4.7 Article

Using appropriate body mass index cut points for overweight and obesity among Asian Americans

Journal

PREVENTIVE MEDICINE
Volume 65, Issue -, Pages 1-6

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2014.04.010

Keywords

Obesity; Overweight; Type 2 diabetes mellitus; Asian Americans; Minority health

Funding

  1. Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service Award [T32HP19025]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective. Asian Americans have low prevalence of overweight/obesity based on standard BMI cut points yet have higher rates of diabetes. We examined the prevalence of overweight/obesity, using lower BMI cut points recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) for Asians, and diabetes in Asian American subgroups in California. Method. Secondary analysis of the 2009 adult California Health Interview Survey (n = 45,946) of non-Hispanic Whites (NHW), African Americans, Hispanics and Asians (Vietnamese, Chinese, Korean, Filipino, South Asian and Japanese). WHO Asian BMI cut points (overweight = 23-27.5 kg/m(2); obese = 27.5 kg/m(2)) were used for Asian subgroups. Standard BMI cut points (overweight = 25-29.9 kg/m(2); obese = 30 kg/m(2)) were applied for other groups. Results. Among Asian subgroups, overweight/obesitywas highest among Filipinos (78.6%), whichwas higher than NHWs (p < 0.001) but similar to African Americans and Hispanics. Compared to NHW, diabetes prevalence was higher for Vietnamese, Koreans, Filipinos and South Asians with BMI = 23-24.9 kg/m(2) and Koreans, Filipinos and Japanese with BMI = 27.5-29.9 kg/m(2), the ranges WHO recommends as overweight or obese for Asians but not for other groups. Conclusions. Filipinos should be a priority population for overweight/obesity screening. Filipinos, Vietnamese, Korean, South Asians and Japanese have higher diabetes prevalence at lower BMI cut points. WHO Asian BMI cut points may have clinical utility to identify at-risk Asian Americans. (C) 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available