Atlas Journal of Biology 2019, pp. 674–698 doi: 10.5147/ajb.v0i0.196 A tla s J ou rn al o f B io lo gy - IS SN 2 15 8- 91 51 . P ub lis he d B y A tla s P ub lis hi ng , L P (w w w. at la s- pu bl is hi ng .o rg ) A Culturally Competent Phenotypic Evaluation/Obesity As- sessment in African and African American Populations: Pilot Study Catrina Johnson1,2,3*, Robert Corruccini4, Daniel Becque5,6, Wanki Moon7, Kola Ajuwon8, and David Lightfoot1,2 1 Genomics Core Facility, Southern Illinois University Carbondale, IL 62901,USA; 2 Department of Plant, Soil & Ag Systems, Southern Illinois University Carbondale, IL 62901, USA; 3 Center for Health, Nutrition & Biomedicine P.O. Box 1062, Park Forest, IL 60466;USA; 4 Department of Anthropology, Southern Illi- nois University Carbondale, IL 62901, USA; 5 Department of Kinesiology, Southern Illinois University Car- bondale, IL 62901, USA; 6 Department of Physiology, Southern Illinois University Carbondale, IL 62901, USA; 7 Department of Agribusiness,Southern Illinois University Carbondale, IL 62901, USA; 8 Department of Animal Sciences & Nutrition, Purdue University-Elkhart, IN 49707, USA. Received: January 16, 2019 / Accepted: June 23, 2019 __________________________________________________ * Corresponding author: johnsoncatrina@gmail.com 674 Abstract Best practice, movement towards individualized medicine and deployment of effective models that impact the diabetes epidemic and its related precursors like insulin resistance and the metabolic syndrome, requires terminal use of BMI, a biologically meaningless and crude indicator of obesity, in favor of effective and culturally-competent non-relative body composition evaluation of genetically determined adiposity, that untenably compares values among groups. African Americans are among the increasingly affected groups for diabetes and possess unique composition varia- tion requiring proper intra-cultural evaluation independent of inter-ethnic Eurocentric assumptions that over assesses obesity risk. Incorporating use of 4C models to evaluate ad- iposity and assess risk for diabetic predisposition and onset, provides an effective, unbiased assessment of the cultural components inherent within body composition variation among ethnicity, age and gender. Obesity and type 2 diabe- tes onset and pre-disposition was assessed phenotypically, in creation of a body mass profile among African and African American groups, using 4C model, photography, anthro- pometry, somatotype and genetic evaluation. Environmen- tal, obeseogenic cultural factors were also explored. BMI was not found to be an accurate predictor of adiposity in Africans and African Americans. West Africans and other African Americans were found to be an accurate and cultur This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://cre- ativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. ally competent reference population for African American physiology vs. European. Africans and African Americans were found to be heavier and less fat and normal weight at higher BMI, attributable to cultural acceptance and more fat free mass. Skeletal weights were heavy (6-7lbs) among Africans and African Americans. African Americans had heavier bone density than Africans but African bone weight increased the longer they stayed in the U.S. BMI falsely as- sumed the presence of fat in this population. 70% of body mass was attributable to muscle, confirming the mesomor- phic phenotype in these groups. African American women were larger than their male counterparts vs. Africans, a sexual dimorphic indicator that may be attributable to the absence of incarcerated Black male phenotypic data in this study. Keywords: African-Americans, West-Africans, physiology, obesity, BMI. A tla s J ou rn al o f B io lo gy - IS SN 2 15 8- 91 51 . P ub lis he d B y A tla s P ub lis hi ng , L P (w w w. at la s- pu bl is hi ng .o rg ) Introduction Phenotypic Evaluation/Obesity Assessment BMI, a ratio of weight over height, is a key tool used to measure obesity and diabetic predisposition by clinicians and government measurement standards like the NHANES survey. It emanated from 1959 ideal weight tables generated by Met- ropolitan Life Insurance Company that was exclusive to most of the population relative to White, upper class males (Loos et al., 2008) and became a mandated shibboleth as a proper measure of adiposity by researchers and publishers by the 1985 NIH Consensus Panel (Kuczymarksi and Flegal, 2000). What is problematic about this acceptance, is that a standard that fails to represent a proper relative sample or that excludes groups, cannot be used as a universal measure for all groups (Harrison, 1985). And the notion of “ideal weight” has been found to be biased and inaccurate as a universal standard (Knapp, 1983) across ethnicity, class, gender and age. Adipose tissue contains hormones that can upset metabolic homestasis with regards to an increase in insulin release. However, it is not the general bodily presence of adipose tissue that increases susceptibility to diabetes, rather, the location specific adiposity(Bjorntorp, 1985). Fat patterning is not relatively assumed but genetically determined (Wagner and Heyward, 2000). Adipose tissue lo- cated around the waist is correlated with metabolic syndrome, glucose intolerance-a precursor to diabetes, and diabetes onset (Bjorntorp, 1985; Fox, 2008). Body composition is an accept- able and proven method of evaluation of adiposity, and ideal weight (Wagner and Heyward, 2000) and has a variation across cultures (Harrison, 1985). African Americans have been shown to have a higher percentage of lean, fat free masses that include heavier skeletal weights, muscle and bone mineral content (BMC), longer extremities, adipose concentrations in the trunk, subscapular, back and lateral areas and low waist to hip ratios (Schutte et al., 1984; Hortobagyi et al., 1990). The universal body composition model that evaluates body fat percentage, historically was exclusive to African Americans relative to the evaluation of White, male cadavers and is therefore not an ac- curate representation for adiposity in African Americans. The relationship between adiposity and weight is weakly correlated (Harrison, 1985).Adipose tissue, accepted to be the result of energy storage over expenditure, is not correlated with obesi- ty in Africans and African Americans’ tissue (Ebersole et al., 2008). Body Mass Index represents an assumption of adiposity and its equal distribution and has a strong cultural component (Kleerokoper et al., 1994) that is different among ethnicity, cul- ture, gender and age (Gallagher et al. 1996). BMI is not a useful tool to evaluate adiposity (Kaarma et al., 2009; Kennedy et al., 2009; Smalley et al., 1990) among ethnicities. It is not com- parable across ethnic groups (Satija, 2016). It has been shown to over-estimate obesity among African Americans (Aloia et al., 1997; Aloia et al., 1998).The 4 C model is a proper tool to evaluate body fat that eliminates bias across ethnicity (Mott and et al., 1999; Durenberg and Durenberg, 2001). 675 Genes and Variants Associated with Obesity Obesity has a genetic component. The following genes have been affiliated with obesity: 23HNF4A haplotypes in In- tron 3 7 region,23HNF4A haplotypes in P2 promoter region, ADRB2, ADRB3, AGRP, ANKRD26, APOE (SNPs), CART, CART (mutation), CDKAL1 chromosome 6 SNP-rs9350270, Chromosome 3p26, Chromosome 6, E2F3 chromosome-6 SNP rs6939190, E2F3 chromosome 6 SNP-rs6939190, ENPP1, ENPP1 (3 allele haplotype), ESR 1 absence or variation, FE- TUB, FTO, FTO (SNP-rS11219800, FTO intron 1, GHRL, GNPA2, GNPDA2 (SNP-rs10938397), IL-6, IQGAP1, KCTD, MC4R, MC4R (mutation), MC4R (SNP s17782313), MC4R (SNP rs12970134), MC4R (SNP-rs17782313), MC4R mutation, MC4R(SNP- rs12970134), MC5R, MTCH2, MTCH2 (SNP-rs4752856), Multiple rare deleterous variants, MYO18B, MYO18B, NEGR1, NEGR1 (SNP-rs2815752), NR0B2, NROB2 (mutation), PCSKI (variation in), PDSS2, POMC, POMC (mutation), PPARG, PPARGC1B, PTPRD, PYY, RELA (1KBKB variants), rs2241766(adiponectin), rs23047595, rs2304795, rs2304795, rs2745367(resistin), rs8179071, rs894160, SDC3, SDC3 (SNPs), SH2B1, SH2B1 (SNP-rs7498665), SIM1, SNP-rs6004901, SNP-rs6870962, SSTR2, TMEM18, UCP1, UCP3 (Ahituv et al., 2007; Bagwell et al., 2005; Barroso, 2005; Bouchard et al., 1990; Branson et al., 2003; Calton and Vaisse, 2009; Chambers et al., 2008; Dong et al., 2003; Dong et al., 2005; Doumatey, 2009; Dubern et al., 2001; Farooqi et al., 2003; Gallagher et al., 2007; Lucas et al., 2011); Meyre et al., 2009; Norman et al., 1997; Paganini‐Hill et al., 1981; Proctor, 2009; Sutton et al., 2005; Willer et al., 2009; Wing, 2010; Zonta et al., 1987; Nishigori et al., 2001). Obesity Genotypes Affiliated with African Americans Hassanein et al. (2010) discovered an association between variants rs3751812 and rs9941349 with BMI in African Ameri- cans. Wing et al. (2010) found that genetic heterogeneity be- tween African Americans, Hispanic Americans and Caucasian Americans was affiliated with FTO intron 1. He also found the ratio of visceral to subcutaneous fat (VSR) to be associated with MYO18B, PDSS2 and IQGAP1. Doumatey et al. (2009) found the IL-6 was associated to body mass index (BMI), waist hip ratio (WHR), and the homeostatic model assessment (HOMA_ IR) for insulin resistance in African Americans. The environ- mental mode of action being telomere shortening (Epel et al., 2004). It affects IL-6 (Lin et al., 2012). Doumatey et al. (2009) also found rs2241766 (adiponectin) to be associated with waist hip ratios and rs2745367(resistin) associated with circulating resistin in African Americans and West Africans. These groups were also found to regulate adopokines differently. Proctor et al. (2009) associated subcutaneous adipose tissue in African Americans with E2F3 chromosome 6-SNP rs4710930 and rs6939190. Bagwell et al. (2005) found that 23HNF4A haplotypes in the P2 promoter region and 3-intron 7 region related significantly to measures of obesity in Hispanics and African Americans. Barroso et al, 2005 found association with risk-raising waist A tla s J ou rn al o f B io lo gy - IS SN 2 15 8- 91 51 . P ub lis he d B y A tla s P ub lis hi ng , L P (w w w. at la s- pu bl is hi ng .o rg ) 676 A tla s J ou rn al o f B io lo gy - IS SN 2 15 8- 91 51 . P ub lis he d B y A tla s P ub lis hi ng , L P (w w w. at la s- pu bl is hi ng .o rg ) circumference, waist-hip-ratios, estimated percent body fat, body weight, and BMI>35 to be associated with gene variants rs2304795, rs894160 and rs230475. Metabolic syndrome prev- alence was associated with rs2304794.Gallagher et al, 2004 associated the OPRM1 gene to type 2 diabetes susceptibility among African Americans. And Sutton et al. (2005) discovered a link between chromosome 3p26 and obesity phenotypes in African Americans. Body Mass Index (BMI) Is diabetes- as predicted by Body Mass Index (BMI) alone amongst African Americans- a problematic assessment? BMI is a key tool used to measure obesity and diabetic predisposition that uses the standards of Americans of European descent as a normative. BMI is defined as: a ratio of weight over height squared. It is widely accepted as a modernized height and weight tables that standardizes the measure of body fat using a weight over height ratio. BMI and Ethnicity There is variation in BMI among ethnicity. For the same BMI Black women have 1% less body fat that White women (Evans et al., 2006). Currently accepted BMI, when adjusted for race, produced a low sensitivity to fatness (Evans et al., 2006). It is different among Whites and Blacks (Evans et al., 2006) and is an imprecise measure of fatness across ethnicity (Mills et al., 2007). At the same BMI African American men had lower visceral/belly fat than White and Hispanic men (Car- roll et al., 2008) and controlled for age, had less truncal fat and more skeletal muscle than Hispanic men (Aleman-Mateo et al., 2009).BMI cut off points are necessary to determine metabolic risk among different ethnic groups (Carroll et al., 2008). En- vironmental factors like screen time, school commuting and consumption of calorie dense snacks and sweetened drinks is dependent upon BMI and ethnicity (Singh et al., 2009). BMI and Environmental Factors In a study of African Americans and West Africans, BMI in African Americans was associated with insulin resistance (Dou- matey, 2009).Among middle aged and older women, weight gain was affiliated with age (Ortega-Alonso et al., 2009).Varia- tion in ponderosity-body weight relative to height as determined by BMI-23% was attributed to environmental or non-genetic factors (Komlos et al., 2009). 48% of variation among RFPI, skinfold thickness was due to environmental effects (Hasstedt et al., 1989). At all levels of BMI only 10% of fat cells die and are renewed annually. Adult fat cells are established during the childhood environment (Spalding, 2008). Disadvantaged community has an effect on BMI. It reduces racial disparities in BMI but does not affect BMI over time (Ruel et al., 2010). Physical activity can diminish the additive effects of the herita- bility of BMI (Mustelin et al., 2009). Chronic stress increases cortisol levels and BMI among populations with no college de- gree (Daniel et al., 2006). Cultural differences in BMI may be explained by behaviors effecting energy expenditure like tele- vision viewing, commuting to school and consumption of fruit juices (Singh et al., 2009). BMI was associated with smoking in AA males. BMI and Inheritance A child with one or more parents overweight, inherits an in- crease risk for overweight (Danielzik et al., 2002).The BMI of parents affect the offspring (Li et al., 2009; Robl et al., 2008). Heritability of BMI from parents was found to be 79%. Among males, physical activity reduced waist circumference and heri- tability to 78% and females reduced to 56% and 71% with physical activity (Mustelin et al., 2009). In an international study BMI heritability was measured at 80-82% (Hjelmborg et al., 2008). In an international study of 7 and 10yr olds, BMI heritability was found at 60-74%. The same environmental and genetic factors responsible for variation in BMI caused obe- sity (Haworth et al., 2008). A study by Hunt et al (n=38, 759) found evidence that increases in BMI act upon the genotype, increasing the allele frequency of the FTO gene (Hunt et al., 2008). In Dutch families weight class (thin, median, overweight or obese) and BMI are inherited from mothers and fathers. Dif- ferent variants effected change and BMI levels. Genetic influ- ences related to BMI levels is 60%. Genetic influences related to BMI change is 64%. (Ortega-Alonso et al., 2009). Dong et al. (2005) located chromosomes responsible for genomic imprint- ing of obesity from parents among Europeans. BMI imprinting from the father was on 12Q24 and on 10p12. The additive and non-additive genetic effects in African Americans on BMI are different from European Americans (Duncan et al., 2009). A small scale twins study (N=12) revealed genetic factors affect- ing the body’s tendency to store energy as fat or lean tissue and various determinants of resting energy expenditure. This ten- dency affected regional fat distribution and abdominal/visceral fat. Hasstedt et al., in a study of 774 adults discovered 42.3% of variation in the relative fat pattern index (RFPI)-a ratio of subscapular skinfold thickness to the sum of subscapular and suprailac skinfold thickness, was due to recessive allele inheri- tance. 9.5% was polygenic and 48.2% attributable to random environmental effects(Hasstedt et al. 1989). Weight class (thin, median weight, overweight or obese) was found to be strong- ly related to the BMI of the mother (p=.0001) and the father (p=.02). BMI is not a valid indicator of regional fat distribution (Kok et al., 2004).“Controlling for bone size, there is considerable variation in density and thus weight of the skeleton in hu- man adults and this variation is correlated with age, sex and race (Harrison, 1985).” -Bone density is associated with hor- monal regulation. Leptin levels have an inverse relationship to the regulation of ERa signaling. Increased levels of leptin in animal models was shown to increase bone density (Ohlsson, 2000).“An ideal weight cannot be identified at a point in time for a person or person differing from the group or groups on which the table was based (Harrison, 1985).” It is not accurate across ethnicity (Evans et al., 2006)”; (Mills et al., 2007). Many studies have disproven it as a reliable measure of adipoisity. BMI Not a Useful Measure BMI cutoffs are not accurate across ethnicity (Evans, 2006; Mills, 2007). It is insensitive to the variation in body composi- tion across ethnicity (Kok, 2004).When compared with mea- sures of skinfolds and body composition, BMI does not cor- relate with body fat, height or length of extremities (Kaarma et al., 2009) and is inaccurate across levels of fatness (Freed- man and Sherry, 2009). BMI is not a biological indicator of body fat distribution (Kok,,2004) and should not be used to evaluate obesity prevalence (McAdams et al., 2007). It intro- duces bias and misclassification (Rothman, 2008), overpredicts overweight and underpredicts obesity and should not be used in scientific or clinical research (Kennedy et al., 2009). BMI is a poor predictor of fat mass in adolescents where FFM is attributed to variation in BMI (Freedman et al., 2005).Using DEXA, BMI was found to be a measure of weight and not fat- ness or adiposity (Freedman and Sherry, 2009). Height and weight as absolute values cannot be expressed by BMI because it represents part and not the whole body (Kaarma et al., 2009). In meta-analysis it underpredicts excess body fat in half of its study participants(Okorodudu et al., 2010). Why is it still being used? Given this history of quasi-breeding and phenotypic se- lection caused by slavery and its eight generations of African American commoditization, would the descendants of slaves thusly affected, present a BMI within the same normative range of a European culture that experienced no equivalent episodes of selection? Could African Americans posses a genetic ten- dency towards a larger BMI in response to historic selection pressures practiced in the era of slavery? This question is of general cultural significance and is an essential prerequisite to- wards validation of the “epidemic” of obesity/diabetes amongst Blacks. African American Physiology Body Composition and Genetics Waist circumference is inherited via parental BMI (Mustelin et al., 2009). Genes determine body fat percentage and leanness (Ahituv et al., 2007). Body Composition And Ethnicity Body composition is variable across, ethnicity, age and sex and must be adjusted accordingly to determine health risks due to fatness (Kok et al., 2004). Race adds to prediction of body fat. For the same BMI Black women have 1% less body fat that White women (Evans et al., 2006). Percent body fat is differ- ent between Black and White (Evans et al., 2006). Caucasian males have higher body fat than African American men (Mills et al., 2007). African American fat increases with age faster than Asians and Hispanics (Mills et al., 2007). White women have higher percent body fat than other races (Mills, 2007). At low BMI Asian women have the highest percent body fat (Mills et al., 2007). At the same BMI and waist circumference, African American men had lower visceral fat than White and Hispanic men (Carroll et al., 2008). Whites and Hispanics have more vis- ceral fat than African American women (Carroll et al., 2008). Visceral fat (adipose) tissue defines metabolic risk in different populations (Carroll et al., 2008). Different waist circumference (WC) and BMI cut off points are necessary to determine meta- bolic risk among different ethnic groups (Carroll et al., 2008). At the same BMI and age, Mexicans have more truncal (derri- ere) fat and less total appendicular skeletal muscle than African Americans (Aleman-Mateo et al., 2009). Body Composition and Environment Using a micro environmental analysis of phenotype shows that waist circumference inherited via parental BMI is subject to reduction by physical exercise (Mustelin et al., 2009). A Macro phenotypic analysis using Environmental Systems The- ory reveals that hot climates encourage tall and lean phenoytpes (Walker and Hamilton, 2008).Cold climates encourage short and round phenotypes (Walker and Hamilton, 2008). Dense populations (i.e. Asia, India) encourage petite phenotypes via natural selection and small population density favors the large phenotype (Walker and Hamilton, 2008). Genes and mutations have been associated with obese phenotypes of geographical regions of North America (Feitosa et al., 2002), Europe (Bag- well et al., 2005; Branson et al., 2003), Japan (Chambers et al., 2008), Italy (Dubern et al., 2001) and cultures like the Pima Indians (Farooqi et al., 2003). Genetics Genes Associated with BMI in the literature includ- ed: BMIQ1, 7q31; BMIQI, BMIQI (near leptin gene) , 7q32.3;BMIQ2, 13q14; BMIQ3, 6q23-q25; BMIQ4, (varia- tion in UCP2), 11q24; BMIQ5, 16p13; BMIQ6, 20pter- p11.2; BMIQ7, 4p15-p14; BMIQ8, 10p; BMIQ9, (variation in MC3R), 20q; BMIQ10; BMIQ 11; BMIQ12, (variation in PCSK1); BMIQ13; BMIQ14; BMIQ15, (PRKCA); BMIQ16; PPARG2 (polymorphism); NPC1; ADIPOQ, 10q; Xq24; 5q15- q21; 2q14.1; 16q12.2; 17q23.2-q25.1; 16p11.2; 18q11; 3q27; MTMR9; NPCI (rs1805081); MAF (rs1424233); GPRC5B (proximity variant); MC4R (susceptibility loci); POMC; SH2B1; BDNF; FTO; IRS1; SPRY2; MC4R (rs17782313)- Higher BMI; MC4R (rs17782313); MC4R (rs17782313-C). In- creased risk of type 2 diabetes; MC4R (variant); FTO; HTR1B; HTR1B; HTR1B; UCP2; UCP3; VDR; IGF1; IL6R; GHSR; PPARGC1A LEP; CYP19A1; GLDN; HTR1B (polymor- phism); CYP19A1 (polymorphism); HTR1B (polymorphism); HTR2C (AA, BMI X Environment); ADIPOR1 (AA, BMI x Environment); IGFBP3 (CA, BMI x environment); ADIPOR (CA, BMI x environment); PPARG (CA, BMI x environment); PPARG (CA, BMI x environment), 8p23-p22; 18q22-q23; 16q22-q23; 16p12; rs243650 (effecting allele T); rs534870 (effecting allele A); rs17782313; C allele of rs17782313; C al- lele of rs17782313; rs12970134; 6 (rs13212041; 6 (rs6296); 6 (rs4140535); 11 (rs17132534); 11 (rs7110607); 12 (rs4334089); 12 (rs6214); 18rs (17066829); 1 (rs12083537); 1 (rs12083537); A tla s J ou rn al o f B io lo gy - IS SN 2 15 8- 91 51 . P ub lis he d B y A tla s P ub lis hi ng , L P (w w w. at la s- pu bl is hi ng .o rg ) 677 A tla s J ou rn al o f B io lo gy - IS SN 2 15 8- 91 51 . P ub lis he d B y A tla s P ub lis hi ng , L P (w w w. at la s- pu bl is hi ng .o rg ) A tla s J ou rn al o f B io lo gy - IS SN 2 15 8- 91 51 . P ub lis he d B y A tla s P ub lis hi ng , L P (w w w. at la s- pu bl is hi ng .o rg ) 678 3 (rs11929140); 3 (rs2948694); 4 (rs6821591); 7 (rs2278815); 15 (rs1902584); 15 (rs1961177); (rs4140535) for BMI <25, 25- 29, 30-34, >35)); rs1902584 for BMI, 25, 25-29, 30-34, >35); rs4140535 for BMI <25m 25-29, 30-34, >35); rs1902584 for BMI <25, 25-29, 30-34, >35); X (rs17095676xcigarette smok- ing) P=.001; 1 (rs6672643xcigarette smoking (current) P=.001; 7 (rs6670xsmoking (pack-years) P=.001; 1 (rs12045862 x physical activity) P=.001; 3 (rs709157 x time spent sitting) P=.001; 3 (rs1175540 x time spent sitting) P=.001; MTMR9; NPCI (rs1805081); MAF (rs1424233); GPRC5B (proximity variant); MC4R (susceptibility loci); POMC; SH2B1; BDNF; FTO; IRS1. New loci/decreasing body fat percentage; decreased IRSI expression, impaired metabolic profile, increased visceral to subcutaneous fat ratio, insulin resistance, dyslipidemia, dia- betes risk, and coronary artery may be discovered (Edwards, 2012; Feitosa et al., 2002; Hsueh et al., 2001; Kilpeläinen et al., 2011; Loos et al., 2008; Meyre et al., 2009; Qi et al., 2008; Speliotes et al., 2010; Yanagiya et al., 2007). Phenotype Evaluations Subjects Signed consent from subjects and approval from our local IRB preceded this study. Up to 142 randomly selected Africans and African American subjects, male and females-ages 18-45 from 4 populations (1-Africans in US 10 yrs or more, 2-Af- ricans in U.S. to yrs or less, 3-African American, 4-African American Gullah); of varying education level (no high school diploma, GED, college degree and graduate degree); socioeco- nomic status (working class, unemployed, undergraduate and professional students), having parents of West African lineage or both parents African American descent, were recruited from college campuses, community churches, mosques and sporting organizations via newspaper ads, posters, flyers and word of mouth. Subjects filled out a questionnaire on lineage, a survey on food preferences and food frequency. Phenotypic Measurements Body mass, bioimpedence analysis (BIA) and anthropo- metrical data were collected by means of an examination in the Sports Medicine facility located in the Student Health Centers of two college campuses. Participants wore a hospital gown with underclothing (barefoot, w/underpants, sans the t-shirt for males, women retaining brassieres) A phenotypic profile was established by a trained clinician of six skin-fold, and nine girth and stature measurements. Digital photographs were taken of the participants from the neck down in their underclothing. So- matotype profiles were established (i.e. endo, ecto, mesomor- phic) from the data collected. Measurements were evaluated using an ethnic appropriate 4 component model (Swan, Ball, Athena, 2006) of individual tissue composition that determined fat and fat free masses (water, bone mineral density and residual proteins) adjusted for ethnicity. Bioimpedence Analysis (Aloia et al., 1997, 1998). Mass, fat and FFM was measured by a digital bioimpedence analy- sis scale. Output generated a value (+/-.003) for total body and muscle mass (g), total body water (TBW) and fat (%). Girth measurements (9) (Ross et al., 2003; Carter, 2002). Girth measurements (cm/mm) was taken using steel anthropo- metric (Rosscraft, White Rock, BC, Canada) tape from the fol- lowing positions: Biepycondal humerus (relaxed and flexed), forearm, supine waist (abdominal), umbilicus, erect hip (hip/buttocks), biepy- condal femur (thigh), flexed calf, foot width. Skinfold Thickness (6). Regional body fat masses was evaluated by skinfold thickness using calipers (Harpenden and Lange) in the subscapular, suprasinale, abdominal, tricep, thigh and calf areas. Stature (Ozaslan et al., 2003). Stature was evaluated by slid- ing calipers (Campbell 10 & 20/Rosscraft), a headblock and a Segmometer 4 (Rosscraft) in cm to measure standing, sitting and trochanteric heights, hand length, and lengths of the foot, leg (thigh and lower) and hand. Somatotyping (1 of 2) (Ross et al., 2003; Carter, 2002). The Heath-Carter method was used to generate a somatotype profile ecto, endo or mesophoric) from 10 anthropometric positions: 1. Body mass (Ross et al., 2003; Carter and Heath, 1990). From a standing position body mass was recorded from a minimally clothed (hospital gown) subject using a Bioimpedence Analysis (BIA) scale (scale and body composition analyzer, Tanita, Arlington Heights, Illi- nois, USA). Values were estimated to nearest 0.1 kg and adjusted for clothing. 2. Stretch stature (height) (Ross et al., 2003; Carter 2002). From a standing position height was estimated using a headsquare (Rosscraft) and carpenters retractable tape (Lufkin). Subject was positioned against a wall, maxi- mally erect with their back, heels and gluteals against the surface. The subjects’ head was oriented along the Frankfort Plane with the headsquare (Rosscraft) resting w/ gentle pressure against the hair onto the vertex. Mea- surements were recorded to the nearest (mm). 3. Tricep Skinfold (Ross et al., 2003; Carter 2002). From a standing position and arms at sides, triceps skinfold was taken from a raised vertical section of the back of the tricep between the acromion and olecranion using a skinfold caliper (Harpenden). Values were estimated to the nearest 0.1 mm. 4. Subscapular Skinfold (Ross et al., 2003; Carter 2002). From a standing position the subscapular skinfold was taken from the subject 45 degrees from the scapula, 2cm diagonal from the scapula using a skinfold caliper (Harpenden). Values were recorded to the nearest 0.1 mm. 5. Supraspinale Skinfold (Ross et al., 2003; Carter 2002). From a standing position supraspinale skinfold was tak- en from the top of the iliac spine on a medial 45 degree line along the anxillary border. A minimal (5-7 cm) skin- fold amount was evaluated relative to the subject using a skinfold caliper (Harpenden). Values was estimated to the nearest 0.1 mm. 6. Medial Calf Skinfold (Ross et al., 2003; Carter, 2002). 679 A tla s J ou rn al o f B io lo gy - IS SN 2 15 8- 91 51 . P ub lis he d B y A tla s P ub lis hi ng , L P (w w w. at la s- pu bl is hi ng .o rg ) From a standing position, subject raised the right leg to a 90 degree bent knee position upon a stool. Medial calf skinfold was obtained from the maximal girth site girth site on the medial side of the calf using a skinfold caliper (Harpenden). Values were recorded to the near- est 0.1 mm. 7. Biepicondylar Breadth of Humerus (Ross et al., 2003; Carter, 2002). From a seated position, the subject raised the right humerus and bent it 90 degrees at the elbow. Biepicondylar humerus breadth was recorded from the medial and lateral epicondyles using a sliding bone cali- per (Campbell 10). Diameter values were recorded to the nearest 0.5 mm. 8. Biepicondylar Breadth of Femur (Ross et al., 2003; Cart- er, 2002). From a seated position biepicondylar breadth of the femur was evaluated from the subject. The exam- iner located the medial and lateral epicondyles from a flexed femur, using a small bone caliper (Campbell 10). The maximum epicondylar distance was taken and the diameter was recorded to the nearest 0.5 mm. values. 9. Flexed Arm Girth (Ross et al., 2003; Carter, 2002). Flexed arm girth was taken along the subject’s raised, flexed, right arm, bent to a 90 degree position using a flexible steel tape (Rosscraft). The maximal flexed value was recorded at the highest peak of the tricep. Values were estimated to the nearest mm. 10. Tensed Calf Girth (Ross et al., 2003; Carter, 2002). From a standing position calf girth was taken from the right calf of the subject using a retractable steel tape (Rosscraft). Three to four circumference values was taken along the long axis of the lower leg and the high- est circumference value recorded to the nearest mm. This profile was further utilized to evaluate the tendency of the participants towards mesomorphy using the Heath Carter Somatoype method. Data was plotted on a somatochart and a 2D somatochart was also produced. Somatotyping (2 of 2). Participants were photographed from the neck down (minimally clothed) with a digital camera (10mp) against a grid pattern to generate a photoscopic somato- gram. This data was supplementary to the general somatoyping to further classify and accommodate the evaluation of a poten- tial mixed proportioned participant. Adjustments Errant assumptions inherent in standardized lean density calculations was adjusted for BF% by ethnicity using, (Schutte et al., 1984), for Black women, (Wagner and Heyward, 2000) for Black men the following calculations for higher proportions of lean body mass inherent in African/African Americans: 4C Model: (Friedl et al., 1992) Where: BF= Body fat; Db= Body density; TBW= Total body bone mineral; BM 2C Model: (Schutte et al., 1994) (Black Women) Where: lean density (LD)=1.113g/ cm3 Blacks (Schutte et al., 1994) vs.1.100 Whites (Siri 1956) A tla s J ou rn al o f B io lo gy - IS SN 2 15 8- 91 51 . P ub lis he d B y A tla s P ub lis hi ng , L P (w w w. at la s- pu bl is hi ng .o rg ) Table 1. FP Survey Category Tables PCA Analysis of Significant Interactions. FP SURVEY CATEGORY TABLES PRINCIPAL COMPONENT ANALYSIS SIGNIFICANT INTERACTIONS VARIABLES SIGNFICIANCE/ VARIATION PROPORTION 17. OBESITY 92owc 90owself <.0001 .49914 92owc 91nwt <.0001 -0.45198 90owself 91nwt <.0001 -0.77344 90owself fat_p <.0001 .43528 91nwt fat <.-0001 .46351 91nwt Age <.0001 -0.43424 fat_p BMI <.0001 .68101 fat_p 89wt <.0001 .64505 Note: Adapted from (Johnson et al., 2019; in press). FP Survey Significant Questions Multiple Regression Dependent Variable =Body Fat % [Code]/QUESTIONS SECONDAR Y VARIABLES P/F VALUE [brorbtl] Were You Breast or Bottle Fed? N/A <.0001 [2friedfs] Do you eat fried foods? N/A <.0001 [2a2x] How often (do you eat fried foods? N/A <.0001 [63fsitdown} Were you raised having family sit down meals? N/A <.0001 [92owc] If you describe yourself as overweight, were you overweight as a child? N/A <.0001 [26sodalike] Do you like soda? Weight <.0001 <.0001 [26asodaxwk] If so, how often do you consume soda per week? Weight <.0001 <.0001 [13tveat] Do you eat while watching t.v. Weight <.0001 <.0001 [yrs] How long have you been in the U.S. Weight <.0001 <.0001 [24waterdrink] Do you drink water regularly? Weight <.0001 <.0001 [1ahowmswts] Do you eat sweets more than 5 times a week? N/A .02804 [57rsetgff] Were you raised eating fast foods? Group #1 <.0001 .0092 Note: Adapted from (Johnson et al., 2019; in press). Table 2. FP Survey Significant Questions Multiple Regression (BF%). 680 A tla s J ou rn al o f B io lo gy - IS SN 2 15 8- 91 51 . P ub lis he d B y A tla s P ub lis hi ng , L P (w w w. at la s- pu bl is hi ng .o rg ) Physiology Data 4 Component Model-Fat Percentages ID Group 4C.fat (% ) Age Gender ID Group 4C.fat (% ) Age Gender P13 Afr1a 23.4 20 M P32 AA 24 23 F P15 Afr1 11.7 26 M P34 AA 11.6 21 M P18 Afr1 21 32 F P300 AA 30 21 F P17 Afr1 34.3 38 M P313 AA 60 20 F P19 Afr1 12.7 32 F P325 AA 32 23 F P110 Afr1 25.3 28 M P326 AA 29 21 M P111 Afr1 17.9 34 M P328 AA 30 25 M P112 Afr1 11.7 26 M P329 AA 31.2 19 F P114 Afr1 24.2 36 M P332 AA 27.7 22 F P117 Afr1 17 25 M P333 AA 25.7 25 F P121 Afr1 23 27 M P334 AA 27.2 21 F P130 Afr1 31 19 M P36 AA 39 33 F P131 Afr1 12.1 24 M P338 AA 25 25 M P135 Afr1 36.9 28 M P340 AA 27.8 20 F P136 Afr1 23.8 24 M P344 AA 27 20 M P141 Afr1 16.3 21 M P345 AA 26 27 F P144 Afr1 22 23 M P347 AA 26.8 20 M P146 Afr1 11.5 21 M P349 AA 27.8 22 F P148 Afr1 17 28 M P350 AA 26.8 25 M P152 Afr1 22.8 29 M P351 AA 32.2 45 F P154 Afr1 25.1 33 M P356 AAc 28 22 M P155 Afr1 19.8 29 M P361 AA 16.6 21 M P157 Afr1 22.3 37 M 1P3-12 AA 38.9 21 F P162 Afr1 18.3 24 M 2P3A-12 AA 25.5 20 F P164 Afr1 16.3 23 M 3P3-12 AA 27 43 F 1P1-12 Afr1 28.6 37 M 4P3-12 AA 16 22 M 2P1-12 Afr1 25.3 27 M 5P3-12 AA 25.4 19 F 3P1-12 Afr1 48 27 F 6P3-12 AA 13.6 23 M 1P2-12 Afr2b 18.8 18 M 7P3-12 AA 46.4 34 F 2P2-12 Afr2 9.9 25 M 9P3-12 AA 17 21 M 3P2-12 Afr2 10.6 18 M 10P3-12 AA 31.3 19 F 4P2-12 Afr2 31 19 F 11P3-12 AA 41.3 29 M P215 Afr2 16.7 21 F 12P3-12 AA 18 20 M P237 Afr2 19.8 20 F aAfr1= Africans in the U.S. 10 years or less bAfr2=Africans in the U.S 10 years or more cAA= Non African Affiliated Black Americans P239 Afr2 17 19 M P242 Afr2 21 28 F P243 Afr2 18.8 20 M P253 Afr2 24.2 18 M P260 Afr2 18 33 F P263 Afr2 23 19 F Table 3. Physiology Data . 4 Component Model Fat Percentages African & African Amer- icans. Figure 1. African & African American Bone Density (Db) in (lbs). Figure 2. African American Bone Density (Db) in (lbs). 681 A tla s J ou rn al o f B io lo gy - IS SN 2 15 8- 91 51 . P ub lis he d B y A tla s P ub lis hi ng , L P (w w w. at la s- pu bl is hi ng .o rg ) A tla s J ou rn al o f B io lo gy - IS SN 2 15 8- 91 51 . P ub lis he d B y A tla s P ub lis hi ng , L P (w w w. at la s- pu bl is hi ng .o rg ) Physiology 4-Component Model Body Weight (lbs) ID Group M.weig ht (lbs) Age ID Group M.weig ht (lbs) Age P13 Afr1 173.4 20 P32 AA 142 23 P15 Afr1 133 26 P34 AA 132.8 21 P18 Afr1 166 32 P36 AA 313.8 33 P17 Afr1 214.8 38 P300 AA 212 21 P19 Afr1 129 32 P313 AA 486 20 P110 Afr1 163.6 28 P325 AA 158 23 P111 Afr1 153.4 34 P326 AA 200 21 P112 Afr1 139.6 26 P328 AA 200 25 P114 Afr1 174.2 36 P329 AA 136.8 19 P117 Afr1 161 25 P332 AA 190 22 P121 Afr1 200 27 P333 AA 165.6 25 P130 Afr1 219 19 P334 AA 150.2 21 P131 Afr1 145 24 P338 AA 162 25 P135 Afr1 164.6 28 P340 AA 215 20 P136 Afr1 155 24 P344 AA 176 20 P141 Afr1 147.8 21 P345 AA 167 27 P144 Afr1 165 23 P347 AA 175 20 P146 Afr1 121.5 21 P349 AA 179.2 22 P148 Afr1 220 28 P350 AA 170 25 P152 Afr1 184 29 P351 AA 218.4 45 P154 Afr1 169 33 P356 AA 165 22 P155 Afr1 151 29 P361 AA 153.4 21 P157 Afr1 120.2 37 1P3-12 AA 170.6 21 P162 Afr1 154 24 2P3A-12 AA 143.2 20 P164 Afr1 127 23 3P3-12 AA 157 43 1P1-12 Afr1 223.8 37 4P3-12 AA 137 22 2P1-12 Afr1 165 27 5P3-12 AA 137.8 19 3P1-12 Afr1 188 27 6P3-12 AA 188.6 23 1P2-12 Afr2 120.8 18 7P3-12 AA 213.4 34 2P2-12 Afr2 180.8 25 9P3-12 AA 145 21 3P2-12 Afr2 147.8 18 10P3-12 AA 151.4 19 4P2-12 Afr2 160 19 11P3-12 AA 248.6 29 P215 Afr2 132 21 12P3-12 AA 172 20 P227 Afr2 219 19 AFR1= Africans in the U.S. 10 yr or less AFR2= African in the U.S. 10 yrs or more AA= African Americans P237 Afr2 128.6 20 P239 Afr2 130.4 19 P242 Afr2 137 28 P243 Afr2 160 20 P253 Afr2 161.4 18 P260 Afr2 136 33 P263 Afr2 140 19 Table 4. Four Component Model Physiology Data. Weight in (lbs) for Africans and African Ameri- cans. Figure 3. African Bone Density in (lbs). Figure 4. African & African American Body Weight in (lbs). Data shows physiological agreement of African Americans with reference population of West African. 682 A tla s J ou rn al o f B io lo gy - IS SN 2 15 8- 91 51 . P ub lis he d B y A tla s P ub lis hi ng , L P (w w w. at la s- pu bl is hi ng .o rg ) Physiology 4-Component Model Muscle Weight (lbs) & (%) ID Group Muscle (lbs) M. Weight (lbs) % ID Group 4C.muscle (lbs) M.weight (lbs) % P13 Afr 126.2 173.4 0.727 P32 AA 101.9 142 0.717 P15 Afr 111.6 133 0.839 P34 AA 112.2 132.8 0.844 P18 Afr 124.7 166 0.751 P36 AA 181.8 313.8 0.579 P17 Afr 134.1 214.8 0.624 P300 AA 117 212 0.55 P19 Afr 107.5 129 0.833 P313 AA 184 486 0.378 P110 Afr 116.2 163.6 0.710 P325 AA 99.4 158 0.629 P111 Afr 119.7 153.4 0.780 P326 AA 135.5 200 0.677 P112 Afr 117.3 139.6 0.840 P328 AA 132.8 200 0.664 P114 Afr 125.6 174.2 0.721 P329 AA 89.5 136.8 0.654 P117 Afr 127 161 0.788 P332 AA 131.4 190 0.691 P121 Afr 147.8 200 0.739 P333 AA 117 165.6 0.706 P130 Afr 144.1 219 0.657 P334 AA 103.9 150.2 0.691 P131 Afr 122.5 145 0.844 P338 AA 114.5 162 0.706 P135 Afr 98.9 164.6 0.600 P340 AA 147.5 215 0.686 P136 Afr 112.3 155 0.724 P344 AA 130.5 176 0.741 P141 Afr 117.7 147.8 0.796 P345 AA 116.9 167 0.7 P144 Afr 122.5 165 0.742 P347 AA 121.1 175 0.692 P146 Afr 102.5 121.5 0.843 P349 AA 123 179.2 0.686 P148 Afr 175.6 220 0.798 P350 AA 118.4 170 0.696 P152 Afr 135 184 0.733 P351 AA 140.9 218.4 0.645 P154 Afr 120.4 169 0.712 P356 AA 107 165 0.648 P155 Afr 115.1 151 0.762 P361 AA 121.7 153.4 0.793 P157 Afr 88.8 120.2 0.738 1P3-12 AA 99 170.6 0.580 P162 Afr 119.6 154 0.776 2P3A-12 AA 101.2 143.2 0.706 P164 Afr 100.7 127 0.792 3P3-12 AA 109.2 157 0.695 1P1-12 Afr 152 223.8 0.679 4P3-12 AA 108 137 0.788 2P1-12 Afr 116.6 165 0.706 5P3-12 AA 97.6 137.8 0.708 3P1-12 Afr 92.8 188 0.493 6P3-12 AA 155 188.6 0.821 1P2-12 Afr 93.1 120.8 0.770 7P3-12 AA 109 213.4 0.510 2P2-12 Afr 154.9 180.8 0.856 9P3-12 AA 114.2 145 0.787 3P2-12 Afr 125.5 147.8 0.849 10P3-12 AA 98.8 151.4 0.652 4P2-12 Afr 104.6 160 0.653 11P3-12 AA 138.8 248.6 0.558 P215 Afr 104.7 132 0.793 12P3-12 AA 133.9 172 0.778 P216 Afr 105 152 0.690 P222 Afr 118.7 198 0.599 P227 Afr 124.8 219 0.569 P237 Afr 98.1 128.6 0.762 P239 Afr 102.8 130.4 0.788 P242 Afr 103.2 137 0.753 P243 Afr 124.5 160 0.778 P253 Afr 116.3 161.4 0.720 P260 Afr 106.5 136 0.783 P263 Afr 101.8 140 0.727 Table 5. Physiology Data. 4 Component Model Muscle Weight (lbs) for Africans and African Ameri- cans. Figure 5. African & African American Body Fat Composition (%). Data shows African American agreement with West African refer- ence population. Body fat comprises less than 30 percent of total body mass. Figure 6. African & African American Muscle Compostion (%). Both groups showed agreement with mesomorphic phenotype w/ muscle composition in excess of 60% of total body mass. 683 A tla s J ou rn al o f B io lo gy - IS SN 2 15 8- 91 51 . P ub lis he d B y A tla s P ub lis hi ng , L P (w w w. at la s- pu bl is hi ng .o rg ) A tla s J ou rn al o f B io lo gy - IS SN 2 15 8- 91 51 . P ub lis he d B y A tla s P ub lis hi ng , L P (w w w. at la s- pu bl is hi ng .o rg ) Table 6. Physiology Data. Group BMI (%) for Africans and African Americans. Physiology Data African and African American Group BMI (% ) ID Group BMI Gende r Age ID Group BMI Gende r Age P13 Afr1 21.9 M 20 P32 AA 22.1 F 23 P15 Afr1 19.7 M 26 P34 AA 18.9 M 21 P18 Afr1 32 F 32 P36 AA 62.8 F 33 P17 Afr1 29.4 M 38 P300 AA 27 F 21 P19 Afr1 24 F 32 P313 AA 75.4 F 20 P110 Afr1 22.6 M 28 P325 AA 28.6 F 23 P111 Afr1 22.6 M 34 P326 AA 28 M 21 P112 Afr1 23 M 26 P328 AA 37.4 M 25 P114 Afr1 25.7 M 36 P329 AA 21 F 19 P117 Afr1 21 M 25 P332 AA 32.4 F 22 P121 Afr1 27.1 M 27 P333 AA 27.3 F 25 P130 Afr1 31.2 M 19 P334 AA 24.7 F 21 P131 Afr1 21.8 M 24 P338 AA 22 M 25 P135 Afr1 26.9 M 28 P340 AA 32.8 F 20 P136 Afr1 42.9 M 24 P344 AA 27 M 20 P141 Afr1 23.2 M 21 P345 AA 27 F 27 P144 Afr1 24.8 M 23 P347 AA 23 M 20 P146 Afr1 21.1 M 21 P349 AA 27.2 F 22 P148 Afr1 29.9 M 28 P350 AA 31.9 M 25 P152 Afr1 26.5 M 29 P351 AA 42 F 45 P154 Afr1 25.6 M 33 P356 AA 28 M 22 P155 Afr1 25.2 M 29 P361 AA 23.4 M 21 P157 Afr1 22.3 M 37 1P3-12 AA 27.9 F 21 P162 Afr1 24.2 M 24 2P3A-12 AA 23 F 20 P164 Afr1 20.9 M 23 3P3-12 AA 26.3 F 43 1P1-12 Afr1 32.2 M 37 4P3-12 AA 20.6 M 22 2P1-12 Afr1 30.9 M 27 5P3-12 AA 20.4 F 19 3P1-12 Afr1 30 F 27 6P3-12 AA 26 M 23 1P2-12 Afr2 20.5 M 18 7P3-12 AA 39 F 34 2P2-12 Afr2 27.7 M 25 9P3-12 AA 20.3 M 21 3P2-12 Afr2 21.4 M 18 10P3-12 AA 23.3 F 19 4P2-12 Afr2 28.9 F 19 11P3-12 AA 35.6 M 29 P215 Afr2 20.4 F 21 12P3-12 AA 22.6 M 20 P216 Afr2 16.5 F 18 P227 Afr2 34.4 M 19 P237 Afr2 22.2 F 20 P239 Afr2 19.1 M 19 P242 Afr2 20.6 F 28 P243 Afr2 30 M 20 P253 Afr2 25.3 M 18 P260 Afr2 21.2 F 33 P263 Afr2 22.6 F 19 Figure 7. African Body Fat Percentages. Fat mass accounted for less than 30 percent of total body mass in West Africans. Figure 8. African American Body Fat Percentage. Body fat account- ed for 30-40 percent of actual body mass in African Americans. 