Limits...
Relationships of maternal and paternal anthropometry with neonatal body size, proportions and adiposity in an Australian cohort.

Pomeroy E, Wells JC, Cole TJ, O'Callaghan M, Stock JT - Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. (2014)

Bottom Line: Maternal and paternal height and maternal BMI were associated with birthweight.Our results suggest that while neonatal fatness reflects environmental conditions (maternal physiology), head circumference and limb and trunk lengths show differing associations with parental anthropometry.Paternal height may relate to neonatal limb length as a means of increasing fetal growth without exacerbating the risk of obstetric complications.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Newnham College, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK; Division of Biological Anthropology, Department of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

Show MeSH

Related in: MedlinePlus

Standardized coefficients (β) for variation in neonatal anthropometry explained by parental anthropometry. [Color figure can be viewed in the online issue, which is available at wileyonlinelibrary.com.]
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4404025&req=5

fig03: Standardized coefficients (β) for variation in neonatal anthropometry explained by parental anthropometry. [Color figure can be viewed in the online issue, which is available at wileyonlinelibrary.com.]

Mentions: The adjusted R2 values for the final regression models (Fig. 2 and Table3) indicated that adjusting for potential confounders (see Supporting Information Table2 for details of confounders in each model), parental anthropometry explained a small proportion of variance in neonatal anthropometry. Parental measurements explained the greatest amount of variation in birthweight (6%) and neck-rump length (5%), but less variance in head circumference (3%), summed skinfolds (2%), limb segment lengths (2%), and limb proportion indices (0–1%). Birthweight was significantly associated with maternal height and BMI and paternal height (Fig. 3 and Table3). Associations were twice as strong for maternal vs. paternal height, but not statistically different (P = 0.03). Neck-rump length related similarly to both parents' heights and BMIs, with no significant differences between parental height or BMI coefficients (P > 0.1). Head circumference related to maternal height and BMI only, and the sum of four skinfolds was only associated with maternal BMI. Proximal limb segment lengths (upper arm, thigh) related equally strongly to paternal and maternal height (P > 0.1 in all tests for differences in parental height coefficients). In addition, maternal BMI was significantly associated with neonatal thigh length. Distal limb segments (lower arm, lower leg) were associated only with paternal anthropometry (both height and BMI). Limb: trunk length indices were associated with paternal height only, and intralimb indices did not relate to parental anthropometry. Offspring sex by parental anthropometry interactions were excluded from the models as they were not significant.


Relationships of maternal and paternal anthropometry with neonatal body size, proportions and adiposity in an Australian cohort.

Pomeroy E, Wells JC, Cole TJ, O'Callaghan M, Stock JT - Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. (2014)

Standardized coefficients (β) for variation in neonatal anthropometry explained by parental anthropometry. [Color figure can be viewed in the online issue, which is available at wileyonlinelibrary.com.]
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4404025&req=5

fig03: Standardized coefficients (β) for variation in neonatal anthropometry explained by parental anthropometry. [Color figure can be viewed in the online issue, which is available at wileyonlinelibrary.com.]
Mentions: The adjusted R2 values for the final regression models (Fig. 2 and Table3) indicated that adjusting for potential confounders (see Supporting Information Table2 for details of confounders in each model), parental anthropometry explained a small proportion of variance in neonatal anthropometry. Parental measurements explained the greatest amount of variation in birthweight (6%) and neck-rump length (5%), but less variance in head circumference (3%), summed skinfolds (2%), limb segment lengths (2%), and limb proportion indices (0–1%). Birthweight was significantly associated with maternal height and BMI and paternal height (Fig. 3 and Table3). Associations were twice as strong for maternal vs. paternal height, but not statistically different (P = 0.03). Neck-rump length related similarly to both parents' heights and BMIs, with no significant differences between parental height or BMI coefficients (P > 0.1). Head circumference related to maternal height and BMI only, and the sum of four skinfolds was only associated with maternal BMI. Proximal limb segment lengths (upper arm, thigh) related equally strongly to paternal and maternal height (P > 0.1 in all tests for differences in parental height coefficients). In addition, maternal BMI was significantly associated with neonatal thigh length. Distal limb segments (lower arm, lower leg) were associated only with paternal anthropometry (both height and BMI). Limb: trunk length indices were associated with paternal height only, and intralimb indices did not relate to parental anthropometry. Offspring sex by parental anthropometry interactions were excluded from the models as they were not significant.

Bottom Line: Maternal and paternal height and maternal BMI were associated with birthweight.Our results suggest that while neonatal fatness reflects environmental conditions (maternal physiology), head circumference and limb and trunk lengths show differing associations with parental anthropometry.Paternal height may relate to neonatal limb length as a means of increasing fetal growth without exacerbating the risk of obstetric complications.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Newnham College, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK; Division of Biological Anthropology, Department of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

Show MeSH
Related in: MedlinePlus