BMI, waist size, and waist-to-height ratio all relate to how much fat is stored around the belly in people with spinal cord injuries.

Scientific Claim

BMI, waist circumference, and waist-to-height ratio are correlated with abdominal fat percentage in individuals with spinal cord injury.

Original Statement

“BMI, WC, and WHtR were correlated with abdominal fat percentage.”

From study:Waist Circumference Is the Best Index for Obesity-Related Cardiovascular Disease Risk in Individuals with Spinal Cord Injury

Evidence Quality Assessment

Claim Status

appropriately stated

Study Design Support

Design supports claim

Appropriate Language Strength

association

Can only show association/correlation

Assessment Explanation

The study reports correlations, so 'correlated' is appropriate for correlational claims.

Evidence from Studies

Supporting (1)

Waist Circumference Is the Best Index for Obesity-Related Cardiovascular Disease Risk in Individuals with Spinal Cord Injury

Cross-Sectional Study

Human

2014 Feb 1

Contradicting (0)

No contradicting evidence found

Source Study

Waist Circumference Is the Best Index for Obesity-Related Cardiovascular Disease Risk in Individuals with Spinal Cord Injury

Score: 20

DOI: 10.1089/neu.2013.3042

Similar Assertions

In men with spinal cord injuries, waist size strongly correlates with total body fat and belly fat, indicating it's a good measure of overall fatness.

90%

For men with spinal cord injuries, using a waist size of 86.5 cm instead of 102 cm identifies more people as obese (36% vs 3%), which is a big difference.

84%

Standard BMI measurements don't accurately show how much body fat people with spinal cord injuries have, often making them seem less obese than they really are.

84%

Waist size and waist-to-height ratio are linked to five key heart disease risk factors and overall heart disease risk in people with spinal cord injuries.

83%

Using a waist size of 86.5 cm instead of 102 cm in men with spinal cord injuries better identifies who has obesity based on body fat percentage, catching more true cases (68.8% vs 6.3%) while still correctly identifying most non-obese people (90% vs 100%).

83%