The study of anthropometric estimates in the visceral fat of healthy individuals
 ChunHao Chen†^{1},
 YuYawn Chen†^{2},
 ChihLin Chuang^{3},
 LiMing Chiang^{4},
 ShuMin Chiao^{5} and
 KuenChang Hsieh^{6, 7}Email author
DOI: 10.1186/147528911346
© Chen et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2014
Received: 18 December 2013
Accepted: 14 May 2014
Published: 20 May 2014
Abstract
Background
Abdominal visceral fat affects the metabolic processes, and is an important risk factor for morbidity and mortality. The purpose of the study was to develop a quick and accurate estimate in the visceral fat area (VFA) of the L4L5 vertebrae using anthropometric predictor variables that can be measured conveniently.
Methods
A total of 227 individuals participated in this study and were further divided into a Modeling group (MG) and a Validation group (VG). Anthropometrics measurements (height, weight, waist circumference, hip circumference, age, and subcutaneous fat thickness) and VFA_{CT} were measured using computer assisted tomography for all participants. Multivariate linear regression analysis was applied to the MG to construct a VFA estimator using anthropometric predictor variables and to evaluate its performance using the VG.
Results
The estimate equation obtained from the MG were VFA_{ANT} = 144.66 + 1.84X_{1} + 1.35X_{2} + 0.52X_{3} (r = 0.92, SEE =14.58 cm^{2}, P < 0.001, n = 152). The X_{1}, X_{2}, and X_{3} variables in the equation were denoted as waist circumference (WC), age, and abdomen subcutaneous fat thickness (AS). In addition, the correlation between VFA_{ANT} and VFA_{CT} showed a high correlation (r = 0.92).
Conclusion
A rapid and accurate VFA estimation can be achieved by using only age, WC, and AS. The approach in the present study provides an easy and reliable estimate that can be applied widely in health and epidemiology studies.
Keywords
Computed tomography Stepwise linear regression analysis Subcutaneous fat thickness Waist circumference Waisttohip ratioIntroduction
Abdominal fat can be divided into visceral fat and subcutaneous fat. Previous literatures suggest that the abdominal visceral fat affects the metabolic processes and is an important risk factor for morbidity and mortality [1–3]. The abdominal fat can be precisely and reliably measured using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or computed tomography (CT) [4, 5]. However, the procedure is not only expensive but also limited to hospitals or research centers for clinical and epidemiological studies. To overcome these problems and reduce costs, current research seeks to find more accurate and precise indicators of anthropometric abdominal fat [6–8]. Commonly used anthropometric measures to estimate abdominal visceral fat include body mass index (BMI) [9], waisttohip ratio (WHR) [10], waisttothigh ratio [10], waist circumference [8, 11, 12], sagittal abdominal diameter [8, 13] and skinfold thickness [14].
Although those anthropometric measures are easy to obtain and are usually highly reproducible, studies that are associated with the research in abdominal visceral fat area (VFA) uses one or more anthropometric measures are inconclusive. Therefore, by using different anthropometric variables to estimate VFA provides different interpretations and physiological significance [13, 15]. On the other hand, when too many anthropometric predictor variables are introduced on the righthand side of a regression model, collinearity becomes an issue. An overly complex model, of which there are more predictor variables to collect, will not necessarily improve the accuracy of estimation [14]. Therefore, it is important to find an optimal set of anthropometric measures that would lead to a high accuracy rate for VFA estimation yet would be easy to obtain and to be reliably interpreted.
In the present study, the CT data on the amount of fat around the human L4L5 vertebrae were used to estimate VFA (visceral fat area) [1]. Stepwise multivariate linear regression was applied to the modeling group to build a VFA estimate using BMI, height, age, WHR, WC, and subcutaneous fat thickness at several sites as independent predictor variables. The VFA estimation model was then tested using data from the validation group.
Subjects and methods
Subjects
A total of 227 Taiwanese adult subjects (Asian) were recruited voluntarily and agreed to participate by signing informed consent forms. A subject pool was generated by posting advertisements about the nature of the study throughout Taiwan. Participants filled out survey information that included demographic information, their physical characteristics and their health status. None of the participants had an endocrine, nutritional or growth disorder and did not have any major chronic diseases. Individuals that had been diagnosed with hypertension, diabetes, cancer, renal dysfunctional liver disease or longterm pulmonary asthma or who were pregnant were excluded from the study. This project was implemented from the Department of Radiology at Taichung JenAi hospital and approved for ethical approval by the Institutional Review Board at the hospital.
Anthropometry