684 A tla s J ou rn al o f B io lo gy - IS SN 2 15 8- 91 51 . P ub lis he d B y A tla s P ub lis hi ng , L P (w w w. at la s- pu bl is hi ng .o rg ) Table 7. Significant Variables for Physiology Data. Table of S ignificant Variables For Physiology Data One Way Anova (OWA) =AFR X AA Linear Regression (LR) = Var1 x Var 2 Multiple Regression (MR) =Dependent Var x V1, V2, V3, V4, V5…. Variable Dependent Variable P/F Value Significance Data BMI Muscle_lbs <.0001 Highly Significant Multiple Regression BMI Muscle % <.0001 Highly Significant Multiple Regression BMI <.0001 Highly Significant Multiple Regression BMI Bones <.0001 Highly Significant Multiple Regression BMI X FAT <.0001 Highly Significant Linear Regression Bone Density X BMI <.0001 Highly Significant Linear Regression Bones Muscle_lbs <.0001 Highly Significant Multiple Regression Bones BMI <.0001 Highly Significant Multiple Regression Bones Intercept <.0001 Highly Significant Multiple Regression Fat Muscle % <.0001 Highly Significant Multiple Regression Muscle % Intercept <.0001 Highly Significant Multiple Regression Muscle_lbs <.0001 Highly Significant Multiple Regression Weight BMI <.0001 Highly Significant Multiple Regression Fat 0.0002 Very Significant Multiple Regression Fat 0.0003 Very Significant Multiple Regression Fat 0.0006 Very Significant Multiple Regression Group 1 (Afr) Fat 0.0002 Very Significant Multiple Regression Muscle_lbs Intercept 0.0027 Significant Multiple Regression Body Fat % 0.0039 Significant One Way Anova Fat Composition BMI 0.006 Significant Multiple Regression Group 2 Bones 0.0061 Significant Multiple Regression Fat Muscle_lbs 0.0071 Significant Multiple Regression BMI Intercept 0.0072 Significant Multiple Regression BMI Intercept 0.009 Significant Multiple Regression BMI Fat 0.0097 Significant Multiple Regression Fat BMI 0.01 Significant Multiple Regression Weight 0.0246 Significant One Way Anova Gender Fat 0.0366 Significant Multiple Regression Group 1 (Afr) Bones 0.0367 Significant Multiple Regression Gender Fat 0.0372 Significant Multiple Regression BMI 0.0481 Significant One Way Anova Figure 9. African and African Americans BMI (%). Figure 10. African & African American Muscle Weights (lbs). Table 8. Physiology Data . 4 Component Model Fat Percentages African & African Ameri- cans. Physiology Data 4 Component Model-Fat Percentages ID Group 4C.fat (% ) Age Gender ID Group 4C.fat (% ) Age Gender P13 Afr1a 23.4 20 M P32 AA 24 23 F P15 Afr1 11.7 26 M P34 AA 11.6 21 M P18 Afr1 21 32 F P300 AA 30 21 F P17 Afr1 34.3 38 M P313 AA 60 20 F P19 Afr1 12.7 32 F P325 AA 32 23 F P110 Afr1 25.3 28 M P326 AA 29 21 M P111 Afr1 17.9 34 M P328 AA 30 25 M P112 Afr1 11.7 26 M P329 AA 31.2 19 F P114 Afr1 24.2 36 M P332 AA 27.7 22 F P117 Afr1 17 25 M P333 AA 25.7 25 F P121 Afr1 23 27 M P334 AA 27.2 21 F P130 Afr1 31 19 M P36 AA 39 33 F P131 Afr1 12.1 24 M P338 AA 25 25 M P135 Afr1 36.9 28 M P340 AA 27.8 20 F P136 Afr1 23.8 24 M P344 AA 27 20 M P141 Afr1 16.3 21 M P345 AA 26 27 F P144 Afr1 22 23 M P347 AA 26.8 20 M P146 Afr1 11.5 21 M P349 AA 27.8 22 F P148 Afr1 17 28 M P350 AA 26.8 25 M P152 Afr1 22.8 29 M P351 AA 32.2 45 F P154 Afr1 25.1 33 M P356 AAc 28 22 M P155 Afr1 19.8 29 M P361 AA 16.6 21 M P157 Afr1 22.3 37 M 1P3-12 AA 38.9 21 F P162 Afr1 18.3 24 M 2P3A-12 AA 25.5 20 F P164 Afr1 16.3 23 M 3P3-12 AA 27 43 F 1P1-12 Afr1 28.6 37 M 4P3-12 AA 16 22 M 2P1-12 Afr1 25.3 27 M 5P3-12 AA 25.4 19 F 3P1-12 Afr1 48 27 F 6P3-12 AA 13.6 23 M 1P2-12 Afr2b 18.8 18 M 7P3-12 AA 46.4 34 F 2P2-12 Afr2 9.9 25 M 9P3-12 AA 17 21 M 3P2-12 Afr2 10.6 18 M 10P3-12 AA 31.3 19 F 4P2-12 Afr2 31 19 F 11P3-12 AA 41.3 29 M P215 Afr2 16.7 21 F 12P3-12 AA 18 20 M P237 Afr2 19.8 20 F aAfr1= Africans in the U.S. 10 years or less bAfr2=Africans in the U.S 10 years or more cAA= Non African Affiliated Black Americans P239 Afr2 17 19 M P242 Afr2 21 28 F P243 Afr2 18.8 20 M P253 Afr2 24.2 18 M P260 Afr2 18 33 F P263 Afr2 23 19 F 2C Model: Wagner et al. {%BF=[(4.858/Db)-4.394] x 100 (Wagner and Heyward, 2000) (Black Men) Additionally, data was adjusted for age and gender. Statistical Analysis Phenotypic data was evaluated among the three groups where: Group 1: Reference population of African Americans-West Af- ricans in US less than 10 yrs Group Two: Reference population for African Americans- West African in the US 10 years or more Group Three: African Americans Statistical analysis was used to determine the significance of the variances among the groups. Phenotypic data (mass, heights, breadths, girths, skinfold thicknesses) were used as variables (32). Statistical significance was obtained among variables us- ing ANOVA (SAS Inc. Cary, NC). Significant variables shown on Table 1 were ranked using Principal Component Analysis (SAS) and Table 2 shows further analysis on a regression curve using Multiple Regression (SAS). Self-Reported Physiology Survey Response Data Non/Normal Weight (Self- Reported) The majority of Africans and African Americans described themselves as normal weight. A larger percentage of Africans described themselves as normal weight than African Ameri- cans. About 61% of African Americans described themselves as normal weight, 39% did not (Table 2). Almost 79% of Africans described themselves as normal weight, 21% did not. 685 A tla s J ou rn al o f B io lo gy - IS SN 2 15 8- 91 51 . P ub lis he d B y A tla s P ub lis hi ng , L P (w w w. at la s- pu bl is hi ng .o rg ) A tla s J ou rn al o f B io lo gy - IS SN 2 15 8- 91 51 . P ub lis he d B y A tla s P ub lis hi ng , L P (w w w. at la s- pu bl is hi ng .o rg ) Table 9. Four Component Model Body Measurement Data for Africans and African Americans. African & African American 4-Component Model Physiology Data ID Group Fat (% ) Muscle (lbs) TBW (% ) Bones (lbs) Weight (lbs) BMI WHR Age (yrs) Gender P13 Afr_Tenplus a 23.4 126.2 32 6.6 173.4 21.9 0.77 20 M P15 Afr_Tenplus 11.7 111.6 48 5.8 133 19.7 0.81 26 M P18 Afr_Tenplus 21 124.7 34.6 6.4 166 32 0.74 32 F P17 Afr_Tenplus 34.3 134.1 21 7 214.8 29.4 0.88 38 M P19 Afr_Tenplus 12.7 107.5 38.3 5.6 129 24 0.77 32 F P110 Afr_Tenplus 25.3 116.2 33.3 6 163.6 22.6 0.8 28 M P111 Afr_Tenplus 17.9 119.7 39 6.2 153.4 22.6 0.82 34 M P112 Afr_Tenplus 11.7 117.3 46.1 6 139.6 23 0.84 26 M P114 Afr_Tenplus 24.2 125.6 31.7 6.4 174.2 25.7 0.88 36 M P117 Afr_Tenplus 17 127 32 6 161 21 0.8 25 M P121 Afr_Tenplus 23 147.8 32 6.2 200 27.1 0.86 27 M P130 Afr_Tenplus 31 144.1 23.5 7 219 31.2 0.95 19 M P131 Afr_Tenplus 12.1 122.5 41.1 5 145 21.8 0.79 24 M P135 Afr_Tenplus 36.9 98.9 27.9 5 164.6 26.9 0.95 28 M P136 Afr_Tenplus 23.8 112.3 35.8 5 155 42.9 0.83 24 M P141 Afr_Tenplus 16.3 117.7 41.3 6 147.8 23.2 0.95 21 M P144 Afr_Tenplus 22 122.5 36.3 6.2 165 24.8 0.8 23 M P146 Afr_Tenplus 11.5 102.5 47.7 5 121.5 21.1 0.8 21 M P148 Afr_Tenplus 17 175.6 26.1 7 220 29.9 0.89 28 M P152 Afr_Tenplus 22.8 135 30.5 7 184 26.5 0.82 29 M P154 Afr_Tenplus 25.1 120.4 31.9 6.2 169 25.6 0.94 33 M P155 Afr_Tenplus 19.8 115.1 38.7 6 151 25.2 0.92 29 M P157 Afr_Tenplus 22.3 88.8 47.1 4.6 120.2 22.3 0.84 37 M P162 Afr_Tenplus 18.3 119.6 38.7 6.2 154 24.2 0.85 24 M P164 Afr_Tenplus 16.3 100.7 55 5.6 127 20.9 0.83 23 M 1P1-12 Afr_Tenplus 28.6 152 51.8 7.8 223.8 32.2 0.9 37 M 2P1-12 Afr_Tenplus 25.3 116.6 0.36 6.7 165 30.9 85 27 M 3P1-12 Afr_Tenplus 48 92.8 41.3 5 188 30 0.81 27 F 1P2-12 Afr_Tenlessb 18.8 93.1 61.1 5 120.8 20.5 0.89 18 M 2P2-12 Afr_Tenless 9.9 154.9 63 8 180.8 27.7 0.83 25 M 3P2-12 Afr_Tenless 10.6 125.5 62.5 6.6 147.8 21.4 0.79 18 M 4P2-12 Afr_Tenless 31 104.6 36.2 5.8 160 28.9 0.83 19 F P215 Afr_Tenless 16.7 104.7 45.9 5.4 132 20.4 0.73 21 F P216 Afr_Tenless 27 105 36.8 6 152 16.5 0.76 18 F P222 Afr_Tenless 37 118.7 32.8 6 198 37 0.79 20 F P227 Afr_Tenless 40 124.8 20.5 6.6 219 34.4 0.88 19 M P237 Afr_Tenless 19.8 98.1 45.4 5 128.6 22.2 0.84 20 F P239 Afr_Tenless 17 102.8 46.3 5.4 130.4 19.1 0.82 19 M P242 Afr_Tenless 21 103.2 32.1 5 137 20.6 0.78 28 F P243 Afr_Tenless 18.8 124.5 22.7 5.4 160 30 0.83 20 M P253 Afr_Tenless 24.2 116.3 34 6 161.4 25.3 0.81 18 M P260 Afr_Tenless 18 106.5 39.7 5 136 21.2 0.77 33 F P263 Afr_Tenless 23 101.8 45.7 6 140 22.6 0.78 19 F P32 AAc 24 101.9 43.6 6 142 22.1 0.78 23 F P34 AA 11.6 112.2 48.4 5.8 132.8 18.9 0.82 21 M P36 AA 39 181.8 14 9.6 313.8 62.8 0.89 33 F P300 AA 30 117 31 8 212 27 0.8 21 F P313 AA 60 184 24 10.4 486 75.4 0.95 20 F P325 AA 32 99.4 34.1 8 158 28.6 0.93 23 F P326 AA 29 135.5 31.9 6.5 200 28 0.8 21 M P328 AA 30 132.8 48.9 7.2 200 37.4 0.96 25 M P329 AA 31.2 89.5 36.6 4.6 136.8 21 0.86 19 F P332 AA 27.7 131.4 32 6 190 32.4 0.81 22 F P333 AA 25.7 117 32.4 6 165.6 27.3 0.78 25 F P334 AA 27.2 103.9 35.2 5.4 150.2 24.7 0.81 21 F P338 AA 25 114.5 24.1 7 162 22 0.8 25 M P340 AA 27.8 147.5 24.5 7.6 215 32.8 0.85 20 F P344 AA 27 130.5 27 8 176 27 0.81 20 M P345 AA 26 116.9 42 6.7 167 27 0.83 27 F P347 AA 26.8 121.1 34.7 7 175 23 0.82 20 M P349 AA 27.8 123 29.4 6.4 179.2 27.2 0.75 22 F P350 AA 26.8 118.4 32.9 6 170 31.9 0.77 25 M P351 AA 32.2 140.9 22.6 7.2 218.4 42 0.77 45 F P356 AA 28 107 24 7 165 28 0.7 22 M P361 AA 16.6 121.7 39.4 6.2 153.4 23.4 0.89 21 M 1P3-12 AA 38.9 99 47 5.2 170.6 27.9 0.83 21 F 2P3A-12 AA 25.5 101.2 53.4 5.4 143.2 23 0.76 20 F 3P3-12 AA 27 109.2 32.7 5.4 157 26.3 0.76 43 F 4P3-12 AA 16 108 34.7 7.1 137 20.6 0.87 22 M 5P3-12 AA 25.4 97.6 53.1 5.2 137.8 20.4 0.81 19 F 6P3-12 AA 13.6 155 60 8 188.6 26 0.8 23 M 7P3-12 AA 46.4 109 51 5.8 213.4 39 1.06 34 F 9P3-12 AA 17 114.2 35.8 6.1 145 20.3 0.8 21 M 10P3-12 AA 31.3 98.8 50.7 5.2 151.4 23.3 0.75 19 F 11P3-12 AA 41.3 138.8 55 7.2 248.6 35.6 0.98 29 M 12P3-12 AA 18 133.9 38.3 7.1 172 22.6 0.83 20 M 686 A tla s J ou rn al o f B io lo gy - IS SN 2 15 8- 91 51 . P ub lis he d B y A tla s P ub lis hi ng , L P (w w w. at la s- pu bl is hi ng .o rg ) 687 A tla s J ou rn al o f B io lo gy - IS SN 2 15 8- 91 51 . P ub lis he d B y A tla s P ub lis hi ng , L P (w w w. at la s- pu bl is hi ng .o rg ) A tla s J ou rn al o f B io lo gy - IS SN 2 15 8- 91 51 . P ub