Professional group differences in general and abdominal adiposity: the roles of sex and age in a retrospective cross-sectional study

Occupational environments may influence obesity risk through work routines, sedentary behaviour, and lifestyle patterns. However, differences between occupational groups may also reflect variation in sex and age. Because body mass index (BMI) alone does not adequately characterize body composition or abdominal fat distribution, this study compared indicators of general and abdominal adiposity across occupational groups while accounting for sex and age. This retrospective cross-sectional study included 2,296 adults (1,063 men and 1,233 women), aged 22–70 years, attending a sports-health club in Istanbul between 2006 and 2016. Occupations were classified as bank employees, physicians, lawyers, engineers, architects, and educators. General adiposity was assessed using BMI and body fat percentage; abdominal adiposity was assessed using waist circumference, waist-to-hip ratio (WHR), waist-to-height ratio (WHtR), and trunk skinfold thickness. A multivariate model first tested the sex × occupation interaction. As this interaction was not significant, a reduced model evaluated the main effects of sex, occupation, and age. Outcome-specific analyses used HC3 heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors with Holm correction across six outcomes. The sex × occupation interaction was not significant for the combined adiposity profile (Pillai’s trace = 0.0147, p = 0.294). In the reduced model, sex (Pillai’s trace = 0.8661, p < 0.001), age (Pillai’s trace = 0.2737, p < 0.001), and occupation (Pillai’s trace = 0.0284, p < 0.001) were associated with the combined adiposity profile, although the occupational effect was small relative to sex and age. After multiple-testing correction, sex and age remained significantly associated with all adiposity indicators. BMI was the only individual outcome that differed significantly across occupations (F(5, 2288) = 3.32, Holm-adjusted p = 0.033, partial η² = 0.007). Physicians had a lower adjusted BMI than engineers (mean difference = − 0.82 kg/m², 95% CI − 1.33 to − 0.31; Holm-adjusted p = 0.023). Sex and age showed stronger associations with adiposity than occupation. Although occupation was associated with overall adiposity profile, differences were small and not consistently observed across individual measures after multiplicity correction. Occupational title alone therefore appears to have limited value for obesity risk assessment, supporting emphasis on direct adiposity measures and risk factors.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
BMC Public Health
Published
2026-10-28
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-026-30077-6
Primary Topic
Obesity, Physical Activity, Diet
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Professional group differences in general and abdominal adiposity: the roles of sex and age in a retrospective cross-sectional study

İlhan ODABAŞ, Gökçe Akın
BMC Public Health
Obesity, Physical Activity, Diet
article

Professional group differences in general and abdominal adiposity: the roles of sex and age in a retrospective cross-sectional study

İlhan ODABAŞ, Gökçe Akın
article en

Abstract

Occupational environments may influence obesity risk through work routines, sedentary behaviour, and lifestyle patterns. However, differences between occupational groups may also reflect variation in sex and age. Because body mass index (BMI) alone does not adequately characterize body composition or abdominal fat distribution, this study compared indicators of general and abdominal adiposity across occupational groups while accounting for sex and age. This retrospective cross-sectional study included 2,296 adults (1,063 men and 1,233 women), aged 22–70 years, attending a sports-health club in Istanbul between 2006 and 2016. Occupations were classified as bank employees, physicians, lawyers, engineers, architects, and educators. General adiposity was assessed using BMI and body fat percentage; abdominal adiposity was assessed using waist circumference, waist-to-hip ratio (WHR), waist-to-height ratio (WHtR), and trunk skinfold thickness. A multivariate model first tested the sex × occupation interaction. As this interaction was not significant, a reduced model evaluated the main effects of sex, occupation, and age. Outcome-specific analyses used HC3 heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors with Holm correction across six outcomes. The sex × occupation interaction was not significant for the combined adiposity profile (Pillai’s trace = 0.0147, p = 0.294). In the reduced model, sex (Pillai’s trace = 0.8661, p < 0.001), age (Pillai’s trace = 0.2737, p < 0.001), and occupation (Pillai’s trace = 0.0284, p < 0.001) were associated with the combined adiposity profile, although the occupational effect was small relative to sex and age. After multiple-testing correction, sex and age remained significantly associated with all adiposity indicators. BMI was the only individual outcome that differed significantly across occupations (F(5, 2288) = 3.32, Holm-adjusted p = 0.033, partial η² = 0.007). Physicians had a lower adjusted BMI than engineers (mean difference = − 0.82 kg/m², 95% CI − 1.33 to − 0.31; Holm-adjusted p = 0.023). Sex and age showed stronger associations with adiposity than occupation. Although occupation was associated with overall adiposity profile, differences were small and not consistently observed across individual measures after multiplicity correction. Occupational title alone therefore appears to have limited value for obesity risk assessment, supporting emphasis on direct adiposity measures and risk factors.

BMC Public Health
Haliç University (TR)
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 10%
Obesity, Physical Activity, Diet
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Laika access coming soon