Clinic Name, Inc Health Risk Assessment

Hanna Dee PHYSICAL MEASUREMENTS

52.4
Date: 02/22/2024 Height: 5 ft 8 in
Birthdate: 05/04/1961 (62) Weight: 175.05 pounds
Sex: FEMALE Waist Circumference (WC): 36 inches
OVERALL
Ethnicity: WHITE SCORE Wrist Circumference: 7 inches
Evaluator: Sample Clinician, MD Hip Circumference: 40 inches
Neck Circumference (NC): 15 inches

VITAL SIGNS (Resting) PERCEIVED HEALTH STATUS BODY COMPOSITION ANALYSIS

Heart Rate (HR): 80 bpm Your Score Ideal Body Frame Size: Large
Blood Pressure (BP): 140/88 mm Hg Physical Health Score: 45 100 Percent Body Fat (BF%): 33%
Respiratory Rate (RR): 15 bpm Mental Health Score: 60 100 Total Body Mass (Weight): 175.05 pounds
Pulse Oximeter (PO): 98% SpO2 Lifestyle Habits Score: 31 100 Body Surface Area (BSA): 20.52 ft2
Visceral Adipose Tissue (VAT): 2.9%
LIPID PROFILE GLUCOSE PROFILE Total VAT Mass: 1.7 pounds
Lean Body Mass (LBM): 117.3 pounds
Total Cholesterol (TC) 220 mg/dL Hemoglobin A1C 7.5 %
Fat Free Mass Index (FFMI): 3.6 lb/ft2
HDL Cholesterol (HDL) 60 mg/dL Fasting Blood Sugar (FBS) 100 mg/dL
Total Body Water (TBW): 79.1 pounds
LDL Cholesterol (LDL) 120 mg/dL
Body Fat Mass Index (BFMI): 1.8 lb/ft2
Triglycerides (TG) 150 mg/dL

INTERPRETATION

Summary: Your overall score is 52.4 on a scale of 0 to 100; 50 is average and higher scores are associated with better
health. Out of 32 assessments, you have 8 (25%) in the high risk category (CI - Conicity Index, WHR - Waist to Hip Ratio,
WC - Waist Circumference, NC - Neck Circumference, HbA1C - A1C, BP - Blood Pressure, BMI/WC, lifestyle habits), 12
25% (38%) in the medium or increased risk category (FFMI - Fat Free Mass Index, BFMI - Body Fat Mass Index, BMI - Body
38%
Mass Index, HR - Resting Heart Rate, WHtR - Waist to Height Ratio, TC - Total Cholesterol, TG - Triglycerides, FBST -
Fasting Blood Sugar, BF% - Body Fat Percentage, WrCHt, BMI/WHR, physical health), and 12 (38%) in the low risk
category (ABSI - A Body Shape Index, AVI - Abdominal Volume Index, BRI - Body Roundness Index, RR - Respiratory
Rate, BAI - Body Adiposity Index, VAT - Visceral Adipose Tissue, HDL - HDL Cholesterol, LDL - LDL Cholesterol, PO -
Pulse Oximetry, ORAI - Osteoporosis Risk Assessment Instrument, NCHtR - Neck Circumference to Height Ratio, mental
health).
38% Interpretation: Cardiometabolic risk – you are at high risk in 5 assessments (CI, WHR, WC, HbA1C, BP), medium or
increased risk in 8 assessments (FFMI, BFMI, BMI, WHtR, TC, TG, FBST, BF%) and low risk in 6 assessments (AVI, BRI,
High Risk Medium Risk Low Risk BAI, VAT, HDL, LDL). Sleep Apnea – you are at high risk in 1 assessment (NC) and low risk in 1 assessment (NCHtR).
Premature Mortality – you are at medium or increased risk in 1 assessment (HR) and low risk in 1 assessment
(ABSI). Lung Disease – you are at low risk in 2 assessments (RR, PO). Osteoporosis – you are at low risk (ORAI).
Perceived Health Status – your physical health is fair, your mental health is good and your lifestyle habits need
improvement.

Vital Sign Risk Factor Assessment

Heart Rate (HR) Blood Pressure (BP) Respiratory Rate (RR) Pulse Oximeter (PO)

Resting Pulse Resting Systolic BP Resting Diastolic BP Resting Respiratory Rate Resting Pulse Oximetry

80 BPM
140
mm Hg
88
mm Hg
15BPM
98%
Normal Range: Normal Range: Normal Range: Normal Range: Normal Range:
61 - 78 bpm 90 - 119 mm Hg 60 - 79 mm Hg 12 - 20 bpm 95 - 96.9% SpO2
CLASSIFICATION: CLASSIFICATION: CLASSIFICATION: CLASSIFICATION: CLASSIFICATION:
Fair Hypertension Stage 2 Hypertension Stage 1 Good Very Good
RISK FACTORS: Increased RISK FACTORS: High RISK FACTORS: Low RISK FACTORS: Low

© 2019-2024 webFCE® - Patent Pending

Clinic Name, Inc Health Risk Assessment
Hanna Dee 02/22/2024 | PAGE 2

Anthropometric Risk Factor Assessment

BMI / Waist Circumference Wrist Circumference to Height Risk Hazard Ratio (BMI/WHR)
Co-morbidity Risk (BMI/WC) of Metabolic Complications (WrCHt) 5-10 Year Mortality
BMI and WC measurements are Wrist circumference is a simple BMI may not be the best way to
very easy and practical YOUR anthropometric measurement, YOUR measure risk of death from obesity. YOUR
measurements. Combined RISK when accounting for one's height, RISK Research shows that a normal BMI RISK
recommendations of BMI and WC was signi cantly associated with with a large belly (central obesity)
have been established and cut-o incident diabetes. Wrist are at risk of dying from heart
points made for overweight or circumference is a signi cant disease than those with more
obesity, and association with predictor of diabetes in both evenly distributed body weight.1
disease.1-4 genders of adult population.2,3

RISK FACTORS: High RISK FACTORS: Increased RISK FACTORS: Low to Moderate

Adjusted Body Conicity Index (CI) Abdominal Volume Body Roundness Index
Shape Index (ABSI) Index (AVI) (BRI)
CLASSIFICATION CLASSIFICATION CLASSIFICATION CLASSIFICATION
YOUR SCORE VERY YOUR SCORE UNHEALTHY YOUR SCORE ABOVE YOUR SCORE GOOD
0.078 GOOD 1.24 16.8 AVERAGE 3.86

Normal Range: 0.0769 - 0.0826 Normal Range: 1 - 1.18 Normal Range: 16.8 - 18.9 Normal Range: 1.16 - 3.97

RISK FACTORS: Low RISK FACTORS: High RISK FACTORS: Low RISK FACTORS: Low

Fat Free Mass Index (FFMI) Body Fat Mass Index (BFMI) Body Adipose Index (BAI) Body Mass Index (BMI)

CLASSIFICATION CLASSIFICATION CLASSIFICATION CLASSIFICATION

HIGH YOUR SCORE HIGH YOUR SCORE YOUR SCORE NORMAL OVER
YOUR SCORE

17.8 8.76 27.0 26.5 WEIGHT

Normal Range: 14.6 - 16.8 Normal Range: 3.9 - 8.2 Normal Range: 21 - 33 Normal Range: 18.5 - 25

RISK FACTORS: Increased RISK FACTORS: Increased RISK FACTORS: Low RISK FACTORS: Moderate

Waist to Hip Ratio (WHR) Waist Circumference (WC) Osteoporosis Risk Assessment Total Body Fat (BF%)
Instrument (ORAI)
CLASSIFICATION CLASSIFICATION CLASSIFICATION CLASSIFICATION

FAIR YOUR SCORE POOR YOUR SCORE YOUR SCORE AVERAGE FAIR YOUR SCORE

0.9 36.0 7.0 33.0

in

Normal Range: 0.8 - 0.84 Normal Range: 25.6 - 31.1 Normal Range: 0 - 8 Normal Range: 23.2 - 30.8

RISK FACTORS: High RISK FACTORS: High RISK FACTORS: Low RISK FACTORS: Moderate

Visceral Body Fat (VAT) Neck Circumference (NC) Neck Circumference to Waist to Height Ratio
Height Ratio (NCHtR) (WHtR)
CLASSIFICATION CLASSIFICATION CLASSIFICATION CLASSIFICATION
YOUR SCORE AVERAGE OBESE YOUR SCORE YOUR SCORE HEALTHY OVER YOUR SCORE

50.2 15.0 0.22 WEIGHT 0.529

in3 in

Normal Range: 0 - 61 Normal Range: 10.6 - 13.4 Normal Range: 0 - 0.25 Normal Range: 0.4 - 0.5

RISK FACTORS: Low RISK FACTORS: High RISK FACTORS: Low RISK FACTORS: Increased

© 2019-2024 webFCE® - Patent Pending

Clinic Name, Inc Health Risk Assessment
Hanna Dee 02/22/2024 | PAGE 3

BLOOD PRESSURE (BP)

Your Systolic Pressure Your Diastolic Pressure Your Classi cation Risk Factors
140 mmHg 88 mmHg HYPERTENSION STAGE 2 HIGH

190
180 1
RISK
CURRENT SCORE = 140/88 mmHg
Systolic Pressure (top number)

170 2 12/29/22 SCORE = 128/78 mmHg

160 3 4/14/21 SCORE = 145/92 mmHg MEDIUM

150 3
LOW BLOOD PRESSURE
1
140 NORMAL BLOOD PRESSURE

130 2 ELEVATED BLOOD PRESSURE

120 HIGH BLOOD PRESSURE

LOW HIGH
VERY HIGH BLOOD PRESSURE
110
EXTREMELY HIGH BLOOD PRESSURE
100
CURRENT RISK TYPES
90 Cardiovascular disease
80

50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Diastolic Pressure (bottom number)
Blood Pressure (BP) BP is a key vital sign that is routinely measured in clinical practice. BP is vital to life with established guidelines and risk
factors.1,2 It is a good indicator of overall cardiovascular health. BP is the force that acts to circulate our blood around the body in order to deliver
nutrients and oxygen that are critical to our health and survival. BP consists of two measurements: diastolic (lower number) that indicates how
much pressure your blood is exerting against your artery walls while the heart is resting in between beats and systolic (upper number) which
indicates how much pressure your blood is exerting against your artery walls when the heart beats.
Blood Pressure (mm Hg)

SBP: 120-129 SBP: 130-139 SBP: 140-159 SBP: 160-179 SBP: 180 or >
DBP: 80-84 DBP: 85-89 DBP: 90-99 DBP: 100-109 DBP: 110 or >

None None Low Moderate High No Risk Factors

Low Low Moderate Moderate High 1-2 Risk Factors

Moderate to
Low Low to Moderate High High High 3 or More Risk Factors
CURRENT SCORE

Moderate to High to Very 3+ Risk Factors &

Low to Moderate High High
High High Diabetes
12/29/22 SCORE = LOW | 4/14/21 SCORE = MODERATE TO HIGH

RESTING HEART RATE (HR)

Your Score Normal Range Your Classi cation Risk Factors

80.0 bpm 61 - 78 FAIR INCREASED

HR CLASSIFICATION
RESTING HEART RATE (HR) HR is one of the RISK POTENTIAL
100
POOR key vital signs that is routinely measured in
clinical practice.1 Signi cant age and gender
variations in the HR have been demonstrated MEDIUM
FAIR and epidemiologic evidence has indicated that
an abnormal HR may be a independent risk
factor for cardiovascular disease.2 More recent
GOOD
studies have suggested that resting HR is an
independent predictor of cardiovascular and
VERY GOOD
“all cause” mortality rates for males and LOW HIGH
females.3-5 Also, relatively high resting HRs
have been shown to impart detrimental e ects
EXCELLENT on the progression of coronary CURRENT RISK TYPES
54 atherosclerosis, ventricular arrhythmias and Mortality: All-cause & Cardiovascular
myocardial ischemia. 2-5 disease

© 2019-2024 webFCE® - Patent Pending

Clinic Name, Inc Health Risk Assessment
Hanna Dee 02/22/2024 | PAGE 4

PULSE OXIMETRY (PO)

Your Score Normal Range Your Classi cation Risk Factors

98.0 SpO2 95 - 96.9 VERY GOOD LOW

PO CLASSIFICATION
PULSE OXIMETRY (PO) Pulse oximeters are
100
EXCELLENT simple devices that can quickly provide a RISK POTENTIAL
measure of oxygenation both cheaply and
painlessly.1 It is a noninvasive method for
AVERAGE monitoring an individual’s oxygen saturation MEDIUM

level (SpO2). It can be used to assess the

degree of hypoxia.2 The sensor device is
FAIR
usually placed on a person’s ngertip where it
passes two wavelengths of light through the
POOR
body part to a photo detector. It measures the
changing absorbance at each of the LOW HIGH

wavelengths, allowing it to determine the

VERY POOR absorbances due to the pulsing arterial blood CURRENT RISK TYPES
0 alone, excluding venous blood, skin, bone, Hypoxia
muscle, and fat.

RESPIRATORY RATE (RR)

Your Score Normal Range Your Classi cation Risk Factors

15.0 bpm 12 - 20 GOOD LOW

RR CLASSIFICATION
30 RESPIRATORY RATE (RR) The RR is the number RISK POTENTIAL
VERY POOR
of breaths an individual takes over a period of
one minute.1 The measurement is taken with
POOR
the individual seated comfortably at rest and is MEDIUM
calculated by counting the number of times
that their chest rises.2,3 The RR for healthy
FAIR individuals have been established with
associated risks.4,5 The resting RR can vary
signi cantly with age, mental/emotional status,
GOOD tness level and overall level of health. The RR LOW HIGH
is also often used as an indicator of potential
respiratory dysfunction. A RR above or below
VERY GOOD the normal range for any given age group can CURRENT RISK TYPES
11
be indicative of some possible health risk. Lung disease: asthma, pneumonia, COPD

A BODY SHAPE INDEX (ABSI)

Your Score Normal Range Your Classi cation Risk Factors

0.078 0.0769 - 0.0826 ABOVE AVERAGE LOW

ABSI CLASSIFICATION
0.097
A BODY SHAPE INDEX (ABSI) ABSI is a body
POOR composition index which in conjunction with RISK POTENTIAL
BMI can estimate both visceral abdominal and
general overall adiposities.1 ABSI is based on
FAIR waist circumference, BMI and height [ABSI = MEDIUM

WC ÷ (BMI2/3 × Height1/2)]. ABSI predicts

mortality independently from BMI,2-3 and was
GOOD
able to better predict mortality than WC and
BMI.1,9 Recent studies also demonstrated that
VERY GOOD
ABSI is a robust predictor of all-cause
mortality.2,4-6 ABSI as a predictor of mortality LOW HIGH

has not yet been validated in an elderly

EXCELLENT population,7,8 but other studies have shown CURRENT RISK TYPES
0.066 that ABSI was closely associated with diabetes Premature mortality
and hypertension.10-12

© 2019-2024 webFCE® - Patent Pending

Clinic Name, Inc Health Risk Assessment
Hanna Dee 02/22/2024 | PAGE 5

CONICITY INDEX (CI)

Your Score Normal Range Your Classi cation Risk Factors

1.24 1 - 1.18 UNHEALTHY HIGH

Conicity Index (CI) CI is a simple method to assess abdominal obesity

and its association with cardiovascular risk factors.1,2 CI is based on the
volume estimate of the human body constructed to range between the
shapes of a cylinder and a double cone.1,2 For females with ideal weight
the CI might be below 1 but the theoretically expected range is 1 to 1.73.1
A CI of 1.25 means they have a waist circumference 1.25 times larger
than the circumference of a cylinder with height and weight of that
BICONCAVE CYLINDRICAL BICONIC
person. The predicted range of CI is between 1.00 (perfect cylinder) and
1.73 (perfect double cone). For males 1.25 and for females 1.18 cut-o s
CI < 1.0 CI = 1.0 CI > 1.0 were used to classify CI into normal and high categories.3
0.95 1.73
RISK TYPES
Metabolic complications: diabetes, heart disease, stroke, etc.
CURRENT = 1.24 12/29/22 = 1.28 4/14/21 = 1.33

ABDOMINAL VOLUME INDEX (AVI)

Your Score Normal Range Your Classi cation Risk Factors

16.8 16.8 - 18.9 ABOVE AVERAGE LOW

10 50

CURRENT = 16.80 12/29/22 = 15.81 4/14/21 = 14.16

Abdominal Volume Index (AVI) The AVI is calculated using with waist and hip
measurements, and one study has shown that it was a good anthropometric tool for
estimating overall abdominal volume.1 The AVI is derived from theoretical volume models
based on mathematical formulas related to cylinder and vertical cone. Best AVI for
diagnosis of obesity is 24.5 and above puts you at risk for impaired glucose tolerance and
diabetes mellitus for adult men and women1, > 20 for women for impaired glucose
tolerance, pre-hypertension, and high triclycerides2, and risk of hypertension > 20 for adult
men and women.3
RISK TYPES
Metabolic complications: diabetes, heart disease, stroke, etc.

BODY ROUNDNESS INDEX (BRI)

Your Score Normal Range Your Classi cation Risk Factors

3.86 1.16 - 3.97 GOOD LOW

Body Roundness Index (BRI) BRI combines height CURRENT RISK POTENTIAL
and waist circumference and re ects both visceral
adipose tissue and body fat percentage.1-3 The BRI
ranges between 1 to 20 (1 = narrow body, 20 = MEDIUM
more round). The BRI outputs a graph of body
3.02 3.57 3.86 shape with reference to a healthy zone. The BRI
was found to correlate well with measurements
taken by Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis.1,2 The
BRI is able to determine the presence of
cardiovascular disease and diabetes but not
superior to BMI, waist circumference or waist-to- LOW HIGH
height ratio.4,6,7 However, the BRI was found to be
superior to the BMI and is an alternative index for
4/14/21 12/29/22 CURRENT SCORE assessing diabetes in people in Northeast China.5 RISK TYPES
BRI was also found to predict coronary heart Metabolic complications: diabetes, heart
disease risk in Chinese males and females.3
HEALTHY ZONE
disease, stroke, etc.

© 2019-2024 webFCE® - Patent Pending

Clinic Name, Inc Health Risk Assessment
Hanna Dee 02/22/2024 | PAGE 6

BODY FAT PERCENTAGE (BF%)

Your Score Normal Range Your Classi cation Risk Factors

33.0 23.2 - 30.8 FAIR MODERATE

BF% CLASSIFICATION
40.3 BODY FAT PERCENTAGE (BF%) The body fat RISK POTENTIAL
POOR
percentage (BFP) is the total mass of fat in the
human body that includes essential body fat
FAIR
and storage body fat. Essential body fat is MEDIUM

necessary to maintain life and reproductive

functions. The body fat percentage is based o
AVERAGE the Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis. Data
from NHANES III, St. Luke’s-Roosevelt Hospital,
and other published healthy body fat ranges
GOOD were used to determine prediction models of LOW HIGH

total % body fat, and validated against the Kiel

dataset.1,2 The ACSM and Cooper Institute uses CURRENT RISK TYPES
13.8
EXCELLENT references values for the interpretation of body Metabolic complications: diabetes, heart
fat.3,4 disease, stroke, etc.

VISCERAL ADIPOSE TISSUE (VAT)

Your Score Normal Range Your Classi cation Risk Factors

50.2 in3 0 - 61 AVERAGE LOW

VAT CLASSIFICATION
VISCERAL ADIPOSE TISSUE (VAT) VAT is Fat RISK POTENTIAL
200
POOR
tissue located deep in the abdomen and
around internal organs. Excess of visceral
adipose tissue (VAT), which appears with MEDIUM
increasing age, has been shown to be
FAIR associated with cardiovascular disease (CVD),
type 2 diabetes, and all cause-mortality,
beyond general obesity.1-3 The Body
AVERAGE
Roundness Index is a predictor of % VAT, and
provides a more accurate estimate of % VAT.4 LOW HIGH
The NHANES, and St.Luke’s-Roosevelt Hospital
database were validated against the Kiel
EXCELLENT database to develop predictive models of % CURRENT RISK TYPES
0 VAT. VAT references values are used for Metabolic complications: diabetes, heart
interpretation of co morbidity health risk.5,6 disease, stroke, etc.

IDEAL | HEALTHY AVERAGE | LOW AT RISK | MODERATE AT RISK | VERY HIGH

0.0 to 30.5 30.5 to 61.0 61.0 to 91.5 91.5 +

A VAT volume (in3) between A VAT volume (in3) in the If your VAT volume (in3) is in the If your VAT volume (in3) is at or
the level listed above is range listed above is range listed above, your risk may above the level listed above, your
considered an ideal range. considered to be at low be considered moderate. risk may be considered very high.
risk.

© 2019-2024 webFCE® - Patent Pending

Clinic Name, Inc Health Risk Assessment
Hanna Dee 02/22/2024 | PAGE 7

FAT FREE MASS INDEX (FFMI)

Your Score Normal Range Your Classi cation Risk Factors

17.8 14.6 - 16.8 HIGH INCREASED

FFMI CLASSIFICATION FAT FREE MASS INDEX (FFMI) The FFMI allows
30 for the independent evaluation of fat-free mass RISK POTENTIAL
VERY HIGH (FFM) relative to body size. In 1990, Van Itallie
and colleagues recommended that fat-free
mass should be normalized separately for MEDIUM

HIGH
height because FFM is closely related to height
and decreases with age. 3 [FFMI = FFM ÷
height2; FFM = total weight - body fat weight ].
A clear association was found between
NORMAL physical activity or age and FFMI derived from
bioelectrical impedance analysis.2 FFMI values LOW HIGH

for corresponding BMI values in healthy adults

LOW
have been established.1 It has been proven CURRENT RISK TYPES
10 that low and high FFMI values increase health Metabolic complications: diabetes, heart
risks and mortality are associated with disease, stroke, etc.
variations in fat-free mass.2

BODY FAT MASS INDEX (BFMI)

Your Score Normal Range Your Classi cation Risk Factors

8.76 3.9 - 8.2 HIGH INCREASED

BFMI CLASSIFICATION
15 RISK POTENTIAL
VERY HIGH
BODY FAT MASS INDEX (BFMI) The BFMI
allows for the independent evaluation of fat
mass (FM) relative to body size. In 1990, Van MEDIUM
Itallie and colleagues recommended that BFMI
HIGH should be normalized separately for height
because FM is closely related to height and
decreases with age.3 [BFMI = BMI in kg/m2 –
NORMAL
Fat Free Mass Index]. BFMI values for
corresponding BMI values in healthy adults LOW HIGH
have been established.1 It has been proven
that low and high BFMI values increase health
LOW risks and mortality are associated with CURRENT RISK TYPES
0 variations in fat mass.2 Metabolic complications: diabetes, heart
disease, stroke, etc.

BMI AND WAIST CIRCUMFERENCE (BMI/WC)

Your BMI Your Waist Risk Factors

26.5 36 in (91.44 cm) HIGH

LOW WC HIGH WC VERY HIGH WC

BMI (kg/m2)
Men: < 94 cm Men: 94 - 102 cm Men: > 102 cm CURRENT RISK TYPES
Women: < 80 cm Women: 80 - 88 cm Women: > 88 cm Type 2 diabetes, hypertension, &
Cardiovascular disease
Underweight (<18.5) Low Risk Low Risk Low Risk BMI and WC measurements are very easy
and practical measurements. BMI provides a
Healthy Weight (18.5 - 24.9) Low Risk Low Risk Low Risk more accurate measurement of total body
fat compared with that of body weight alone.
High Risk WC can provide an independent prediction
Overweight (25 - 29.9) Increased Risk Increased Risk of risk over and above that of BMI especially
CURRENT SCORE
for individuals who are categorized as
Obese (30.34 - 34.9) Increased Risk High Risk Very High Risk normal or overweight. Ethnic and age related
di erences in body fat distribution can alter
the validity of WC in determining abdominal
Very Obese (35 - 39.9) Very High Risk Very High Risk Very High Risk fat. Combined recommendations of BMI and
WC have been established and cut-o points
Extremely High Extremely High Extremely High made for overweight or obesity, and
Extremely Obese (40+) association with disease.1-4
Risk Risk Risk
12/29/22 = LOW RISK 4/14/21 = LOW RISK

© 2019-2024 webFCE® - Patent Pending

Clinic Name, Inc Health Risk Assessment
Hanna Dee 02/22/2024 | PAGE 8

BODY ADIPOSITY INDEX (BAI)

Your Score Normal Range Your Classi cation Risk Factors

27.0 21 - 33 NORMAL LOW

BAI CLASSIFICATION BODY ADIPOSITY INDEX (BAI) The BAI is a

60 composite index that is based on hip RISK POTENTIAL
OBESE
circumference and height: BAI = (Hip ÷
Height1.5) - 18. It could di erentiate visceral
OVERWEIGHT
adiposity and overall adiposity.1 BAI attempts MEDIUM

to identify the obesity by calculating the

percentage of body fat using height and hip
AVG circumference. The BAI can be used to re ect
% body fat for adult men and women of
di ering ethnicities and estimates % adiposity
NORMAL directly. BAI was validated to predict % body fat LOW HIGH

better than BMI in African-American adults

without the need for further numerical CURRENT RISK TYPES
0
UNDERWEIGHT
correction.2 However, in subsequent studies in Metabolic complications: diabetes, heart
Caucasian and Asian populations, BAI was disease, stroke, etc.
inconsistently better than BMI.4-6

BODY MASS INDEX (BMI)

Your Score Normal Range Your Classi cation Risk Factors

26.5 18.5 - 25 OVERWEIGHT MODERATE

BMI CLASSIFICATION
50 BODY MASS INDEX (BMI) BMI is the most RISK POTENTIAL
VERY OBESE
widely accepted index of adiposity and is
calculated by dividing weight by height
OBESE
squared.1 Since BMI is a ected by age, gender, MEDIUM

and ethnicity2, and it cannot di erentiate fat

and lean body mass, its use may be limited for
OVERWEIGHT estimating visceral adiposity and overall
adiposity.3-5 BMI does not measure body fat
directly, but research has shown that BMI is
NORMAL moderately correlated with more direct LOW HIGH

measures of body fat.6-8 BMI also appears to

be as strongly correlated with various CURRENT RISK TYPES
14
UNDERWEIGHT metabolic and disease outcome as are these Co-morbidities: diabetes, chronic
more direct measures of body fatness.9-14 pulmonary disease, coronary artery disease

WAIST TO HIP RATIO (WHR)

Your Score Normal Range Your Classi cation Risk Factors

0.9 0.8 - 0.84 FAIR HIGH

WHR CLASSIFICATION WAIST TO HIP RATIO (WHR) WHR involves the

measurement of circumference at the waist RISK POTENTIAL
1.5
POOR and hip using a measurement tape.1 It is
calculated by dividing the waist circumference
by the hip circumference. Some studies have MEDIUM
FAIR proposed that the WHR as the best
anthropometric parameter for predicting
cardiometabolic risk2 and very convincing
GOOD
evidence of metabolic and CVD risk.3-11 WHR
may underestimate the impact of abdominal
VERY GOOD
fat in heavy people who also have a large hip LOW HIGH
circumference and may overestimate very thin
people with a low waist circumference. The
EXCELLENT problem is that hip circumference and waist CURRENT RISK TYPES
0.5 circumference co-vary to some degree due to Metabolic complications: diabetes, heart
the way the body accumulates or reduces extra disease, stroke, etc.
weight.

© 2019-2024 webFCE® - Patent Pending

Clinic Name, Inc Health Risk Assessment
Hanna Dee 02/22/2024 | PAGE 9

WAIST CIRCUMFERENCE (WC)

Your Score Normal Range Your Classi cation Risk Factors

36.0 in 25.6 - 31.1 POOR HIGH

WC CLASSIFICATION
WAIST CIRCUMFERENCE (WC) WC measures RISK POTENTIAL
POOR the abdominal circumference. It is measured
with a measurement tape around the waist.1
WC is an alternative to the BMI. WC takes MEDIUM
FAIR abdominal obesity into account, but it ignores
height. It re ects abdominal adiposity and has
been suggested as being superior to BMI in
GOOD
predicting CVD risk.2,3 Increased visceral
adipose tissue (belly fat) is associated with a
VERY GOOD
range of metabolic abnormalities that put us at LOW HIGH
risk factors for diabetes and CVD.3 Waist
circumference alone could replace waist–hip
EXCELLENT ratio and BMI as a single risk factor for all‐ CURRENT RISK TYPES
cause mortality.4 WC also showed convincing Metabolic complications: diabetes, heart
evidence of metabolic and CVD risk.5-13 disease, stroke, etc.

WRIST CIRCUMFERENCE to HEIGHT (WrCHt)

Your Ratio Your Wrist Circumference Your Height Risk Factors

0.103 7.0 in 68 in INCREASED

WRIST CIRCUMFERENCE (in)

6.0 6.2 6.4 6.6 6.8 7.0 7.2 7.4 7.6 7.8 8.0 8.2
54.0 .111 .115 .119 .122 .126 .130 .133 .137 .141 .144 .148 .152
55.0 .109 .113 .116 .120 .124 .127 .131 .135 .138 .142 .145 .149 Wrist Circumference to Height Wrist circumference is a simple,
56.0
57.0
.107 .111 .114 .118 .121 .125 .129 .132 .136 .139 .143 .146 easy-to-detect anthropometric measurement of skeletal frame size.1 It
58.0
.105
.103
.109
.107
.112
.110
.116
.114
.119
.117
.123
.121
.126
.124
.130
.128
.133
.131
.137
.134
.140
.138
.144
.141
does not have problems with clothing; clothing is one major
59.0 .102 .105 .108 .112 .115 .119 .122 .125 .129 .132 .136 .139
perturbing factor complicating the measurement of waist and hip
60.0 .100 .103 .107 .110 .113 .117 .120 .123 .127 .130 .133 .137 circumferences.2 In prospective evaluation, wrist circumference, when
61.0 .098 .102 .105 .108 .111 .115 .118 .121 .125 .128 .131 .134 accounting for one's height, was signi cantly associated with incident
62.0
63.0
.097 .100 .103 .106 .110 .113 .116 .119 .123 .126 .129 .132 diabetes (multivariable-adjusted hazard ratio = 1.17 and 1.31 for males
.095 .098 .102 .105 .108 .111 .114 .117 .121 .124 .127 .130
64.0 .094 .097 .100 .103 .106 .109 .113 .116 .119 .122 .125 .128
and females. In conclusion, wrist circumference is a signi cant
65.0 .092 .095 .098 .102 .105 .108 .111 .114 .117 .120 .123 .126 predictor of diabetes in both genders of adult population.3
66.0 .091 .094 .097 .100 .103 .106 .109 .112 .115 .118 .121 .124
67.0 .090 .093 .096 .099 .101 .104 .107 .110 .113 .116 .119 .122 CURRENT RISK POTENTIAL
HEIGHT (in)

68.0 .088 .091 2 .097 .100 1 3 .106 .109 .112 .115 .118 .121
69.0 .087 .090 .093 .096 .099 .101 .104 .107 .110 .113 .116 .119
70.0 .086 .089 .091 .094 .097 .100 .103 .106 .109 .111 .114 .117
71.0 .085 .087 .090 .093 .096 .099 .101 .104 .107 .110 .113 .115 MEDIUM
72.0 .083 .086 .089 .092 .094 .097 .100 .103 .106 .108 .111 .114
73.0 .082 .085 .088 .090 .093 .096 .099 .101 .104 .107 .110 .112
74.0 .081 .084 .086 .089 .092 .095 .097 .100 .103 .105 .108 .111
75.0 .080 .083 .085 .088 .091 .093 .096 .099 .101 .104 .107 .109
76.0 .079 .082 .084 .087 .089 .092 .095 .097 .100 .103 .105 .108
77.0 .078 .081 .083 .086 .088 .091 .094 .096 .099 .101 .104 .106
1 CURRENT SCORE = .103 LOW HIGH
78.0 .077 .079 .082 .085 .087 .090 .092 .095 .097 .100 .103 .105
79.0 .076 .078 .081 .084 .086 .089 .091 .094 .096 .099 .101 .104 2 12/29/22 = .095
80.0 .075 .077 .080 .083 .085 .088 .090 .093 .095 .098 .100 .103
81.0 .074 .077 .079 .081 .084 .086 .089 .091 .094 .096 .099 .101
3 4/14/21 = .103
RISK TYPES
82.0 .073 .076 .078 .080 .083 .085 .088 .090 .093 .095 .098 .100 HEALTHY Metabolic complications: diabetes, heart
83.0
84.0
.072 .075 .077 .080 .082 .084 .087 .089 .092 .094 .096 .099
UNHEALTHY disease, stroke, etc.
.071 .074 .076 .079 .081 .083 .086 .088 .090 .093 .095 .098

© 2019-2024 webFCE® - Patent Pending

Clinic Name, Inc Health Risk Assessment
Hanna Dee 02/22/2024 | PAGE 10

WAIST TO HEIGHT RATIO (WHtR)

Your Score Normal Range Your Classi cation Risk Factors

0.529 0.4 - 0.5 OVERWEIGHT INCREASED

WAIST CIRCUMFERENCE (inches)

25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43
54
.463 .481 .500 .519 .537 .556 .574 .593 .611 .630 .648 .667 .685 .704 .722 .741 .759 .778 .796 Waist To Height Ratio (WHtR) WHtR is calculated by
55
56
.455 .473 .491 .509 .527 .545 .564 .582 .600 .618 .636 .655 .673 .691 .709 .727 .745 .764 .782 dividing the waist circumference by the height.1 The
57
.446
.439
.464
.456
.482
.474
.500
.491
.518
.509
.536
.526
.554
.544
.571
.561
.589
.579
.607
.596
.625
.614
.643
.632
.661
.649
.679
.667
.696
.684
.714
.702
.732
.719
.750
.737
.768
.754
principle of a consumer-friendly Shape Chart was
58
.431 .448 .466 .483 .500 .517 .534 .552 .569 .586 .603 .621 .638 .655 .672 .690 .707 .724 .741 proposed as early as 1995.2-5 The Chart is scienti cally-
59
.424 .441 .458 .475 .492 .508 .525 .542 .559 .576 .593 .610 .627 .644 .661 .678 .695 .712 .729 based, easily understood, and helps to emphasize the
60
61
.417 .433 .450 .467 .483 .500 .517 .533 .550 .567 .583 .600 .617 .633 .650 .667 .683 .700 .717
importance of risk management for men who tend to
62
.410
.403
.426
.419
.443
.435
.459
.452
.475
.468
.492
.484
.508
.500
.525
.516
.541
.532
.557
.548
.574
.565
.590
.581
.607
.597
.623
.613
.639
.629
.656
.645
.672
.661
.689
.677
.705
.694
su er greater metabolic risks of obesity than women.4
63
.397 .413 .429 .444 .460 .476 .492 .508 .524 .540 .556 .571 .587 .603 .619 .635 .651 .667 .683 WHtR has shown to be as good as BMI in predicting CHD
64
.391 .406 .422 .438 .453 .469 .484 .500 .516 .531 .547 .563 .578 .594 .609 .625 .641 .656 .672 and stroke morbidity,6 and showed the highest
HEIGHT (inches)

correlation with coronary risk factors.7 Other studies

65
.385 .400 .415 .431 .446 .462 .477 .492 .508 .523 .538 .554 .569 .585 .600 .615 .631 .646 .662
66
.379 .394 .409 .424 .439 .455 .470 .485 .500 .515 .530 .545 .561 .576 .591 .606 .621 .636 .652
67
.373 .388 .403 .418 .433 .448 .463 .478 .493 .507 .522 .537 .552 .567 .582 .597 .612 .627 .642 used anthropometric measurements, ratios and
68
.368 .382 .397 .412 .426 .441 .456 .471 3 .500 2 1 .544 .559 .574 .588 .603 .618 .632 correlated them to CHD risk.8-10 Risk factor or boundary
69
70
.362 .377 .391 .406 .420 .435 .449 .464 .478 .493 .507 .522 .536 .551 .565 .580 .594 .609 .623 values in the chart were also obtained (0.5).1,7 WHtR may
.357 .371 .386 .400 .414 .429 .443 .457 .471 .486 .500 .514 .529 .543 .557 .571 .586 .600 .614
71
.352 .366 .380 .394 .408 .423 .437 .451 .465 .479 .493 .507 .521 .535 .549 .563 .577 .592 .606
be a simpler and more predictive indicator of the ‘early
72
.347 .361 .375 .389 .403 .417 .431 .444 .458 .472 .486 .500 .514 .528 .542 .556 .569 .583 .597 health risks’ associated with central obesity.11
73
.342 .356 .370 .384 .397 .411 .425 .438 .452 .466 .479 .493 .507 .521 .534 .548 .562 .575 .589
74
.338 .351 .365 .378 .392 .405 .419 .432 .446 .459 .473 .486 .500 .514 .527 .541 .554 .568 .581
75
.333 .347 .360 .373 .387 .400 .413 .427 .440 .453 .467 .480 .493 .507 .520 .533 .547 .560 .573
1 CURRENT SCORE = .529 RISK POTENTIAL
76
.329 .342 .355 .368 .382 .395 .408 .421 .434 .447 .461 .474 .487 .500 .513 .526 .539 .553 .566 2 12/29/22 = .514
77
.325 .338 .351 .364 .377 .390 .403 .416 .429 .442 .455 .468 .481 .494 .506 .519 .532 .545 .558
78 3 4/14/21 = .485
.321 .333 .346 .359 .372 .385 .397 .410 .423 .436 .449 .462 .474 .487 .500 .513 .526 .538 .551
79
MEDIUM
.316 .329 .342 .354 .367 .380 .392 .405 .418 .430 .443 .456 .468 .481 .494 .506 .519 .532 .544 EXTREMELY SLIM
80
.313 .325 .338 .350 .362 .375 .388 .400 .412 .425 .438 .450 .463 .475 .487 .500 .512 .525 .537
81
.309 .321 .333 .346 .358 .370 .383 .395 .407 .420 .432 .444 .457 .469 .481 .494 .506 .519 .531 HEALTHY
82
.305 .317 .329 .341 .354 .366 .378 .390 .402 .415 .427 .439 .451 .463 .476 .488 .500 .512 .524 OVERWEIGHT
83
.301 .313 .325 .337 .349 .361 .373 .386 .398 .410 .422 .434 .446 .458 .470 .482 .494 .506 .518
84
.298 .310 .321 .333 .345 .357 .369 .381 .393 .405 .417 .429 .440 .452 .464 .476 .488 .500 .512 OBESE

LOW HIGH

CURRENT RISK TYPES

Metabolic complications: diabetes, heart
disease, stroke, etc.

NECK CIRCUMFERENCE (NC)

Your Score Normal Range Your Classi cation Risk Factors

15.0 in 10.6 - 13.4 OBESE HIGH

NC CLASSIFICATION
NECK CIRCUMFERENCE (NC) NC measured as RISK POTENTIAL
SLEEP APNEA the distance around the neck is a simple and
time saving way to identify obesity and sleep
apnea in men and women. It has also been MEDIUM

OBESE
found to be positively correlated with various
components of metabolic syndrome and
coronary heart disease. Men with a neck
circumference > 37 cm (14.6 in) and women >
OVERWEIGHT 34 cm (13.4 in) are considered overweight and
men with a neck circumference > 39.5 cm (15.6 LOW HIGH
in) and women > 36.5 cm (14.4 in) are obese.1-4
A risk factor for snoring and sleep apnea is
NORMAL
when the circumference is > 17 in (43.2 cm) in CURRENT RISK TYPES
men and > 16 in (40.6 cm) in women.5-10 Sleep apnea, metabolic complications

© 2019-2024 webFCE® - Patent Pending

Clinic Name, Inc Health Risk Assessment
Hanna Dee 02/22/2024 | PAGE 11

NECK CIRCUMFERENCE TO HEIGHT RATIO (NCHtR)

Your Neck Circumference Your Height Your Ratio Risk Factors

15 in 68 in 0.22 LOW

NECK CIRCUMFERENCE (in)

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
54
.241 .259 .278 .296 .315 .333 .352 .370 .389 .407 .426 .444 .463 .481 .500 .519 .537 .556 .574 Neck-to-height ratio Neck Circumference to Height Ratio (NCHtR)
55
56
.236 .255 .273 .291 .309 .327 .345 .364 .382 .400 .418 .436 .455 .473 .491 .509 .527 .545 .564 The NHR is an anthropometric measurement that can assist the clinician
57
.232
.228
.250
.246
.268
.263
.286
.281
.304
.298
.321
.316
.339
.333
.357
.351
.375
.368
.393
.386
.411
.404
.429
.421
.446
.439
.464
.456
.482
.474
.500
.491
.518
.509
.536
.526
.554
.544
in determining an individual’s risk of developing sleep related breathing
58
.224 .241 .259 .276 .293 .310 .328 .345 .362 .379 .397 .414 .431 .448 .466 .483 .500 .517 .534 disorders such as obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). The NHR is inexpensive
59
.220 .237 .254 .271 .288 .305 .322 .339 .356 .373 .390 .407 .424 .441 .458 .475 .492 .508 .525 and easy to implement. A NHR of 0.25 and higher is a predictor of
60
61
.217 .233 .250 .267 .283 .300 .317 .333 .350 .367 .383 .400 .417 .433 .450 .467 .483 .500 .517 obstructive sleep apnea that can be universally applied over the age
.213 .230 .246 .262 .279 .295 .311 .328 .344 .361 .377 .393 .410 .426 .443 .459 .475 .492 .508
62
.210 .226 .242 .258 .274 .290 .306 .323 .339 .355 .371 .387 .403 .419 .435 .452 .468 .484 .500
spectrum, however, it is a better predictive tool for adults than children.
63
.206 .222 .238 .254 .270 .286 .302 .317 .333 .349 .365 .381 .397 .413 .429 .444 .460 .476 .492 NHR can be included as a simple screening tool for OSA in children and
64
.203 .219 .234 .250 .266 .281 .297 .313 .328 .344 .359 .375 .391 .406 .422 .438 .453 .469 .484 adults, which along with other predictors, may improve the ability of
65
66
.200 .215
.197 .212 .227
.231 .246
.242
.262
.258
.277
.273
.292
.288
.308
.303
.323
.318
.338
.333
.354
.348
.369
.364
.385
.379
.400
.394
.415
.409
.431
.424
.446
.439
.462
.455
.477
.470
clinicians to triage children and adults at risk for OSA.1
HEIGHT (in)

67
.194 .209 .224 .239 .254 .269 .284 .299 .313 .328 .343 .358 .373 .388 .403 .418 .433 .448 .463
68 2 .206 1 3 .235 .250 .265 .279 .294 .309 .324 .338 .353 .368 .382 .397 .412 .426 .441 .456 CURRENT RISK POTENTIAL
69
.188 .203 .217 .232 .246 .261 .275 .290 .304 .319 .333 .348 .362 .377 .391 .406 .420 .435 .449
70
.186 .200 .214 .229 .243 .257 .271 .286 .300 .314 .329 .343 .357 .371 .386 .400 .414 .429 .443
71
.183 .197 .211 .225 .239 .254 .268 .282 .296 .310 .324 .338 .352 .366 .380 .394 .408 .423 .437
72
.181 .194 .208 .222 .236 .250 .264 .278 .292 .306 .319 .333 .347 .361 .375 .389 .403 .417 .431 MEDIUM
73
.178 .192 .205 .219 .233 .247 .260 .274 .288 .301 .315 .329 .342 .356 .370 .384 .397 .411 .425
74
.176 .189 .203 .216 .230 .243 .257 .270 .284 .297 .311 .324 .338 .351 .365 .378 .392 .405 .419
75
.173 .187 .200 .213 .227 .240 .253 .267 .280 .293 .307 .320 .333 .347 .360 .373 .387 .400 .413
76
.171 .184 .197 .211 .224 .237 .250 .263 .276 .289 .303 .316 .329 .342 .355 .368 .382 .395 .408 1 CURRENT SCORE = .22
77
.169 .182 .195 .208 .221 .234 .247 .260 .273 .286 .299 .312 .325 .338 .351 .364 .377 .390 .403
78
2 12/29/22 = .184
.167 .179 .192 .205 .218 .231 .244 .256 .269 .282 .295 .308 .321 .333 .346 .359 .372 .385 .397
79
.165 .177 .190 .203 .215 .228 .241 .253 .266 .278 .291 .304 .316 .329 .342 .354 .367 .380 .392 3 4/14/21 = .22
80 LOW HIGH
.163 .175 .188 .200 .212 .225 .237 .250 .263 .275 .287 .300 .313 .325 .338 .350 .362 .375 .388
81 0-0.25 LOW RISK
.160 .173 .185 .198 .210 .222 .235 .247 .259 .272 .284 .296 .309 .321 .333 .346 .358 .370 .383
82
.159 .171 .183 .195 .207 .220 .232 .244 .256 .268 .280 .293 .305 .317 .329 .341 .354 .366 .378 0.26-0.50 HIGH RISK
83
.157 .169 .181 .193 .205 .217 .229 .241 .253 .265 .277 .289 .301 .313 .325 .337 .349 .361 .373 RISK TYPES
0.51+ VERY HIGH RISK
84
.155 .167 .179 .190 .202 .214 .226 .238 .250 .262 .274 .286 .298 .310 .321 .333 .345 .357 .369 Sleep apnea

OSTEOPOROSIS RISK ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT (ORAI)

Your Score Normal Range Your Classi cation Risk Factors

7.0 0-8 AVERAGE LOW

ORAI CLASSIFICATION OSTEOPOROSIS RISK ASSESSMENT

INSTRUMENT (ORAI) The ORAI was developed
27
VERY POOR
to assist the medical community in RISK POTENTIAL
determining who should undergo a bone
density test (DEXA), thus avoiding any
unnecessary costs and time used to perform MEDIUM

POOR the test on women who are not at signi cant

risk for developing osteoporosis.1 The ORAI
has been shown to have a sensitivity of 93.3%
BELOW AVERAGE
and a speci city of 46.4%. In one study, the use
of the ORAI tool resulted in a signi cant
reduction (38.7%) in DEXA testing for the LOW HIGH

screening of all women. In conclusion, the

AVERAGE ORAI can accurately identify the vast majority CURRENT RISK TYPES
0 of women who likely have a low bone density Osteoporosis
and decrease the need to perform expensive
diagnostic testing such as the DEXA.

© 2019-2024 webFCE® - Patent Pending

Clinic Name, Inc Health Risk Assessment
Hanna Dee 02/22/2024 | PAGE 12

PERCEIVED HEALTH STATUS

Physical Health Score Mental Health Score Lifestyle Habits Score
45 60 31
SCORE CLASSIFICATION SCORE CLASSIFICATION SCORE CLASSIFICATION
100 100 100
EXCELLENT EXCELLENT EXCELLENT

VERY GOOD VERY GOOD VERY GOOD

GOOD GOOD GOOD

FAIR FAIR FAIR

NEEDS NEEDS NEEDS

0 IMPROVEMENT 0 IMPROVEMENT 0 IMPROVEMENT

The RAND 36-item health survey. The SF-36 is a widely used questionnaire for FANTASTIC Lifestyle Assessment. The FLAQ was
measuring health-related quality of life (HRQL) in various settings. It incorporates the developed by Wilson1 and assists in determining how
physical, psychological and social well being of an individual. Applications of the SF-36 various "lifestyle changes" a ect an individual’s quality of
include health policy evaluations, clinical practice and research, health intervention health.1,2 It is a simple lifestyle questionnaire includes the
evaluations, and a general population surveying.1,2 Studies have implied that the SF-36 is physical, emotional and social aspects of an individual’s
valid, reliable, and suitable for HRQL measurement.3,4 The SF-36 has been used in health that are associated with morbidity, mortality and
di erent countries, and similar conclusions about reliability, validity and stability have quality of life. The FLAQ has been found to be a reliable,
been reported.1,5,6 The SF-36 consist of eight health sub scales that measures three quick and simple method to assess lifestyle
di erent aspects of health that includes functional status, well being and overall behaviors.2,4,6-8 The questionnaire consists of 25
evaluation of health. The subscales are as follows: Physical Functioning, Role limitations questions to serve as a reference point for ongoing
due physical health, Bodily Pain, General Health, Vitality, Social Functioning, Role assessment and can readily assist in the inclusion of life
limitations due to emotional health, and Mental Health. The sub scale scores combined style data into one visit for the individual’s health
into physical and mental component summary scores. record.1,2,5

HAZARD RATIO: BODY MASS INDEX & WAIST TO HIP RATIO (BMI/WHR) 5 & 10 YEAR MORTALITY RISK
BODY MASS INDEX (BMI)

0.92 12/29/22
BMI may not be the best way to measure risk of death
from obesity. Research shows that a normal BMI with
a large belly (central obesity) are at risk of dying from
Waist-to-Hip Ratio

CURRENT
heart disease than those with more evenly distributed
0.86 04/14/21
body weight.1 It has been shown that adults with
central obesity have the worst long-term survival rates
compared to adults with normal fat distribution,
regardless of BMI category.1 This was noted when
measures of central obesity and overall adiposity for
0.80
predicting mortality risks2‑4 were included. Central
25 30 35 obesity measured by WHR is associated with visceral
100%+ INCREASED MORTALITY 80-99% INCREASED MORTALITY 60-79% INCREASED MORTALITY
fat accumulation and an adverse metabolic pro le
compared with BMI.5-7
40-59% INCREASED MORTALITY 20-39% INCREASED MORTALITY LOWEST MORTALITY

TOTAL CHOLESTEROL (TC)

Your Score Normal Range Your Classi cation Risk Factors

220 mg/dL 0 - 200 BORDERLINE HIGH MODERATE

TC CLASSIFICATION TOTAL CHOLESTEROL (TC) Cholesterol is

500 considered an essential fat (or lipid) that is RISK POTENTIAL
VERY HIGH produced in the liver and carried throughout
the body via “lipoproteins”. Cholesterol
provides stability in every cell in your body as MEDIUM

HIGH
well as assists in the transfer of nutrients in
and out of each cell. Assessing your lipid pro le
helps determine your risk for cardiovascular
BORDERLINE
disease. The lipid pro le also helps to identify
HIGH
people at risk for familial
hypercholesterolemia, identify potential causes LOW HIGH

of pancreatitis, and evaluate the e ectiveness

DESIRABLE
or compliance with lipid-lowering therapy and CURRENT RISK TYPES
0 lifestyle modi cation.1 Desirable total High blood pressure, heart disease, stroke,
cholesterol levels are considered to be those etc.
below 200 mg/dL in adults.3

© 2019-2024 webFCE® - Patent Pending

Clinic Name, Inc Health Risk Assessment
Hanna Dee 02/22/2024 | PAGE 16

LDL CHOLESTEROL (LDL)

Your Score Normal Range Your Classi cation Risk Factors

120 mg/dL 0 - 130 NEAR OPTIMAL LOW

LDL CLASSIFICATION LDL CHOLESTEROL (LDL) LDL, or “bad”

cholesterol, at high levels, can build up in the RISK POTENTIAL
300
VERY HIGH arteries and increase a person’s risk for heart
attack, stroke, and peripheral artery disease.2
LDL, however, is not all bad and is also MEDIUM
HIGH considered to be an essential fat and serves
several important functions in the body such
BORDERLINE as assisting in your bodies immune system.
HIGH LDL is often indirectly calculated using the
Friedewald equation, the Martin/Hopkins
NEAR OPTIMAL
method or by direct measurement if total LOW HIGH
triglyceride level is very high. Although LDL is
considered a primary cause of atherosclerosis
OPTIMAL by many, other risk factors contribute as well. CURRENT RISK TYPES
0 The major risk factors include cigarette High blood pressure, heart disease, stroke,
smoking, hypertension, dysglycemia, and other etc.
lipoprotein abnormalities.

HDL CHOLESTEROL (HDL)

Your Score Normal Range Your Classi cation Risk Factors

60 mg/dL 40 - 200 VERY GOOD LOW

HDL CLASSIFICATION
HDL CHOLESTEROL (HDL) HDL is considered RISK POTENTIAL
200
IDEAL
the “good” cholesterol because it circulates
around the blood stream and scavenges for
excessive LDL cholesterol, carrying it away MEDIUM
from the artery walls to the liver to be broken
VERY GOOD down and eliminated from the body or
recycled.2 However, only about a third or a
fourth of the total LDL is transferred by HDL.
NORMAL
HDL also serves as a maintenance crew for the
inner walls of the blood vessels by e ectively LOW HIGH
scrubbing them clean. A healthy HDL
cholesterol level may help decrease the risk of
MAJOR RISK heart attack and stroke while low levels of HDL CURRENT RISK TYPES
0 increase these risks,2,4 however a causal High blood pressure, heart disease, stroke,
relationship has not yet been established. etc.

TRIGLYCERIDES (TG)

Your Score Normal Range Your Classi cation Risk Factors

150 mg/dL 0 - 150 BORDERLINE HIGH MODERATE

TRIGLYCERIDES (TG) Triglycerides (three fatty

TG CLASSIFICATION acids connected to a glycerol molecule) are a
type of fat (lipid) found in your blood. When RISK POTENTIAL
800
VERY HIGH
you eat, your body converts any calories it
doesn't need to use right away into
triglycerides. The triglycerides are then stored MEDIUM
in your fat cells. Later, hormones release
HIGH triglycerides into the blood stream when
additional energy is required between meals. If
you regularly eat more calories than you burn,
BORDERLINE particularly from high-carbohydrate foods, you
HIGH raise your triglyceride levels LOW HIGH
(hypertriglyceridemia). A simple blood test can
reveal whether your triglycerides fall into a
DESIRABLE healthy range. High triglycerides may CURRENT RISK TYPES
0 contribute to hardening of the arteries or High blood pressure, heart disease, stroke,
thickening of the artery walls (arteriosclerosis) - etc.
which increases the risk of stroke, heart attack
and heart disease.2

© 2019-2024 webFCE® - Patent Pending

Clinic Name, Inc Health Risk Assessment
Hanna Dee 02/22/2024 | PAGE 17

FASTING BLOOD SUGAR (FBST)

Your Score Normal Range Your Classi cation Risk Factors

100 mg/dL 70 - 100 PRE-DIABETES MODERATE

FBST CLASSIFICATION FASTING BLOOD SUGAR (FBST) The Fasting

Blood Sugar Test (FBST) (capillary or venous)
400 DIABETES
(SEVERE)
measures your blood sugar after an overnight RISK POTENTIAL
fast (not eating for 8-10 hours) to nd out if
your blood sugar levels are in a healthy range.
DIABETES It is often used to help diagnose and monitor MEDIUM

diabetes. A fasting blood sugar level of 99

mg/dL or lower is normal, 100 to 125 mg/dL
PRE-DIABETES
indicates you have pre diabetes, and 126 mg/dL
or higher indicates you have diabetes.1,2 Low
NORMAL
blood glucose, also called hypoglycemia,
occurs when the level of glucose in a diabetic LOW HIGH

person’s blood drops below 70 mg/dL. Non-

HYPO diabetic hypoglycemia is a rare condition. CURRENT RISK TYPES
0 Severe hypoglycemia (<53 mg/dL) is life- Diabetes and Cardiometabolic
threatening; if it isn't treated it can result in a
coma and/or death.3-5

A1C (HBA1C)

Your Score Normal Range Your Classi cation Risk Factors

7.5 % 4 - 5.7 DIABETES HIGH

HBA1C CLASSIFICATION
A1C (HBA1C) The Hemoglobin A1C Test
20
DIABETES (HbA1C) measures your average blood sugar RISK POTENTIAL
(SEVERE) level over the past 2 or 3 months. It measures
the amount of glucose that's attached to
hemoglobin. It's one of the commonly used MEDIUM

DIABETES tests to diagnose prediabetes and diabetes,

and is also the main test to help you and your
health care team manage your diabetes. A
PRE-DIABETES
HbA1C below 5.7% is normal, between 5.7 and
6.4% indicates you have pre diabetes, and 6.5%
or higher indicates you have diabetes.6 Note: LOW HIGH

Studies have found that a HbA1C below 4.0%

NORMAL could be associated with increased “All Cause CURRENT RISK TYPES
0 Mortality” and further medical evaluation may Diabetes and Cardiometabolic
be indicated.3-5,7

METABOLIC MODIFICATION
Basal Metabolic Rate (BMR):
1519 Calories/Day WEIGHT LOSS WEIGHT GAIN
MAINTENANCE You need 1703 Calories/Day to lose 1 lb You need 2703 Calories/Day to gain 1 lb
Total Daily Energy Calorie Modi cation You need 2203 Calories/Day to maintain per week (without changing activity). per week (without changing activity).
your weight (without changing activity). You need 1203 Calories/Day to lose 2 lb You need 3203 Calories/Day to gain 2 lb
Expenditure: per week (without changing activity). per week (without changing activity).
2203 Calories/Day
Current Body Weight: WEIGHT LOSS WEIGHT LOSS WEIGHT GAIN
175.05 pounds Activity Modi cation If you increase your activity level an If you increase your activity level an If you increase your activity level an
(Sport/Leisure) additional 1 hour per week, you will lose additional 2 hours per week, you will lose additional 3 hours per week, you will lose
Ideal Body Weight: 0.30 lbs per week (without changing your 0.61 lbs per week (without changing your 0.91 lbs per week (without changing your
123-166 lbs calories). calories). calories).

WEIGHT LOSS WEIGHT LOSS WEIGHT GAIN

Physical Activity Level: If you decrease your calories to 1703 If you decrease your calories to 1703 If you decrease your calories to 1703
1.45 Calories/Day, and increase your activity Calories/Day, and increase your activity Calories/Day, and increase your activity
(Sedentary with no activity at Calorie & Activity to 1 hour per week, you will lose 1.30 lbs to 2 hours per week, you will lose 1.61 to 3 hours per week, you will lose 1.91
per week. lbs per week. lbs per week.
work or home, and 30 min of Modi cation
If you decrease your calories to 1203 If you decrease your calories to 1203 If you decrease your calories to 1203
strenuous physical activity less Calories/Day, and increase your activity Calories/Day, and increase your activity Calories/Day, and increase your activity
than once per week.) to 1 hour per week, you will lose 2.30 lbs to 2 hours per week, you will lose 2.61 to 3 hours per week, you will lose 2.91
per week. lbs per week. lbs per week.

© 2019-2024 webFCE® - Patent Pending

 SUMMARY PAGE
RE: Hanna Dee
DOB: 05/04/1961 (age 63)
Date: 02/22/2024

GOALS
PHYSICAL HEALTH SURVEY:
1. Current Physical Health Survey Score: 45 out of 100.
2. STG: Improve Physical Health Survey score by 6 in 4-6 weeks time (estimate).
3. LTG: Physical Health Survey score of 100.
MENTAL HEALTH SURVEY:
1. Current Mental Health Survey Score: 60 out of 100.
2. STG: Improve Mental Health Survey score by 4 in 4-6 weeks time (estimate).
3. LTG: Mental Health Survey score of 100.
LIFESTYLE SURVEY:
1. Current Lifestyle Survey Score: 31 out of 100.
2. STG: Improve Lifestyle Survey score by 7 in 4-6 weeks time (estimate).
3. LTG: Lifestyle Survey score of 100.
A BODY SHAPE INDEX (ABSI):
1. Current ABSI Score: 0.07816 or 0% deficit, Low Health Risk.
2. STG: Achieved
3. LTG: Achieved
ABDOMINAL VOLUME INDEX (AVI):
1. Current AVI Score: 16.8 or 0% deficit, Low Health Risk.
2. STG: Achieved
3. LTG: Achieved
BLOOD PRESSURE (BP) SYSTOLIC:
1. Current BP Systolic Score: 140 or 34% deficit, Cardiovascular disease.
2. STG: Improve BP Systolic score to 138 in 4-6 weeks time (estimate).
3. LTG: BP Systolic score of 119.
BLOOD PRESSURE (BP) DIASTOLIC:
1. Current BP Diastolic Score: 88 or 27% deficit, Cardiovascular disease.
2. STG: Improve BP Diastolic score to 87 in 4-6 weeks time (estimate).
3. LTG: BP Diastolic score of 79.
BODY ADIPOSITY INDEX (BAI):
1. Current BAI Score: 26.7 or 0% deficit, Metabolic complications: diabetes, heart disease, stroke, etc..
2. STG: Improve BAI score to 26.1 in 4-6 weeks time (estimate).
3. LTG: BAI score of 21.0.
BODY FAT MASS INDEX (BFMI):
1. Current BFMI score: 9.02 or 10% deficit, Metabolic complications: diabetes, heart disease, stroke, etc..
2. STG: Improve BFMI score to 8.94 in 4-6 weeks time (estimate).
3. LTG: BFMI score of 8.20.
BODY MASS INDEX (BMI):
1. Current BMI score: 26.5 or 6% deficit, Co-morbidities: diabetes, chronic pulmonary disease, coronary artery disease.
2. STG: Improve BMI score to 26.4 in 4-6 weeks time (estimate).
3. LTG: BMI score of 25.0.
BODY ROUNDNESS INDEX (BRI):
1. Current BRI score: 3.86 or 0% deficit, Low Health Risk.
2. STG: Achieved
3. LTG: Achieved
CONICITY INDEX:
1. Current Conicity Index score: 1.24 or 5% deficit, Metabolic complications: diabetes, heart disease, stroke, etc..
2. STG: Improve Conicity Index score to 1.23 in 4-6 weeks time (estimate).
3. LTG: Conicity Index score of 1.18.
FAT FREE MASS INDEX (FFMI):
1. Current FFMI score: 17.5 or 4% deficit, Metabolic complications: diabetes, heart disease, stroke, etc..
2. STG: Improve FFMI score to 17.4 in 4-6 weeks time (estimate).
3. LTG: FFMI score of 16.8.
HEART RATE (HR):
1. Current HR score: 80 or 3% deficit, Mortality: All-cause & Cardiovascular disease.
2. STG: Improve HR score to 79 in 4-6 weeks time (estimate).
3. LTG: HR score of 78.
NECK CIRCUMFERENCE (NC):
1. Current NC score: 38.1 or 12% deficit, Sleep apnea, metabolic complications.
2. STG: Improve NC score to 37.7 in 4-6 weeks time (estimate).
3. LTG: NC score of 34.0.
NECK TO HEIGHT RATIO (NCHt):
1. Current NCHt score: 0.220 or 0% deficit, Low Health Risk.
2. STG: Achieved
3. LTG: Achieved
OSTEOPOROSIS:
1. Current Osteoporosis score: 7 or 0% deficit, Low Health Risk.
2. STG: Achieved
3. LTG: Achieved
PULSE OX METER:
1. Current Pulse Ox Meter score: 98 or 0% deficit, Low Health Risk.
2. STG: Achieved
3. LTG: Achieved

© 2019-2024 webFCE® - Patent Pending

 SUMMARY PAGE
RESPIRATORY RATE (RR):
1. Current RR score: 15 or 0% deficit, Low Health Risk.
2. STG: Achieved
3. LTG: Achieved
WAIST CIRCUMFERENCE (WC):
1. Current WC score: 91.4 or 16% deficit, Metabolic complications: diabetes, heart disease, stroke, etc..
2. STG: Improve WC score to 90.2 in 4-6 weeks time (estimate).
3. LTG: WC score of 79.0.
WAIST TO HEIGHT RATIO (WHtR):
1. Current WHtR score: 0.529 or 6% deficit, Metabolic complications: diabetes, heart disease, stroke, etc..
2. STG: Improve WHtR score to 0.526 in 4-6 weeks time (estimate).
3. LTG: WHtR score of 0.500.
WAIST TO HIP RATIO (WHR):
1. Current WHR score: 0.90 or 7% deficit, Metabolic complications: diabetes, heart disease, stroke, etc..
2. STG: Improve WHR score to 0.89 in 4-6 weeks time (estimate).
3. LTG: WHR score of 0.84.
TOTAL CHOLESTEROL (TC):
1. Current TC score: 220 or 10% deficit, High blood pressure, heart disease, stroke, etc..
2. STG: Improve TC score to 218 in 4-6 weeks time (estimate).
3. LTG: TC score of 200.
HDL CHOLESTEROL (HDL):
1. Current HDL score: 60 or 0% deficit, Low Health Risk.
2. STG: Achieved
3. LTG: Achieved
LDL CHOLESTEROL (LDL):
1. Current LDL score: 120 or 0% deficit, Low Health Risk.
2. STG: Achieved
3. LTG: Achieved
TRIGLYCERIDES:
1. Current Triglycerides score: 150 or 0% deficit, Low Health Risk.
2. STG: Achieved
3. LTG: Achieved
HbA1C:
1. Current HbA1C score: 7.5 or 32% deficit, Diabetes and Cardiometabolic.
2. STG: Improve HbA1C score to 7.3 in 4-6 weeks time (estimate).
3. LTG: HbA1C score of 5.7.
GLUCOSE (FASTING):
1. Current Glucose (Fasting) score: 100 or 0% deficit, Low Health Risk.
2. STG: Achieved
3. LTG: Achieved

INTERVENTIONS

Mrs. Hanna Dee has two or more health metrics that indicate elevated health risk, and supports the need for intervention.1

There is elevated CARDIOMETABOLIC RISK as determined by the BP, CI, WC, WHR health metrics. Interventions should focus on the following:
1. Healthy Diet: Consuming a diet rich in fruits, vegetables, whole grains, lean proteins, and healthy fats can help manage weight and reduce the risk of heart disease and diabetes. Limiting intake of
processed foods, saturated and trans fats, and added sugars is also beneficial.
2. Physical Activity: Regular physical activity can help lower blood pressure, improve cholesterol levels, and reduce blood sugar levels. The American Heart Association recommends at least 150 minutes
of moderate-intensity aerobic activity or 75 minutes of vigorous aerobic activity per week, or a combination of both.
3. Weight Management: Maintaining a healthy weight can reduce the risk of developing heart disease and type 2 diabetes. Even a small weight loss can be beneficial.
4. Smoking Cessation: Smoking is a significant risk factor for heart disease and stroke. Quitting smoking can greatly reduce the risk of these conditions.
5. Limit Alcohol: Excessive alcohol can raise blood pressure levels and the risk of heart disease. It's recommended to limit intake to moderate levels - up to one drink a day for women and up to two
drinks a day for men.
6. Stress Management: Chronic stress may contribute to heart disease, especially if it leads to unhealthy coping behaviors like smoking, overeating, or heavy drinking. Techniques such as meditation,
deep breathing, and yoga can help manage stress levels.
7. Regular Check-ups: Regular health check-ups can help detect any potential issues early and keep track of your blood pressure, cholesterol levels, and blood sugar levels.

There is elevated SLEEP APNEA RISK as determined by the NC health metrics. Interventions should focus on the following:
1. Weight Management: Overweight and obesity are significant risk factors for sleep apnea. Losing weight can reduce fat deposits in the upper airway that may be causing sleep apnea.
2. Regular Exercise: Regular physical activity can help maintain a healthy weight and promote better sleep. It can also strengthen the muscles in your airways, helping to prevent them from collapsing
while you sleep.
3. Avoid Alcohol and Sedatives: These substances can relax the muscles in your throat, worsening sleep apnea. Avoiding them, especially before bedtime, can reduce the severity of sleep apnea.
4. Quit Smoking: Smoking can increase inflammation and fluid retention in the upper airway, both of which can worsen sleep apnea.
5. Sleep Position: Sleeping on your back can cause your tongue and soft palate to rest against your throat, blocking the airway. Try sleeping on your side or stomach instead.
6. Avoid Caffeine and Heavy Meals Before Bed: These can disrupt your sleep or place extra pressure on your diaphragm.
7. Maintain Regular Sleep Hours: Sticking to a consistent sleep schedule can help regulate your body's natural sleep-wake cycle and improve your sleep quality.
8. Use a Humidifier: Dry air can irritate the body and the respiratory system. A humidifier can open up the airways, decrease congestion, and promote clearer breathing.

OVERALL COMMENTS
Overall, the subject still requires continued medical management of his cardiovascular, pulmonary, and metabolic components of her current health status to ensure a quick and comprehensive return to
better health.

© 2019-2024 webFCE® - Patent Pending

 SUMMARY PAGE

Sample Clinician, MD
Board Certified Orthopaedic Surgeon

© 2019-2024 webFCE® - Patent Pending

 REFERENCES
BLOOD PRESSURE BODY ROUNDNESS INDEX (BRI) BODY MASS INDEX (BMI) – Cont’d
Chobanian AV, Bakris GL, Black HR, et al. The seventh report of the Joint Thomas et al. Relationships between body roundness with body fat and visceral Wohlfahrt-Veje, C. et al., 2014. Body fat throughout childhood in 2647 healthy
1 National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of 1 adipose tissue emerging from a new geometrical model. Obesity (Silver Spring). 8 Danish children: agreement of BMI, waist circumference, skinfolds with dual X-
High Blood Pressure: the JNC 7 report. JAMA. 2003;289(19):2560-2572. 2013 November; 21(11): 2264–2271. ray absorptiometry. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr., 68(6), pp.664–70.
Whelton PK, Carey RM, Aronow WS, et al. 2017 ACC/AHA/0AAPA/ Gallagher et al. Healthy percentage body fat ranges: an approach for Steinberger, J. et al., 2005. Comparison of body fatness measurements by BMI
ABC/ACPM/AGS/APhA/ASH/ASPC/NMA/PCNA guideline for the prevention, 2 developing guidelines based on body mass index. Am J Clin Nutr, 2000. 9 and skinfolds vs dual energy X-ray absorptiometry and their relation to
2
detection, evaluation, and management of high blood pressure in adults. J Am 72(3):694–701. cardiovascular risk factors in adolescents. Int. J. Obes., 29(11), pp.1346–1352.
Coll Cardiol. Nov. 7, 2017.
Wang et al. New anthropometric indices or old ones: which perform better in Sun, Q. et al., 2010. Comparison of dual-energy x-ray absorptiometric and
HEART RATE 3 estimating cardiovascular risks in Chinese adults. BMC Cardiovascular 10 anthropometric measures of adiposity in relation to adiposity-related biologic
Disorders. (2018) 18:14. factors. Am. J. Epidemiol., 172(12), pp.1442–1454.
Vogel CU, Wolpert C, Wehling M. How to measure heart rate? Eur J Clin
1
Pharmacol. 2004;60:461-466. Maessen MFH, Eijsvogels TMH, Verheggen RJHM, Hopman MTE, Verbeek Lawlor, D.A. et al., 2010. Association between general and central adiposity in
ALM, et al. Entering a New Era of Body Indices: The Feasibility of a Body 11 childhood, and change in these, with cardiovascular risk factors in adolescence:
Ostchega Y, Porter KS, Hughes J, Dillion CF, Nwankwo T. Resting pulse rate 4
Shape Index and Body Roundness Index to Identify Cardiovascular Health prospective cohort study. BMJ, 341, p.c6224.
reference data for children, adolescents, and adults: United States, 1999–2008.
2 Status. (2014) PLoS ONE 9(9): e107212. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0107212.
National health statistics reports; no 41. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Flegal, K.M. & Graubard, B.I., 2009. Estimates of excess deaths associated
Health Statistics. 2011. Zhao et al. Capacity of a body shape index and body roundness index to 12 with body mass index and other anthropometric variables. Am. J. Clin. Nutr.,
5 identify diabetes mellitus in Han Chinese people in Northeast China: a cross- 89(4), pp.1213–1219.
Palatini P, Julius S. Heart rate and the cardiovascular risk. J Hypertens. 1997;
3 sectional study Diabet. Med. (2018) 35, 1580–1587.
15:3-17. Freedman, D.S. et al., 2009. Relation of body mass index and skinfold
Chang Y, Guo X, Chen Y, Guo L, Li Z, Yu S et al. A body shape index and body 13 thicknesses to cardiovascular disease risk factors in children: the Bogalusa
Palatini P, Benetos A, Grassi G, et al. Identification and management of the
6 roundness index: two new body indices to identify diabetes mellitus among rural Heart Study. Am. J. Clin. Nutr., 90(1), pp.210–216.
4 hypertensive patient with elevated heart rate: statement of a European Society
populations in northeast China. BMC Public Health 2015; 15: 794.
of Hypertension Consensus Meeting. J Hypertens. 2006;24:603-610. Willett, K. et al., 2006. Comparison of bioelectrical impedance and BMI in
Feng et al. Body Adiposity Index and Body Roundness Index in Identifying 14 predicting obesity-related medical conditions. Obese. (Silver Spring), 14(3),
Fox K, Borer JS, Camm AJ, et al. Resting heart rate in cardiovascular disease.
5 7 Insulin Resistance Among Adults Without Diabetes. Am J Med Sci pp.480–490.
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007;50:823-830.
2019;357(2):116−123.
WAIST TO HEIGHT RATIO (WHtR)
RESPIRATORY RATE
BODY FAT PERCENT
Hsieh SD, Yoshinaga H. Abdominal fat distribution and coronary heart disease
George Yuan, MD, FRCP(C) Nicole A. Drost, MD, FRCP(C) R. Andrew McIvor,
Thomas et al. Relationships between body roundness with body fat and visceral 1 risk factors in men - waist/height ratio as a simple and useful predictor. Int J
1 MD, FRCP(C). CLINICAL REVIEW: Respiratory Rate and Breathing Pattern.
1 adipose tissue emerging from a new geometrical model. Obesity (Silver Spring). Obes Relat Metab Disord. 1995; 19:585-589.
MUMJ. Volume 10 No. 1, 2013: 23-25.
2013 November; 21(11): 2264–2271.
Margaret Ashwell. Charts Based on Body Mass Index and Waist-to-Height Ratio
Wheatley I. Respiratory rate 3: how to take an accurate measurement. Nursing
2 Gallagher et al. Healthy percentage body fat ranges: an approach for 2 to Assess the Health Risks of Obesity: A Review. The Open Obesity Journal,
Times 2018;114(7):21-22.
2 developing guidelines based on body mass index. Am J Clin Nutr, 2000. 2011, 3, 78-84.
Dougherty L, Lister S (2015) The Royal Marsden Manual of Clinical Nursing 72(3):694–701.
3 Ashwell M. The need for a new shape chart for assessing the risks of obesity.
Procedures. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. 3
Body Composition Norms. Physical Fitness Assessments and Norms for Adults Proc Nutr Soc 1995; 54: 86A.
3
4 DeBoer SL. Emergency Newborn Care. Victoria: Trafford; 2004; p.30. and Law Enforcement. The Cooper Institute, Dallas, Texas. 2013.
Ashwell M. The Ashwell Shape Chart-a public health approach to the metabolic
4
Lindh WQ, Pooler M, Tamparo CD, et al. Delmar’s Comprehensive Medical Liguori G. ACSM’s Health Related Physical Fitness Assessment Manual, 5th risks of obesity. Int J Obes 1998; 22: S213.
4
5 Assisting: Administrative and Clinical Competencies. New York: Cengage ed. Wolters Kluwer. Philadelphia PA, 2018.
Ashwell M. The Ashwell Shape Chart-a new millennium approach to
Learning; 2006; p.573. 5
VISCERAL ADIPOSE TISSUE (VAT) communicate the metabolic risks of obesity. Obes Res 1997; 5:45S.
PULSE OXIMETRY
Britton KA, Massaro JM, Murabito JM, Kreger BE, Hoffman U, Fox CS. Body Kannel WB, Cupples LA, Ramaswami R, Stokes J, 3rd, Kreger BE,Higgins M.
DeMeulenaere S. Pulse Oximetry: uses and limitations. Journal for Nurse 1 Fat Distribution, Incident Cardiovascular Disease, Cancer, and All-cause 6 Regional obesity and risk of cardiovascular disease; the Framingham Study. J
1
Practitioners (JNP). 2007;5:312-316. Mortality. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;62: 921–925. Clin Epidemiol 1991; 44: 183-90.
2 The oxyhemoglobin dissociation curve. The University of Texas Medical Branch. Galmes-Panades AM, Konieczna J, Abete I, et al. Lifestyle factors and visceral Lee JS, Aoki K, Kawakubo K, Gunji A. A study on indices of body fat distribution
7
2 adipose tissue: Results from the PREDIMED-PLUS study. PLOS ONE for screening for obesity. Sangyo Eiseigaku Zasshi 1995; 37: 9-18.
A BODY SHAPE INDEX (ABSI)
2019;14(3): e0214837.
Ashwell M, Lejeune S, McPherson K. Ratio of waist circumference to height
Krakauer NY, Krakauer JC. A new body shape index predicts mortality hazard 8
1 Lee JJ, Pedley A, Hoffmann U, Massaro JM, Fox CS. Association of Changes in may be better indicator of need for weight management.BMJ 1996; 312: 377.
independently of body mass index. PLoS ONE 2012;7:e39504.
3 Abdominal Fat Quantity and Quality With Incident Cardiovascular Disease Risk
Breeze E, Maidment A, Bennet N, Flatley J, Carey S. Health Survey for England
Krakauer NY, Krakauer JC. Dynamic association of mortality hazard with body Factors. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016 Oct 4;68(14):1509-21 9
2 1992. London: HMSO 1994.
shape. PLoS ONE 2014;9:e88793.
Thomas et al. Relationships between body roundness with body fat and visceral
Anderson KM, Odell PM, Wilson PW, Kannel WB. Cardiovascular disease risk
Dhana K, Kavousi M, Ikram MA, Tiemeier HW, Hofman A, Franco OH. Body 4 adipose tissue emerging from a new geometrical model. Obesity (Silver Spring). 10
profiles. Am Heart J 1991; 121: 293-8.
shape index in comparison with other anthropometric measures in prediction of 2013 November; 21(11): 2264–2271.
3
total and cause-specific mortality. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2016;70:90– Ashwell M, Gibson S. Waist-to-height ratio as an indicator of ‘early health risk’:
Nam S.Y., Choi I.J., Ryu K.H., Park B.J., Kim H.B., Nam B. Abdominal visceral
6. 11 simpler and more predictive than using a ‘matrix’ based on BMI and waist
5 adipose tissue volume is associated with increased risk of erosive esophagitis
circumference. BMJ Open 2016;6:e010159. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010159.
Dhana K, Kavousi M, Ikram MA, et al. Body shape index in comparison with in men and women. Gastroenterology, 2010;139 (6):1902-1911.
4 other anthropometric measures in prediction of total and cause-specific WAIST TO HIP RATIO (WHR)
Nam SY1, Kim BC, Han KS, Ryu KH, Park BJ, Kim HB, Nam BH. Abdominal
mortality. J Epidemiol Community Health 2016;70:90–6.
6 visceral adipose tissue predicts risk of colorectal adenoma in both sexes. Clin Hartz et al. The association of girth measurements with disease in 32,856
1
Song X, Jousilahti P, Stehouwer CD, et al. Comparison of various surrogate Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2010 May;8(5):443-50. women. Am Journal Epidemiology 1984;119:71-80
5 obesity indicators as predictors of cardiovascular mortality in four European
FAT FREE MASS/BODY FAT MASS INDEX Pretheeban M, Hammond G, Bandiera S, et al. Waist-to-height ratio is a better
populations. Eur J Clin Nutr 2013;67:1298–302.
2 screening tool than waist circumference and BMI for adult cardiometabolic risk
Kyle UG, Schutz Y, Dupertuis YM, Pichard C. Body composition interpretation:
Song X, Jousilahti P, Stehouwer CD, et al, DECODE Study Group. factors: systematic review and meta-analysis. Obes Rev. 2012;13:275–86.
1 contribution of fat-free mass index and body fat mass index. Nutrition 2003;19:
Cardiovascular and all-cause mortality in relation to various anthropometric
6 597 De Koning L, Merchant AT, Pogue J et al. Waist circumference and waist‐to‐hip
measures of obesity in Europeans. Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis 2015;25:295–
3 ratio as predictors of cardiovascular events: meta‐regression analysis of
304. Kyle UG, Morabia A, Schutz Y, et al. Sedentarism Affects Body Fat Mass Index
prospective studies. European Heart Journal, 2007, 28(7):850‐856.
2 and Fat-Free Mass Index in Adults Aged 18 to 98 Years. Nutrition 2004;20:255–
Stevens J, Cai J, Pamuk ER, et al. The effect of age on the association
7 260. APCSC. Central obesity and risk of cardiovascular disease in the Asia Pacific
between body-mass index and mortality. N Engl J Med 1998;338:1–7. 4
Region. Asia Pacific Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 2006, 15(3):287‐292.
Van Itallie TB, Yang M-U, Heymsfield SB, Funk RC, Boileau RA. Height
Grundy SM, Cleeman JI, Rifkind BM, et al. Cholesterol lowering in the elderly
3 normalized indices of the body’s fatfree mass and fat mass: potentially useful Yusuf S, Hawken S, Ounpuu S et al. Obesity and the risk of myocardial
8 population. Coordinating Committee of the National Cholesterol Education
indicators of nutritional status. Am J Clin Nutr 1990; 52: 953. 5 infarction in 27,000 participants from 52 countries: a case‐control study. Lancet,
Program. Arch Intern Med 1999;159:1670–8.
2005, 366(9497):1640‐1649.
BODY ADIPOSITY INDEX
Pischon T, Boeing H, Hoffmann K, et al. General and abdominal adiposity and
9 Gelber RP, Gaziano JM, Orav EJ et al. Measures of obesity and cardiovascular
risk of death in Europe. N Engl J Med 2008;359:2105–20. 1 Bergman RN. A better index of body adiposity. Obesity. 2012;19:1135.
6 risk among men and women. Journal of the American College of Cardiology,
He S, Chen X. Could the new body shape index predict the new onset of Bergman RN, Stefanovski D, Buchanan TA, et al. A better index of body 2008, 52(8):605‐615.
10 2
diabetes mellitus in the Chinese population? PLoS One. 2013;8:e50573. adiposity. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2011;19:1083–1089.
Zhu S, Heymsfield SB, Toyoshima H et al. Race ethnicity specific waist
Bun CY. "A body shape index" in middle-age and older Indonesian population: Thomas DM, Bredlau C, Bosy-Westphal A, et al. Relationships between body 7 circumference cutoffs for identifying cardiovascular disease risk factors.
11 scaling exponents and association with incident hypertension. PLoS One. 3 roundness with body fat and visceral adipose tissue emerging from a new American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 2005, 81(2):409‐415.
2014;9:e85421. geometrical model. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2013;21:2264–2271.
Huxley R, Barzi F, Lee CM et al. Waist circumference thresholds provide an
Duncan MJ, Mota J, Vale S, Santos MP, Ribeiro JC. Associations between body Johnson W, Chumlea WC, Czerwinski SA, et al. Concordance of the recently 8 accurate and widely applicable method for the discrimination of diabetes.
12 mass index, waist circumference and body shape index with resting blood 4 published body adiposity index with measured body fat percent in European- Diabetes Care, 2007, 30(12):3116‐3118.
pressure in Portuguese adolescents. Am J Hum Biol. 2013;40:163–7. American adults. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2012;20:900–903.
Huxley R, James WP, Barzi F et al. Ethnic comparisons of the cross‐sectional
CONICITY INDEX Zhao D, Li Y, Zheng L, et al. Brief communication: body mass index, body 9 relationships between measures of body size with diabetes and hypertension.
5 adiposity index, and percent body fat in Asians. Am J Phys Anthropol. Obesity Reviews, 2008, 9 Suppl 1:53‐61.
Valdez R. A simple model-based index of abdominal adiposity. J Clin Epidemiol.
1 2013;152:294–299.
1991;44(9): 955–6. Nyamdorj R, Qiao Q, Lam TH et al. BMI compared with central obesity
Sun G, Cahill F, Gulliver W, et al. Concordance of BAI and BMI with DXA in the 10 indicators in relation to diabetes and hypertension in Asians. Obesity (Silver
Valdez R, Seidell JC, Ahn YI, Weiss KM. A new index of abdominal adiposity as 6
Newfoundland population. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2013;21:499-503. Spring), 2008, 16(7):1622‐1635.
2 an indicator of risk for cardiovascular disease. A cross-population study. Int J
Obes.1993;17 (2):77-82. BODY MASS INDEX (BMI) Qiao Q, Nyamdorj R. The optimal cutoff values and their performance of waist
11 circumference and waist‐to‐hip ratio for diagnosing type II diabetes. European
Pitanga FJ, Lessa I. Sensitivity and specificity of the conicity index as a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Trends in strength training
Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 2010b, 64(1):23‐29.
3 coronary risk predictor among adults in Salvador, Brazil. Rev Bras Epidemiol. 1 —United States, 1998–2004. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2006; 55(28):769–
2004;7(3):259-69. 72. WAIST CIRCUMFERENCE (WC)
ABDOMINAL VOLUME INDEX (AVI) Beydoun MA, Wang Y. Gender–ethnic disparity in BMI and waist circumference Wickkiser JD , Kelly JM . The body composition of a college football team. Med
2 1
distribution shifts in US adults. Obesity. 2009;17:169–76. Sci Sports. 1975 Fall;7(3):199-202.
Guerrero-Romero F, Rodriquez-Moran M. Abdominal Volume Index: An
Anthropometry-Based Index for Estimation of Obesity is strongly related to Gómez-Ambrosi J, Silva C, Galofré JC, et al. Body mass index classification World Health Organization. Waist Circumference and Waist-Hip Ratio. Report of
1 2
impaired glucose tolerance and type 2 diabetes mellitus. Archives of Medical 3 misses subjects with increased cardiometabolic risk factors related to elevated a WHO Expert Consultation. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2008.
Research. 2003. 34:428-432. adiposity. Int J Obes (Lond) 2011;36:286–94.
Huxley R, Mendis S, Zheleznyakov E et al. Body mass index, waist
Gowda V, Phillip KM. Abdominal volume index and the conicity index in Okorodudu DO, Jumean MF, Montori VM, et al. Diagnostic performance of body 3 circumference and waist:hip ratio as predictors of cardiovascular risk – a review
predicting metabolic abnormalities in young women of different socioeconomic 4 mass index to identify obesity as defined by body adiposity: a systematic review of the literature. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 2010, 64(1):16‐22.
2
class. International Journal of Medical Science and Public Health. 2016 and meta-analysis. Int J Obes (Lond) 2010;34:791–9.
Seidell JC. Waist circumference and waist/hip ratio in relation to all‐cause
5(4):1452-1456.
Phillips CM, Tierney AC, Perez-Martinez P, et al. Obesity and body fat 4 mortality, cancer and sleep apnea. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 2010,
Aryee C, Owiredu W, Osei-Yeboah J, et al. An analysis of Anthropometric 5 classification in the metabolic syndrome: impact on cardiometabolic risk 64(1):35‐41.
3 Indicators and modifiable lifestyle parameters associated with hypertensive metabotype. Obesity (Silver Spring) 2013;21: E154–61.
De Koning L, Merchant AT, Pogue J et al. Waist circumference and waist‐to‐hip
nephropathy. International Journal of Hypertension. 2016:1-16.
Garrow, J.S. & Webster, J., 1985. Quetelet’s index (W/H2) as a measure of 5 ratio as predictors of cardiovascular events: meta‐regression analysis of
6
TOTAL BODY WATER (TBW): fatness. Int. J. Obes., 9(2), pp.147–153. prospective studies. European Heart Journal, 2007, 28(7):850‐856.
Askew EW. Present knowledge in Nutrition. Washington DC, International Life Freedman, D.S., Horlick, M. & Berenson, G.S., 2013. A comparison of the APCSC. Central obesity and risk of cardiovascular disease in the Asia Pacific
1 6
Sciences Institute. 1996:98-107. Slaughter skinfold-thickness equations and BMI in predicting body fatness and Region. Asia Pacific Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 2006, 15(3):287‐292.
7
cardiovascular disease risk factor levels in children. Am. J. Clin. Nutr., 98(6),
Chumlea WC , et al. Total body water reference values and prediction equations
2 pp.1417–24.
for adults. Kidney Int. 2001 Jun;59(6):2250-8.
 WAIST CIRCUMFERENCE (WC) (Cont'd) BODY MASS INDEX (BMI) AND WAIST TO HIP RATIO (WHR) IDEAL BODY WEIGHT:
Yusuf S, Hawken S, Ounpuu S et al. Obesity and the risk of myocardial Karine R. Sahakyan, et al. Normal-Weight Central Obesity: Implications for Total Pai MP, Paloucek FP. The origin of the "ideal" body weight equations. Ann
1 1
7 infarction in 27,000 participants from 52 countries: a case‐control study. Lancet, and Cardiovascular. Ann Intern Med. 2015;163:827-835. doi:10.7326/M14-2525 Pharmacother 2000;34:1066–9.
2005, 366(9497):1640‐1649.
Cerhan JR, Moore SC, Jacobs EJ, Kitahara CM, Rosenberg PS, Adami HO, et Shah B, Sucher K, Hollenbeck CB. Comparison of ideal body weight equations
Gelber RP, Gaziano JM, Orav EJ et al. Measures of obesity and cardiovascular 2 al. A pooled analysis of waist circumference and mortality in 650,000 adults. 2 and published height-weight tables with body mass index tables for healthy
8 risk among men and women. Journal of the American College of Cardiolog, Mayo Clin Proc. 2014;89:335-45. [PMID:24582192] adults in the United States. Nutr Clin Pract 2006;21:312–9.
2008, 52(8):605‐615.
Kahn HS, Bullard KM, Barker LE, Imperatore G. Differences between adiposity Peterson CM, Thomas DM, Blackburn GL, Heymsfield SB. Universal equation
Zhu S, Heymsfield SB, Toyoshima H et al. Race‐ethnicity‐specific waist 3 indicators for predicting all-cause mortality in a representative sample of United 3 for estimating ideal body weight and body weight at any BMI. Am J Clin Nutr
9 circumference cutoffs for identifying cardiovascular disease risk factors. States non-elderly adults. PLoS One. 2012;7:e50428. [PMID: 23226283] 2016;103:1197–203.
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 2005, 81(2):409‐415.
Reis JP, Macera CA, Araneta MR, Lindsay SP, Marshall SJ, Wingard DL. FANTASTIC LIFESTYLE ASSESSMENT QUESTIONNAIRE (FLAQ)
Huxley R, Barzi F, Lee CM et al. Waist circumference thresholds provide an 4 Comparison of overall obesity and body fat distribution in predicting risk of
10 accurate and widely applicable method for the discrimination of diabetes. mortality. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2009;17:1232-9. [PMID: 19197258] Wilson, D. M. C. The FANTASTIC lifestyle checklist: design and application.
1
Diabetes Care, 2007, 30(12):3116‐3118. Recreation Research Review 1984;11(2): 17-21.
Van Gaal LF, Mertens IL, De Block CE. Mechanisms linking obesity with
5 The Fantastic Lifestyle Checklist: Design and Application. Douglas M. C.
Huxley R, James WP, Barzi F et al. Ethnic comparisons of the cross‐sectional cardiovascular disease. Nature. 2006;444:875-80. [PMID:17167476]
11 relationships between measures of body size with diabetes and hypertension. Wilson. Recreation Research Review, vol. 11, no. 4, December 1984, pp. 17-21.
2
Obesity Reviews, 2008, 9 Suppl 1:53‐61. Grundy SM. Obesity, metabolic syndrome, and cardiovascular disease. J Clin Ontario Research Council on Leisure, Department of Recreation, University of
6
Endocrinol Metab. 2004;89:2595-600. [PMID:15181029] Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario N2L 3G1.
Nyamdorj R, Qiao Q, Lam TH et al. BMI compared with central obesity
12 indicators in relation to diabetes and hypertension in Asians. Obesity (Silver Manolopoulos KN, Karpe F, Frayn KN. Gluteofemoral body fat as a determinant Douglas M. C. Wilson Eleanor Nielsen Donna Ciliska. Lifestyle Assessment:
7 3
Spring), 2008, 16(7):1622‐1635. of metabolic health. Int J Obes (Lond). 2010;34:949-59. [PMID:20065965] Testing the FANTASTIC Instrument. Can Fam Physican 1984; 30:1863-1866.

Qiao Q, Nyamdorj R. The optimal cutoff values and their performance of waist BODY FRAME SIZE: Jacqueline K. Sharratt Michael T. Sharratt Diana M. Smith Marion J. Howell
13 circumference and waist‐to‐hip ratio for diagnosing type II diabetes. European 4 Lynda Davenport. FANTASTIC Lifestyle Survey Of University of Waterloo
Grant J. Handbook of Total Parenteral Nutrition Nutrition. Philadelphia, PA: WB Employees. Can Fam Physician 1984; 30:1869-1872.
Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 2010b, 64(1):23‐29. 1
Saunders; 1980.
OSTEOPOROSIS RISK ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT (ORAI) Yvonne Kason Veli J. Ylanko. FANTASTIC Lifestyle Assessment: Part 5
Grant JP, Custer PB, Thurlow J. Current techniques of nutritional assessment. 5 Measuring Lifestyle in Family Practice. Can Fam Physician 1984; 30:2379-
2
Cadarette SM, Jaglal SB, et al. Development and validation of the Osteoporosis Surg Clin North Am. 1981; 61(3):437-463. 2383.
1 Risk Assessment Instrument to facilitate selection of women for bone Bray G. Definition, measurement and classification of the syndromes of obesity.
densitometry. CMAJ (Canadian Medical Assoc J). 2000; 162: 1289-1294. 3 Ciro Romélio Rodriguez Añez, Rodrigo Siqueira Reis, Edio Luiz Petroski.
Int J Obesity. 1978;2:99-112. 6 Brazilian Version of a Lifestyle Questionnaire: Translation and Validation for
MALE OSTEOPOROSIS RISK ESTIMATION SCORE (MORES) Lagua RT, Claudio VS. Nutrition and Diet Therapy Reference Dictionary. 4 th Young Adults. Arq Bras Cardiol 2008;91(2):92-98.
4
SHOBHA S. RAO, NITIN BUDHWAR, AMBREEN ASHFAQUE. Osteoporosis in ed. New-York, Chapman & Hall, Appendix, 1996;21:415. Philip A Decina, Marion McGregor, Carol Hagino. Lifestyle analysis: a
1
Men. Am Fam Physician. 2010;82(5):503-508. Mitchell MC. Comparison of determinants of frame size in older adults. J Am 7 comparative study between freshman, second and fourth year chiropractic
5 students. JCCA 1990; 34(2): 69-74.
Shepherd AJ, Cass AR, Carlson CA, Ray L. Development and internal Diat Assoc. 1993;93:53-57.
2 validation of the male osteoporosis risk estimation score. Ann Fam Med. BODY SURFACE AREA: Mahdieh Momayyezi, Hossein Fallahzadeh, Mohammad Momayyezi.
2007;5(6):540-546. 8 Construction and Validation the Lifestyle Questionnaire Related to Cancer. Iran
DuBois D, DuBois EF. A formula to estimate the approximate surface area if J Cancer Prev. 2015 October; 8(5): e3965. doi: 10.17795/ijcp-3965
NECK CIRCUMFERENCE (NC) 1
height and weight be known. Arch Intern Medicine. 1916;17:863-71.
Kay Wilhelm, Tonelle Handley, Prasuna Reddy. Exploring the validity of the
Yang GR, Yuan SY, Fu HJ, Wan G, Zhu LX, Bu XL. Neck circumference Wang Y, Moss J, Thisted R. Predictors of body surface area. J Clin Anesth. Fantastic Lifestyle Checklist in an inner city population of people presenting with
positively related with central obesity, overweight, and metabolic syndrome in 2 9
1 1992;4(1):4-10. suicidal behaviours. The Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry
chinese subjects with type 2 diabetes: Beijing community diabetes study 4. (ANZJP) 2015. https://doi.org/10.1177/0004867415621393
Diabetes Care. 2010;33:2465–7. Tsutomu Kouno, Noriyuki Katsumata, Hirofumi Mukai, et al. Standardization of
3 the Body Surface Area (BSA) Formula to Calculate the Dose of Anticancer RAND SF-36 HEALTH SURVEY (SF-36)
Liubov (Louba) Ben-Noun, Ezra Sohar, Arie Laor. Neck Circumference as a Agents in Japan. Jpn J Clin Oncol 2003;33(6):309–313.
2 Simple Screening Measure for Identifying Overweight and Obese Patients. Hemingway, H., Stafford, M., Stansfeld, S., Shipley, M., & Marmot, M. (1997). Is
OBESITY RESEARCH Vol. 9 No. 8 August 2001. Lee, J-Y et al. Determination of Body Surface Area and Formulas to Estimate 1 the SF-36 a valid measure of change in population health? Results from the
4 Body Surface Area Using the Alginate Method. J Physiol Anthropol. Whitehall II Study. British Medical Journal, 315, 1273-1279.
Ben-Noun L, Sohar E, Laor A. Neck circumference as a simple screening 2008;27:71–82.
3 measure for identifying overweight and obese patients. Obesity Res. Ware, J. E., & Sherbourne, C. D. (1992). The MOS 36-item Short-Form Health
2001;9(8):470–7. Verbraecken J, et al. Body surface area in normal-weight, overweight, and 2 Survey (SF-36): I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Medical Care, 30,
5 obese adults. A comparison study. Metabolism Clinical and Experimental. 473-83. doi:10.1177/14034948980260040401
F.N. Kılınç, B. Çakır, S.E. Durmaz, et al. Evaluation of obesity in university 2006;55:515-524.
4 students with neck circumference and determination of emotional appetite. Ware, J. E. (2000). SF-36 health survey update: SPINE, 25, 3130-3139.
LEAN BODY MASS: 3
Progress in Nutrition 2019;21(2):00-00 DOI: 10.23751/pn.v21i2.7644. doi:10.1177/1049731507300152
Matthew L. Ho, Steven D. Brass. Obstructive sleep apnea. Neurology Caruso D, De Santis D, Rivosecchi F, et al. Lean Body Weight-Tailored Abbott, S., Hobby, L., & Cotter, S. (2006). What is the impact on individual
5 1 Iodinated Contrast Injection in Obese Patient: Boer versus James Formula.
International 2011; volume 3:e15. health of services in general practice settings which offer welfare benefits
BioMed Research International. 2018: 8521893. 6 pages. 4
advice? Health & Social Care in the Community, 14, 1-8. doi:10.1111/j.1365-
Robert M. Wolfe, Jonathan Pomerantz, Deborah E. Miller, ET AL. Obstructive 2524.2005.00582
6 Sleep Apnea: Preoperative Screening and Postoperative Care . J Am Board Hume, R. Prediction of lean body mass from height and weight . Journal of
2
Fam Med 2016;29:263–275. Clinical Pathology. 1966;19(4):389–91. Hopman, W. M., Berger, C., Joseph, L., Towheed, T., VandenKerkhof, E.
Anastassiades, T. , Papadimitropoulos, E. A. (2006). The natural progression of
Young T., Shahar E., Nieto J. et al. for the Sleep Heart Health Study Research Gotfredsen A, Jensen J, Borg J, Christiansen C. Measurement of lean body 5
health-related quality of life: results of a five-year prospective study of SF-36
7 Group. Predictors of sleep-disordered breathing in community-dwelling adults. 3 mass and total body fat using dual photon absorptiometry. Metabolism - Clinical
scores in a normative population. Quality of Life Research, 15, 527-536.
Arch. Intern. Med. 2002; 162: 893–900. and Experimental. 1986 ;35(1):88–93.
Thumboo, J., Cheung, Y., & Machin, D. (2005). Does being bilingual in English
Cabrera et al Risk of obstructive sleep apnea in open-angle glaucoma versus Thomas et al. Relationships between body roundness with body fat and visceral
and Chinese influence changes in quality of life scale scores? Evidence from a
8 controls using the STOP-Bang questionnaire. CAN J OPHTHALMOL—VOL. 53, 4 adipose tissue emerging from a new geometrical model. Obesity (Silver Spring). 6
prospective, population-based study. Quality of Life Research, 14, 529-538.
NO. 1, FEBRUARY 2018. 2013 November; 21(11): 2264–2271.
doi:10.1007/s11136-004-4848-y
Katz I, et al. "Do patients with obstructive sleep apnea have thick necks?" Am Gallagher et al. Healthy percentage body fat ranges: an approach for
9 LIPID PROFILE
Rev Respir Dis. 1990 May;141(5 Pt 1):1228-31. 5 developing guidelines based on body mass index. Am J Clin Nutr, 2000.
72(3):694–701. Sandeep, V. (2020). Screening for lipid disorders in adults. UpToDate. Retrieved
Davies RJ and Stradling JR. "The relationship between neck circumference, 1
from https://www.uptodate.com/contents/screening-for-lipid-disorders-in-adults
10 radiographic pharyngeal anatomy, and the obstructive sleep apnoea BASAL METABOLIC RATE (BMR):
syndrome." Eur Respir J. 1990 May;3(5):509-514. American Heart Association (2017). HDL (Good), LDL (Bad) Cholesterol and
Joseph M. Gupta RD, Prema L, Inbakumari M, Thomas N. Are Predictive
2 Triglycerides. Retrieved from https://www.heart.org/en/health-
NECK CIRCUMFERENCE TO HEIGHT RATIO (NHR): 1 Equations for Estimating Resting Energy Expenditure Accurate in Asian Indian
topics/cholesterol/hdl-good-ldl-bad-cholesterol-and-triglycerides
Male Weightlifters? Indian J Endocrinol Metab. 2017 Jul-Aug;21(4):515-519.
Ho AW, Moul DE, Krishna J. Neck circumference-height ratio as a predictor of Mach F, Baigent C, Catapano AL, et al. 2019 ESC/EAS Guidelines for the
1 sleep related breathing disorder in children and adults. J Clin Sleep Med McArdle W. Essentials of exercise physiology. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. 3
2 management of dyslipidemias.
2016;12(3):311–317. 2006:266. ISBN 9780495014836 .
Madsen, C. et al. Extreme high high-density lipoprotein cholesterol is
BODY MASS INDEX (BMI) AND WAIST CIRCUMFERENCE (WC) Dunford M. Nutrition for Sport and Exercise. Brooks/Cole. 2007:57. ISBN
3 4 paradoxically associated with high mortality in men and women: two prospective
9780781749916 .
NHLBI Obesity Education Initiative. The practical guide: Identification, cohort studies. European Heart Journal (2017) 38, 2478–2486
Evaluation, and Treatment of Overweight and obesity in adults. NATIONAL McArdle WD, Katch FI, Katch VL. Exercise Physiology – Energy, Nutrition and
BLOOD GLUCOSE
1 INSTITUTES OF HEALTH NATIONAL HEART, LUNG, AND BLOOD 4 Human Performance. 5th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. 2001.
INSTITUTE NORTH AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR THE STUDY OF Human energy expenditure during rest and physical activity; p. 191. Gomyo M, Sakane N, Kamae I, Sato S, Suzuki K, Tominaga M, et al. Effects of
OBESITY; 2000. 1 sex, age and BMI on screening tests for impaired glucose tolerance. Diabetes
Oliveira B, Sridharan S, Farrington K, Davenport A. Comparison of resting
Res Clin Pract. 2004;64(2):129–36.
U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. Classification of Overweight and energy equations and total energy expenditure in haemodialysis patients and
5
2 Obesity by BMI, Waist Circumference, and Associated Disease Risks. body composition measured by multi-frequency bioimpedance. Nephrology Sladek R, Rocheleau G, Rung J, et al. A genome-wide association study
(Carlton). 2018 Aug;23(8):748-754. 2
https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/educational/lose_wt/BMI/bmi_dis.htm identifies novel risk loci for type 2 diabetes. Nature 2007; 445(7130): 881– 5.
Garvey WT, Mechanick JI, Brett EM, et al. American Association of Clinical TOTAL DAILY ENERGY EXPENDITURE/PHYSICAL ACTIVITY LEVEL Atkinson MA, Mcgill DE, Dassau E, Laffel L. Type 1 diabetes. In: Melmed S,
Endocrinologists and American College of Endocrinology comprehensive 3 Auchus RJ, Goldfine AB, Koenig RJ, Rosen CJ, eds. Williams Textbook of
3 Black AE , Coward WA , Cole TJ , Prentice AM . Human energy expenditure
clinical practice guidelines for medical care of patients with obesity. Endocr Endocrinology. 14th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier; 2020:chap 36.
1 in affluent societies: an analysis of 574 doubly-labelled water measurements.
Pract. 2016;22(suppl 3):1-203.
Eur J Clin Nutr. 1996 Feb;50(2):72-92. Riddle MC, Ahmann AJ. Therapeutics of type 2 diabetes. In: Melmed S, Auchus
World Health Organization. Report of a WHO Consultation on Obesity. Obesity: RJ, Goldfine AB, Koenig RJ, Rosen CJ, eds. Williams Textbook of
Stroud MA, Coward WA & Sawyer MB. Measurements of energy expenditure
4 Preventing and Managing the Global Epidemic. Geneva: World Health Endocrinology. 14th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier; 2020:chap 35. American
2 using isotope-labelled water (H20) during an Arctic Expedition. Eur. J. Appl.
Organization; 1998. 4 Diabetes Association Professional Practice Committee; Draznin B, Aroda VR, et
Phsyiol.1993; 67:375-379.
al. 6. Glycemic Targets: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2022. Diabetes
World Health Organization. Waist Circumference and Waist-Hip Ratio. Report of Care. 2022;45(Suppl 1):S83-S96. PMID:
5 Westerrerp KR, Saris WHM, van Es M, et al. Use of the doubly labeled water
a WHO Expert Consultation. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2008. 34964868 pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34964868/.
3 technique in humans during heavy sustained exercise. J. Appl. physiol.
WRIST CIRCUMFERENCE TO HEIGHT (WrCHt): 1986;61: 2162-2167.
Carson AP, Fox CS, McGuire DK, Levitan EB, Laclaustra M, Mann DM, Muntner
Grant JP, Custer PB, Thurlow J. Current techniques of nutritional assessment. James WPT, Ferro-Luzzj, Waterlow JC. Definition of chronic energy deficiency P. Low hemoglobin A1c and risk of all-cause mortality among US adults without
1 4 in adults. Report of a working party of the International Dietary Energy 5 diabetes. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2010 Nov;3(6):661-7. doi:
Surg Clin North Am. 1981;61:437–463.
Consultancy Group. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 1988;42:969-981. 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.110.957936. Epub 2010 Oct 5. PMID: 20923991;
Wills SD, Bhopal RS. The challenges of accurate waist and hip measurement PMCID: PMC4734630.
2 FAO/WHO/UNU (1985): Energy and protein requirements. Report of a Joint
over clothing: Pilot data. Obes Res Clin Pract. 2010;4:e239–e244.
5 FAO/WHO/UNU consultation. Techm. Rep. \er.724.Geneva.' World Health Canadian Diabetes Association Clinical Practice Guidelines Expert Committee.
Younes Jahangiri Noudeh, Farzad Hadaegh, Nasibeh Vatankhah. Wrist Organization. Goldenberg R, Punthakee Z. Definition, classification and diagnosis of diabetes,
Circumference as a Novel Predictor of Diabetes and Prediabetes: Results of 6
3 prediabetes and metabolic syndrome. Can J Diabetes. 2013 Apr;37 Suppl 1:S8-
Cross-Sectional and 8.8-Year Follow-up Studies. J Clin Endocrinol Metab, Department of Health: Dietary reference values for food energy and nutrients for 11.]
6
February 2013, 98(2):777–784. the United Kingdom. Rep. HIth Soc. Subj. 1991;41: London: HMSO.
Aggarwal V, Schneider AL, Selvin E. Low hemoglobin A(1c) in nondiabetic
adults: an elevated risk state? Diabetes Care. 2012 Oct;35(10):2055-60. doi:
7
10.2337/dc11-2531. Epub 2012 Aug 1. PMID: 22855733; PMCID:
PMC3447844.
 SF-36 HEALTH SURVEY

