Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Original Article
  • Published:

Waist circumference thresholds for the prediction of cardiometabolic risk: is measurement site important?

Abstract

Background:

Waist circumference (WC) is frequently measured in clinical and research settings. Although measurement protocols may differ considerably, a single set of sex-specific cut-points are typically used to denote elevated risk. The purpose of this study was to determine whether the appropriate WC thresholds for identifying cardiometabolic risk vary according to anatomical measurement site.

Methods:

WC was measured at four common sites in 520 community-dwelling adults (20–66 years): superior border of the iliac crest, midpoint between the iliac crest and the lowest rib, umbilicus and minimal waist. Resting blood pressures and fasting levels of total cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein-cholesterol, triglycerides and glucose were measured. The sensitivity and specificity of current WC thresholds (M: >102 cm/40 inch; W: >88 cm/35 inch) for detecting abnormal risk factor levels were calculated for each WC measurement site, and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were used to select optimal thresholds for identifying individuals with risk factor clustering (2 risk factors).

Results:

The area under the ROC curve for WC measured at each anatomical site was similar for each risk factor and for the presence of risk factor clustering. However, WC >88/102 cm at the umbilicus showed the greatest sensitivity for all outcomes, whereas measurements at the minimal waist had the best specificity in this sample. The sensitivity of WC >88/102 cm for detecting 2 risk factors ranged from 75 to 89% in women and from 48 to 59% in men, and specificity ranged from 52 to 79% in women and from 77 to 88% in men, across measurement sites.

Conclusions:

At present, recommended WC thresholds may not have the same clinical utility at all anatomical locations of WC measurement.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

from$1.95

to$39.95

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

Peter Libby, Julie E. Buring, … Eldrin F. Lewis

References

  1. Alberti KG, Zimmet P, Shaw J (2006). Metabolic syndrome–a new world-wide definition. A Consensus Statement from the International Diabetes Federation. Diabet Med 23, 469–480.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Ardern CI, Janssen I (2007). Metabolic syndrome and its association with morbidity and mortality. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab 32, 33–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Ardern CI, Janssen I, Ross R, Katzmarzyk PT (2004). Development of health-related waist circumference thresholds within BMI categories. Obes Res 12, 1094–1103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bray GA (2004). Don’t throw the baby out with the bath water. Am J Clin Nutr 79, 347–349.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Brownie C, Habicht JP, Cogill B (1986). Comparing indicators of health or nutritional status. Am J Epidemiol 124, 1031–1044.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Campbell NR, Conradson HE, Kang J, Brant R, Anderson T (2005). Automated assessment of blood pressure using BpTRU compared with assessments by a trained technician and a clinic nurse. Blood Press Monit 10, 257–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Carey M, Markham C, Gaffney P, Boran C, Maher V (2006). Validation of a point of care lipid analyser using a hospital based reference laboratory. Ir J Med Sci 175, 30–35.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Dale RA, Jensen LH, Krantz MJ (2008). Comparison of two point-of-care lipid analyzers for use in global cardiovascular risk assessments. Ann Pharmacother 42, 633–639.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Grundy SM, Cleeman JI, Daniels SR, Donato KA, Eckel RH, Franklin BA et al. (2005). Diagnosis and Management of the Metabolic Syndrome. An American Heart Association/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Scientific Statement. Executive Summary. Circulation 112, 2735–2752.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Hayes RB, Sackett DL, Guyatt GH, Tugwell P (2006). Clinical Epidemiology: How to do Clinical Practice Research 3rd edn. Lippincott Williams and Wilkins: USA.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Lau DC, Douketis JD, Morrison KM, Hramiak IM, Sharma AM, Ur E (2007). 2006 Canadian clinical practice guidelines on the management and prevention of obesity in adults and children [summary]. CMAJ 176, S1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Lean ME, Han TS, Morrison CE (1995). Waist circumference as a measure for indicating need for weight management. BMJ 311, 158–161.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Lear SA, Toma M, Birmingham CL, Frohlich JJ (2003). Modification of the relationship between simple anthropometric indices and risk factors by ethnic background. Metabolism 52, 1295–1301.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Mason C, Katzmarzyk PT (2009a). Effect of the site of measurement of waist circumference on the prevalence of the metabolic syndrome. Am J Cardiol 103, 1716–1720.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Mason C, Katzmarzyk PT (2009b). Variability in waist circumference measurements according to anatomic measurement site. Obesity 17, 1789–1795.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Myers MG, Valdivieso M, Kiss A (2008). Optimum frequency of office blood pressure measurement using an automated sphygmomanometer. Blood Press Monit 13, 333–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. National Health and Medicine Research Council (2003). Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Management of Overweight and Obesity in Adults 2003. http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/obesityguidelines-guidelines-adults.htm [accessed 8 December 2008].

  18. NIH Expert Panel on the Identification, Evaluation, and Treatment of Overweight in Adults (1998). Clinical guidelines on the identification, evaluation, and treatment of overweight and obesity in adults: executive summary. Am J Clin Nutr 68, 899–917.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Razak F, Anand S, Vuksan V, Davis B, Jacobs R, Teo KK et al. (2005). Ethnic differences in the relationships between obesity and glucose-metabolic abnormalities: a cross-sectional population-based study. Int J Obes 29, 656–667.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Reeder BA, Senthilselvan A, Despres JP, Angel A, Liu L, Wang H et al. (1997). The association of cardiovascular disease risk factors with abdominal obesity in Canada. Canadian Heart Health Surveys Research Group. CMAJ 157, S39–S45.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Ross R, Berentzen T, Bradshaw AJ, Janssen I, Kahn HS, Katzmarzyk PT et al. (2008). Does the relationship between waist circumference, morbidity and mortality depend on measurement protocol for waist circumference? Obes Rev 9, 312–325.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Sebo P, Beer-Borst S, Haller DM, Bovier PA (2008). Reliability of doctors’ anthropometric measurements to detect obesity. Prev Med 47, 389–393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Wang J, Thornton JC, Bari S, Williamson B, Gallagher D, Heymsfield SB et al. (2003). Comparisons of waist circumferences measured at 4 sites. Am J Clin Nutr 77, 379–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. World Health Organization (2000a). Obesity: Preventing and Managing the Global Epidemic. World Health Organization: Geneva. Technical Report Series no.894.

  25. World Health Organization Western Pacific Region, The International Association for the Study of Obesity, and The International Obesity Task Force (2000b). The Asia-Pacific Perspective: Redefining Obesity and its Treatment. Health Communications Australia Pty Limited: Sydney.

  26. World Health Organization (WHO) Expert Consultation (2004). Appropriate body-mass index for Asian populations and its implications for policy and intervention strategies. Lancet 363, 157–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We gratefully acknowledge the participants of this study as well as Wendy Stephen, Auburn Larose and Travis Saunders for their assistance with data collection. CM is supported by a Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) Fellowship. PTK is supported, in part, through the Louisiana Public Facilities Authority Endowed Chair in Nutrition. This research was funded by an ancillary grant from the Canadian Heart Health Surveys Follow-Up Study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to P T Katzmarzyk.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Contributors: CM was responsible for all parts of this study. PTK assisted with the data analysis and interpretation, and in the preparation of the final article.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Mason, C., Katzmarzyk, P. Waist circumference thresholds for the prediction of cardiometabolic risk: is measurement site important?. Eur J Clin Nutr 64, 862–867 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1038/ejcn.2010.82

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/ejcn.2010.82

Keywords

This article is cited by

Search

Quick links