Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users
to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response
is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual
response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the
browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published
online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed.
Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles.
The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being
wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our
attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not
including references and author details. We will no longer post responses
that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
*Clinical Teaching & Clinical Research Fellow, The Ayr Hospital,
Scotland, United Kingdom
Email: drsujoyghosh@rediffmail.com
We have read with interest the original research paper by Cole et al.
as well as the accompanying editorial. [1, 2].
The authors attempt of trying to determine cut offs to define
thinness in children and adolescents based on body mass index at age 18
years is indeed commendable. However the study has its own limitations.
The editorial correctly points out the limitations of using same cut offs
for males and females and also highlights the fact that the measures are
not adjusted for pubertal development or the tempo of adolescent growth
and maturation. The assumption that a BMI of 17 at age 18 is a suitable
cut off to use as the basis for an international definition of thinness in
children and adolescents is arbitrary and is indeed an oversimplification
of the complex process of growth and development in children.
Conventionally weight for height less than the fifth percentile or
above 95th percentile had been regarded as the best growth chart indicator
of problems of nutrition. [3]
In recent years indices of height and weight, such as body mass index (BMI
= weight/height2) has used as a measure of nutritional state. Although BMI
is widely used as a clinical measure of nutrition, BMI may not provide an
accurate index of adiposity, because it does not differentiate lean tissue
and bone from fat. [4]. It is estimated that ~15% of children labeled as
obese are not excessively fat, but simply have large fat free mass.
Triceps-skin fold above a cut off of 95th centile (though difficult to
apply in clinical practice) has the advantage of distinguishing a child
who is excessively fat from the child who has a particularly large fat-
free (‘lean body’) mass. [5]
Disease states are often associated with abnormalities of growth. In
these states often there are associated abnormalities in the onset and
progress of puberty. The body composition is also often altered with
disease states, making assessment of nutritional status with the help of
indices of height and weight (such as BMI) even more complex and
unreliable. [6]
Clinicians need to be aware that no single measure/index is perfect
in assessing nutritional status of a patient. The assessment of
nutritional status therefore should not be based on one measurement or one
index. Serial measurements are more important than a single one. In
addition direct measures of body composition such mid-arm circumference,
skin fold thickness, impedance measurements should be used for cross-
validation.
COMPETING INTEREST: None
REFERENCES:
[1] Cole TJ, Flegal KM, Nicholls D, Jackson AA. Body mass index cut offs
to define thinness in children and adolescents: international survey. BMJ.
2007; 355: 194-197
[2] Cameron Noel. Body mass index cut offs to define thinness in
children and adolescents.BMJ 2007; 355: 166-167.
[3] Behrman R E, Kliegman, Jenson H B. Assessment of Growth. Nelson
Textbook of Pediatrics. 16th Edition, 2000, W.B. Saunders Company. Page:57
-61.
[4] Dietz W H. Therapeutic strategies in childhood obesity. Hormone
Research 39 (Suppl 3): 86-90.
[5] Dietz W H. Childhood obesity. In: Suskind RM, Lewinter-Suskind L
(eds). Textbook of pediatric nutrition, 2nd edn. Raven Press, New York,
1993.
[6] Warner J T, Cowan F J, Dunstan FDJ, Gregory JW. The validity of
body mass index for the assessment of adiposity in children and disease
states. Ann Hum Biol 1997; 24: 209-15.
Unreliability of Indices of Weight & Height In Assessment of Nutritional State In Children:
Dr. Sujoy Ghosh *, Dr. Aparajita Basu
*Clinical Teaching & Clinical Research Fellow, The Ayr Hospital,
Scotland, United Kingdom
Email: drsujoyghosh@rediffmail.com
We have read with interest the original research paper by Cole et al.
as well as the accompanying editorial. [1, 2].
The authors attempt of trying to determine cut offs to define
thinness in children and adolescents based on body mass index at age 18
years is indeed commendable. However the study has its own limitations.
The editorial correctly points out the limitations of using same cut offs
for males and females and also highlights the fact that the measures are
not adjusted for pubertal development or the tempo of adolescent growth
and maturation. The assumption that a BMI of 17 at age 18 is a suitable
cut off to use as the basis for an international definition of thinness in
children and adolescents is arbitrary and is indeed an oversimplification
of the complex process of growth and development in children.
Conventionally weight for height less than the fifth percentile or
above 95th percentile had been regarded as the best growth chart indicator
of problems of nutrition. [3]
In recent years indices of height and weight, such as body mass index (BMI
= weight/height2) has used as a measure of nutritional state. Although BMI
is widely used as a clinical measure of nutrition, BMI may not provide an
accurate index of adiposity, because it does not differentiate lean tissue
and bone from fat. [4]. It is estimated that ~15% of children labeled as
obese are not excessively fat, but simply have large fat free mass.
Triceps-skin fold above a cut off of 95th centile (though difficult to
apply in clinical practice) has the advantage of distinguishing a child
who is excessively fat from the child who has a particularly large fat-
free (‘lean body’) mass. [5]
Disease states are often associated with abnormalities of growth. In
these states often there are associated abnormalities in the onset and
progress of puberty. The body composition is also often altered with
disease states, making assessment of nutritional status with the help of
indices of height and weight (such as BMI) even more complex and
unreliable. [6]
Clinicians need to be aware that no single measure/index is perfect
in assessing nutritional status of a patient. The assessment of
nutritional status therefore should not be based on one measurement or one
index. Serial measurements are more important than a single one. In
addition direct measures of body composition such mid-arm circumference,
skin fold thickness, impedance measurements should be used for cross-
validation.
COMPETING INTEREST: None
REFERENCES:
[1] Cole TJ, Flegal KM, Nicholls D, Jackson AA. Body mass index cut offs
to define thinness in children and adolescents: international survey. BMJ.
2007; 355: 194-197
[2] Cameron Noel. Body mass index cut offs to define thinness in
children and adolescents.BMJ 2007; 355: 166-167.
[3] Behrman R E, Kliegman, Jenson H B. Assessment of Growth. Nelson
Textbook of Pediatrics. 16th Edition, 2000, W.B. Saunders Company. Page:57
-61.
[4] Dietz W H. Therapeutic strategies in childhood obesity. Hormone
Research 39 (Suppl 3): 86-90.
[5] Dietz W H. Childhood obesity. In: Suskind RM, Lewinter-Suskind L
(eds). Textbook of pediatric nutrition, 2nd edn. Raven Press, New York,
1993.
[6] Warner J T, Cowan F J, Dunstan FDJ, Gregory JW. The validity of
body mass index for the assessment of adiposity in children and disease
states. Ann Hum Biol 1997; 24: 209-15.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests