Visceral fat, waist circumference, and BMI: impact of race/ethnicity.
Level 4 - case-series / case-control
Cross-sectional observational comparative study
PubMed 18239557 · doi:10.1038/oby.2007.92
What was done
The study evaluated racial and ethnic differences in the relationship between standard anthropometrics (BMI, waist circumference) and computed tomography (CT)-measured abdominal fat. Participants included 185 adults aged 45 years or older (66 African American, 72 Hispanic, and 47 white men and women). Total abdominal and L4–L5 level visceral adipose tissue (VAT) and subcutaneous adipose tissue (SAT) were measured using CT.
What was found
Groups did not differ in mean waist circumference or BMI. Visceral fat accumulation differed across racial/ethnic groups, though exact numerical values were not provided in the abstract: white men had greater L4–L5 VAT than African American men, and both white and Hispanic men had greater total VAT than African American men. Hispanic and white women had greater L4–L5 VAT than African American women, and Hispanic women had greater total VAT than African American women. The slope of the linear relationship between BMI or waist circumference and VAT was lower in African Americans than in Hispanics and/or whites.
Why it matters
Standard universal BMI and waist circumference cutoffs may not accurately reflect visceral fat burden across racial and ethnic groups, potentially misestimating metabolic risk.
Limits
The study is cross-sectional with a modest sample size (n=185), yielding small subgroup sizes when split by race and sex. The cohort was restricted to adults aged 45 and older, limiting generalizability to younger demographics. The abstract reports no exact numerical values, effect sizes, variance measures, or metabolic/clinical outcome data.
Cited by
- supports A waist circumference of 35 inches or greater for women and 40 inches or greater for men serves as a clinical sign of excessive visceral fat.