Abstract
A good evaluation of the nutritional status requires knowledge on body composition, casting doubts on the accuracy of some indexes. herefore, the aim of this study was to analyze the accuracy of the following nutritional status indexes: Body Mass Index (BMI), BMI elevated to 2.5 (BMI2.5), Fat Mass Index (FMI) and BMI adjusted for fat mass (BMIfat). Participated of this study 280 subjects (aged 17-48 years), from which the results of BMI, BMI2.5, FMI and BMIfat indexes were analyzed, having the Hydrostatic Weighing method as reference. FMI presented the highest concordance value, but classiied as discrete (k=0.21). he other indexes presented small concordance with results of the reference method (k<0.20). In conclusion, none of the indexes investigated has good accuracy in assessing the nutritional status of the study group, considering that, although they show results of correlation with the reference method, they do not reach the minimum agreement criterion.
Highlights
A good evaluation of the nutritional status requires knowledge on body composition, casting doubts on the accuracy of some indexes. herefore, the aim of this study was to analyze the accuracy of the following nutritional status indexes: Body Mass Index (BMI), BMI elevated to 2.5 (BMI2.5), Fat Mass Index (FMI) and BMI adjusted for fat mass (BMIfat)
In view of the above, the aim of the present study was to analyze the accuracy of BMI, BMI2.5, FMI and BMIfat, as alternative indexes to evaluate the nutritional status of adults of both sexes using Hydrostatic Weighing (HW) as the reference method
In the study by Schutz et al.[21] with 5635 European adults (18-98 years) aimed at establishing the distribution of percentiles according to age groups and sex for FMI, it was observed that the majority of individuals of both sexes is classiied as eutrophic according to reference values10. he same occurred in the present study, considering similar BF% values among studies, which demonstrates the ability to evaluate the independent index of the investigated group
Summary
A good evaluation of the nutritional status requires knowledge on body composition, casting doubts on the accuracy of some indexes. herefore, the aim of this study was to analyze the accuracy of the following nutritional status indexes: Body Mass Index (BMI), BMI elevated to 2.5 (BMI2.5), Fat Mass Index (FMI) and BMI adjusted for fat mass (BMIfat). A good evaluation of the nutritional status requires knowledge on body composition, casting doubts on the accuracy of some indexes. None of the indexes investigated has good accuracy in assessing the nutritional status of the study group, considering that, they show results of correlation with the reference method, they do not reach the minimum agreement criterion. Nenhum dos índices investigados apresenta boa acurácia para avaliar o estado nutricional do público em questão, tendo em vista que, apesar de mostrarem resultados de correlação com o método de referência, não atingem o critério mínimo de concordância. According to Anjos[4], a good evaluation of the nutritional status requires knowledge on the energy reserves and the metabolically active mass of individuals to be evaluated, which should be obtained by assessing body composition, casting doubts on some indexes that do not take this into account. Adopted by the World Health Organization, BMI is considered the simplest nutritional status indicator, involving conventional anthropometric dimensions such as body weight (BW) and height (HEI), but it has the limitation of not estimating the amount of body fat[6]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