Participants’ weight was measured using the electronic scale produced by WeightTronix (Scale Electronics Development, New York, USA) to the nearest 0.1 kg. Height of the participants was measured in their bare feet using a stadiometer (Holtain, Crosswell, Wales, UK) to the nearest 0.5 cm. Body mass index (BMI) was defined as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared. Waist circumference (WC) was measured at the level of the belly button and hip circumference (HC) was measured at the largest circumference point around the hips and butt. Both were measured using a standard tape measure to the nearest 0.1 cm. Each anthropometric measurement was performed by a single well trained observer in the same room. All subjects, wearing a hospital cotton/polyester blend robe with minimal underwear, were measured in private. Waist circumference was measured to the nearest centimeter at the level of the umbilicus with both arms hanging freely at the end of gentle expiration, hip circumference was measured at the spina iliaca anterior superior. By the same observers, the circumferences measurement variability was within 1 mm with tapes calibrated weekly.
Skinfold measurement
Skinfold thickness was measured using the Lange skinfold caliper (Cambridge Scientifc, Cambridge, MD) at ten different locations on the body, including the abdomen (abdominal skinfold, AS), the suprailiac (suprailiac skinfold, SS) [16], armpit (armpit skinfold, ARS), the triceps (triceps skinfold, TS), the back (back skinfold, BS), the subscapula (subscapula skinfold, SUS), the thigh (thigh skinfold, THS), the chest (chest skinfold, CS), the leg (calf skinfold, CAS) and the chin (chin skinfold, CHS). Each site was measured three times and the average value for each site was used. These measures were taken on the left side of the body early in the morning to standardize the conditions of fluid balance [17].
Computed tomography
We used a 64slice CT Scanner (Somatorn Sensation 64 CT system), (Siemens Corp., Germany) together with the operating software (Software Version syngo CT2005A) to scan the abdominal area. Each participant laid down in the center of the CT scanning platform and the lumbar region was scanned. Scanning was performed with voltage of 120Kv, a tube current of 120mAs and an xray beam width of 1.5 mm; scanning time was 0.5 s. Additionally, slice thickness was 5 mm, and images were obtained at 2 mm intervals. The image reconstruction kernel index was B20. The image was furthered processed using the commercial software 3DDoctor Ver. 3.5 (Able software Corp., USA). Procedures and specifications recommended by previous literature were used to scan images at the navel height and to color the areas of abdominal visceral fat and abdominal subcutaneous fat followed by an estimate of the fat areas of the coloring areas (i.e. visceral fat area, hereafter denoted as VFA_{CT}) [5]. The threshold range for adipose tissue in CT was approximately (260 ± 3) to (10 ± 3) Hu. Before the analysis, CT scans were performed to L4L5 abdominal visceral fat area two times with a three day interval on five participants to determine the reliability of the measurements.
Experiment procedure
The experiment began 2:00 pm every afternoon during June 2008 to May 2011. The measuring sequences were body weight, height, waist circumference, hip circumference, skinfold thickness, and CT scan. The CT, anthropometric, and skinfold measurement were all performed by the same radiologist and research assistant.
Statistical analysis
The demographic statistics of visceral fat area (VFA) were measured by CT (VFA_{CT}) are presented using mean ± SD for age, anthropometric measures (i.e., height, weight, BMI, waist and hip circumferences) and skinfold measurement in the modeling and validation groups by CT measurements. The minimum and maximum values were reported in parentheses.
Multivariate stepwise linear regression was used for age, sex, and other anthropometric predictor variables (height, weight, BMI, WC, HC, WHR, AS, SS, ARS, TS, BS, SS, THS, CS, CAS, CHS) and VFA_{CT} was used as the response variable. Stepwise regression analysis with forward (F_{in} = 4.00) and backward (F_{out} =3.99) independent variable selection was used for all of the anthropometric variables in the modeling group (MG) to obtain the estimated variables. The regression coefficient, standard estimate error (SEE), coefficient of determination was further used to construct the VFA estimate equation (VFA_{ANT}). When independent variables are closely related to one another, we may consider removing the variable with variance inflation factor (VIF) ≥ 3 from the estimate equation. BlandAltman Plot [18] was performed to evaluate the goodnessoffit between the results of VFA_{ANT} estimate equation and VFA_{CT} in the modeling and validation group (VG). Further, pre and posttest CT data from five patients were used to confirm the testretest reliability of the measurements. Statistical significance was set at P < 0.05 for all tests. All analyses were carried out using SPSS for WINDOWS (Version 16.0; SPSS Inc, Chicago).
Results
Physical characteristics of the study participants ^{ 1 }
Modeling group (n = 152)  

