Application of body mass index adjusted for fat mass (BMIfat) obtained by bioelectrical impedance in adults

Introduction: Body mass index (BMI) has been one of the methods most frequently used for diagnose obesity, but it isn't consider body composition. Objective: This study intends to apply one new adiposity index, the BMI adjusted for fat mass (BMIfat) developed by Mialich, et al. (2011), in a adult Brazilian sample. Methods: A cross-sectional study with 501 individuals of both genders (366 women, 135 men) aged 17 to 38 years and mean age was 20.4 ± 2.8 years, mean weight 63.0 ± 13.5 kg, mean height 166.9 ± 9.0 cm, and BMI 22.4 ± 3.4 kg/m². Results and discussion: High and satisfactory R2 values were obtained, i.e., 91.1%, 91.9% and 88.8% for the sample as a whole and for men and women, respectively. Considering this BMIfat were developed new ranges, as follows: 1.35 to 1.65 (nutritional risk for malnutrition), > 1.65 and ≤ 2.0 (normal weight) and > 2.0 (obesity). The BMIfat had a more accurate capacity of detecting obese individuals (0.980. 0.993, 0.974) considering the sample as a whole and women and men, respectively, compared to the traditional BMI (0.932, 0.956, 0.95). Were also defined new cut-off points for the traditional BMI for the classification of obesity, i.e.: 25.24 kg/m² and 28.38 kg/m² for men and women, respectively. Conclusion: The BMIfat was applied for the present population and can be adopted in clinical practice. Further studies are needed to determine its application to different ethnic groups and to compare this index to others previously described in the scientific literature.

Unpacking insanity defence standards: an experimental study of rationality and control tests in criminal law

The present study investigated the impact of different legal standards on mock juror decisions concerning whether a defendant was guilty or not guilty by reason of insanity. Undergraduate students (N = 477) read a simulated case summary involving a murder case and were asked to make an insanity determination. The cases differed in terms of the condition of the defendant (rationality deficit or control deficit) and the legal standard given to the jurors to make the determination (Model Penal Code, McNaughten or McNaughten plus a separate control determination). The effects of these variables on the insanity determination were investigated. Jurors also completed questionnaires measuring individualism and hierarchy attitudes and perceptions of facts in the case. Results indicate that under current insanity standards jurors do not distinguish between defendants with rationality deficits and defendants with control deficits regardless of whether the legal standard requires them to do so. Even defendants who lacked control were found guilty at equal rates under a legal standard excusing rationality deficits only and a legal standard excluding control and rationality deficits. This was improved by adding a control test as a partial defence, to be determined after a rationality determination. Implications for the insanity defence in the Criminal Justice System are discussed.