Relationship of milk intake and physical activity to abdominal obesity among adolescents

Background: Diet and physical activity (PA) are recognized as important factors to prevent abdominal obesity (AO), which is strongly associated with chronic diseases. Some studies have reported an inverse association between milk consumption and AO. Objective: This study examined the association between milk intake, PA and AO in adolescents. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted with 1209 adolescents, aged 15–18 from the Azorean Archipelago, Portugal in 2008. AO was defined by a waist circumference at or above the 90th percentile. Adolescent food intake was measured using a semi-quantitative food frequency questionnaire, and milk intake was categorized as ‘low milk intake’ (<2 servings per day) or ‘high milk intake’ ( 2 servings per day). PA was assessed via a self-report questionnaire, and participants were divided into active (>10 points) and low-active groups ( 10 points) on the basis of their reported PA. They were then divided into four smaller groups, according to milk intake and PA: (i) low milk intake/low active; (ii) low milk intake/active; (iii) high milk intake/low active and (iv) high milk intake/active. The association between milk intake, PA and AO was evaluated using logistic regression analysis, and the results were adjusted for demographic, body mass index, pubertal stage and dietary confounders. Results: In this study, the majority of adolescents consumed semi-skimmed or skimmed milk (92.3%). The group of adolescents with high level of milk intake and active had a lower proportion of AO than did other groups (low milk intake/low active: 34.2%; low milk intake/active: 26.9%; high milk intake/low active: 25.7%; high milk intake/active: 21.9%, P = 0.008). After adjusting for confounders, low-active and active adolescents with high levels of milk intake were less likely to have AO, compared with low-active adolescents with low milk intake (high milk intake/low active, odds ratio [OR] = 0.412, 95% confidence intervals [CI]: 0.201– 0.845; high milk intake/active adolescents, OR = 0.445, 95% CI: 0.235–0.845).Conclusion: High milk intake seems to have a protective effect on AO, regardless of PA level

Educational inequality in the occurrence of abdominal obesity:Pró-Saúde Study

OBJECTIVE To estimate the degree of educational inequality in the occurrence of abdominal obesity in a population of non-faculty civil servants at university campi.METHODS In this cross-sectional study, we used data from 3,117 subjects of both genders aged 24 to 65-years old, regarding the baseline ofPró-Saúde Study, 1999-2001. Abdominal obesity was defined according to abdominal circumference thresholds of 88 cm for women and 102 cm for men. A multi-dimensional, self-administered questionnaire was used to evaluate education levels and demographic variables. Slope and relative indices of inequality, and Chi-squared test for linear trend were used in the data analysis. All analyses were stratified by genders, and the indices of inequality were standardized by age.RESULTS Abdominal obesity was the most prevalent among women (43.5%; 95%CI 41.2;45.9), as compared to men (24.3%; 95%CI 22.1;26.7), in all educational strata and age ranges. The association between education levels and abdominal obesity was an inverse one among women (p < 0.001); it was not statistically significant among men (p = 0.436). The educational inequality regarding abdominal obesity in the female population, in absolute terms (slope index of inequality), was 24.0% (95%CI 15.5;32.6). In relative terms (relative index of inequality), it was 2.8 (95%CI 1.9;4.1), after the age adjustment.CONCLUSIONS Gender inequality in the prevalence of abdominal obesity increases with older age and lower education. The slope and relative indices of inequality summarize the strictly monotonous trend between education levels and abdominal obesity, and it described educational inequality regarding abdominal obesity among women. Such indices provide relevant quantitative estimates for monitoring abdominal obesity and dealing with health inequalities.

Association between dairy product intake and abdominal obesity in Azorean adolescents

BACKGROUND: Some studies have reported an inverse association between dairy product (DP) consumption and weight or fat mass loss. OBJECTIVES: The objective of our study was to assess the association between DP intake and abdominal obesity (AO) among Azorean adolescents. SUBJECTS/METHODS: This study was a cross-sectional analysis. A total of 903 adolescents (370 boys) aged 15--16 years was evaluated. Anthropometric measurements were collected (weight, height and waist circumference (WC)) and McCarthy’s cut-points were used to categorize WC. AO was defined when WC was X90th percentile. Adolescent food intake was assessed using a self-administered semiquantitative food frequency questionnaire and DP intake was categorized in o2 and X2 servings/day. Data were analyzed separately for girls and boys, and logistical regression was used to estimate the association between DPs and AO adjusting for potential confounders. RESULTS: The prevalence of AO was 54.9% (boys: 32.1% and girls: 70.7%, Po0.001). For boys and girls, DP consumption was 2.3±1.9 and 2.1±1.6 servings/day (P¼0.185), respectively. In both genders, the proportion of adolescents with WC o90th percentile was higher among individuals who reported a dairy intake of X2 servings/day compared with those with an intake o2 servings/day (boys: 71% vs 65% and girls: 36% vs 24%, Po0.05). After adjustments for confounders, two or more DP servings per day were a negative predictor of AO (odds ratio, 0.217; 95% confidence interval, 0.075 -- 0.633) only in boys. CONCLUSION: We found a protective association between DP intake and AO only in boys.

