Key result
Conicity index and WHR were equally weak predictors of fasting insulin and blood pressure, while WHR was a better predictor of triglycerides (r=0.22, p=0.0006) in healthy premenopausal women.
Why the study?
Does the Conicity index predict blood pressure, insulin, and triglyceride concentrations better than WHR in healthy premenopausal women?
Cross-Sectional (n=280)
Does the Conicity index predict blood pressure, insulin, and triglyceride concentrations better than WHR in healthy premenopausal women?
The Conicity index and Waist-to-Hip Ratio are equally weak predictors of fasting insulin and blood pressure, but WHR is a better predictor of triglycerides in healthy premenopausal women.
Conicity index offers no advantage over WHR for metabolic prediction in premenopausal women; leaves open utility in prospective risk models.
Conicity index (C index), an index of abdominal obesity that was developed based on a model of geometric reasoning, proved to be a sensitive and better than the waist to hip ratio indicator of risk for hyperlipidemia in Western populations. To evaluate comparatively the C index and the Waist-to-Hip Ratio (WHR) as predictors of blood pressure levels, insulin and triglyceride concentrations, we performed a cross-sectional study on 280 healthy women, 18-24 year-old. C index was found to be within the expected range (0.95 to 1.73) and significantly correlated with WHR (r = 0.562, p = 0.0001) and body weight (r = 0.312, p = 0.0001). Additionally, C index correlated with fasting insulin levels (r = 0.13, p = 0.03), and systolic blood pressure (r = 0.14, p = 0.02). WHR correlated with fasting insulin levels (r = 0.12, p = 0.05), systolic blood pressure (r = 0.12, p = 0.13) and triglycerides (r = 0.22, p = 0.0006). C index and WHR are equally good, albeit weak, predictors of fasting insulin and blood pressure levels, while WHR proved to be a better than C index predictor of triglyceride concentrations in this population of healthy premenopausal Greek women. Further epidemiologic studies to comparatively evaluate the two indexes as predictors of risk for the development of metabolic disorders and cardiovascular disease in various populations are needed.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mantzoros et al. (1996) conducted a cross-sectional in Healthy (n=280). Conicity index vs. Waist-to-Hip Ratio (WHR) was evaluated on Blood pressure levels, insulin and triglyceride concentrations. Conicity index and WHR were equally weak predictors of fasting insulin and blood pressure, while WHR was a better predictor of triglycerides (r=0.22, p=0.0006) in healthy premenopausal women.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: