4.7 Article

Waist-to-height ratio is an effective indicator for comprehensive cardiovascular health

Journal

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
Volume 7, Issue -, Pages 1-7

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/srep43046

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. China's Ministry of Science and Technology [2013BAI04B00]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81600346]
  3. Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province, China [BK20131096, BK20151115]
  4. R & D Fund of Wuxi Municipal Science & Technology Bureau, China [CMB21S1301]
  5. Jiangsu Provincial Commission of Health and Family Planning, China [BJ13021, BJ14023, Y2015073, BJ15032, BJ15033, Z201519]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The aim of this study was to determine the associations between cardiovascular health and the waist circumference (WC) and waist-to-height ratio (WHtR). A cross-sectional study was performed recruiting 26701 middle-aged Chinese men. Of the seven ideal cardiovascular health metrics, body mass index (BMI), total cholesterol (TC), blood pressure (BP), and fasting blood glucose (FBG) were found to increase with an elevation of the mean WC and WHtR. The mean WC and WHtR were significantly lower in the subjects with intermediate or ideal cardiovascular health than those with poor or intermediate health. After adjustment for age, the mean WC and WHtR decreased by 1.486 cm and 0.009 per 1-point increase in the cardiovascular health score, and 2.242 cm and 0.013 per 1-point increase in the number of ideal cardiovascular health metrics, respectively. The cardiovascular health score was negatively correlated with the WC (r = -0.387) and WHtR (r = -0.400), while the number of ideal cardiovascular health metrics was negatively associated with the WC (r = -0.384) and WHtR (r = -0.395). The cardiovascular health is correlated negatively with the WC and WHtR, and a stronger correlation existed between the cardiovascular health and WHtR than WC.

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