Skip to main content
×
Home
    • Aa
    • Aa

Self-reported waist circumference compared with the ‘Waist Watcher’ tape-measure to identify individuals at increased health risk through intra-abdominal fat accumulation

  • T.S. Han (a1) (a2) and M.E.J. Lean (a1)
Abstract

We evaluated the accuracy of self-reported home-assessed and self-measured waist circumference in 101 men and eighty-three women aged 28–67 years. The main outcome measures were subjects' self-reported and self-measured waist circumference, and self-classification according to the previously defined waist action level 1 (940 mm in men, 800 mm in women) and action level 2 (1020 mm in men, 880 mm in women), and waist circumference measured by the investigator using the ‘Waist Watcher’ tape-measure, as the reference method. The mean errors (95% CI limits of agreement) for subjects' self-reported waist circumference (self-reported minus reference; mm) were −67 (95% CI −210, 77) in men and −43 (95% CI −211, 123) in women, and for self-measured waist circumference (mm) using the ‘Waist Watcher’ (self-measured minus reference) were −5 (95% CI −62, 52) in men and −4 (95% CI −50, 42) in women. The proportions of subjects classified into waist action level 1 or action level 2 by the investigator were used as the reference method. Self-reported waist circumference of men and women respectively would be classified correctly in different categories based on action level 1 with sensitivities of 58·3 and 78·7%, and specificities of 98·5 and 98·7%, and action level 2 with sensitivities of 38·3 and 48·9%, and specificities of 98·5 and 98·7%. Using the ‘Waist Watcher’ with different colour bands based on the action levels, male and female subjects respectively classified themselves into correct categories according to action level 1 with sensitivities of 100 and 98·7%, and specificities of 98·1 and 98·2%, and according to action level 2 with sensitivities of 98·1 and 100%, and specificities of 100% for both sexes. Only 2% of the sample misclassified themselves into the wrong categories according to waist circumference action levels. In conclusion, people tend to underestimate their waist circumference, but the ‘Waist Watcher’ tape-measure offers advantages over self-reported home-assessed measurement, and may be used as a screening tool for self-classifying the risk of ill health through intra-abdominal fat accumulation.

    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Self-reported waist circumference compared with the ‘Waist Watcher’ tape-measure to identify individuals at increased health risk through intra-abdominal fat accumulation
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Self-reported waist circumference compared with the ‘Waist Watcher’ tape-measure to identify individuals at increased health risk through intra-abdominal fat accumulation
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Self-reported waist circumference compared with the ‘Waist Watcher’ tape-measure to identify individuals at increased health risk through intra-abdominal fat accumulation
      Available formats
      ×
Copyright
Corresponding author
*Corresponding author: Dr T. S. Han, fax +44 (0) 141 211 4844, email t.s.han@clinmed.gla.ac.uk
Linked references
Hide All

This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.

P Björntorp (1997) Obesity. Lancet 350, 423426.

VJ Carey , EE Walters , GA Colditz , CG Solomon , WC Willett , BA Rosner , FE Speizer & JE Manson (1997) Body fat distribution and risk of non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus in women. The nurses' health study. American Journal of Epidemiology 145, 614619.

TS Han , P Richmond , A Avenell & MEJ Lean (1997a) Waist circumference reduction and cardiovascular benefits during weight management in women. International Journal of Obesity 21, 127134.

TS Han , JSAG Schouten , MEJ Lean & JC Seidell (1997b) The prevalence of low back pain and associations with body fatness, fat distribution and height. International Journal of Obesity 21, 600607.

TS Han , JC Seidell , JEP Currall , CE Morrison , P Deurenberg & MEJ Lean (1997c) The influences of height and age on waist circumference as an index of adiposity. International Journal of Obesity 21, 8389.

TS Han , EM van Leer , JC Seidell & MEJ Lean (1995) Waist circumference action levels in the identification of cardiovascular risk factors: prevalence study in a random sample. British Medical Journal 311, 10411045.

TS Han , EM van Leer , JC Seidell & MEJ Lean (1996) Waist circumference as a screening tool for cardiovascular risk factors: evaluation of receiver operating characteristics (ROC). Obesity Research 4, 533547.

Institute of Medicine (1995) Weighing the Options. Criteria for Evaluating Weight Management Programs [PR Thomas , editor]. Washington, DC: National Academic Press.

MEJ Lean , TS Han & CE Morrison (1995) Waist circumference as a measure for indicating weight management. British Medical Journal 311, 158161.

MEJ Lean , TS Han & JC Seidell (1998) Impairment of health and quality of life in people with large waist circumference. Lancet 351, 853856.

EB Rimm , MJ Stampfer , GA Colditz , CG Chute , LB Litin & WC Willett (1990) Validity of self-reported waist and hip circumferences in men and women. Epidemiology 1, 466473.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

British Journal of Nutrition
  • ISSN: 0007-1145
  • EISSN: 1475-2662
  • URL: /core/journals/british-journal-of-nutrition
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords: