION
4.
Despite the global rise in prevalence of obesity, this
study showed low prevalence of obesity among young
adults of Delta State indigenes in Abraka. The study
showed that, females are more vulnerable to total and
abdominal obesity than males. WHR could be a better
predictive parameter ofobesity in females since fat is not
generously deposited in all the regions of the
body.Though, the prevalence of obesity is low, there is
need for awareness program for the studied population to
keep the trend of normal weight.
5.
6.
REFERENCES
1.
7.
Sanya, A.O., O.O. Ogwumike, A.P. Ige and
O.A. Ayanniyi, 2009. Relationship of Waist Hip Ratio
and Body Mass Index to Blood pressure of
Individuals in Ibadan North Local Government.
AJPARS, 1: 7-11.
8.
24
WHO, 2000. Obesity: preventing and managing the
global epidemic. Report of a World Health
Organization Consultation (TRS 894 ). Geneva.
Ribisl, P., 2004. Clinical applications: toxic “waist”
dump: our abdominal visceral fat. American College
of Sports Medicine, 8(4): 22-25.
Stevens, J., J. Cai and E.R. Pamuk, 1998. The effect of
age on the association between body 1. mass index
and mortality. New England Journal of Medicine,
338: 1-7.
Despres, J.P., I. Lemieux and D. Prud’Homme,
2001. Treatment of obesity, need to focus on
high risk abdominally obese patients. Br Med J.,
322: 716-720.
Cameron, A.J., T.A. Welborn and P.Z. Zimmet, 2003.
Overweight and obesity in Australia: The 1999-2000
Australa Diabetes, obesty and lifestyle study. Med
J. Austr, 178: 427-432.
Kumar, V., A. Abbas and N. Fausto, 2005.
Pathologic basis of disease. (7thed.). Philadelphia:
El Sevier.
Peterson, J., 2005. Take ten: take-and-save:
10 nice-to-know facts about the obesity
epidemic. American College of Sports Medicine,
9(1): 44.
World J. Med. Sci., 12 (1): 21-25, 2015
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
Odenigbo, U.M., U.C. Odenigbo, O.C. Oguejiofor and
P.O.U. Adogu, 2011. Relationship of waist
circumference, waist hip ratio and body mass index as
predictors of obesity in adult Nigerians. Pak J. Nutr.,
10(1): 15-18.
WHO, 1998. obesity: preventing and managing the
global epidemic. Report of a World Health
Organization Consultation on Obesity.
Deurenberg, P. and M. Yap, 1999. The assessment of
obesity. Methods for measuring body fat and global
prevalence of obesity. Bailliere Clin. Endocrinot
Metab., 13: 1-11.
Dietz, W. and M. Bellizzi, 1999. Introduction: the use
of body mass index to assess obesity in children.
Am J. Clin. Nutr., 70(supplement): 123s-125s.
McArdle, W.D., F.I. Katch and V.I. Katch, 2000.
Training the Anaerobic Energy Systems. Essentials
of Exercise physiology 2nd ed. Lippincott Williams
and wikins.
Oghagbon, K.E., V.U. Odili, E.K. Nwangwa and
K.E. Pender, 2009. Body Mass Index and Blood
pressure pattern of students in a Nigeria University.
Int. J. Health Res., 2(2): 177-182.
15. Stephen, J. Dubner, 2007. Why Are Women More
Likely to Be Obese Than Men? Retrieved from
www.freakonomics.com/2007/10/26/why-are-womenmore-likely-to-be-obese-than-men/
16. Kaushik, B., 2006. Which measure of abdominal
adiposity best relates with body mass index
among older Bengalee Hindus of Kolkata, India.
A comparison of three measures. Int. J. Anthropol.,
21: 247-252.
17. National Task Force on the prevention and Treatment
of obesity, overweight and health Risk. Arch intern
Med, 2000. 160: 898-904.
18. Patil, S.P., S. Sukumaran, A. Bhate, A. Mukherji and
S. Chandrakar, 2012. Correlation of Blood sugar with
waist circumference and Body mass index in an
Indian population. Global Journal of Pharmacology,
6(1), 8-11.
19. Tizabi, A.A.T., R. Mahdavinejad, A. Azizi,
T.
Jafarnejadgero and M. Sanjari, 2012.
Correlation Between Height, Weight, BMI with
Standing Thoracic and Lumbar Curvature in Growth
Ages. World Journal of Sport Sciences, 7(1): 54-56.
25