Variable  Male  (n = 87)  Female  (n = 65)  P ^{ 2 } 
Age (year)  28.56 ± 11.20  (18.7, 65.5)  33.28 ± 16.23  (18.5, 74.8)  ** 
Height (cm)  173.39 ± 7.85  (165.0, 195.5)  160.84 ± 6.24  (163.6,174.0)  *** 
Weight (kg)  74.41 ± 14.17  (50.0, 121.6)  59.66 ± 9.35  (52.0, 98.0)  *** 
BMI (kg/m^{2})  24.68 ± 4.04  (16.3, 39.9)  23.15 ± 3.93  (16.2, 37.8)  * 
Waist circumference (cm)  82.41 ± 10.82  (69.0, 122.5)  81.11 ± 10.39  (68.0, 115.0)  NS 
Hip circumference (cm)  98.50 ± 7.98  (87.5, 120.0)  97.81 ± 7.86  (87.5, 125.5)  NS 
ACSA_{CT} (cm)  478.61 ± 142.62  (284.4,1004.8)  448.48 ± 122.94  (288.7,875.2)  NS 
VFA_{CT} (cm)  51.49 ± 40.71  (6.5, 179.5)  58.80 ± 37.88  (13.0, 218.8)  NS 
SFA_{CT} (cm)  112.56 ± 97.66  (2.7, 513.2)  165.59 ± 99.25  (20.5, 488.8)  *** 
Waisthip ratio (WHR)  0.83 ± 0.06  (0.72, 1.02)  0.83 ± 0.06  (0.73, 1.08)  NS 
Subcutaneous fat thickness (SFT)  
Abdominal, AS (mm)  18.34 ± 13.29  (2.5, 59.5)  23.91 ± 14.12  (1.0, 62.0)  ** 
Suprailiac, SS (mm)  18.56 ± 13.33  (1.8, 59.8)  24.02 ± 14.11  (1.0, 62.5)  ** 
Armpit, ARS (mm)  15.67 ± 11.48  (4.0, 59.0)  23.88 ± 14.37  (3.0, 55.0)  *** 
Triceps, TS (mm)  16.08 ± 11.77  (4.0, 58.0)  24.07 ± 14.51  (3.0, 56.0)  *** 
Subscapular, SUS (mm)  15.99 ± 11.53  (4.0, 60.0)  23.72 ± 14.58  (3.0, 58.0)  *** 
Back, BS (mm)  15.91 ± 11.56  (4.0, 59.0)  24.02 ± 14.53  (3.0, 56.3)  *** 
Thigh, THS (mm)  12.41 ± 8.63  (3.0, 38.0)  19.63 ± 14.30  (3.0, 77.0)  *** 
Calf, CAS (mm)  12.65 ± 8.84  (3.0, 42.0)  19.07 ± 12.92  (3.5, 55.0)  *** 
Chin, CHS (mm)  12.69 ± 8.77  (2.5, 40.5)  19.02 ± 12.97  (3.0, 56.0)  *** 
Chest, CS (mm)  12.58 ± 8.72  (2.8, 40.2)  19.25 ± 12.72  (3.2, 55.0)  *** 
Validation group ( n = 75)  
Male  ( n = 43)  Female  ( n = 32)  P ^{ 2 }  
Age (year)  26.13 ± 12.63  (18.2, 70.8)  27.07 ± 8.11  (18.9, 46.4)  NS 
Height (cm)  174.64 ± 8.51  (159.4, 197.0)  161.35 ± 5.53  (156.0,173.5)  *** 
Weight (kg)  77.03 ± 10.19  (61.5, 102.0)  62.58 ± 15.52  (47.6, 106.0)  *** 
BMI (kg/m^{2})  25.27 ± 3.02  (20.3, 32.6)  24.00 ± 5.60  (17.3, 38.0)  NS 
Waist circumference (cm)  84.82 ± 10.00  (68.0, 109.0)  82.36 ± 13.00  (67.6, 122.0)  NS 
Hip circumference (cm)  100.13 ± 5.68  (88.0, 113.6)  99.64 ± 11.64  (86.0, 129.0)  NS 
ACSA_{CT} (cm)  485.40 ± 119.58  (323.7, 795.6)  472.40 ± 164.72  (294.7,995.2)  NS 
VFA_{CT} (cm)  53.09 ± 40.84  (8.2, 166.2)  58.98 ± 36.17  (18.7, 171.1)  NS 
SFA_{CT} (cm)  123.26 ± 90.85  (10.5, 388.0)  171.34 ± 118.66  (8.1, 506.8)  NS 
Waisthip ratio (WHR)  0.85 ± 0.06  (0.73, 1.00)  0.82 ± 0.06  (0.73, 0.96)  NS 
Subcutaneous fat thickness (SFT)  
Abdominal, AS (mm)  18.33 ± 14.64  (3.0, 57.0)  26.02 ± 14.82  (3.0, 60.0)  * 
Suprailiac, SS (mm)  18.53 ± 14.56  (3.0, 56.5)  26.42 ± 14.76  (3.0, 55.0)  * 
Armpit, ARS (mm)  17.90 ± 14.27  (3.5, 61.0)  24.58 ± 13.92  (3.0, 55.0)  * 
Triceps, TS (mm)  18.27 ± 14.24  (4.0, 60.5)  24.39 ± 13.72  (2.0, 55.0)  NS 
Subscapular, SUS (mm)  18.24 ± 14.12  (3.0, 62.0)  24.47 ± 13.81  (4.0, 57.0)  NS 
Back, BS (mm)  18.14 ± 14.19  (3.5, 61.2)  24.48 ± 13.77  (3.0, 55.7)  * 
Thigh, THS (mm)  12.80 ± 9.37  (2.5, 42.0)  20.11 ± 11.23  (2.0, 52.5)  ** 
Calf, CAS (mm)  13.08 ± 9.54  (3.0, 42.2)  20.41 ± 12.54  (2.5, 52.0)  ** 
Chin, CHS (mm)  12.89 ± 9.17  (3.0, 41.0)  20.09 ± 12.43  (3.0, 53.0)  ** 
Chest, CS (mm)  12.92 ± 9.34  (2.8, 41.8)  20.20 ± 12.38  (2.5, 52.5)  ** 
Correlation coefficient matrix between VFA _{ CT } and predictor variables in the modeling group ( n = 152)
VFA_{CT}  ARS^{1}  AS^{1}  SUS^{1}  BS^{1}  WC  CS^{1}  WHR  SS^{1}  Age  CHS^{1}  BMI  TS^{1}  HC  THS^{1}  CAS^{1}  Wt  Sex  

