Skip to main content

Table 2 The 89 studies that explored effects of obesity on task or body part specific functioning, are categorized into 7 groups based on their main focus and ordered chronologically within groups

From: Use of various obesity measurement and classification methods in occupational safety and health research: a systematic review of the literature

  Author, Year, Origin Study Focus Subjects Sample size (%OW/OB) Outcome Variable(s)/Method Primary Obesity Measure / Other Measure(s) OB BMI: mean(SD)/ range Significant Obesity Effect Significant Overweight Effect Acknowledging Limitations of Obesity Measures
Gait Characteristics DeVita et al., 2003, USA [85] Lower extremity joint kinetics & energetics General population 39 (54%) Motion analysis, force platform BMI 42.3(2.9) + NA –
Browning et al., 2006, USA [86] Metabolic rates & energy cost General population 39 (49%) Oxygen consumption, preferred walking speed BMI / WHR, %BF: DEXA M:33(2).1 F:33.8(3.3) + NA –
Browning & Kram., 2007, USA [87] Walking biomechanics(knee-joint loads) Young adults 20 (50%) Ground reaction force, gait kinematics BMI / *segment mass M:34.1(3.7), F: 37(6) + NA –
Lafortuna et al., 2008, Italy [88] Energetics and cardiovascular responses of walking & cycling Lean: hospital staff, OB: hospital admits (body mass reduction) 21 (71%) HR, Vo2 max, metabolic rate BMI / %BF: BIA 41.1(5) + NA –
Lai et al., 2008, China [89] Three-dimensional gait characteristics General population 28 (50%) Motion analysis BMI 33.06(4.2) + NA –
Browning et al., 2009, USA [90] External mechanical work Young adults 20 (50%) Ground reaction force BMI M:34.1(3.7), F:37(6) – NA +
Malatesta et al., 2009, Switzerland [91] Mechanical external work General population 49 (61%) Center of mass displacement, mechanical external work, kinetic energy transduction BMI 39.6(0.6) – NA –
Ko et al., 2010, USA [92] Characteristics of gait Older adults enrolled in aging research 164 (66%) Motion analysis, force platform BMI   + +/− –
Russell et al., 2010, USA [93] Energy expenditure & biomechanical risk factors for knee OA Young adults 20 (50%) O2 uptake, peak impact shock, peak external knee adduction moment knee adduction angular impulse BMI 33.09(4.22) – NA –
Blaszczyk et al., 2011, Poland [94] Basic spatiotemporal gait measures General population + outpatient obesity treatment clinic 136 (74%) Stance & swing time, stride length BMI 37.2(5.2) + NA +
Ehlen et al., 2011, US [95] Energetics and biomechanics of gait General population 12 (100%) Oxygen consumption, ground reaction forces, & three-dimensional lower-extremity kinematics BMI / %BF: DEXA 33.4(2.4) NA NA –
Cimolin et al., 2011, Italy [96] Gait pattern Obese: admits to obesity multidisciplinary rehabilitation program 28 (64%) Gait Spatio-temporal parameters & kinematics BMI / WC OB + LBP: 42.4(5.5), OB - LBP: 39.3 + NA –
Russell & Hamill., 2011, US [97] Obesity × laterally wedged insole effect on gait kinetic and kinematic Young females 28 (50%) Peak joint angles, external knee adduction moment & angular impulse BMI / %BF: DEXA 37.2(6.1) + NA –
Wu et al., 2012, USA [98] Gait adaptations & implication on risk of slip initiations Young male students 10 (50%) Motion analysis, force plate %BF from BIA / BMI 33.7(2.8) +/− NA –
Harding et al., 2012, Canada [99] Knee OA × obesity effect on knee joint mechanics General population + orthopedic clinic admits 244 (72%) Knee joint angles, joint moment BMI / *thigh and calf circumference 34.9(4) + + +
Russell et al., 2013, USA [100] Laterally wedged insoles × obesity effect on knee joint contact force General population 28 (50%) Center of pressure on the tibial plateau BMI / %BF: DEXA 37.2(6.1) NA NA –