lis he d B y A tla s P ub lis hi ng , L P (w w w. at la s- pu bl is hi ng .o rg ) Overweight (Self-reported) Among African Americans, 61% did not describe them- selves as overweight, 39% did. About 81% of Africans did not describe themselves as overweight, 16% did (Table 1). Childhood Overweight (Self-reported) The majority of African and African Americans were not overweight as children. More African Americans were over- weight as children than Africans. About 64% of African Ameri- cans said they were not overweight as children, 21% couldn’t remember (Table 2). Just 18% of African Americans said they were overweight as children. Among African groups, 60% said they were not overweight as children, 32% didn’t remember. Just 5% of Africans said they were overweight as children (Ta- ble 2). Therefore, there may be a population at risk for adult obesity due to childhood obesity. Parents Participants were asked if either of their parents were over- weight. About 59% of all groups responded that their parents were not overweight. Almost 41% of all groups said their par- ents were overweight. The majority of Africans and African Americans said their parents were not overweight. African American parents were reported overweight at the same percentage as they were not re- ported overweight. More African Americans reported their par- ents overweight than Africans. Among African Africans, 52% said their parents were overweight, and the same percentage said their parents were not. About 65% of Africans said their parents were not over- weight. Just 35% of African Americans did not have parents who were overweight. Therefore, because a majority population of African Americans reported parents who were overweight, African Americans are at risk of overweight due to parental in- heritance of BMI (Danielzik et al., 2002; Robl et al., 2008). Prevention/Breast Feeding Almost all Africans were breast fed and not even half of African Americans were. Among African Americans 42% were not breast fed and 45% were. Just 12% of African Ameri- cans couldn’t remember. About 95% of Africans were breast fed, 5% were not (Table 2). Therefore, African Americans are were more at risk of childhood and adult obesity due to lack of breastfeeding than Africans (Dewey, 2003). Bone Density There was variation in bone density (Db) between African participants in the U.S. ten years or more (tenplus) and those who had been in the U.S. 10 years or less (tenless). The for- mer had lighter skeletal weights or bone density and the latter had heavier bone density. African Americans had the heaviest bone density (Table 3). It seems to suggest a relationship be- tween time in the U.S. and bone density in Africans and African Americans (Figures 1-3; Suppl. Figures A1 and A2). Perhaps there are characteristics of foods grown in American soils that is related to this phenomenon. A future study might examine the relationship between U.S. soil nutrients and its effect on bone mineral density of immigrant populations like Africans, over time. African American and African Weights vs. Gender African Americans females weighed more on average than African American males and Africans. African males weighed more than African females (Tables 6-7). More than 60% of their body mass was attributed to muscle (Figures 4-6; Suppl. Fig- uress A3-6, A7-14). Fat Percentage About 72% of African Americans were found to be over-fat by the standard of hydrodensitometry (Smalley et al) and 58% of Africans. However, when adjusted for cultural acceptance, based on the participant’s response of themselves as overweight (39% of AAs; 16% of Afr), the total was corrected by respon- dents whose body fat exceeded 31%. The total number of over- fat went from 72% African Americans to 9% and 58% Africans to 2% (Figures 1-3; Table 7). Conclusion This study asked the question: “if BMI is a proper assess- ment tool to measure obesity among African and African Amer- ican populations” and it is not. According to the BMI standard 48% of both of these groups would be classified as overweight and obese with African Americans comprising 41% of this cat- egory and Africans comprising even more at 45% (Table 8, Fig- ures 5, 7-8). 1. BMI falsely assumed the presence of fat. It was assumed that the resultant values for mass in this population cor- related with fat. It did not (Tables 6-9). 2. A breakdown of values into a 4-component model (body fat percentage, body water, bone density and muscle mass) was more informative towards adiposity (Tables 3-8, Suppl. Tables A1-A2; Figures 1-10; Suppl. Figures A1-34). 3. Body Fat Percentage among the groups was at 24.7% overall and 29.3% for females, 21.8% for males, 28.1 % for African Americans and 22.1% for Africans. Accord- ing to the BMI tables these values are all within nor- mal range. The hydrodensitometry standard for body fat percentage is 20% for male and 25% for female (Smal- ley et al., 1990). Therefore, 4.3% of AAs in the study were over-fat and 1.8% of Africans (Table 7; Figures 5, 7-8). 4. Fat free mass value of bone density on average com- prised 6lbs for Africans and 7lbs for African Americans of total body mass value (Table 3). 5. Fat free mass value of Total Body Water (TBW) com- prised 37.8% of body mass value in Africans and Afri- 688 A tla s J ou rn al o f B io lo gy - IS SN 2 15 8- 91 51 . P ub lis he d B y A tla s P ub lis hi ng , L P (w w w. at la s- pu bl is hi ng .o rg ) can Americans (Suppl. Table A1). 6. Fat-free mass values of Muscle Composition were around 70% of body mass value for African and Afri- can Americans, confirming a mesomorphic somatotype. Muscle comprised 123lbs of weight in African Ameri- cans and 118lbs for Africans (Tables 5, 7, and Figure 10). The BMI standard cannot be used accurately to assess adi- posity among all cultural groups only within groups. When ap- plied within the comparison of African Americans and their ref- erence population-West Africans, there is stern disagreement in the data that this population is 48% overweight and obese. The within group comparison showed the BMI value to be within normal range, w/ 70% of body mass to be explained by fat free muscle composition. This is in agreement with the cultural stan- dard for Africans and African American somatotype of meso- morphy, having a large component of body mass comprised of muscle mass (Table 6; Suppl. Figures 18-25). Ideal Weight The notion of “ideal weight” is biologically meaningless and represents the efforts of persons well placed politically and well published academically. Height and weight tables are popu- lar, prevalent and standardized but not objective, biologically meaningless, and unscientific. Statistics Multiple Regression analysis (Table 1) using the fat free mass value of muscle weight in lbs as the dependent variable showed it to have a highly significant (P=<.0001) positive cor- relation with BMI. Muscle percentage had a highly significant (P=<.0001) positive correlation with BMI. The fat free mass value of bones, when used a dependent variable in Multiple Re- gression analysis had a highly significant (P=<.0001) positive correlation with BMI. Linear Regression analysis examining Bone Density (Db) as a variable against BMI found it to be a highly significant (P=<.0001) interaction. Linear Regression analysis examining the interaction between BMI and Fat resulted in a highly sig- nificant (P=<.0001) positive correlation (Table 2). A Multiple Regression analysis examining the same interac- tion found it to be a significant positive correlation (P=.0060) (Kennedy et al., 2009; Smalley et al., 1990). References Ahituv N, N Kavaslar, W Schackwitz, A Ustaszewska, J Martin, S Hébert, H Doelle, B Ersoy, G Kryukov, and S Schmidt (2007) Medical Sequencing at the Extremes of Human Body Mass.” The American Journal of Human Genetics 80 (4): 779-791. Aleman-Mateo H, SY Lee, F Javed, J Thornton, SB Heymsfield, RN Pierson, FX Pi-Sunyer, ZM Wang, J Wang, and D Gallagher (2009) Elderly Mexicans have less muscle & greater total truncal fat com- pared to African-Americans & Caucasians w/ the same BMI. Jour- nal of Nutrition, Health & Aging 13 (10): 919-923. Aloia, and et al. (1997) Comparison of body composition in Black and White premenopausal women. Journal of Laboratory and Clinical Medicine 129 (3): 294-99. Aloia, J. F., A. Vaswani, E. Flaster, and R. Ma. 1998. “Relationship of body water compartments to age, race, and fat-free mass.” J Lab Clin Med no. 132:483-90. Bagwell, M Allison, JL Bento, JC Mychaleckyj, BI Freedman, CD Langefeld, and DW Bowden (2005) Genetic analysis of HNF4A polymorphisms in Caucasian-American type 2 diabetes. Diabetes 54 (4): 1185-1190. Barroso I (2005) Genetics of type 2 diabetes. Diabetic Medicine 22 (5): 517-535. Bjorntorp P (1985) Regional patterns of fat distribution. Annals of In- ternal Medicine 103 (6 pt 2): 994-995. Bouchard C, A Tremblay, JP Després, A Nadeau, PJ Lupien, G Théri- ault, J Dussault, S Moorjani, S Pinault, and G Fournier (1990) The response to long-term overfeeding in identical twins. New England Journal of Medicine 322 (21): 1477-1482. Branson R, N Potoczna, JG Kral, KU Lentes, MR Hoehe, and FF Horber (2003) Binge eating as a major phenotype of melanocortin 4 receptor gene mutations. New England Journal of Medicine no. 348 (12): 1096-1103. Calton MA, and C Vaisse (2009) Narrowing down the role of common variants in the genetic predisposition to obesity. Genome medicine 1 (3): 31. Carroll JF, AL Chiapa, et al. (2008) Visceral fat, waist circumference, and BMI: Impact of race, ethnicity. Obesity 16 (3): 600-607. Carter JEL, and BH Heath (1990) Somatotyping. Development and Applications. 