EMMANUEL AFRIYIE

10727622
NUTN 407 FINAL REPORT
TITLE: ASSESSMENT OF ANTHROPOMETRIC MEASUREMENTS OF LEVEL 400
STUDENTS (MALES AND FEMALES) IN THE DEPARTMENT OF NUTRITION
AND FOOD SCIENCE, UNIVERSITY OF GHANA, LEGON.

INTRODUCTION
The term nutritional anthropometry first appeared in “Body measurements and Human
Nutrition” (Brozek, 1956), and was later defined by Jelliffe (1966) as measurement of the
variations of the physical variations and the gross composition of the human body at different
age levels and degrees of nutrition. Nutritional anthropometry or anthropometric
measurements or assessments, are of two types. One is a group of measurements which assess
body size, while others assess body composition. Measurements belonging to the latter group
can be further divided into measurements of body fat and fat free mass; the two major
components of body mass (Gibson, 2005).
Anthropometric measurements are widely used in the assessment of nutritional status at both
the individual and population levels. At the individual level, anthropometric assessment is an
essential part of nutrition in humans, used to determine conditions such as malnutrition,
overweight, and obesity as well as loss of muscles and gain of fat mass and the redistribution
in the adipose tissue. These anthropometric indicators have been used to evaluate the
prognosis of acute and chronic diseases and also to guide medical interventions in individuals
and groups. Through anthropometrical measurements, changes in body composition can be
detected, as they differ at the different stages of life (Castillo-Martinez et al., 2012).
For anthropometric measures to be effectively interpreted, anthropometric indices are used.
The indices are derived from combinations of raw anthropometric measurements. Examples
include weight-for-age, waist-to-hip ratio, and sum of triceps and subscapular skinfolds. The
combination of the triceps skinfold and mid upper-arm circumference can be used to estimate
the mid upper-arm muscle area and mid upper-arm fat area, substitutes for the muscle mass
and total body fat content of the body respectively. Other combinations such as the body
mass index: BMI, (weight/height2) and the waist-to-hip ratio, are used in population studies
as determinants of obesity and intra-abdominal fat mass respectively (Gibson, 2005).
Nutritional anthropometry has several advantages, some of which are that its methods are
simple to undertake, safe and non-invasive, meaning they do not require the introduction of
instruments into the body. The measurements can be done by relatively unskilled personnel
and also retrospective information can be obtained on past long term nutritional history,
which cannot be correctly obtained using other techniques (Gibson, 2005). Despite all these
advantages and its growing importance, anthropometry also has its shortcomings, they are
relatively insensitive and cannot detect disturbances in nutritional status over short periods of
time. Finally, nutritional anthropometry cannot differentiate disruption in growth and body
composition caused by nutrient deficiencies from those caused by imbalance in protein and
energy intake (Gibson, 2005). Nevertheless, anthropometry is very useful in effectively
assessing the nutritional status in humans, hence its use in this practical.
OBJECTIVES
1. To determine the weight students using a weighing scale (Seca scale).
2. To determine the height of students using a stadiometer.
3. To determine the head, hip, waist and calf circumference using non-extensible
measuring tape.
4. To determine the mid-upper arm circumference of students using non-extensible
measuring tape
5. To compare the various anthropometric measurement between students of the class.
6. To determine the biceps and triceps skinfold of students using Holtain skinfold
callipers.
7. To calculate and compare the body mass index (BMI) between students of the class.
8. To calculate and compare the waist to hip circumference ratio between students of the
class.
9. To determine the nutritional status of students of the class.
MATERIALS
1. Digital weighing scale (Seca scale)
2. Marker
3. Stadiometer
4. Holtain skinfold callipers
5. Non-extensible measuring tape
METHODS
Height
The subjects, with pockets emptied, so as not to add any additional weight aside from their
real body weight, were made to stand barefooted on the stadiometer. With minimum touching
of the subject as much as possible, the instruction on how they should be properly positioned
were said to them by the measurer. The participants’ heads were straightened to make sure
that they were looking straight ahead and not downwards, both feet flat and slightly apart,
arms down to the sides, shoulder blades at normal positions, back of the head, shoulder,
buttocks and heels all aligned to the stadiometer. All these were done with the help of the
assistant, after which if everything was correctly positioned, the subject was then instructed
to take a deep breath for the measurer to swiftly take the measurement with the headpiece
firmly on the subject’s head.
Weight
Once again with the pockets emptied, the subject stood barefoot on the weighing scale
looking straight ahead, and body relaxed in a normal position after which the weight is read
from the scale.
Head Circumference
A measuring tape was carefully wrapped around the head of the subject, and with the subjects
standing still and looking straight ahead and the measuring tape straightly placed around the
head all round (inspected by the assistant), for the measurement to be taken. The measurer
stood on the lefthand side of the subject to take the measurements
Waist Circumference
The measuring tape was placed around the midpoint between the last palpable rib and the top
of the iliac crest to measure the waist circumference. The assistant first checked if the tape
was parallel to the floor, snug, but not compressing the skin. The measurer once again stood
on the lefthand side of the subject to take the measurements.
