Hostname: page-component-54dcc4c588-tfzs5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-05T15:07:56.065Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Self-reported waist circumference compared with the ‘Waist Watcher’ tape-measure to identify individuals at increased health risk through intra-abdominal fat accumulation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 August 2007

T.S. Han  and
M.E.J. Lean
T.S. Han*
Affiliation:
University Department of Human Nutrition, Royal Infirmary Queen Elizabeth Building, Alexandra Parade, Glasgow G31 2ER, UK Wolfson College, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB3 9BB, UK
M.E.J. Lean
Affiliation:
University Department of Human Nutrition, Royal Infirmary Queen Elizabeth Building, Alexandra Parade, Glasgow G31 2ER, UK
*
*Corresponding author: Dr T. S. Han, fax +44 (0) 141 211 4844, email t.s.han@clinmed.gla.ac.uk
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

We evaluated the accuracy of self-reported home-assessed and self-measured waist circumference in 101 men and eighty-three women aged 28–67 years. The main outcome measures were subjects' self-reported and self-measured waist circumference, and self-classification according to the previously defined waist action level 1 (940 mm in men, 800 mm in women) and action level 2 (1020 mm in men, 880 mm in women), and waist circumference measured by the investigator using the ‘Waist Watcher’ tape-measure, as the reference method. The mean errors (95% CI limits of agreement) for subjects' self-reported waist circumference (self-reported minus reference; mm) were −67 (95% CI −210, 77) in men and −43 (95% CI −211, 123) in women, and for self-measured waist circumference (mm) using the ‘Waist Watcher’ (self-measured minus reference) were −5 (95% CI −62, 52) in men and −4 (95% CI −50, 42) in women. The proportions of subjects classified into waist action level 1 or action level 2 by the investigator were used as the reference method. Self-reported waist circumference of men and women respectively would be classified correctly in different categories based on action level 1 with sensitivities of 58·3 and 78·7%, and specificities of 98·5 and 98·7%, and action level 2 with sensitivities of 38·3 and 48·9%, and specificities of 98·5 and 98·7%. Using the ‘Waist Watcher’ with different colour bands based on the action levels, male and female subjects respectively classified themselves into correct categories according to action level 1 with sensitivities of 100 and 98·7%, and specificities of 98·1 and 98·2%, and according to action level 2 with sensitivities of 98·1 and 100%, and specificities of 100% for both sexes. Only 2% of the sample misclassified themselves into the wrong categories according to waist circumference action levels. In conclusion, people tend to underestimate their waist circumference, but the ‘Waist Watcher’ tape-measure offers advantages over self-reported home-assessed measurement, and may be used as a screening tool for self-classifying the risk of ill health through intra-abdominal fat accumulation.

Keywords

Abdominal fat distributionHealth promotionWaist circumference

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 80 , Issue 1 , July 1998 , pp. 81 - 88
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1998