1st ed, Cambridge Studies in Biological Anthropol- ogy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Chambers JC, P Elliott, D Zabaneh, W Zhang, Y Li, P Froguel, D Bald- ing, J Scott, and JS Kooner (2008) Common genetic variation near MC4R is associated with waist circumference and insulin resis- tance. Nature Genetics 40 (6): 716. Daniel M, DS Moore, et al. (2006) Associations among education, cor- tison rythym, and BMI in blue collar women. Obesity Research 14 (2): 327-335. Danielzik S, K Langnase, M Mast, C Spethmann, and MJ Muller (2002) Impact of parental BMI on the manifestation of overweight 5-7 year-old children. Journal of Nutrition 41 (3): 132-138. Dewey KG (2003) Is breastfeeding protective against child obesity?” Journal of Human Lactation 19 (1): 9-18. Dong C, WD Li, F Geller, L Lei, D Li, OY Gorlova, J Hebebrand, CI Amos, RD Nicholls, and RA Price (2005) Possible genomic im- printing of three human obesity–related genetic loci. The American Journal of Human Genetics 76 (3): 427-437. Dong C, S Wang, WD Li, D Li, H Zhao, and RA Price (2003) Inter- acting genetic loci on chromosomes 20 and 10 influence extreme human obesity. The American Journal of Human Genetics 72 (1): 115-124. Dubern B, K Clément, V Pelloux, P Froguel, JP Girardet, B Guy-Grand, and P Tounian (2001) Mutational analysis of melanocortin-4 recep- tor, agouti-related protein, and α-melanocyte-stimulating hormone genes in severely obese children. The Journal of pediatrics 139 (2): 204-209. Duncan AE, A Agrawal, et al. (2009) Genetic and environmental con- tributions to BMI in adolescent & young adult women. Obesity 17 (5): 1040-1043. Durenberg P and Y Durenberg (2001) Differences in body-composition assumptions across ethnic groups: practical consequences. Current Opinions in Clinical Nutrition and Metabolic Care 4: 377-383. Ebersole KE, LR Dugas, RA Durazo-Arvizu, AA Adeyemo, BO Tayo, OO Omotade, WR Brieger, DA Schoeller, RS Cooper, and AH Luke (2008) Energy expenditure and adiposity in Nigerian and 689 A tla s J ou rn al o f B io lo gy - IS SN 2 15 8- 91 51 . P ub lis he d B y A tla s P ub lis hi ng , L P (w w w. at la s- pu bl is hi ng .o rg ) African-American women. Obesity 16. doi: 10.1.38/oby.2008.330. Edwards TL, DR Velez Edwards, R Villegas, SS Cohen, MS Buchows- ki, JH Fowke, D Schlundt, J Long, Q Cai, W Zheng, XO Shu, MK Hargreaves, J Smith, SM Williams, LB Signorello, WJ Blot, and CE Matthews (2012) HTR1B, ADIPOR1, PPARGC1A, and CY- P19A1 and obesity in a cohort of Caucasians and African Ameri- cans: an evaluation of gene-environment interactions and candidate genes. Am J Epidemid 175 (1): 11-21. Epel ES, EH Blackburn, J Lin, FS Dhabhar, NE Adler, JD Morrow, and RM Cawthon (2004) Accelerated telomere shortening in re- sponse to life stress. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 101 (49): 17312-5. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0407162101. Evans EM, DA Rowe, SB Racette, KM Ross, and E McAuley (2006) Is the current BMI obesity classification appropriate for Black and White post-menopausal women? Journal of Obesity 30 (5): 837- 843. Farooqi IS, JM Keogh, GSH Yeo, EJ Lank, T Cheetham, and S O’rahilly (2003) Clinical spectrum of obesity and mutations in the melanocortin 4 receptor gene. New England Journal of Medicine 348 (12): 1085-1095. Feitosa MF, IB Borecki, SS Rich, DK Arnett, P Sholinsky, RH My- ers, M Leppert, and MA Province (2002) Quantitative-trait loci influencing body-mass index reside on chromosomes 7 and 13: the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Family Heart Study. The American Journal of Human Genetics 70 (1):7 2-82. Fox SI (2008) Human physiology. Concepts & clinical applications. 13th ed. New York: McGraw Hill. Freedman DS, LK Khan, et al. (2005) The relation of childhood BMI to adult adiposity: The Bogalusa Heart Study. Pediatrics 115 (1 of 2): 22-27. Freedman DS and B Sherry (2009) The Validity of BMI as an Indicator of Body Fatness and Risk Among Children. Pediatrics 124: S23- S34. doi: 10.1542/peds.2008-3586E. Gallagher CJ, CD Langefeld, CJ Gordon, JK Campbell, JC Mychal- ecky, M Bryer-Ash, SS Rich, DW Bowden, and MM Sale (2007) Association of the estrogen receptor-α gene with the metabolic syn- drome and its component traits in African-American families: the Insulin Resistance Atherosclerosis Family Study. Diabetes 56 (8): 2135-2141. Gallagher D, M Visser, et al. (1996) How useful is body mass index for comparison of body fat mass across age, sex and ethnic groups. Am J Epidemid 143: 228-239. Harrison, G. 1985. “Height-weight tables.” Annals of Internal Medi- cine no. 103 (6 pt 2):989-94. Hasstedt SJ, ME Ramirez, H Kuida, and RR Williams (1989) Reces- sive inheritance of a relative fat pattern. American journal of hu- man genetics 45 (6): 917. Haworth CMA, R Plomin, et al. (2008) Childhood obesity: genetic and environmental overlap w/normal range BMI. Obesity 16 (7): 1585-1590. Hjelmborg JVB, C Fanani, K Silventoinen, M McGue, M Korkeila, K Christensen, A Rissanen, and M Kaprio (2008) Genetic influences on growth traits of BMI: A longitudinal study of adult twins. Obe- sity 16 (4): 847-852. Hortobagyi T, VL Katch, PF LaChance, and AR Behnke (1990) Rela- tionships of body size, segmental dimensions, and ponderal equiva- lents to muscular strength in high-strength and low-strength sub- jects. International Journal of Sports Medicine & Physical Fitness 11 (5): 349-56. Hsueh, Wen-Chi, Braxton D Mitchell, Jennifer L Schneider, Pamela L St. Jean, Toni I Pollin, Margaret G Ehm, Michael J Wagner, Daniel K Burns, Hakan Sakul, and Callum J Bell. 2001. “Genome-wide scan of obesity in the Old Order Amish.” The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism no. 86 (3):1199-1205. Hunt, S. C., S. Stove, and et al. 2008. “Association of the FTO gene w/ BMI.” Obesity no. 16 (4):902-904. Kaarma, H., J. Peterson, J. Kasmel, and et al. 2009. “The role of body height, weight & BMI in Body build classification.” Papers on An- thropology no. 18:155-173. Kennedy AP, JL Shea, and G Sun (2009) Comparison of the classifica- tion of obesity by BMI vs dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry in the New Foundland population. Obesity 17 (11): 2094-2099. Kilpeläinen TO, MC Zillikens, A Stančákova, FM Finucane, JS Ried, C Langenberg, W Zhang, JS Beckmann, J Luan, and L Vandenput (2011) Genetic variation near IRS1 associates with reduced adipos- ity and an impaired metabolic profile. Nature Genetics 43 (8): 753. Kleerokoper M, DA Nelson, et al. (1994) Body composition and go- nadal steroids in older White and Black women. Clinical Endocri- nol Metab 79: 775-779. Knapp T (1983) A methodological critique of the ‘ideal weight’ con- cept. JAMA 250: 506-510. Kok P, JC Seidell, and AE Meinders (2004) The value and limita- tions of the body mass index (BMI) in the assessment of the health risks of overweight and obesity. Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Ge- neeskunde no. 148 (48): 2379-2382. Komlos J, A Breitfelder, and M Sunder (2009) The transition to post- industrial BMI values among U.S. children. American Journal of Human Biology 21 (2): 151-160. Kuczymarksi R and KM Flegal (2000) Criteria for definition of over- weight in transition: Background and recommendations for the United States. Am J Clin Nutr 72: 1074-81. Li L, C Law, R Conte, and C Power (2009) Intergenerational influenc- es on childhood body mass index:The effect of parental body mass index trajectories. Journal of Clinical Nutrition 89 (2): 551-557. Lin J, E Epel, and E Blackburn (2012) Telomeres and lifestyle factors: Roles in cellular aging. Mutat Res 730 (1-2): 85-9. doi: 10.1016/j. mrfmmm.2011.08.003. Loos RJF, CM Lindgren, S Li, E Wheeler, JH Zhao, I Prokopenko, M Inouye, RM Freathy, AP Attwood, and JS Beckmann (2008) Com- mon variants near MC4R are associated with fat mass, weight and risk of obesity. Nature Genetics 40 (6): 768. McAdams MA, RM Dam, and FB Hu (2007) Comparison of self-re- ported and measured BMI as correlates of disease markers in U.S. adults. Obesity 15 (1): 188-196. Meyre D, J Delplanque, JC Chèvre, C Lecoeur, S Lobbens, S Gallina, E Durand, V Vatin, F Degraeve, and C Proença (2009) Genome- wide association study for early-onset and morbid adult obesity identifies three new risk loci in European populations. Nature Ge- netics 41 (2): 157. Mills TC, D Gallagher, J Wang, and S Heshka (2007) Modeling the relationship between body fat and the BMI.” Int Journal of Body Composition 5 (2): 73-79. Mott J et al. (1999) Relation between body fat and age in 4 ethnic groups. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 69: 1007-1013. Mustelin L, K Silventoinen, et al. (2009) Physical activity reduces the influence of genetic effects on BMI and waist circumference: A study in young adult twins. Int Journal of Obesity 33 (1): 29-36. Nishigori H, H Tomura, N Tonooka, M Kanamori, S Yamada, K Sho, I Inoue, N Kikuchi, K Onigata, and I Kojima (2001) Mutations in the small heterodimer partner gene are associated with mild obesity in Japanese subjects. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sci- ences 98 (2): 575-580. Norman RA, DB Thompson, T Foroud, WT Garvey, PH Bennett, C Bogardus, and E mo Ravussin (1997) Genomewide search for A tla s J ou rn al o f B io lo gy - IS SN 2 15 8- 91 51 . P ub lis he d B y A tla s P ub lis hi ng , L P (w w w. at la s- pu bl is hi ng .o rg ) genes influencing percent body fat in Pima Indians: suggestive linkage at chromosome 11q21-q22. Pima Diabetes Gene Group. American Journal of Human Genetics 60 (1): 166. Ohlsson C, N Hellberg, P Parini, O Vidal, M Bohlooly, M Rudling, M Lindberg, M Warner, and JA Gustafsson (2000) Obesity disturbed lipoprotein profile in estrogen receptor (alpha) deficient male mice. Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications 278: 640- 645. Okorodudu DO, MF Jumean, Victor Manuel Montori, A Romero-Cor- ral, VK Somers, PJ Erwin, and F Lopez-Jimenez (2010) Diagnostic performance of body mass index to identify obesity as defined by body adiposity: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Internation- al Journal of Obesity 34 (5): 791. Ortega-Alonso A, S Sipila, et al. (2009) Genetic influences on change in BMI from middle to old ag: A 29-year follow-up study of twin sisters. Behavior Genetics 39 (2): 154-164. Ozaslan A, MY Iscan, I Ozaslan, H Tugcu, and S Koc (2003) Esti- mation of stature from body parts. Forensic Science International 3501: 1-6. Paganini‐Hill A, AO Martin, and MA Spence (1981) The S‐leut an- thropometric traits: Genetic analysis. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 55 (1): 55-67. Proctor A (2009) Genetics of obesity and diabetes in the IRAS Family Study, Wake Forest University. Qi L, P Kraft, DJ Hunter, and FB Hu (2008) The common obesity variant near MC4R gene is associated with higher intakes of total energy and dietary fat, weight change and diabetes risk in women. Human Molecular Genetics 17 (22): 3502-3508. Robl M, I Knerr, KM Keller, R Jaeschke, U Hoffmeister, T Reinehr, and RW Holl (2008) Obesity in children & adolescents and their parents: correlation of patients’ body mass index w/ that of their parents and siblings recorded in the Multicentre APS Study. Deutsche Medizinische Wocherschrift 133 (47): 2448-2453. Ross WD, RV Carr, JM Guelke, and JEL Carter (2003) Anthropometry Fundamentals: Rosscraft/Turnpike Electronic Publications. Rothman KJ (2008) BMI related errors in the measurement of obesity. Int Journal of Obesity 32: 556-559. Ruel E, E Reither, S Robert, and P Lantz (2010) Neighborhood effects on BMI trends: Examining BMI trajectories for Black & White women. Health & Place 16 (2): 191-198. Satija A; Bhupathiraju, N Shilpa; EB Rimm, E Spiegelman, D Chiuve, E Stephanie, L Borgi Lee, WC Willett, JE Manson, QH Sun, and B Frank (2016) Plant-Based Dietary Patterns and Incidence of Type 2 Diabetes in US Men and Women: Results from Three Prospective Cohort Studies. PLoS. Schutte JE, EJ Townsend, J Hugg, RF Shoup, RM Malina, and CG Blomqvist (1984) Density of lean body mass is greater in blacks than in whites. J Appl Physiol 56: 1647-1649. Singh AS, MJ Chinapaw, et al. (2009) Ethnic differences in BMI among Dutch adolescents: What is the role of scrren viewing , ac- tive commuting to school & consumption of soft drinks & high caloric snacks. Int Journal of Behavioral Nutrition & Physical Ac- tivity 6 (23). Siri WE (1956) The gross composition of the body. Adv Biol Med Phys 4 (239-279): 513. Smalley K et al. (1990) Reassesment of body mass indices.” American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 52: 405-408. Smalley KJ, AN Knerr, ZV Kendrick, JA Colliver, and OE Owen (1990) Reassessment of body mass indices. J Clin Nutr 52: 405-8. Spalding et al. (2008) Dynamics of fat cell turnover in humans. Nature 453:783-787. Speliotes EK, CJ Willer, SI Berndt, KL Monda, G Thorleifsson, AU Jackson, HL Allen, CM Lindgren, J Luan, and R Mägi (2010) As- sociation analyses of 249,796 individuals reveal 18 new loci asso- ciated with body mass index. Nature Genetics 42 (11): 937. Wagner DR and VH Heyward (2000) Measures of body composition in blacks and whites: a comparative review. Am J Clin Nutr 71 (6): 1392-402. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/71.6.1392. Walker RS and MJ Hamilton (2008) Life-History Consequences of Density Dependence and the Evolution of the Human Body Size. Current Anthropology 49 (1): 115-155. Willer, Cristen J, Elizabeth K Speliotes, Ruth JF Loos, Shengxu Li, Cecilia M Lindgren, Iris M Heid, Sonja I Berndt, Amanda L Elliott, Anne U Jackson, and Claudia Lamina. 2009. “Six new loci associ- ated with body mass index highlight a neuronal influence on body weight regulation.” Nature Genetics no. 41 (1):25. Wing MR (2010) The Genetics of Differential Fat Distribution: The Insulin Resistance Atherosclerosis Family Study, Wake Forest Uni- versity. Yanagiya T, A Tanabe, A Iida, S Saito, A Sekine, A Takahashi, T Tsu- noda, S Kamohara, Y Nakata, and K Kotani (2007) Association of single-nucleotide polymorphisms in MTMR9 gene with obesity. Human Molecular Genetics 16 (24): 3017-3026. Zonta LA, SD Jayakar, M Bosisio, A Galante, and V Pennettil (1987) Genetic analysis of human obesity in an Italian sample. Human heredity 37 (3): 129-139. A tla s J ou rn al o f B io lo gy - IS SN 2 15 8- 91 51 . P ub lis he d B y A tla s P ub lis hi ng , L P (w w w. at la s- pu bl is hi ng .o rg ) 690 691 A tla s J ou rn al o f B io lo gy - IS SN 2 15 8- 91 51 . P ub lis he d B y A tla s P ub lis hi ng , L P (w w w. at la s- pu bl is hi ng .o rg ) Johnson et al. (2019) - Supplementary Data Physiology Data 4 Component Model Total Body Water (TBW) in (lbs) ID Group 4C.TBW (% ) Gender ID group 4C.TBW (% ) Gender P13 Afr1 32 M P32 AA 43.6 F P15 Afr1 48 M P34 AA 48.4 M P18 Afr1 34.6 F P300 AA 31 F P17 Afr1 21 M P313 AA 24 F P19 Afr1 38.3 F P325 AA 34.1 F P110 Afr1 33.3 M P326 AA 31.9 F P111 Afr1 39 M P328 AA 48.9 M P112 Afr1 46.1 M P329 AA 36.6 M P114 Afr1 31.7 M P332 AA 32 F P117 Afr1 32 M P333 AA 32.4 F P121 Afr1 32 M P334 AA 35.2 F P130 Afr1 23.5 M P36 AA 41 F P131 Afr1 41.1 M P338 AA 24.1 M P135 Afr1 27.9 M P340 AA 24.5 F P136 Afr1 35.8 M P344 AA 27 M P141 Afr1 41.3 M P345 AA 42 F P144 Afr1 36.3 M P347 AA 34.7 M P146 Afr1 47.7 M P349 AA 29.4 F P148 Afr1 26.1 M P350 AA 32.9 M P152 Afr1 30.5 M P351 AA 22.6 F P154 Afr1 31.9 M P356 AA 24 M P155 Afr1 38.7 M P361 AA 39.4 M P157 Afr1 47.1 M 1P3-12 AA 47 F P162 Afr1 38.7 M 2P3A-12 AA 53.4 F P164 Afr1 55 M 3P3-12 AA 32.7 F 1P1-12 Afr1 51.8 M 4P3-12 AA 34.7 M 2P1-12 Afr1 0.36 M 5P3-12 AA 53.1 F 3P1-12 Afr1 41.3 F 6P3-12 AA 60 M 1P2-12 Afr1 61.1 M 7P3-12 AA 51 F 2P2-12 Afr2 63 M 9P3-12 AA 35.8 M 3P2-12 Afr2 62.5 M 10P3-12 AA 50.7 F 4P2-12 Afr2 36.2 F 11P3-12 AA 55 M P215 Afr2 45.9 F 12P3-12 AA 38.3 M P216 Afr2 36.8 F P222 Afr2 32.8 F P227 Afr2 20.5 M P237 Afr2 45.4 F P239 Afr2 46.3 M P242 Afr2 32.1 F P243 Afr2 22.7 M P253 Afr2 34 M P260 Afr2 39.7 F P263 Afr2 45.7 F Suppl. Table A1. Four Component Model Total Body Water (TBW) data in (lbs) for Africans and African Americans. A tla s J ou rn al o f B io lo gy - IS SN 2 15 8- 91 51 . P ub lis he d B y A tla s P ub lis hi ng , L P (w w w. at la s- pu bl is hi ng .o rg ) 692 A tla s J ou rn al o f B io lo gy - IS SN 2 15 8- 91 51 . P ub lis he d B y A tla s P ub lis hi ng , L P (w w w. at la s- pu bl is hi ng .o rg ) Physiology Data African & African American Waist Hip Ratio (WHR) in (% ) ID Group WHR Age Gende r ID Group WHR Age Gende r P13 Afr 0.77 20 M P32 AA 0.78 23 F P15 Afr 0.81 26 M P34 AA 0.82 21 M P18 Afr 0.74 32 F P300 AA 0.8 33 F P17 Afr 0.88 38 M P313 AA 0.95 21 F P19 Afr 0.77 32 F P325 AA 0.93 20 F P110 Afr 0.8 28 M P326 AA 0.8 23 F P111 Afr 0.82 34 M P328 AA 0.96 21 M P112 Afr 0.84 26 M P329 AA 0.86 25 M P114 Afr 0.88 36 M P332 AA 0.81 19 F P117 Afr 0.8 25 M P333 AA 0.78 22 F P121 Afr 0.86 27 M P334 AA 0.81 25 F P130 Afr 0.95 19 M P36 AA 0.89 21 F P131 Afr 0.79 24 M P338 AA 0.8 25 M P135 Afr 0.95 28 M P340 AA 0.85 20 F P136 Afr 0.83 24 M P344 AA 0.81 20 M P141 Afr 0.95 21 M P345 AA 0.83 27 F P144 Afr 0.8 23 M P347 AA 0.82 20 M P146 Afr 0.8 21 M P349 AA 0.75 22 F P148 Afr 0.89 28 M P350 AA 0.77 25 M P152 Afr 0.82 29 M P351 AA 0.77 45 F P154 Afr 0.94 33 M P356 AA 0.7 22 M P155 Afr 0.92 29 M P361 AA 0.89 21 M P157 Afr 0.84 37 M 1P3-12 AA 0.83 21 F P162 Afr 0.85 24 M 2P3A-12 AA 0.76 20 F P164 Afr 0.83 23 M 3P3-12 AA 0.76 43 F 1P1-12 Afr 0.9 37 M 4P3-12 AA 0.87 22 M 2P1-12 Afr 0.85 27 M 5P3-12 AA 0.81 19 F 3P1-12 Afr 0.81 27 F 6P3-12 AA 0.8 23 M 1P2-12 Afr 0.89 18 M 7P3-12 AA 1.06 34 F 2P2-12 Afr 0.83 25 M 9P3-12 AA 0.8 21 M 3P2-12 Afr 0.79 18 M 10P3-12 AA 0.75 19 F 4P2-12 Afr 0.83 19 F 11P3-12 AA 0.98 29 M P215 Afr 0.73 21 F 12P3-12 AA 0.83 20 M P216 Afr 0.76 18 F P222 Afr 0.79 20 F P227 Afr 0.88 19 M P237 Afr 0.84 20 F P239 Afr 0.82 19 M P242 Afr 0.78 28 F P243 Afr 0.83 20 M P253 Afr 0.81 18 M P260 Afr 0.77 33 F P263 Afr 0.78 19 F Suppl. Table A2. African and African American Waist Hip Ratio (WHR). 693 A tla s J ou rn al o f B io lo gy - IS SN 2 15 8- 91 51 . P ub lis he d B y A tla s P ub lis hi ng , L P (w w w. at la s- pu bl is hi ng .o rg ) Suppl. Figure A1. African American Bone Density (Db) in (lbs) by Gender. A tla s J ou rn al o f B io lo gy - IS SN 2 15 8- 91 51 . P ub lis he d B y A tla s P ub lis hi ng , L P (w w w. at la s- pu bl is hi ng .o rg ) Suppl. Figure A2. African Bone Density (Db) in (lbs) by Gender. Suppl. Figure A3. African American Body Weight in (lbs). Suppl. Figure A4. African Body Weight in (lbs). Suppl. Figure A5. African American Body Weight (lbs) by Gender. Suppl. Figure A6. African Body Weight (lbs) by Gender. 694 A tla s J ou rn al o f B io lo gy - IS SN 2 15 8- 91 51 . P ub lis he d B y A tla s P ub lis hi ng , L P (w w w. at la s- pu bl is hi ng .o rg ) Suppl. Figure A7. African American Muscle Composition (%). Afri- can Americans showed agreement with mesomorphic phenotype, hav- ing muscle composition in excess of 60% of total body mass. Suppl. Figure A8. African Muscle Composition (%).African muscle composition was shown to be 60% and beyond, in agreement with me- somorphic phenotype. Suppl. Figure A9. African American Male and Female Muscle Com- position (%). AA muscle composition in males and females were found to agree with the mesomorphic phenotype, accounting for 60% and beyond of total body mass. Suppl. Figure A10. African Muscle Composition (%). Suppl. Figure A11. African American Muscle Weight (lbs). Suppl. Figure A12. African American Muscle Composition (%) by Gender. 695 A tla s J ou rn al o f B io lo gy - IS SN 2 15 8- 91 51 . P ub lis he d B y A tla s P ub lis hi ng , L P (w w w. at la s- pu bl is hi ng .o rg ) A tla s J ou rn al o f B io lo gy - IS SN 2 15 8- 91 51 . P ub lis he d B y A tla s P ub lis hi ng , L P (w w w. at la s- pu bl is hi ng .o rg ) Suppl. Figure A13. African Muscle Composition (lbs). Suppl. Figure A14. African Muscle Weight (lbs) by Gender. Suppl. Figure A15. African and African American Total Body Water (%). Suppl. Figure A16. African American Total Body Water (%). Suppl. Figure A17. African Total Body Water (TBW) by (%). Suppl. Figure A18. African American BMI (%). 696 A tla s J ou rn al o f B io lo gy - IS SN 2 15 8- 91 51 . P ub lis he d B y A tla s P ub lis hi ng , L P (w w w. at la s- pu bl is hi ng .o rg ) Suppl. Figure A19. African BMI (%). Suppl. Figure A20. African & African American BMI (%) by Age. Suppl. Figure A21. African American BMI (%) by Gender. Suppl. Figure A22. African BMI by Gender (%). Suppl. Figure A23. African & African American BMI (%) by Age. Suppl. Figure A24. African American BMI (%) by Age. 697 A tla s J ou rn al o f B io lo gy - IS SN 2 15 8- 91 51 . P ub lis he d B y A tla s P ub lis hi ng , L P (w w w. at la s- pu bl is hi ng .o rg ) A tla s J ou rn al o f B io lo gy - IS SN 2 15 8- 91 51 . P ub lis he d B y A tla s P ub lis hi ng , L P (w w w. at la s- pu bl is hi ng .o rg ) Suppl. Figure A25. African BMI (%) by Age. Suppl. Figure A26. African & African American Body Weight (lbs) by Age. Suppl. Figure A27. African American Body Weight (lbs) by Age. Suppl. Figure A28. African American Total Body Water (%) by Gen- der. Suppl. Figure A29. African Total Body Water (TBW) by Gender. Suppl. Figure A30. African & African American Waist Hip Ratio (WHR). 698 A tla s J ou rn al o f B io lo gy - IS SN 2 15 8- 91 51 . P ub lis he d B y A tla s P ub lis hi ng , L P (w w w. at la s- pu bl is hi ng .o rg ) Suppl. Figure A31. African American Waist Hip Ratio WHR (%). Suppl. Figure A32. African Waist Hip Ratio (%). Suppl. Figure A33. African American Waist Hip Ratio -WHR (%) by Gender. Suppl. Figure A34. African Waist Hip Ratio (%) by Gender.