Browning et al., 2013, USA [101] Metabolic rate, stride kinematics & external mechanical work young females 37 (49%) Oxygen uptake, ground reaction force, lower extremity kinematics BMI / %BF: DEXA, *Trunk-to-leg fat mass ratio 33.9(3.6) – NA –
Ranavolo et al., 2013, Italy [102] Walking coordination during walking General population 50 (50%) Motion analysis BMI / WC, %BF: Siri equation Range(33.8–44) + NA –
Vismara et al., 2014, Italy [103] Changes in gait General population 32 (44%) Motion analysis BMI 40.2(3.3) + NA –
Haight et al., 2014, USA [104] Compressive tibio-femoral forces General population 19 (47%) Motion analysis (lower extremity biomechanics), EMG BMI / %BF: DEXA 35(3.8) +/− NA –
Glave et al., 2014, USA [105] Gait alterations General population 22 (50%) Gait variables BMI / %BF: DEXA 31.42(7.3) + NA +
Cau et al., 2014, Italy [106] Gait strategy Hospital patients for weight reduction programs & staff 35 (57%) Center of pressure parameters BMI 43(4.9) + NA –
Lerner et al., 2014, USA [107] Joint kinematics & individual muscle forces during gait General population 19 (47%) Motion analysis, EMG data, ground reaction force BMI / lean mass (kg): DEXA 35(3.78) + NA –
Disease Prevalence/Incidenc Kouyoumdjian et al., 2000, Brazil [108] Severity of Carpal tunnel syndrome Carpel tunnel syndrome patients 384 (13%) Case - control study BMI   + NA –
Young et al., 2001, USA [109] Asthma risk Military population and their families (17-69 yrs) 38,924 (53%) Case - control study BMI   + + –
J. D. Bland., 2005, UK [110] Age × body mass index effect on carpel tunnel syndrome risk Hospital admits 4166 (14%) Self-report CTS diagnosis BMI   + + –
Liuke et al., 2005, Finland [111] Prevalence and progression of lumbar disc degeneration Employed middle-aged men 129 (50%) Prospective cohort: MRI imaging BMI   NA + –
Dagan et al., 2006, Israel [112] BMI as a screening method for detection of excessive daytime sleepiness Professional drivers 153 (100%) Sleep characteristics BMI 36.78(7.32) + NA –
Zhao et al., 2007, USA [113] Osteoporosis Chinese general population + US Caucasian general population 6477 (0%) Bone mass at the lumbar spine, total body bone mineral content BMI / %BF: DEXA   + + +
Sharifi-Mollayousefi et al., 2008, Iran [114] BMI as independent risk determinants in the development and severity of Carpal tunnel syndrome Patients with carpal tunnel syndrome (cases) and their relatives (controls) 262 (50%) Case-control study BMI   + NA –
Grotle et al., 2008, Norway [115] OA incident in hip, knee, and hand General population 1675 (35%) Prospective cohort: OA diagnosis BMI   + +/− –
Noorloos et al., 2008, Netherlands [116] Obesity × whole body vibration effect on risk of LBP Occupational vehicle drivers 214 (69%) Low back pain BMI   – – –
Toivanen et al., 2010, Finland [117] Knee OA risk Finnish adults aged 530 years 823 (39%) Prospective cohort: OA diagnosis BMI   + + –
Vismara et al., 2010, Italy [118] LBP incidence General population 37 (70%) Trunk angle during standing, forward flexion & lateral bending BMI LBP:41.9(5.3),Non:39.2(3.6) + NA –
Wood et al., 2011, USA [119] Pain experienced by persons with chronic back pain Patients with lower back pain of over 3 months 198 (62%) Blood pressure, pain level BMI   – – –
Ackerman & Osborne., 2012, Australia [120] Burden of hip & knee joint disease General population 1157 (55%) OA diagnosis BMI   + + –
Jensen et al., 2012, Denmark [121] LBP risk factor Newly educated health care helpers 1355 (41%) Prospective cohort: Self-reported levels of LBP BMI 34.8(6.08) – – –
