Relevance of body weight adaptation and modern obesity‐defining parameters in the analysis of isokinetic trunk strength in people with obesity – A retrospective analysis

Figures

• 

  FIGURE 1. Correlogram of absolute trunk strength with body mass index, waist circumference, and waist‐to‐height ratio in the different subgroups divided by BMI, WC, WHtR, and age‐related WHtR. Age‐related WtHR pathological = age 18–39 years ≥0.50, 40–49 years ≥0.55, ≥50 years ≥0.60; age‐related WtHR normal = age 18–39 years <0.50, 40–49 years <0.55, ≥50 years <0.60; BMI normal = <30 kg/m2; WC normal = <102 cm in men and <88 cm in women; WC pathological = ≥102 cm in men and ≥88 cm in women; WtHR, waist‐to‐height‐ratio; WHtR normal = <0.55; WHtR pathological = ≥0.55; BMI pathological ≥ 30 kg/m2; BMI, body mass index; EPT, extension peak torque; FPT, flexion peak torque; WC, waist circumference.

• 

  FIGURE 2. Correlogram of body weight‐adapted trunk strength with body mass index, waist circumference, and waist‐to‐height ratio in the different subgroups divided by BMI, WC, WHtR, and age‐related WHtR. Age‐related WtHR pathological = age 18–39 years ≥0.50, 40–49 years ≥0.55, ≥50 years ≥0.60; age‐related WtHR normal = age 18–39 years <0.50, 40–49 years <0.55, ≥50 years <0.60; BMI normal = <30 kg/m2; BMI pathological= > 30 kg/m2; FPT/BW = body weight‐adapted trunk flexion peak torque; EPT/BW = body weight‐adapted trunk extension peak torque; WC normal = <102 cm in men and <88 cm in women; WC pathological = ≥102 cm in men and ≥88 cm in women; WHtR normal = <0.55; WHtR pathological = ≥0.55; BMI, body mass index; WC, waist circumference; WtHR, waist‐to‐height ratio.

• 

  FIGURE 3. Nonlinear (gamm4) regression analyses between age [years]: (A) FPT = flexion peak torque [Nm] (p < .001, edf = 5.931); (B) EPT = extension peak torque [Nm] (p < .001, edf = 7.097); (C) FPT/BW = body weight‐adapted flexion peak torque [Nm/kg] (p < .001, edf = 5.841); (D) EPT/BW = body weight‐adapted extension peak torque [Nm/kg] (p < .001, edf = 7.093). edf, effective degrees of freedom; p, level of significance; n, 3128.

• 

  FIGURE 4. Nonlinear (gamm4) regression analyses between BMI = body mass index [kg/m2] and (A) FPT = flexion peak torque [Nm] (p < .001, edf = 3.862), (B) EPT = extension peak torque [Nm] (p < .001, edf = 4.005), (C): FPT/BW = body weight‐adapted flexion peak torque [Nm/kg] (p < .001, edf = 6.042), (D) EPT/BW = body weight‐adapted extension peak torque [Nm/kg] (p < .001, edf = 4.118). edf, effective degrees of freedom; p, level of significance; n = 3128 for 4c following regression formula was used: FPTBW~s(BMI) + Age + WC + WHtR.

• 

  FIGURE 5. Nonlinear (gamm4) regression analyses between WC = waist circumference [cm] and (A) FPT = flexion peak torque [Nm] (p = .002, edf = 4.730), (B) EPT = extension peak torque [Nm] (p = .049, edf = 2.943), (C) FPT/BW = body weight‐adapted flexion peak torque [Nm/kg] (p < .001, edf = 5.041), (D) EPT/BW = body weight‐adapted extension peak torque [Nm/kg] (p < .001, edf = 2.946). edf, effective degrees of freedom; p, level of significance; n = 3128.

• 

  FIGURE 6. Nonlinear (gamm4) regression analyses using between WHtR = waist‐to‐height ratio and (A) FPT = flexion peak torque [Nm] (p < .001, edf = 4.072), (B) EPT = extension peak torque [Nm] (p < .001, edf = 1.525), (C) FPT/BW = body weight‐adapted flexion peak torque [Nm/kg] (p < .001, edf = 5.790), (D) EPT/BW = body weight‐adapted extension peak torque [Nm/kg] (p < .001, edf = 3.620). edf, effective degrees of freedom; p, level of significance; n = 3128.