References

Armitage, P (1971) Statistical Methods in Medical Research. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Björntorp, P (1997) Obesity. Lancet 350, 423–426.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bland, JM & Altman, DG (1986) Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet i, 307–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carey, VJ, Walters, EE, Colditz, GA, Solomon, CG, Willett, WC, Rosner, BA, Speizer, FE & Manson, JE (1997) Body fat distribution and risk of non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus in women. The nurses' health study. American Journal of Epidemiology 145, 614–619.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Crawley, HF & Portides, G (1995) Self-reported versus measured height, weight and body mass index amongst 16–17 year old British teenagers. International Journal of Obesity 19, 579–584.Google ScholarPubMed
Egger, G, O'Neill, M, Bolton, A & Freeman, D (1995) Results of an abdominal obesity reduction program for men only: the gutbuster ‘waist’ loss program. International Journal of Obesity 19, Suppl. 2, 37 Abstr.Google Scholar
Ferrerio, M, Carpenter, MA & Chambless, LE (1995) Reliability of body fat distribution measurements. The ARIC study baseline cohort results. International Journal of Obesity 19, 449–457.Google Scholar
German Society of Obesity Research (1995) Stellunahme der Deutchen für Adipositasforschung: Richtlinien zur Therapie der Adipositas (Statement of the German Society of Obesity Research: Guidelines for the Treatment of Obesity). Adipositas 9, 6–10.Google Scholar
Hall, TR & Young, TB (1989) A validation study of body fat distribution as determined by self-measurement of waist and hip circumferences. International Journal of Obesity 13, 801–807.Google Scholar
Han, TS, Richmond, P, Avenell, A & Lean, MEJ (1997a) Waist circumference reduction and cardiovascular benefits during weight management in women. International Journal of Obesity 21, 127–134.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Han, TS, Schouten, JSAG, Lean, MEJ & Seidell, JC (1997b) The prevalence of low back pain and associations with body fatness, fat distribution and height. International Journal of Obesity 21, 600–607.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Han, TS, Seidell, JC, Currall, JEP, Morrison, CE, Deurenberg, P & Lean, MEJ (1997c) The influences of height and age on waist circumference as an index of adiposity. International Journal of Obesity 21, 83–89.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Han, TS, van Leer, EM, Seidell, JC & Lean, MEJ (1995) Waist circumference action levels in the identification of cardiovascular risk factors: prevalence study in a random sample. British Medical Journal 311, 1041–1045.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Han, TS, van Leer, EM, Seidell, JC & Lean, MEJ (1996) Waist circumference as a screening tool for cardiovascular risk factors: evaluation of receiver operating characteristics (ROC). Obesity Research 4, 533–547.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Health Education Board for Scotland (1997) Eating for health. Edinburgh: Health Education Board for Scotland.Google Scholar
Institute of Medicine (1995) Weighing the Options. Criteria for Evaluating Weight Management Programs [Thomas, PR, editor]. Washington, DC: National Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuczmarski, RJ (1992) Prevalence of overweight and weight gain in the United States. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 55, 495S–502S.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lean, MEJ, Han, TS & Morrison, CE (1995) Waist circumference as a measure for indicating weight management. British Medical Journal 311, 158–161.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lean, MEJ, Han, TS & Seidell, JC (1998) Impairment of health and quality of life in people with large waist circumference. Lancet 351, 853–856.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nakatsuka, H, Satoh, H, Watanabe, T, Ida, Y, Nishigouri, M & Ikeda, M (1995) The reproducibility of reported height and body weight in repeated questionnaire surveys. International Journal of Obesity 19, 50–56.Google ScholarPubMed
National Health and Medical Research Council Working Party on the Prevention of Overweight and Obesity (1997) Acting on Australia's Weight. A Strategic Plan for the Prevention of Overweight and Obesity. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.Google Scholar
Office of Health Economics (1994) Obesity. London: Office of Health Economics.Google Scholar
Rimm, EB, Stampfer, MJ, Colditz, GA, Chute, CG, Litin, LB & Willett, WC (1990) Validity of self-reported waist and hip circumferences in men and women. Epidemiology 1, 466–473.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (1996) Obesity in Scotland. Integrating Prevention with Weight Management. Edinburgh: Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network.Google Scholar
Seidell, JC (1995) Obesity in Europe – scaling an epidemic. International Journal of Obesity 19, Suppl. 3, S1–S4.Google ScholarPubMed
Seidell, JC, Han, TS, Feskens, EJM & Lean, MEJ (1997) Narrow hips and broad waist circumferences independently contribute to increased risk of NIDDM. Journal of Internal Medicine 42, 401–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, L (1997) Going down? Balance, issue no. 156, pp. 41–45. London: British Diabetic Association.Google Scholar
World Health Organization (1995) Physical Status: The Use and Interpretation of Anthropometry. Report of a WHO Expert Committee. Geneva: WHO Technical Report Service.Google Scholar