Calf Circumference
Measurement of the calf circumference was taken on the left calf. Some subjects stood while
others sat during the measurement of the calf circumference. The measuring tape was placed
around the calf and moved up and down to locate the maximum circumference. The tape was
snug but not tight. The measurer stood at the lefthand side of the subject to take the readings.
Hip Circumference
The measuring tape was placed at the greatest circumference around the hip and buttocks.
The sides of the tape were adjusted and the front and sides checked by the assistant so that the
plane of the tape is horizontal and parallel to the floor. Tape was snug but not tight. The
measurer again stood at the lefthand side of the subject to take the readings.
Mid-upper arm circumference
The measurements were taken at the midpoint of the upper arm. The arm circumference was
then measured with the subject’s shoulders relaxed and the left arm hanging loosely by the
side. After the tape was wrapped gently but firmly around the left arm at the midpoint.
Triceps and Biceps skinfold
First, the mid-upper arm point of the left arm was located and marked even before measuring
the MUAC to help measure the triceps and biceps skinfold. Then, using the thumb and
forefinger the measurer gently grasped a vertical fold of the skin with the underlying fat
about 1.0cm above the marked level. The jaws of the Holtain skinfold callipers were applied
at the marked level perpendicular to the length of the fold. The measurements were then
taken 2-3s after releasing the lever on the callipers. The measurers still continued to hold the
skinfold between the fingers while taking the measurements in order to get accurate
measurements. The same procedure was followed in taking the biceps skinfold measurement.

RESULTS
Variable Total n Male n Female n Individual p-value
Mean ± SD Mean ± SD Mean ± SD Mean ± SD
Weight (kg) 64.5 ± 14.8 69.2 ± 15.1 62.2 ± 14.1 86 ± 0.00
0.006
Height (cm) 166.1 ± 9.0 174.7 ± 6.9 161.9 ± 6.5 171.2 ± 0.28
0.000
BMI (Kg/m2) 23.3 ± 4.7 22.6 ± 4.5 23.6 ± 4.7 29.3 ± 0.17
0.202
MUAC (cm) 28.21 ± 4.25 28.88 ± 4.63 27.94 ± 4.08 30.5 ± 0.00
0.269
Head Circumference 55.8 ± 2.1 56.4 ± 1.6 55.5 ± 2.4 58.5± 0.06
0.010
(cm)
Waist Circumference 74.8 ± 9.8 75.80 ± 11.3 74.3 ± 8.8 88.9± 0.07 0.376
(cm)
Waist to Hip Ratio 0.76 ± 0.06 0.81 ± 0.06 0.74 ± 0.04 0.85±0.002 0.000
Triceps Skinfold (mm) 16.77 ± 6.88 11.68 ± 5.92 18.92 ± 6.08 21.8 ± 0.14 0.000
Biceps Skinfold (mm) 10.05 ± 5.62 7.52 ± 4.84 11.13 ± 5.60 12.0 ± 0.14 0.001
Table 1: A table showing the Anthropometric Measurements of Level 400 students of
Nutrition and Food Science Department.
Indicators Cut-offs Male n (%) Female n (%) P-value
BMI Categories
Under weight <18.5 3.27 6.54 0.000
Normal range 18.5 – 24.9 23.53 38.56 0.000
Overweight 25.0 – 29.9 4.58 15.03 0.000
Obese >30.0 1.31 7.19 0.000
WHR (Central Obesity)
Yes 2.1 0 0.000
No 97.9 100 0.000
Waist Circumference
Normal Male (<94 cm) 31.51 45.89 0.000
Female (<80cm)
Obese Male (94 – 102 cm) 2.74 19.86 0.000
Female (80 – 88 cm)
MUAC
Normal Male (26 – 29 cm) 14.04 14.88 0.000
Female (26 – 28.5 cm)
Malnourished Male (20 – 26 cm) 3.31 24.79 0.000
Female (20 – 26 cm)
Obese Male (>29 cm) 12.4 30.58 0.000
Female (>28.5 cm)
Triceps Skinfold
Normal Male (11–12.5 mm) 4.13 10.74 0.000
Female (15-16.5 mm)
Malnourished Male (7.5-11 mm) 16.52 19.01 0.000
Female (10-15mm)
Obese Male (>12.5cm) 9.09 40.5 0.000
Female(>16.5cm)
Table 2: Anthropometric indicators showing classes students fall under their anthropometric
scores.