Name: Dee, Hanna Date: 2/22/2024

1. In general, would you say your health is:

(Check One Box)

Excellent []

Very Good [X]

Good []

Fair []

Poor []

2. Compared to one year ago, how would you rate your health in general now?

(Check One Box)

Much better now than one year ago []

Somewhat better now than one year ago [X]

About the same []

Somewhat worse now than one year ago []

Much worse now than one year ago []

The following items are about activities you might do during a typical day. Does your health now limit you in these activities?
If so, how much?

(Check One Box on Each Line)

Yes, Yes, No,

Limited Limited Not Limited
a Lot a Little at All

3. Vigorous activities, such as running, lifting heavy objects, participating in strenuous sports [] [X] []

4. Moderate activities, such as moving a table, pushing a vacuum cleaner, bowling, or playing golf [] [X] []

5. Lifting or carrying groceries [] [X] []

6. Climbing several flights of stairs [] [X] []

7. Climbing one flights of stairs [] [X] []

8. Bending, kneeling, or stooping [] [X] []

9. Walking more than a mile [] [X] []

10. Walking several blocks [] [X] []

11. Walking one block [] [X] []

12. Bathing or dressing yourself [] [X] []

During the past 4 weeks, have you had any of the following problems with your work or other regular daily activities a result of your physical health?

(Check One Box on Each Line)

Yes No

13. Cut down the amount of time you spent on work or other activities [X] []

14. Accomplished less than you would like [X] []

15. Were limited in the kind of work or other activities [X] []

16. Had difficulty performing the work or other activities (for example, it took extra effort) [X] []

During the past 4 weeks, have you had any of the following problems with your work or other regular daily activities a result of any emotional problems (such as feeling depressed or anxious)?

(Check One Box on Each Line)

Yes No

17. Cut down the amount of time you spent on work or other activities [] [X]

18. Accomplished less than you would like [] [X]

19. Were limited in the kind of work or other activities [] [X]

20. During the past 4 weeks, to what extent has your physical health or emotional problems interfered with your normal social activities with family, friends, neighbors, or groups?

(Check One Box)

Not at all [X]

Slightly []

Moderately []

Quite a bit []

Extremely []

SF-36 Health Survey - Dee, Hanna - 2/22/2024 - Page 1 of 2

21. How much bodily pain have you had during the past 4 weeks?

(Check One Box)

None []

Very mild [X]

Mild []

Moderate []

Severe []

Very severe []

22. During the past 4 weeks, how much did pain interfere with your normal work (including both work outside the home and housework)?

(Check One Box)

Not at all [X]

Slightly []

Moderately []

Quite a bit []

Extremely []

These questions are about how you feel and how things have been with you during the past 4 weeks. For each question, please give the one answer that comes closest to the way you have been
feeling.

How much of the time during the past 4 weeks . . .

(Check One Box on Each Line)

All Most A Good Some A Little None

of the of the Bit of of the of the of the
Time Time the Time Time Time Time

23. Did you feel full of pep? [] [X] [] [] [] []

24. Have you been a very nervous person? [] [X] [] [] [] []

25. Have you felt so down in the dumps that nothing could cheer you up? [] [X] [] [] [] []

26. Have you felt calm and peaceful? [] [X] [] [] [] []

27. Did you have a lot of energy? [] [X] [] [] [] []

28. Have you felt downhearted and blue? [] [X] [] [] [] []

29. Did you feel worn out? [] [X] [] [] [] []

30. Have you been a happy person? [] [X] [] [] [] []

31. Did you feel tired? [] [X] [] [] [] []

32. During the past 4 weeks, how much of the time has your physical health or emotional problems interfered with your social activities (like visiting with friends, relatives, etc.)?

(Check One Box)

All of the time []

Most of the time [X]

Some of the time []

A little of the time []

None of the time []

How TRUE or FALSE is each of the following statements for you.

(Check One Box on Each Line)

Definitely Mostly Don't Mostly Definitely

True True Know False False

33. I seem to get sick a little easier than other people. [] [X] [] [] []

34. I am as healthy as anybody I know. [] [X] [] [] []

35. Have you felt so down in the dumps that nothing could cheer you up? [] [X] [] [] []

36. My health is excellent. [] [X] [] [] []

Results

Physical Functioning: 50.00 Energy/Fatigue: 50.00

Role Limitations - Physical: 0.00 Social Functioning: 62.50

Pain: 90.00 Role Limitations - Emotional: 100.00

General Health: 55.00 Mental Health: 44.00

PHYSICAL SUMMARY SCALE: 45.48 MENTAL SUMMARY SCALE: 60.36

Scores range from 0 to 100 with higher scores indicating greater health

SF-36 Health Survey - Dee, Hanna - 2/22/2024 - Page 2 of 2

 Fantastic Lifestyle Checklist
Name: Dee, Hanna Date: 2/22/2024

I have someone to talk to about

Almost never ✔ Seldom Some of the time Fairly often Almost always
FAMILY & things that are important to me
FRIENDS
I give and receive affection Almost never ✔ Seldom Some of the time Fairly often Almost always

I am vigorously active for at least

5 or more
30 minutes per day (e.g. – running, Less than once/week ✔ 1-2 times/week 3 times/week 4 times/wk
times/wk
cycling, sports, etc)
ACTIVITY
I am moderately active (e.g.-
5 or more
gardening, climbing stairs, walking, Less than once/week ✔ 1-2 times/week 3 times/week 4 times/wk
times/wk
housework, etc.)

I eat a balanced diet (see

Almost never ✔ Seldom Some of the time Fairly often Almost always
explanation)

I often eat excess: 1) Sugar, 2) Salt, None of these

NUTRITION All of these foods ✔ Three of these foods Two of these foods One of these foods
3) Animal Fats, 4) Junk Food foods

I am within _____ kilograms or

Not within 8 kg ✔ 8 kg (20 lbs) 6 kg (15 lbs) 4 kg (10 lbs) 2 kg (5 lbs)
pounds of my healthy weight

More than 10 None in the past 6 None in the past

I smoke tobacco ✔ 1-10 times/week None in the past year
times/week months 5 years

I use drugs such as cocaine, or

Sometimes ✔ Never
TOBACCO speed:
TOXINS I overuse prescribed or over the
Almost daily ✔ Fairly often Occasionally Almost never Never
counter drugs

I drink caffeine containing More than 10

✔ 7-10 times/day 3-6 times/day 1-2 times/day Never
products (drinks, supplements) times/day

My average alcohol intake per

More than 20 drinks ✔ 13-20 drinks 11-12 drinks 8-10 drinks 0-7 drinks
week is ____.

I drink more than four drinks on an

ALCOHOL Almost daily ✔ Fairly often Occasionally Almost never Never
occasion

I drive after drinking Sometimes ✔ Never

I sleep well and feel rested Almost never ✔ Seldom Some of the time Fairly often Almost always

I use seatbelts Never ✔ Seldom Some of the time Most of the time Always
SLEEP
SEATBELTS I am able to cope with the stresses
Almost never ✔ Seldom Some of the time Fairly often Almost always
STRESS in my life
SAFE SEX
I relax and enjoy leisure time Almost never ✔ Seldom Some of the time Fairly often Almost always

I practice safe sex Almost never ✔ Seldom Some of the time Fairly often Always

I seem to be in a hurry Almost always ✔ Fairly often Some of the time Seldom Almost never
TYPE OF
BEHAVIOR
I feel angry or hostile Almost always ✔ Fairly often Some of the time Seldom Almost never

I am a positive or optimistic thinker Almost never ✔ Seldom Some of the time Fairly often Almost always

INSIGHT I feel tense or uptight Almost always ✔ Fairly often Some of the time Seldom Almost never

I feel sad or depressed Almost always ✔ Fairly often Some of the time Seldom Almost never

CAREER I am satisfied with my job or role Almost never ✔ Seldom Some of the time Fairly often Almost always

YOUR SCORE: 31
WHAT DOES THE SCORE MEAN?

85-100 70-84 55-69 35-54 0-34

EXCELLENT VERY GOOD GOOD FAIR NEEDS IMPROVEMENT

NOTE: A low total score does not mean that you have failed. There is always the chance to change your lifestyle – starting now. Look at the areas where you scored a 0 or 1 and decide which areas you
want to work on first.

Fantastic Lifestyle Checklist - Dee, Hanna - 2/22/2024 - Page 1 of 1