The results are expressed as means and standard deviations, unless stated otherwise. Between-group differences in subject characteristics were tested using one-way ANOVA followed by pairwise comparisons using Tukey’s multiple comparison procedure if a significant F test was obtained. Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used to adjust body composition results for comparison across ethnic groups. Before carrying out the ANCOVA, similarity of regression slopes among the ethnic groups was verified by examining the significance of the interaction between the covariate(s) and the group variable. Relationships between body composition measurements and age were investigated by multiple regression analysis controlling for independent variables such as height and weight. Potential interaction terms and non-linear relationships were examined for selected variables. Pearson’s correlation coefficients are presented for bivariate linear relationships with age and partial correlation coefficients where adjustment is made for weight and height. Data were analysed using SPSS version 13.0 (SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Results with P < 0·05>
Demographics and whole-human body structure
System constitution functions of one’s subjects was summarised by sex and you will ethnicity within the Desk dos. Eu dudes were more youthful, large along with lower FM and you will portion of BF than just their alternatives on the other three groups. European feminine was basically younger than simply Asian Indian female, and were large along with straight down FM and portion of BF than their counterparts regarding the other around three groups. The Western Indian men had lower body pounds and you may BMC but higher portion of BF versus Eu, Maori and Pacific guys. New Western Indian female including encountered the large part of BF while the reasonable BMC of your four cultural communities, while you are their body pounds are below Maori and you can Pacific women and never significantly different from this new European female. Once changes getting ages, height and you may lbs, Far eastern Indians had the highest FM, reduced pounds-free size and lower BMC of five cultural groups, when you’re Pacific had the lowest FM and higher pounds-100 % free size, for men, and large BMC for men (Table step 3).
Relationship between Bmi and you can portion of surplus fat
Curvilinear relationships between the percentage of BF and BMI for each ethnic group were linearised by logarithmically transforming BMI (Fig. 1)parison of regression equations of the percentage of BF on the logarithm of BMI with age as a covariate and with sex and ethnicity as group variables indicated significant heterogeneity in the slopes of the male and female equations (P < 0·0001).>
Fig. 1 Relationship between the percentage of body fat (BF) and BMI of European (?), Maori (0), Pacific Island (^) and Asian Indian (?) (a) men and (b) women. The linear regressions are: percentage of BF = 117·7 log10(BMI) ? 144·2 (standard error of estimate (SEE) = 5·2 %, r 2 0·61, n 124) for European men (-); percentage of BF = 101·3 log10(BMI) ? 122·0 (SEE = 4·6 %, r 2 0·74, n 109) for Maori men (- – -); percentage of BF = 93·6 log10(BMI) ? 113·6 (SEE = http://www.internationalwomen.net/de/pakistanische-frauen 4·1 %, r 2 0·68, n 104) for Pacific Island men (·····); percentage of BF = 78·6 log10(BMI) ? 79·4 (SEE = 5·0 %, r 2 0·52, n 117) for Asian Indian men (-·-·); percentage of BF = 103·5 log10(BMI) ? 109·7 (SEE = 4·8 %, r 2 0·72, n 186) for European women (-); percentage of BF = 74·8 log10(BMI) ? 70·3 (SEE = 3·9 %, r 2 0·72, n 90) for Maori women (—); percentage of BF = 65·2 log10(BMI) ? 57·8 (SEE = 4·1 %, r 2 0·65, n 97) for Pacific Island women (·····); percentage of BF = 71·0 log10(BMI) ? 57·7 (SEE = 4·4 %, r 2 0·60, n 107) for Asian Indian women (-·-·).