Finding the Best Waist Circumference Measurement Protocol in Patients With Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease. (August 2015)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Pimenta, Nuno M.; Santa-Clara, Helena; Melo, Xavier; Cortez-Pinto, Helena; Silva-Nunes, José; Sardinha, Luís B.
• Is Part Of: Nutrition in clinical practice. Volume 30:Number 4(2015:Aug.)
• Page Start: 537
• Page End: 545
• Publication Date: 2015-08
• Subjects: waist circumference -- fatty liver -- body composition -- body fat distribution -- anthropometry -- dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry -- fatty liver; Nutrition -- Periodicals; Diet therapy -- Periodicals; Artificial feeding -- Periodicals; 615.854
• DOI: 10.1177/0884533615583092
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0884-5336

Abstract

Background: Central fat accumulation is important in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) etiology. It is unknown whether any commonly used waist circumference measurement protocol (WCmp), as a whole and central fat accumulation marker, is preferable for patients with NAFLD. The present study sought to find a preferable WCmp to be used in patients with NAFLD, based on 3-fold criteria. Methods: Body fat (BF) was assessed through dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry in 28 patients with NAFLD (19 men, 51 ± 13 years; 9 women, 47 ± 13 years). WC was measured with 4 types of WCmp: WC1, narrowest torso; WC2, just above iliac crest; WC3, middistance between iliac crest and last rib; WC4, at the umbilicus. Results: All WC measurements were highly correlated with central BF depots, including trunk BF ( r = 0.78, r = 0.82, r = 0.82, r = 0.84 for WC1, WC2, WC3, and WC4, respectively), abdominal BF ( r = 0.78, r = 0.78, r = 0.80, r = 0.72 for WC1, WC2, WC3, and WC4, respectively), and central abdominal BF ( r = 0.76, r = 0.77, r = 0.78, r = 0.68 for WC1, WC2, WC3, and WC4, respectively), controlling for age, sex, and body mass index. There were no differences between the correlation coefficients obtained between all studied waist circumference measurements and each whole and central analyzed BF variable. Conclusions: All studied WCmps seem suitable for use in patients with NAFLD, particularly as a central BF clinical assessment tool, though not interchangeably. Hence, biological and precision criteria alone did not sanction the superiority of any WCmp. Practical criteria may endorse WC measured at the iliac crest.