ARS ^{ 1 }  .81^{**}  
AS ^{ 1 }  .80^{**}  .86^{**}  
SUS ^{ 1 }  .76^{**}  .82^{**}  .78^{**}  
BS ^{ 1 }  .76^{**}  .83^{**}  .80^{**}  .92^{**}  
WC  .75^{**}  .63^{**}  .56^{**}  .57^{**}  .58^{**}  
CS ^{ 1 }  .74^{**}  .84^{**}  .80^{**}  .80^{**}  .74^{**}  .44^{**}  
WHR  .74^{**}  .64^{**}  .58^{**}  .59^{**}  .55^{**}  .80^{**}  .54^{**}  
SS ^{ 1 }  .72^{**}  .76^{**}  .83^{**}  .73^{**}  .74^{**}  .48^{**}  .74^{**}  .48^{**}  
Age  .70^{**}  .60^{**}  .67^{**}  .62^{**}  .56^{**}  .28^{**}  .79^{**}  .42^{**}  .68^{**}  
CHS ^{ 1 }  .66^{**}  .76^{**}  .74^{**}  .73^{**}  .73^{**}  .48^{**}  .72^{**}  .50^{**}  .72^{**}  .54^{**}  
BMI  .63^{**}  .57^{**}  .46^{**}  .50^{**}  .54^{**}  .87^{**}  .34^{**}  .56^{**}  .37^{**}  .16^{**}  .43^{**}  
TS ^{ 1 }  .57^{**}  .68^{**}  .69^{**}  .66^{**}  .59^{**}  .31^{**}  .74^{**}  .37^{**}  .56^{**}  .37^{**}  .16  .43^{**}  
HC  .54^{**}  .44^{**}  .38^{**}  .38^{**}  .44^{**}  .87^{**}  .22^{**}  .39^{**}  .34^{**}  .09  .31^{**}  .86^{**}  .16^{*}  
THS ^{ 1 }  .49^{**}  .59^{**}  .65^{**}  .61^{**}  .56^{**}  .25^{**}  .69^{**}  .34^{**}  .69^{**}  .64^{**}  .66^{**}  .11  .77^{**}  .10  
CAS ^{ 1 }  .45^{**}  .54^{**}  .61^{**}  .55^{**}  .50^{**}  .20^{*}  .67^{**}  .28^{**}  .65^{**}  .62^{**}  .61^{**}  .10  .74^{**}  .07  .85^{**}  
Wt  .44^{**}  .38^{**}  .22^{**}  .35^{**}  .35^{**}  .77^{**}  .15  .44^{**}  .12  .02  .18^{*}  .84^{**}  .09  .81^{**}  .10  .08  
Sex  .06  .06  .23^{**}  .01  .07  .06  .07  .10  .31^{**}  .14  .26^{**}  .15  .11  .01  37^{**}  .22^{**}  .48^{**}  
Ht  .13  .18^{*}  .30^{**}  .13  .18^{*}  .12  .24^{**}  .05  .35^{**}  .27^{**}  .34^{**}  .06  .23^{**}  .23^{**}  .38^{**}  .33^{**}  .58^{**}  .66^{**} 
Multiple regression analysis results for waist circumference (WC) measured with anthropometric measures as predictor variable and VFA _{ CT } as response variable (Modeling group)
Cumulative dependent variables used in model (n = 152)  

