|
Doctors use these measures to estimate a patient's risk of developing type 2
diabetes and advise them how to lower their risk, such as by losing weight and
changing their diet.
Current cutoffs say that men should have a waist size of less than 40 inches to
help prevent diseases such as heart disease, diabetes, and cancer.
But researchers say the cutoff for a man's waist size may need to be lowered to
37 inches. At that waist size researchers accurately identified more than 80%
of the type 2 diabetes cases that developed in a large group of men followed
over 13 years.
Waistline Reveals Diabetes Risk
In the study, researchers compared the effectiveness of BMI, waist size, and
waist-to-hip ratio in predicting the risk of type 2 diabetes in more than
27,000 men. Results appear in the March 2005 issue of the American
Journal of Clinical Nutrition .
All of the men had their BMI, waist size, and waist-to-hip measurements taken
when the study began and were then followed for 13 years.
Men who had a waist size of 40 inches or more had the highest risk of type 2
diabetes. These men were 12 times more likely to develop the disease than those
with a waist size of 34 inches or less.
Men with a BMI of 25 or more also were significantly more likely to develop type
2 diabetes.
Researchers say the results suggest that currently recommended cutoffs for
estimating type 2 diabetes risk be lowered. Currently those cutoffs are 25 for
BMI and 40 inches for a man's waist size.
But the study shows that lower cutoffs identified a significantly greater
proportion of the type 2 diabetes cases.
Type 2 diabetes risk rose progressively as waist size climbed above 34 inches:
-
A waist size of 34 to 36 doubled diabetes risk.
-
A waist size of 36 to 38 inches nearly tripled the risk.
-
A waist size of 38 to 40 inches was associated with five times the risk.
-
A waist size of 40 to 62 inches was associated with 12 times the risk.
By Jennifer Warner
Reviewed By Kathleen Zelman, MPH, RD, July 25, 2007.
Medically updated July 25, 2007.
SOURCE: Wang, Y. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition ,
March 2005; vol 81: pp 555-563.
|