AJCN 19th International Congress of Nutrition
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Purchase Article
Right arrow View Shopping Cart
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Bray, G. A
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Bray, G. A
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Bray, G. A
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 80, No. 3, 792, September 2004
© 2004 American Society for Clinical Nutrition

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Reply to J Bigaard et al

George A Bray

Pennington Center
6400 Perkins Road
Baton Rouge, LA 70808
E-mail: brayga{at}pbrc.edu

Dear Sir:

The letter by Bigaard et al discusses their article (1) that examined body mass index and waist circumference in relation to mortality in a Danish population and that appeared in print as I was writing my editorial to accompany the article by Janssen et al (2). I am happy to see the concurrence between my view and that of Bigaard et al. The figures that Bigaard et al add to their letter are helpful in pointing out the interaction between body mass index and waist circumference and the greater value of one over the other at different ends of the body mass index distribution.

The articles by Janssen et al (2) and Bigaard et al (1) focused on mortality, most of which was cardiovascular in nature. For cardiovascular mortality, the relation to body mass index is less pronounced than that for mortality from diabetes and gall bladder disease. Analysis of a large data set with information about mortality, cardiovascular disease, and diabetes would be most instructive. Until there is new information, however, I still maintain that the appropriate clinical steps for evaluating the risk associated with body weight are measurement of body mass index and waist circumference coupled with other laboratory measurements related to the metabolic syndrome (3).

The one point that I would like to stress from my editorial is that the current recommendations for waist circumference cutoffs do not adequately reflect the ranges that could help clinicians make judgments when evaluating their patients. Adoption of new cutoffs would be a step forward.

REFERENCES

  1. Bigaard J, Tjønneland A, Thomsen BL, Overvad K, Heitmann BL, Sørensen TIA. Waist circumference, BMI, smoking, and mortality in middle-aged men and women. Obes Res 2003;11:895–903.[Medline]
  2. Janssen I, Katzmarzyk PT, Ross R. Waist circumference and not body mass index explains obesity-related health risk. Am J Clin Nutr 2004;79:379–84.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  3. Bray GA, Champagne CM. Obesity and the metabolic syndrome: implications for dietetics practitioners. J Am Diet Assoc 2004;104:86–9.[Medline]




This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Purchase Article
Right arrow View Shopping Cart
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Bray, G. A
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Bray, G. A
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Bray, G. A

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS