High body mass index is not a barrier to physical activity: Analysis of international rugby players' anthropometric data

Recent data indicate that levels of overweight and obesity are increasing at an alarming rate throughout the world. At a population level (and commonly to assess individual health risk), the prevalence of overweight and obesity is calculated using cut-offs of the Body Mass Index (BMI) derived from height and weight. Similarly, the BMI is also used to classify individuals and to provide a notional indication of potential health risk. It is likely that epidemiologic surveys that are reliant on BMI as a measure of adiposity will overestimate the number of individuals in the overweight (and slightly obese) categories. This tendency to misclassify individuals may be more pronounced in athletic populations or groups in which the proportion of more active individuals is higher. This differential is most pronounced in sports where it is advantageous to have a high BMI (but not necessarily high fatness). To illustrate this point we calculated the BMIs of international professional rugby players from the four teams involved in the semi-finals of the 2003 Rugby Union World Cup. According to the World Health Organisation (WHO) cut-offs for BMI, approximately 65% of the players were classified as overweight and approximately 25% as obese. These findings demonstrate that a high BMI is commonplace (and a potentially desirable attribute for sport performance) in professional rugby players. An unanswered question is what proportion of the wider population, classified as overweight (or obese) according to the BMI, is misclassified according to both fatness and health risk? It is evident that being overweight should not be an obstacle to a physically active lifestyle. Similarly, a reliance on BMI alone may misclassify a number of individuals who might otherwise have been automatically considered fat and/or unfit.

The guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK Guide) : applicability and contribution to project success in Australia

The PMBOK Guide is one of the most influential publications concerning the knowledge of the project manangement. Moreover, the pervasion of this guide seems to be set to increase as the basis of accreditation - in conjunction with the increasing global trend toward obtaining project management professional status. However, despite the influence and strengthening profile of this guide, reports continue to be published that detail numerous project failures in a wide range of different industries. The PMBOK Guide comprises mainly declarative (know-what) and procedural (know-how) information. In this sense, the guide is largely normative and provides a very good example of the limitations of this approach as highlighted by proponents of a move to the genuine application of positibe theory in project management.----- The aim of this paper is to determine the applicability of the guide in Australia and to determine the extent to which project success can be attributed to the guide. Project Managers from a variety of organisations were surveyed. This postal survey yielded 48 replies. Descriptive statistics was used to assess the incidence and effectivieness of all the processes in the guide. The results indicate that there were no processes that could be considered as peripheral or as a candidate for elimination from the guide. More specifically, all the processes were identified as either a key routine process or a key selective process and positively related to the level of project success. However, the results also indicated that other major factors pertaining to causal knowledge (know-why) are, at least, equally important determinants of project success. It is concluded that declarative, procedural and causal knowledge are all valuable, and given the preponderance of the first two types of knowledge, there seems to be an urgent need to now ensure an equal quest for causal knowledge. In terms of developing causal knowledge, a good starting point would appear to be both positive theory from production and economics.

Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease : can ultrasound assist in early diagnosis of prediabetes and delay progression to type2 diabetes mellitus

Non Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease (NAFLD) is a condition that is frequently seen but seldom investigated. Until recently, NAFLD was considered benign, self-limiting and unworthy of further investigation. This opinion is based on retrospective studies with relatively small numbers and scant follow-up of histology data. (1) The prevalence for adults, in the USA is, 30%, and NAFLD is recognized as a common and increasing form of liver disease in the paediatric population (1). Australian data, from New South Wales, suggests the prevalence of NAFLD in “healthy” 15 year olds as being 10%.(2) Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease is a condition where fat progressively invades the liver parenchyma. The degree of infiltration ranges from simple steatosis (fat only) to steatohepatitis (fat and inflammation) steatohepatitis plus fibrosis (fat, inflammation and fibrosis) to cirrhosis (replacement of liver texture by scarred, fibrotic and non functioning tissue).Non-alcoholic fatty liver is diagnosed by exclusion rather than inclusion. None of the currently available diagnostic techniques -liver biopsy, liver function tests (LFT) or Imaging; ultrasound, Computerised tomography (CT) or Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) are specific for non-alcoholic fatty liver. An association exists between NAFLD, Non Alcoholic Steatosis Hepatitis (NASH) and irreversible liver damage, cirrhosis and hepatoma. However, a more pervasive aspect of NAFLD is the association with Metabolic Syndrome. This Syndrome is categorised by increased insulin resistance (IR) and NAFLD is thought to be the hepatic representation. Those with NAFLD have an increased risk of death (3) and it is an independent predictor of atherosclerosis and cardiovascular disease (1). Liver biopsy is considered the gold standard for diagnosis, (4), and grading and staging, of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. Fatty-liver is diagnosed when there is macrovesicular steatosis with displacement of the nucleus to the edge of the cell and at least 5% of the hepatocytes are seen to contain fat (4).Steatosis represents fat accumulation in liver tissue without inflammation. However, it is only called non-alcoholic fatty liver disease when alcohol - >20gms-30gms per day (5), has been excluded from the diet. Both non-alcoholic and alcoholic fatty liver are identical on histology. (4).LFT’s are indicative, not diagnostic. They indicate that a condition may be present but they are unable to diagnosis what the condition is. When a patient presents with raised fasting blood glucose, low HDL (high density lipoprotein), and elevated fasting triacylglycerols they are likely to have NAFLD. (6) Of the imaging techniques MRI is the least variable and the most reproducible. With CT scanning liver fat content can be semi quantitatively estimated. With increasing hepatic steatosis, liver attenuation values decrease by 1.6 Hounsfield units for every milligram of triglyceride deposited per gram of liver tissue (7). Ultrasound permits early detection of fatty liver, often in the preclinical stages before symptoms are present and serum alterations occur. Earlier, accurate reporting of this condition will allow appropriate intervention resulting in better patient health outcomes. References 1. Chalasami N. Does fat alone cause significant liver disease: It remains unclear whether simple steatosis is truly benign. American Gastroenterological Association Perspectives, February/March 2008 www.gastro.org/wmspage.cfm?parm1=5097 Viewed 20th October, 2008 2. Booth, M. George, J.Denney-Wilson, E: The population prevalence of adverse concentrations with adiposity of liver tests among Australian adolescents. Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health.2008 November 3. Catalano, D, Trovato, GM, Martines, GF, Randazzo, M, Tonzuso, A. Bright liver, body composition and insulin resistance changes with nutritional intervention: a follow-up study .Liver Int.2008; February 1280-9 4. Choudhury, J, Sanysl, A. Clinical aspects of Fatty Liver Disease. Semin in Liver Dis. 2004:24 (4):349-62 5. Dionysus Study Group. Drinking factors as cofactors of risk for alcohol induced liver change. Gut. 1997; 41 845-50 6. Preiss, D, Sattar, N. Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: an overview of prevalence, diagnosis, pathogenesis and treatment considerations. Clin Sci.2008; 115 141-50 7. American Gastroenterological Association. Technical review on nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Gastroenterology.2002; 123: 1705-25