Silvernail et al., 2013, USA [122] Biomechanical risk factor for knee OA Yong university and community members 30 (67%) Gait kinetic & kinematics BMI / %BF: BIA 34.4(3.9) – – –
Seror & Seror., 2013, France [123] Incidence of idiopathic median nerve lesion at the wrist Patients with carpal tunnel syndrome 676 (25%) Electrophysiological evaluation outcomes BMI   + + –
Martin et al., 2013, USA [124] Knee OA risk factor British birth cohort participants 2957 (0%) Knee Osteoarthritis BMI (z-score)   + NA –
Romero-Vargas et al., 2013, Mexico [125] Modifications on spino-pelvic parameters & type of lumbar lordosis General population 200 (80%) Spino-pelvic values BMI / WC   – – +
Messier et al., 2014, USA [126] Frontal plane knee alignment × obesity effect on knee joint loads in knee OA Community dwelling older adults (age > 55 yrs) 157 (100%) knee osteoarthritis: X-ray at baseline BMI 33.4(3.7) + + –
Urquhart et al., 2014, Australia [127] Occupational activities × obesity effect on LBP General population + weight loss clinic attendees 145 (61%) Low back pain intensity & disability BMI   + NA –
Evanoff et al., 2014, France [128] Physical occupational exposures × obesity effect on post-retirement shoulder/knee pain French national power utility employees 9415 (52%) Retrospective cohort: self-administered questionnaires BMI   + – –
Functional Capacity Hulens et al., 2001, Belgium [129] Submaximal & maximal exercise capacity General population 306 (74%) Oxygen uptake, carbon dioxide production, respiratory quotient, breathing efficiency, mechanical efficiency & anaerobic threshold BMI / %BF: BIA 38.1(5.6) + NA –
Hulens et al., 2002, Belgium [130] Peripheral muscle strength Outpatient Endocrinology Clinic patients 241 (100%) Trunk strength, peak oxygen consumption BMI / Fat free and fat mass: BIA 37.5(5.4) NA NA –
Maffiuletti et al., 2007,Switzerland [131] Voluntary & stimulated fatigue of the quadriceps femoris muscle Lean: hospital staff, obese: hospital admits for body mass reduction 20 (50%) Maximal voluntary isometric & isokinetic torque, torque loss BMI / Fat free mass: BIA 41.3(5.4) + NA –
Segal et al., 2009, USA [132] Forces on the medial compartment of the knee joint General population 59 (68%) knee joint forces BMI / WHR Central: 35(4), lower body: 36.4 (5.4) +/− NA +
Capodaglio et al., 2009, Italy [133] Lower limb muscle function General population 40 (50%) Isokinetic strength during knee flexion & extension BMI 38.1(3.1) + NA +
Singh et al., 2009, USA [134] Maximum acceptable weights of lift General population 60 (67%) MAWL BMI / WC,WHR,%BF estimated: ST II: 37.13(1.58) III:47.84(9.85) – NA –
Faria et al., 2009, Portugal [135] Muscle–tendon unit stiffness General population 105 (77%) Ankle muscle–tendon unit stiffness at 30% MVC BMI 32.1(1.3) + + –
Park et al., 2010, USA [136] Joint RoM Young and university affiliated 40 (50%) RoM BMI 44(7.4) +/− NA –
Blazek et al., 2013, USA [137] Age × obesity effect on Knee adduction and flexion moments General population 96 (38%) Ground reaction force magnitude, knee alignment, step width, toe-out angle, limb position BMI 35.3(3.9) + NA –
Cavuoto & Nussbaum., 2013, USA [138] Age × obesity effect on shoulder capacity Young: students, old: retired or employed in non-physically demanding jobs 32 (50%) Endurance, discomfort, motor control, task performance BMI / WC, WHR Young: 34.1(2.8), Old: 36.4(3.3) + NA +
Hamilton et al., 2013, USA [139] BMI × workstation configuration effect on joint angles General population 30 (80%) Joint angle, forward functional reach BMI I: 32(1.26) II:37(1.73) III:44(4.97) – – –
