Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T23:31:02.091Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Defining nutritional status of women in developing countries

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2007

Penelope Nestel
Affiliation:
Demographic and Health Surveys, Macro International Inc., 11785 Beltsville Drive, Calverton, MD 20705, USA
Shea Rutstein*
Affiliation:
Demographic and Health Surveys, Macro International Inc., 11785 Beltsville Drive, Calverton, MD 20705, USA
*
*Corresponding author: Email [email protected]
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.
Objective:

To define a de facto reference body mass index (BMI) for women in developing countries and compare its performance with the Quetelet BMI.

Design:

A logarithmic equation for elite wt/ht references was developed using the weight (wt) and height (ht) of 10 524 non-pregnant elite mothers. Functional outcomes were compared using both BMIs.

Setting:

Forty-six national surveys from 36 developing countries.

Subjects:

Mothers 15–49 years old.

Results:

The de facto reference standard deviation showed 2.2% of elite women were undernourished and 6.3% overnourished; lower and upper limits for ‘ideal’ wt/ht were 73% and 137%, respectively. Compared with the age-based and medium frame standards of the First and Second National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES I & II), the de facto reference defined fewer women as undernourished (5.3% vs. 10.5% and 14.4%, respectively), but more as overnourished (20.4% vs. 13.7% and 15.9%, respectively). In the de facto reference, BMI=wt/ht1.6. Using the age-based and medium-frame-based Quetelet BMI (wt/ht2), 28.5% and 31.7% had a low and 13.0% and 14.7% a high BMI, respectively. For the de facto reference, 18.4% of the elite mothers had a low BMI and 19.3% a high BMI. Applying the de facto reference to all women showed that the distribution of BMI was similar irrespective of the reference used. Functional outcomes were similar for both BMIs.

Conclusions:

The NHANES I & II growth curves define more women as overnourished than the de facto curve, but the opposite for defining the undernourished. Functional outcomes were similar for both BMIs, suggesting there is no great advantage to using a de facto BMI based on national-level data from these 46 national surveys.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © CABI Publishing 2002

References

1Steyn, K, Bourne, L, Jooste, P, Fourie, JM, Rossouw, K, Lombard, C. Anthropometric profile of a black population of the Cape Peninsula in South Africa. East Afr. Med. J. 1998; 75(1), 3540.Google Scholar
2Berdasco, A. Body mass index values in the Cuban adult population. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 1994; 48(Suppl. 3): S155–S163.Google ScholarPubMed
3Ge, K. The body mass index of Chinese adults in the 1980s. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 1994; 48(Suppl. 3): S14854.Google ScholarPubMed
4Giay, T, Khoin, HH. The use of body mass index in the assessment of adult nutritional status in Vietnam. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 1994; 48(Suppl. 3): S12430.Google ScholarPubMed
5Frisancho, AR. New standards of weight and body composition by frame size and height for assessment of nutritional status of adults and the elderly. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 1984; 40: 808–19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6Nutrition Canada. Anthropometry Report: Height, Weight, and Body Dimensions. Ottawa: Bureau of Nutritional Sciences, Health Protection Branch, Health and Welfare, 1980.Google Scholar
7Frisancho, AR, Flegal, PN. Elbow breadth as a measure of frame size for United States males and females. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 1983; 37: 311–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8Rosenbaum, S, Skinner, PK, Knight, IB, Garrow, JS. A survey of heights and weights of adults in Great Britain, 1980. Ann. Hum. Biol. 1985; 12: 115–27.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9Metropolitan Life Insurance Company. Metropolitan height and weight tables. NY Stat. Bull. 1983; 64: 19.Google Scholar
10World Health Organization (WHO). Physical Status: The Use and Interpretation of Anthropometry. WHO Technical Report Series, No. 854. Geneva: WHO, 1995.Google Scholar
11Bray, GA, ed. Obesity in Perspective, Part 1. Publication No. 75-851 Bethesda, MD: Fogarty International Center, National Institutes of Health, 1975.Google Scholar
12Lee, J, Kolonel, LN, Hinds, MW. Relative merits of the weight-corrected-for-height indices. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 1981; 34: 2521–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13Metropolitan Life Insurance Company. Ideal weights for women. NY Stat. Bull. 1942; 23: 6.Google Scholar
14Metropolitan Life Insurance Company. Ideal weights for men. NY Stat. Bull. 1943; 24: 6.Google Scholar
15Krasovec, K, Anderson, MA. Maternal Nutrition and Pregnancy Outcomes. Scientific Publication No. 529. Washington, DC: Pan American Health Organization, 1991.Google Scholar
16James, WPT, Ferro-Luzzi, A, Waterlow, JC. Definition of chronic energy deficiency in adults: Report of a working party of the International Dietary Energy Consultative Group. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 1988; 42: 969–81.Google ScholarPubMed
17Naidu, AN, Rao, NP. Body mass index: a measure of the nutritional status in Indian populations. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 1992; 48(Suppl. 3): S131–4.Google Scholar
18Naidu, AN, Neela, J, Rao, NP. Maternal body mass index and birth weight. Nutr. News 1991; 12(2).Google Scholar
19Kusin, JA, Houtkooper, JM. Energy supplementation during pregnancy and postnatal growth. Lancet 1992; 340: 1294–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20Shetty, PS, James, WPT. Body Mass Index: A Measure of Chronic Energy Deficiency in Adults. Rome: United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation, 1994.Google ScholarPubMed
21Flegal, K. Ratio of actual to predicted weight as an alternative to a power-type weight-height index (Benn index). Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 1990; 51: 540–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22Benn, RT. Some mathematical properties of weight-for-height in indices used as a measure of adiposity. Br. J. Prev. Soc. Med. 1971; 25: 4250.Google ScholarPubMed