Influence of cardiorespiratory fitness and parental lifestyle on adolescents' abdominal obesity

The aims of this study were (1) to analyse the influence of cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) and parental overweight status (POS) and socioeconomic status (SES) on abdominal obesity. This study was comprised of 779 adolescents (12-18 years). Waist-height ratio (WHtR), 20 m shuttle-run test to ascertain CRF, POS according to World Health Organization recommendations and SES of parents using level of education were analysed. Using WHtR, the prevalence of abdominal obesity was 21.3% (23.5% girls and 17.9% boys; p = 0.062). Regardless of gender, participants who belonged to the WHtR risk group had significantly (p ≤ 0.05) lower CRF scores than the WHtR non-risk group; 84.4% of girls who belonged to the WHtR risk group had one or two overweight parents (p ≤ 0.05). Boys with low CRF (OR: 6.43; CI: 3.33-12.39) were more likely to belong to the WHtR risk group compared with their lean peers. Girls with low CRF (OR: 1.78; CI: 1.14-2.78) and with at least one overweight parent (OR: 2.50; CI: 1.07-5.85) or two overweight parents (OR: 4.90; CI: 2.08-11.54) were associated with the risk of abdominal obesity. This study highlights the influence of adolescents' family on abdominal obesity, especially in girls. Further, the data suggested that low CRF was a strong predictor of risk values of abdominal obesity in adolescence.

Relationship between cigarette smoking and abdominal obesity

Background: Although smokers tend to have a lower body-mass index (BMI) than non-smokers, smoking may affect body fat (BF) distribution. Some studies have assessed the association between smoking, BMI and waist circumference (WC), but, to our knowledge, no population-based studies assessed the relation between smoking and BF composition. We assessed the association between amount of cigarette smoking, BMI, WC and BF composition. Method: Data was analysed from a cross-sectional population-based study including 6'187 Caucasians aged 32-76 and living in Switzerland. Height, weight and WC were measured. BF, expressed in percent of total body weight, was measured by electrical bioimpedance. Abdominal obesity was defined as a WC 0102 cm for men and 088 cm for women and normal WC as <94 cm for men and <80 cm for women. In men, excess BF was defined as %BF 028.1, 28.7, 30.6 and 32.6 for age groups 32-44, 45-54, 55-64 and 65-76, respectively; the corresponding values for women were 35.9, 36.5, 40.5 and 44.4. Cigarette smoking was assessed using a self-reported questionnaire. Results: 29.3% of men and 25.0% of women were smokers. Prevalence of obesity, abdominal obesity, and excess of BF was 16.9% and 26.6% and 14.2% in men and 15.0%, 33.0% and 27.5% in women, respectively. Smokers had lower age-adjusted mean WC and percent of BF compared to non-smokers. However, among smokers, mean age-adjusted WC and BF increased with the number of cigarettes smoked per day: among light (1-10 cig/day), moderate (11-20) and heavy smokers (>20), mean ± SE %BF was 22.4 ± 0.3, 23.1 ± 0.3 and 23.5 ± 0.4 for men, and 31.9 ± 0.3, 32.6 ± 0.3 and 32.9 ± 0.4 for women, respectively. Mean WC was 92.9 ± 0.6, 94.0 ± 0.5 and 96.0 ± 0.6 cm for men, and 80.2 ± 0.5, 81.3 ± 0.5 and 83.3 ± 0.7 for women, respectively. Compared with light smokers, the age-adjusted odds ratio (95% Confidence Interval) for excess of BF was 1.04 (0.58 to 1.85) for moderate smokers and 1.06 (0.57 to 1.99) for heavy smokers in men (p-trend = 0.9), and 1.35 (0.92 to 1.99) and 2.26 (1.38 to 3.72), respectively, in women (p-trend = 0.04). Odds ratio for abdominal obesity vs. normal WC was 1.32 (0.81 to 2.15) for moderate smokers and 1.95 (1.16 to 3.27) for heavy smokers in men (p-trend <0.01), and 1.15 (0.79 to 1.69) and 2.36 (1.41 to 3.93) in women (p-trend = 0.03). Conclusion: WC and BF were positively and dose-dependently associated with the number of cigarettes smoked per day in women, whereas only WC was dose dependently and significantly associated with the amount of cigarettes smoked per day in men. This suggests that heavy smokers, especially women, are more likely to have an excess of BF and to accumulate BF in the abdomen compared to lighter smokers.