Mignardot et al., 2013, France [140] Motor control behavior General population 20 (60%) Kinematic variables, Center of mass displacement characteristics BMI 36.6(3.3) + NA –
Wearing et al., 2013, Australia [141] Resistance exercise × obesity effect on immediate transverse strain of the Achilles tendon University faculty 20 (50%) Sonographic examinations BMI 30(3.1) + + +
Cavuoto & Nussbaum., 2013, USA [142] Strength and functional performance Local community 36 (50%) Endurance time, strength BMI / WC,WHR 33.6(3.1) +/− NA +
Cavuoto & Nussbaum., 2014, USA [143] Age × obesity effect on functional performance General population 32 (50%) endurance, discomfort, motor control, task performance BMI / WC,WHR Young: 34.3(4), Old: 35.9(3.6) + NA +
Mehta & Cavuoto., 2015, USA [144] Obesity × age effects on handgrip endurance General population 45 (44%) hand grip endurance BMI Young: 33.1(3.6),Old:36.1(8.1) +/− NA –
Balance & Plantar Pressure Hills et al., 2001, Australia [145] Plantar pressure General population 70 (50%) Pressure distribution BMI 38.75(5.97) + NA +
Gravante et al., 2003, Italy [146] Centre of pressure location & plantar pressures General population 72 (53%) Centre of pressure location, plantar ground contact surface areas & pressures BMI / WHR M:36(7.4), F:38(6.8) +/− NA –
Birtane & Tuna., 2004, Turkey [147] Plantar pressure distribution General population 50 (50%) Pedobarographic evaluations BMI 32.2(2) + NA –
Berrigan et al., 2006, Canada [148] Balance control constraint during accurate and rapid arm movement General population 17 (53%) Body kinematics, center of pressure, displacement, reaction time, movement time BMI 37(6.6) + NA –
Teh et al., 2006, Singapore [149] Pressure distribution under the feet General population 120 (42%) Plantar pressure distribution BMI I: 34.3 II: 38.9(3.6) +/− NA –
Singh et al., 2009, USA [150] obesity × task duration effect on postural sway and functional reach Students & sedentary office workers 20 (50%) Posture sway, functional reach BMI / WHR 45.96(7.85) + NA –
Blaszczyk et al., 2009, Poland [151] Postural control Obesity treatment clinic patients 133 (75%) CP measures: voluntary displacement, path, range BMI / %BF: BIA, WC,HC 37.2(5.2) – NA –
Park et al., 2009, USA [152] Postural stress during static posture maintenance General population 40 (50%) Rated perceived exertion BMI / WHR,%BF estimated: ST 46.26(4.99) + NA –
Menegoni et al., 2009, Italy [153] Static posture variability Orthopedic Rehabilitation Unit patients and staff (control) 54 (81% Center of pressure velocity & displacements along the antero-posterior & medio-lateral axis BMI M:40.2(5), F: 41.1(4.1) + NA +
Monteiro et al., 2010, Portugal [154] Plantar pressure Postmenopausal women 239 (79%) Foot-scan pressure plate %BF from BIA / BMI 29.6(3.2), 36.4(3.8) +/− NA –
Miller et al., 2011, USA [155] Balance recovery from small forward postural perturbations Young adults (22 years old) 20 (50%) Peak COM displacement, peak COM velocity, peak ankle torque BMI 33.2(2.3) – NA –
Matrangola & Madigan., 2011, USA [156] Balance recovery using an ankle strategy Young males 20 (50% Body angle, ground reaction force BMI 32.2(2.2) +/− NA –
Peduzzi de Castro et al., 2014, Portugal [157] Pressure relief insoles General population 31 (32%) Ground reaction force, plantar pressure BMI 36.5(4.51) + NA –
Task Functionality Galli et al., 2000, Italy [158] Motion strategies: sit-to-stand General population + obese subjects suffering from chronic lower back pain 40 (75%) Movement kinetics & kinematics BMI 40(5.9) + NA –
Sibella et al., 2003, Italy [159] Biomechanical model: sit-to-stand Hospital recovers 50 (80%) Trunk flexion, feet movement, knee & hip joint torques BMI 37.9(4.9) + NA –
