How valid are our reference standards of nutrition?

Area of Science:

• Nutritional Science
• Anthropometry
• Public Health

Background:

• Accurate nutritional status assessment relies on appropriate anthropometric measurement standards.
• Jelliffe's and Frisancho's tables are commonly used for triceps skinfold thickness and mid-arm muscle circumference.
• Variability in standards can impact nutritional status evaluations.

Purpose of the Study:

• To compare the validity of Jelliffe's and Frisancho's anthropometric standards.
• To assess the correlation and predictive values of these standards in diverse populations.
• To provide recommendations for selecting appropriate standards in nutritional assessments.

Main Methods:

• Comparative analysis of Jelliffe's and Frisancho's anthropometric standards.
• Inclusion of healthy subjects and patients with various pathological disorders.
• Evaluation of positive predictive values and false positive rates using Frisancho's as a reference.

Main Results:

• A poor correlation was observed between Jelliffe's and Frisancho's standards.
• Jelliffe's standards showed low positive predictive values (22% for TST, 53% for MAC).
• Significant false positive rates were found for Jelliffe's standards (28% for TST, 27% for MAC).

Conclusions:

• Existing standards, particularly Jelliffe's, demonstrate limited validity for nutritional status assessment.
• There is a critical need for population-specific anthropometric standards.
• Frisancho's standard is recommended over Jelliffe's in the absence of tailored standards.