Waist  Age  AS^{1}  BMI  WHR  BS^{1}  Intercept  SEE (cm^{2})  r^{2} 
2.72 ± 0.21(1.0)^{**}            167.84 ± 17.33^{**}  27.296  0.528 
2.14 ± 0.13(1.1)^{**}  1.64 ± 0.10(1.1)^{**}          165.98 ± 10.36^{**}  16.322  0.833 
1.84 ± 0.15(1.6)^{**}  1.35 ± 0.13(1.9)^{**}  0.52 ± 0.15(2.6)^{**}        144.66 ± 11.72^{**}  15.741  0.844 
1.61 ± 0.27(5.1)^{**}  1.38 ± 0.13(1.9)^{**}  0.52 ± 0.15(2.6)_{**}  0.67 ± 0.67(4.4)      142.54 ± 11.91^{**}  15.741  0.846 
1.12 ± 0.35(8.4)^{*}  1.33 ± 0.13(2.0)^{**}  0.47 ± 0.15(2.6)^{*}  1.10 ± 0.68(4.8)  88.75 ± 37.89(3.4)^{*}    182.27 ± 20.96^{**}  15.517  0.852 
1.12 ± 0.35(8.4)^{*}  1.33 ± 0.13(2.0)^{**}  0.41 ± 0.23(6.5)  1.08 ± 0.69(4.8)  88.30 ± 38.03(3.4)^{*}  0.08 ± 0.23(5.5)  181.51 ± 21.14^{**}  15.565  0.852 
Discussion
In the present study, the modeling group was sufficient (n = 152) for the proposed analysis. VFA_{ANT} estimator (r > 0.92, P < 0.001) also fared well when compared with prior studies (e.g., Naqaiet et al. [20] (r = 0.900.92), Demura et al. [21] (r = 0.87 0.90), Ryo et al. [22] (r = 0.88)). Our estimator also had a lower SEE (14.58 cm^{2}) when compared with Brundavani et al. [15] (38.7 and 29.0 cm^{2} for males and females respectively). The results of Bland & Altman plot from the VFA estimate equation in MG did not show any systematic error. In the VG, the standard deviation (0.37 cm^{2}) was near zero with data sets not normally distributed, which indicates neither systematic nor proportional error of the model was observed.
Several factors affect how a regression model performs [23]: (a) crossvalidation, (b) a model is deemed unreliable if its VIF is greater than 10, (c) the sample size, (d) the choice of independent predictor variables, (e) and the prediction error or standard error of estimate (SEE). Anthropometric measures were used because they were easy to collect and also biologically relevant as independent predictor variables for estimating VFA_{ANT}.
Previous studies focus on VFA estimation used anthropometric measures such as WC, HC, WHR, subcutaneous fat (AS, CS), age, and BMI separately or collectively. While VFA estimation was easy and fast by using a single predictor variable, this lead to a higher estimation error. On the other hand, VFA estimation is inconvenient when the model used too many predictor variables, or relied on expensive technologies. For example, the VFA estimator developed by Demura and Sato [21] used total torso fat that can only be obtained using Dualenergy Xray absorptiometry (DXA) or Bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA). Furthermore, total torso fat measurement using BIA was difficult [24]; its large measurement error in turn also affects the accuracy of VFA estimation. Estimating torso fat weight using BIA was a difficult task [24] so there was even larger error when used in VFA estimation. Demura et al.[21] also proposed using sagittal diameter, WC, subcutaneous fat thickness (CS, AS, SUS) and left leg and torso fat fractions as predictor variables for VFA estimation. Similar to the present model, their approach also used WS and AS. Nonetheless, left leg and torso fat fractions were difficult to measure [24]. Their model also had a higher number of predictor variables. These issues seriously limit the practical applications of the VFA estimation model.
Adding these additional predictor variables made the model more complex and there was only modest gain in the accuracy of VFA_{ANT} estimation. Thus, we recommend using only WC, Age, and AS for VFA_{ANT} estimation. Bonora et al.[14] also pointed out that when more than three predictor variables were used for VFA estimation, there was no obvious decrease in SEE. For some scenarios, it is possible to increase SEE. The adjusted r^{2} decreased gradually or approached a fixed constant. We observed the same effect in the present study.
