Food & Nutrition

Arab Journal of Food & Nutrition
25. Study of Frame Size of Jordanian Adult Males Using Some Anthropometric
Indicators (1997)
Omar Khaled Salem Al-Bokai\ University of Jordan
Supervisor: Dr. Khader A. El-Masri
Co-Supervisor: Dr. Anwar Batieha
A study of a total of 299 males, 20-35 years of age (148 students and 151 employees)
was conducted at the University of Science and Technology (JUST), Irbid,
Jordan, to study frame size of a group of Jordanian adult males using the following
anthropometric measurements: weight and height; skinfold thicknesses, including
biceps, triceps, subscapular, supra-iliac, and abdomen; body breadths, including
biacromial, bitrochanteric, knee, wrist, elbow, and ankle; and body circumferences,
including chest, waist, abdomen, hip, upper arm, and wrist; in addition to blood
pressure and pulse rate.
A mathematical model for determining the body frame size for Jordanian group
(BFS model) is presented that is based on the predicted value of the sum of biacromial,
bitrochanteric, wrist, elbow, and ankle breadths and height/wrist circumference ratio to
body height. Also, two methods termed EBA and EBH were suggested using the
indicators of elbow breadth by age and elbow breadth by height for the Jordanian
group.
Subjects were classified into small, medium, and large frame-size categories by
using the following determinant methods: Metropolitan Life method (1983), Frisancho
method (1984), “HAT” model (1982), Grant method (1980), and the two suggested
methods-EBH and EBA, and the derived BFS model. The results showed that a small
percentage of subjects (1.0-3.3%) were classified as large frame size category using
the first three methods, while the other four methods classified the subjects into small
(10.0-28.4%), medium (51.8-75.6%), and large frame size (14.4-22.1%), which were
met approximately as hypothesized. Also percentile ranking of body frame-size
categories for body weight, percentage fat, and fat-free mass was obtained using the
BFS model.
All frame-size determinant methods were evaluated in terms of their relationship
with body composition, blood pressure, and their appropriateness and applicability.
The results revealed that only BFS and “HAT” models showed that differences in
body weight between frame size categories were primarily due to difference in fat-free
mass that is fat-free mass increased per frame size, while fat per frame size was not
affected. This result demonstrated that these two models fit the criteria to be
determinants of frame size, whereas the other methods showed that body weight
differences between frame size categories were primarily due to increased fat free
mass and fat mass per frame size.
172
Volume 11, No. 25, 2011
173