Dose-dependent positive association between cigarette smoking, abdominal obesity and body fat: cross-sectional data from a population-based survey.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Although smokers tend to have a lower body-mass index than non-smokers, smoking may favour abdominal body fat accumulation. To our knowledge, no population-based studies have assessed the relationship between smoking and body fat composition. We assessed the association between cigarette smoking and waist circumference, body fat, and body-mass index. METHODS: Height, weight, and waist circumference were measured among 6,123 Caucasians (ages 35-75) from a cross-sectional population-based study in Switzerland. Abdominal obesity was defined as waist circumference>=102 cm for men and >=88 cm for women. Body fat (percent total body weight) was measured by electrical bioimpedance. Age- and sex-specific body fat cut-offs were used to define excess body fat. Cigarettes smoked per day were assessed by self-administered questionnaire. Age-adjusted means and odds ratios were calculated using linear and logistic regression. RESULTS: Current smokers (29% of men and 24% of women) had lower mean waist circumference, body fat percentage, and body-mass index compared with non-smokers. Age-adjusted mean waist circumference and body fat increased with cigarettes smoked per day among smokers. The association between cigarettes smoked per day and body-mass index was non-significant. Compared with light smokers, the adjusted odds ratio (OR) for abdominal obesity in men was 1.28 (0.78-2.10) for moderate smokers and 1.94 (1.15-3.27) for heavy smokers (P=0.03 for trend), and 1.07 (0.72-1.58) and 2.15 (1.26-3.64) in female moderate and heavy smokers, respectively (P<0.01 for trend). Compared with light smokers, the OR for excess body fat in men was 1.05 (95% CI: 0.58-1.92) for moderate smokers and 1.15 (0.60-2.20) for heavy smokers (P=0.75 for trend) and 1.34 (0.89-2.00) and 2.11 (1.25-3.57), respectively in women (P=0.07 for trend). CONCLUSION: Among smokers, cigarettes smoked per day were positively associated with central fat accumulation, particularly in women.

Relationship between cigarette smoking and abdominal obesity

BACKGROUND: Although smokers tend to have a lower body-mass index (BMI) than non-smokers, smoking may affect body fat (BF) distribution. Some studies have assessed the association between smoking, BMI and waist circumference (WC), but, to our knowledge, no population-based studies assessed the relation between smoking and BF composition. We assessed the association between amount of cigarette smoking, BMI, WC and BF composition. METHODS: Data was analysed from a cross-sectional population-based study including 6187 Caucasians aged 32-76 and living in Switzerland. Height, weight and WC were measured. BF, expressed in percent of total body weight, was measured by electrical bioimpedance. Obesity was defined as a BMI>=30 kg/m2 and normal weight as a BMI<25 kg/m2. Abdominal obesity was defined as a WC>=102 cm for men and >=88 cm for women and normal WC as <94 cm for men and <80 cm for women. In men, excess BF was defined as %BF >=28.1, 28.7, 30.6 and 32.6 for age groups 32-44, 45-54, 55-64 and 65-76, respectively; the corresponding values for women were 35.9, 36.5, 40.5 and 44.4. Cigarette smoking was assessed using a self-reported questionnaire. RESULTS: 29.3% of men and 25.0% of women were smokers. Prevalence of obesity, abdominal obesity, and excess of BF was 16.9% and 26.6% and 14.2% in men and 15.0%, 33.0% and 27.5% in women, respectively. Smokers had lower age-adjusted mean BMI, WC and percent of BF compared to non-smokers. However, among smokers,mean age-adjusted BMI,WC and BF increased with the number of cigarettes smoked per day: among light (1-10 cig/day), moderate (11-20) and heavy smokers (>20), mean +/-SE %BF was 22.4 +/−0.3, 23.1+/−0.3 and 23.5+/−0.4 for men, and 31.9+/−0.3, 32.6+/−0.3 and 32.9+/−0.4 for women, respectively. Mean WC was 92.9+/−0.6, 94.0+/−0.5 and 96.0+/−0.6 cm for men, and 80.2+/−0.5, 81.3+/−0.5 and 83.3+/−0.7 for women, respectively. Mean BMI was 25.7+/−0.2, 26.0+/−0.2, and 26.1+/−0.2 kg/m2 for men; and 23.6+/−0.2, 24.0+/−0.2 and 24.1+/−0.3 for women, respectively. Compared with light smokers, the age-adjusted odds ratio (95% Confidence Interval) for excess of BF was 1.04 (0.58 to 1.85) formoderatesmokers and 1.06 (0.57 to 1.99) for heavy smokers in men (p-trend = 0.9), and 1.35 (0.92 to 1.99) and 2.26 (1.38 to 3.72), respectively, in women (p-trend = 0.04). Odds ratio for abdominal obesity vs. normal WC was 1.32 (0.81 to 2.15) for moderate smokers and 1.95 (1.16 to 3.27) for heavy smokers in men (p-trend < 0.01), and 1.15 (0.79 to 1.69) and 2.36 (1.41 to 3.93) in women (p-trend = 0.03). Odds ratio for obesity vs. normal weight was 1.35 (0.76 to 2.41) for moderate smokers and 1.33 (0.71 to 2.49) for heavy smokers in men (p-trend = 0.9) and 0.78 (0.45 to 1.35) and 1.44 (0.73 to 2.85), in women (p-trend = 0.08). CONCLUSIONS: WC and BF were positively and dose-dependently associated with the number of cigarettes smoked per day in women, whereas onlyWC was dose dependently and significantly associated with the amount of cigarettes smoked per day in men. This suggests that heavy smokers, especially women, are more likely to have an excess of BF and to accumulate BF in the abdomen compared to lighter smokers.