Among the anthropometric predictor variables examined in the study, many predictor variables (ARS, AS, SUS, BS, WC, CS, WHR, SS, Age) have high correlation (r > 0.7) with VFA_{CT}. Other studies have confirmed an existing high positive correlation between VFA_{CT} and WC and WHR. These predictor variables have been widely used in VFA estimation studies. Due to the high correlation between WC and WHR, the two predictor variables are rarely used in the same estimation model, lest collinearity affects the regression estimate.
Age was used for VFA estimation in Seidell et al. [10], Naqai et al. [20], Demura and Sato [21]. These studies determined correlations between VFA and age for male and female participants were 0.54 and 0.62 respectively, which are similar to the data presented in the study. These three predictor variables can also be obtained easily. In summary, VFA estimation based on Age, WC, and AS is highly accurate, reproducible, and practical.
Several published studies on VFA estimate equations also consider sex as one of the predictor variables [15, 21]. However, in the present study, the correlation between sex and VFA_{CT} showed a weak correlation between participants (r = 0.06). Based on the results of the correlation coefficient matrix, weight was the only highly correlated independent variable when compared with sex (r = 0.48). The study further confirmed the effect of sex in VFA estimate by dividing male and female participants ’independent variables and acquiring male and female VFA estimate equation (not shown in text) via regression analysis. When comparing male and female data sets (together and apart), the predictor variables, determination coefficient, regression coefficient, and SEE values were fairly close and no significant differences were found. Hence, sex was omitted from VFA estimate.
There was a high positive correlation (r > 0.7, P < 0.01) between VFA_{CT} and subcutaneous fat thickness at the AS, ARS, SUS, BS, CS and SS sites. These six predictor variables were also highly correlated with each other (r > 0.7, P < 0.01). Thus, multivariate stepwise regression analysis was chosen to retain AS and exclude the other five predictor variables.
The study has several limitations. First, the participants in the study were young (mean age: 29.2 ± 12.9 years) and the proportion of VFA >100 cm^{2} was small (14.5%), the present study may have difficulty adapting the regression equation for middleaged people who have a higher proportion of VFA >100 cm^{2} than young people. Second, the data are limited to the Taiwanese population which may have different VFA characteristics than other populations. Third, the number of participants was another limiting factor to the study. During the recruitment process, we interviewed each participant by making sure they are all well and healthy before recruiting them into the study, thus only allowing these participants may be the cause of the decreased sample size. Fourth, the subjects in the study were well and healthy individuals and cannot be applied to the clinical environment. The main focus of the study is to apply the simplified VFA measuring method to healthy individuals and contribute to the field of preventive medicine. In the future, extending the research to more participants and different age groups may enhance the understanding of the research.
Conclusions
This study demonstrated that rapid and accurate VFA estimation can be achieved using only Age, WC, and AS. Our approach provides an easy and reliable estimate that can be applied widely in health and epidemiology. Using too many anthropometric predictor variables will not increase the precision for VFA estimation.
Notes
Abbreviations
 ACSA:

Abdominal crosssectional area
 ARS:

Armpit skinfold
 AS:

Abdominal skinfold
 BIA:

Bioelectrical impedance analysis
 BMI:

Body mass index
 BS:

Back skinfold
 CAS:

Calf skinfold
 CHS:

Chin skinfold
 CS:

Chest skinfold
 CT:

Computed tomography
 DXA:

Dualenergy Xray absorptiometry
 MG:

Modeling group
 MRI:

Magnetic Resonance
 SFA:

Subcutaneous fat area
 SFT:

Subcutaneous fat thickness
 SS:

Suprailiac skinfold
 SUS:

Subscapula skinfold
 THS:

Thigh skinfold
 TS:

Triceps skinfold
 VFA:

Visceral fat area
 VIF:

Variance inflation factor
 VG:

Validation group
 WC:

Waist circumference
 WHR:

Waisttohip ratio.
Declarations
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by grant NSC1002410HH028MY3 from the National Science Council of Taiwan and grant CGRA10001 from the Research Center of Charder Electronic Co., LTD.
Authors’ Affiliations
References
 Després JP: Obesity and lipid metabolism: relevance of body fat distribution. Curr Opin Lipidol. 1991, 2: 515. 10.1097/0004143319910200000003.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Després JP, Lemieux I: Abdominal obesity and metabolic syndrome. Nature. 2006, 444: 881887. 10.1038/nature05488.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Wajchenberq BL: Subcutaneous and visceral adipose tissue: their relation to the metabolic syndrome. Endocr Rev. 2000, 21: 697738. 10.1210/edrv.21.6.0415.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Ross R, Léger L, Morris D, de Guise J, Guardo R: Quantification of adipose tissue by MRI: relationship with anthropometric variables. J Appl Physiol. 1992, 72: 787895.PubMedGoogle Scholar
 Yoshizumi T, Nakamura T, Yamane M, Islam AH, Menju M, Yamasaki K, Arai T, Kotani K, Funahashi T, Yamashita S, Matsuzawa Y: Abdominal fat: standardized technique for measurement at CT. Radiology. 1999, 211: 283286. 10.1148/radiology.211.1.r99ap15283.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Després JP, Prud'homme D, Pouliot MC, Tremblay A, Bouchard C: Estimation of deep abdominal adiposetissue accumulation from simple anthropometric measurements in men. Am J Clin Nutr. 1991, 54: 471477.PubMedGoogle Scholar
 Kahn HS, Austin H, Williamson DF, Arensberg D: Simple anthropometric indices associated with ischemic heart disease. J Clin Epipemiol. 1996, 49: 10171024. 10.1016/08954356(96)001138.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Zamboni M, Tucato E, Armellini F, Kahn HS, Zivelonghi A, Santanta H, BerganoAndreis IA, Bosello O: Sagittal abdominal diameter as a practical predictor of visceral fat. Int J Obesity. 1998, 22: 655660. 10.1038/sj.ijo.0800643.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Janssen I, Heymsifield SB, Allison DB, Kotler DP, Ross R: Body mass index and waist circumference independently contribute to the prediction of nonabdominal, abdominal subcutaneous, and visceral fat. Am J Clin Nutr. 2002, 75: 683688.PubMedGoogle Scholar
 Seidell J, Oosterlee A, Thijssen MA, Burema J, Deurenberg P, Hautvast JG, Ruijs JH: Assessment of intraabdominal and subcutaneous abdominal fat: relation between anthropometry and computed tomography. Am J Clin Nutr. 1987, 45: 713.PubMedGoogle Scholar