Lafortuna et al., 2006, Italy [160] Energy cost of submaximal cycling Lean: hospital staff, obese: hospital admits for body mass reduction 18 (50%) Oxygen uptake, Vo2 max, anaerobic threshold, mechanical efficiency BMI / %BF: BIA 40(1.2) + NA –
Gilleard & Smith., 2007, Australia [161] Postural adaptations: trunk forward flexion motion in sitting and standing General Population 20 (50%) Trunk flexion motion during forward flexion, trunk posture, hip joint moment WC / BMI 38.9(6.6) +/− NA –
Xu et al., 2008, USA [162] Lifting kinematics & kinetics College students 12 (50%) Motion analysis BMI 33.28 (30.4–38.8) – NA +
Taboga et al., 2012, Italy [163] Mechanical work, energy cost of transport, and efficiency: running Hospital admits-adults from metabolic disorders 25 (40%) Oxygen uptake, kinematics, center of mass location BMI / %BF: BIA 41.5(5.3) + NA –
Hendrick et al., 2012, USA [164] Neural processes of cognitive control: stop signal test General population 43 (30%) Functional magnetic resonance imaging BMI 33.2(2.6) + NA +
Singh et al., 2013, USA [165] Contact forces & moments exerted by the abdomen on the thigh: seated reaching Older adults 10 (100%) Motion analysis, force plate BMI / WC 39.04(5.02) +/− NA +
Schmid et al., 2013, Switzerland [166] Kinetic & kinematic variables: sit-to-stand test. Going to attend a weight loss program at hospital 36 (72%) Vertical ground reaction forces, rising velocity (motion analysis) BMI I: 32.68(1.53), II: 39.42(2.71) – +/− –
Pysiological Responses Willenberg et al., 2010, Switzerland [167] Venous flow parameters of the lower limbs Students and medical staff 45 (49%) Venous hemodynamics: Diameter, flow volume, peak, mean, & minimum velocities BMI / WHR, WC 36.2(5.9) + NA +
Engelberger et al., 2014, Switzerland [168] Diurnal leg volume increase Obese subjects: weight management clinic patients, general population 39 (62%) Common femoral vein diameter, peak flow velocity, mean velocity & minimal velocity BMI / WHR 40.2(5.9) + NA –
Yang et al., 2015, China [169] Acute high-altitude exposure Chinese railroad construction workers 262 (46%) Acute mountain sickness BMI 29.9(3.8) – NA –
Miscellaneous Menegoni et al., 2007, Italy [170] Clinical protocol to characterize the trunk movements Lean: hospital staff, obese: hospital admits for diet therapy and exercise classes 20 (50%)   BMI 38.7(3.5) NA NA –
Forman et al., 2009, USA [171] Restraint of automobile occupants Post mortem human surrogates 5 (40%) Chest deformation, acceleration, tension in the restraint system, etc. BMI 40 + NA –
Lerner et al., 2014, USA [172] Obesity-specific kinematic marker set to account for subcutaneous adiposity General population 18 (50%) Ground reaction force, walking kinematics, EMG BMI 35(3.78) NA NA –
Thorp et al., 2014, Australia [173] Standing workstations effect on fatigue, musculoskeletal discomfort & work productivity Middle-aged sedentary employees 23 (100%) Self-reported fatigue, musculoskeletal discomfort, work productivity BMI 33.7(4.3) + + –
  1. For primary obesity measure, Bolded measure indicates that a cut-off other than the common cut-offs are used and underlined measure indicates that measurement has been based on self-reported data. For study subjects, bolded indicates that only females were included as subjects and underlined shows that males were the only subjects. A bolded outcome variables/method indicates that obesity status had been considered as continuous variable while underlined bolded indicates that it had been considered both as a continuous and categorical variable
Back to article page

BMC Obesity

ISSN: 2052-9538

Contact us