Prevalence of obesity and abdominal obesity in the Lausanne population.

BACKGROUND: Obesity can be defined using body mass index (BMI) or waist (abdominal obesity). Little information exists regarding its prevalence and determinants in Switzerland. Hence, we assessed the levels of obesity as defined by BMI or waist circumference in a Swiss population-based sample. METHODS: Cross-sectional, population-based non-stratified random sample of 3,249 women and 2,937 men aged 35-75 years living in Lausanne, Switzerland. Overall participation rate was 41%. RESULTS: In men, the prevalences of overweight (BMI > or =25 kg/m2) and obesity (BMI > or =30 kg/m2) were 45.5% and 16.9%, respectively, higher than in women (28.3% and 14.3%, respectively). The prevalence of abdominal obesity (waist > or =102 in men and > or =88 cm in women) was higher in women than in men (30.6% vs. 23.9%). Obesity and abdominal obesity increased with age and decreased with higher educational level in both genders. In women, the prevalence of obesity was lower among former and current smokers, whereas in men the prevalence of obesity was higher in former smokers but did not differ between current and never smokers. Multivariate analysis showed age to be positively related, and education and physical activity to be negatively related with obesity and abdominal obesity in both genders, whereas differential effects of smoking were found between genders. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of abdominal obesity is higher than BMI-derived obesity in the Swiss population. Women presented with more abdominal obesity than men. The association between smoking and obesity levels appears to differ between genders.

Discordances in the application of different criteria for quantification of paediatric abdominal obesity: an analysis of two Swiss studies.

Several definitions of paediatric abdominal obesity have been proposed but it is unclear whether they lead to similar results. We assessed the prevalence of abdominal obesity using five different waist circumference-based definitions and their agreement with total body fat (TBF) and abdominal fat (AF). Data from 190 girls and 162 boys (Ballabeina), and from 134 girls and 113 boys (Kinder-Sportstudie, KISS) aged 5-11 years were used. TBF was assessed by bioimpedance (Ballabeina) or dual energy X-ray absorption (KISS). On the basis of the definition used, the prevalence of abdominal obesity varied between 3.1 and 49.4% in boys, and 4.7 and 55.5% in girls (Ballabeina), and between 1.8 and 36.3% in boys and 4.5 and 37.3% in girls (KISS). Among children considered as abdominally obese by at least one definition, 32.0 (Ballabeina) and 44.7% (KISS) were considered as such by at least two (out of five possible) definitions. Using excess TBF or AF as reference, the areas under the receiver operating curve varied between 0.577 and 0.762 (Ballabeina), and 0.583 and 0.818 (KISS). We conclude that current definitions of abdominal obesity in children lead to wide prevalence estimates and should not be used until a standard definition can be proposed.

Lifestyle factors and socioeconomic variables associated with abdominal obesity in Brazilian adolescents

Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES)

The Influence of Abdominal Pressure on Lower Extremity Venous Pressure and Hemodynamics: A Human In-vivo Model Simulating the Effect of Abdominal Obesity

To demonstrate that abdominal pressure impacts venous flow and pressure characteristics.