AJCN EB 2010
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 Similar articles in PubMed
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 HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Flegal, K. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Flegal, K. M.
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Flegal, K. M.

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol 51, 540-547, Copyright © 1990 by The American Society for Clinical Nutrition, Inc

ORIGINAL RESEARCH COMMUNICATIONS

Ratio of actual to predicted weight as an alternative to a power-type weight-height index (Benn index)

KM Flegal
Division of Health Examination Statistics, National Center for Health Statistics, Hyattsville, MD 20782.

In 1971 Benn described a form of relative weight that can be calculated as the ratio of actual to predicted weight from the linear regression of weight on height in a population. He also showed how to compute the exponent for a power-type weight-height index that would be approximately equivalent to this relative weight. Benn did not, however, recommended that this "Benn index" be used instead of relative weight. The properties of these two weight-height functions were investigated in data on 10,606 white men and women aged 18-74 y examined in the 1976-1980 Second National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES II). Compared with the power-type index, relative weight was preferable in that it was easier to compute with current software packages, was invariant at standard weight-for-height, and offered more flexibility. The limitations shared by both functions are discussed. Neither function should be used uncritically.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Am. J. Clin. Nutr.Home page
S. B Heymsfield, D. Gallagher, L. Mayer, J. Beetsch, and A. Pietrobelli
Scaling of human body composition to stature: new insights into body mass index
Am. J. Clinical Nutrition, July 1, 2007; 86(1): 82 - 91.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Integr. Comp. Biol.Home page
R. D. Stevenson and W. A. Woods Jr
Condition indices for conservation: new uses for evolving tools
Integr. Comp. Biol., December 1, 2006; 46(6): 1169 - 1190.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Clin. Nutr.Home page
I. Larsson, B. Henning, A. K. Lindroos, I. Naslund, C. D. Sjostrom, and L. Sjostrom
Optimized predictions of absolute and relative amounts of body fat from weight, height, other anthropometric predictors, and age 1
Am. J. Clinical Nutrition, February 1, 2006; 83(2): 252 - 259.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Clin. Nutr.Home page
R. J Kuczmarski and K. M Flegal
Criteria for definition of overweight in transition: background and recommendations for the United States
Am. J. Clinical Nutrition, November 1, 2000; 72(5): 1074 - 1081.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1990 by The American Society for Nutrition