DISCUSSION
From the results obtained, it was shown that, 17 students specifically 6 males and 11 females
were underweighted which represents 3.27% and 6.54% respectively of the total class. Being
underweight can have causes that are not due to underlying diseases. Examples include poor
dieting, lack of access to food, body type or poor feeding in the case of infants. Being
underweight could also be as a result of an increased rate of energy expenditure (Das, 2016).
23.53% males and 38.56% females were in the normal range as well as 4.58% males and
15.03% females were overweight.
The 7.2% females who were obese is higher than the 1.3% of males. A comparison of my
mean weight 86 ± 0.00 to that of the males, 69.2 ± 15.1 and females 62.2 ± 14.1 is quite high.
This can be attributed to the indigestion of high caloric diet, low physical activity, an increase
in body fluids, muscle mass or fat and can also result from medications (Herrman, 2012).
From the results, the mean height of the whole class is 166.1 ± 9.0 cm. The mean height of
males is 174.7 ± 6.9 cm and the mean height of females is 161.9 ± 6.5 cm. The difference in
heights may be as a result of gender differences and genetically.
Nall (2018) further explains that, BMI is a good indicator for determining a person’s weight
because it is their weight to their height. Though from the results, more males were
underweight as compared to the females. BMI is not influenced by the gender of a person
since it takes into account two parameters namely; weight and height of the individual. From
the results, it was estimated that about 50 students were overweight of which 10 are males
and the remaining 40 are females. This means that females are more susceptible to be obese
compared to males (Pheasant, 2002). The mean BMI values for both sexes even attest to the
claim earlier made because the mean BMI for females are much closer to the overweight
range than that of the males.
Waist to hip ratio is pegged at less than one for both males and females. Herrman, (2012)
states that there is no standardised study to demonstrate that waist circumference
measurements vary in relation to metabolic syndrome in adolescents. It was observed that
2.1% of males exhibited central obesity from the results obtained. If fat accumulates around
the waist rather than the hips, a person may have a higher risk of cardiovascular diseases and
type 2 diabetes (Preedy, 2012). Looking at the triceps skinfold results, it showed that about
half of the class are obese with the total of 49.59% for both males and females. In the normal,
it was observed that about 10% of the females got values there with just 4.13% for males.
With respect to the mid-upper arm circumference, it was observed that about 12% and 30%
of the males and females were obese. This implies that about half or a little below that of the
class have much adipose tissues and muscles reserves as Preedy, (2012) explains that the
mid-upper arm circumference is an indicator of adipose tissues and muscles. More females
were malnourished than males, this may be due to the fact that males have more lean muscles
than females and also the males may be lifting weights which contributes to the accumulation
of more muscles in their arms.
CONCLUSION
From the assessment conducted, it can be concluded that anthropometric measurements are
important in determining the nutritional status of individuals or a population. It can be
established that there were quite a number of students were malnourished specifically
underweight, overweight and obese. Interestingly, there were also a significant number of
students who were well nourished among the level 400 students in the Department of
Nutrition and Food science.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Nutritional anthropometry, though very effective, has a couple of limitations that if corrected,
will be much better than it already is. First, if care is not taken, the results obtained from the
measurements become littered with errors from the measurer, which includes the assistant as
well. The errors can be greatly reduced if enough time is spent in training those who will be
taking the measurements.
More care should be taken in recording the amount of content between the measurer and the
subject. Taking additional measurements provide an incentive to nutritional anthropometrists
to improve reliability and avoid additional work, but repeated measures could be restricted to
the most unreliable indicators, such as MUAC.
Finally, the underweight students should take their diet more seriously and take in balanced
diet to increase the weight as well as BMI. The students above the normal range should also
seek for counselling based on their values and those in the normal should continue to improve
their diet to maintain their range.
REFERENCES
Castillo-Martinez, L., Juarez-Cedillo, T., Garcia-Pena, C., & Rosas-Carrasco, O. (2012).
Anthropometric Measurements and Nutritional Status in the Healthy Elderly Population. In
V.R. Preedy (Ed.), Handbook of Anthropometry (pp. 2709-2730). New York, NY: Springer.
Das, D. (2016). Textbook of Community Health. New York: Academic Publishers. pp. 9, 43.
Gibson, R. S. (2005). Anthropometric Assessment of Body Size. Principles of Nutritional
Assessment (pp. 245 – 252). Oxford University Press.
Herrman, F. R. (2012). Accuracy of Anthropometric by General Practitioners in Overweight
and Obese patients. PMC free article. Pub Med. pp. 23-25.
Pheasant, S. (2002). Body Space: Anthropometry, Ergonomics and the Design of Work. 2nd
ed. IRS Press. pg 4.
Preedy, V. R. (2012). Handbook of Anthropometry Physical Measures of Human Form in
Health and Disease. Vol. 1. London: Springer. pg. 362.
Nall, N. (2018). Nutritional Anthropometry. Retrieved on March, 2021 from
https://www.medicalnewstoday.org/