 Sampaio LR, Simões EJ, Assis AM, Ramos LR: Validity and reliability of the sagittal abdominal diameter as a predictor of visceral abdominal fat. Arq Bras Endocrinol Metabol. 2007, 51: 980986. 10.1590/S000427302007000600013.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Koot BG, Westerhout R, Bohte AE, Vinke S, Pels Rijcken TH, Nederveen AJ, Caan MW, van der BaanSlootweg OH, Merkus MP, Stoker J, Benninqa MA: Ultrasonography is not more reliable than anthropometry for assessing visceral fat in obese children. Pediatr Obes. 2013, Aug 14. [Epub ahead of print]Google Scholar
 Goran MI, Gowe BA, Treuth M, Naqu TR: Prediction of intraabdominal and subcutaneous abdominal adipose tissue in healthy prepubertal children. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 1998, 22: 549558. 10.1038/sj.ijo.0800624.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Bonora E, Micciolo R, Ghiatas AA, Lancaster JL, Alyassin A, Muggeo M, DeFronzo RA: Is it possible to derive a reliable estimate of human visceral and subcutaneous abdominal adipose tissue from simple anthropometric measurements?. Metabolism. 1995, 44: 16171725. 10.1016/00260495(95)900845.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Brundavani V, Murthy SR, Kurpad AV: Estimation of deepabdominal adiposetissue (DAAT) accumulation from simple anthropometric measurements in Indian men and women. Eur J ClinNutr. 2006, 60: 658666.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Skerlj B, Brozek J, Hunt EE: Subcutaneous fat and age changes in body build and body form in women. Am J Phys Anthropol. 1953, 11: 577600. 10.1002/ajpa.1330110406.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Gipson RS: Anthropometric Assessment of Body Composition. Principles of Nutritional Assessment. 1990, New York: Oxford University Press, 187208.Google Scholar
 Bland JM, Altman DG: Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986, 1: 307310.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Cohen J: Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 1998, New York: Academic, 2Google Scholar
 Naqai M, Komiya H, Mori Y, Ohta T, Kasahara Y, Ikeda Y: Estimating visceral fat area by multifrequency bioelectrical impedance. Diabetes Care. 2010, 33: 10771079. 10.2337/dc091099.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Demura S, Sato S: Prediction of visceral fat area at the umbilicus level using fat mass of the trunk: The validity of bioelectrical impedance analysis. J Sports Sci. 2007, 25: 823833. 10.1080/02640410600875010.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Ryo M, Maeda K, Onda T, Katashima M, Okumiya A, Nishida M, Yamaguchi T, Funahashi T, Matsuzawa Y, Nakamura T, Shimomura I: A new simple method for the measurement of visceral fat accumulation by bioelectrical impedance. Diabetes Care. 2005, 28: 451453. 10.2337/diacare.28.2.451.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Guo SS, Chumlea WC, Cockram DB: Use of statistical methods to estimate body composition. Am J Clin Nutr. 1996, 64: 428S435S.PubMedGoogle Scholar
 Bracco D, Thiébaud D, Chioléro RL, Landry M, Burckhardt P, Schutz Y: Segmental body composition assessed by bioelectrical impedance analysis and DEXA in humans. J Appl Physiol. 1996, 81: 25802587.PubMedGoogle Scholar
Copyright
This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.