Impact of Modern Diet on Body Fat Distribution

This study examines the impact of modern diet on the distribution of body fat stores, specifically focusing on the proportion of visceral fat. The null hypothesis is rejected, indicating that modern diet has indeed altered the distribution of body fat, resulting in a greater proportion of visceral fat deposits. The study analyzes individual data as well as group data to compare and contrast the changes in body fat distribution. The findings suggest that a larger proportion of body fat is now stored viscerally due to modern diet.

Null hypothesis: Modern diet has not altered the way humans distribute their body fat stores,
such that a lesser proportion is stored viscerally.
Alternative hypothesis: Modern diet altered the way humans distribute their body fat stores,
such that a greater proportion is stored viscerally.
The provided data was aimed at comparing individual body fat and sample data of populace
provided in order to check how modern diet had altered distribution of body fats. Looking at
the individual data with subject ID 16 qf 5, skin total fat estimate (SkFA) of 18.1% and BIA
total fat estimate of 2.7% was recorded. This was the fat quantities in the body for the
individual. The data was for a mature individual with the base height and weight. This data
acted as the base for comparison. Populace with higher body fat deposits were regarded as
overweight.
Group data 1
The first data under population had subject ID 50 QF 14. The group say A had a height of
163 cm which was below the mean height of 171 cm. A had a body weight of 84.7 kg which
was also higher than the average weight of 65.5 kg.
Difference∈height=163−171=−8 cm
Difference∈weight=84.7−65.5=19.2 kg
Comparing the circumference measurements of A and the individual data, we observed that
the abdominal, waist, chest and hips recorded larger measurements in comparison to
individual data. This meant that they have more subcutaneous fat deposits in these regions
(Novosad, 2013). Similarly, skin fold measurements for A are greater than those of individual
data (Prospective Studies Collaboration, 2009). This showed that A has more visceral fat as
compared to the individual. A had a BIA total fat estimate of 45%. This was an increase of
22.3% from the individual data.
Change∈BIA=45 %−22.7 %=22.3 %
Group data 2
For the second set of group data say B, its subject ID was 30 with quality factor (QF) of 6. B
had a height of 165 cm and mass of 50 kg. Their BMI was estimated as 18.88 which meant
that they are in the normal range. However, circumference measurements of B were higher
than those of individual data. Thus, B had more subcutaneous fat in comparison to individual
data (Flegal, 2012). Skin fold measurements of B were also higher than those of individual
data. This insinuated that B had more visceral fat deposits.

Difference∈BIA=23.28 %−22.7 %=0.58 %
BIA value of 23.28% means that there was a slight increase of 0.58% from the individual
data. Visceral fat deposits were slightly higher in B than the individual.
Group data 3
Group data with subject ID 2 had a QF of 7. They had a higher height and more weight of
178 cm and 67 kg respectively. Circumference and skin fold measurements were relatively
smaller than that of individual data. Thus, their subcutaneous and visceral fat was lower.
Similarly, their BIA total fat estimate was 13% which was 9.7% lower than that of individual
data.
Group data 4
For the fourth set of group data with subject ID 29 had a quality factor of 6. They recorded a
height and mass of 163 cm and 63 kg respectively.
Difference∈height=163−171=−8 cm
Difference∈weight=63−65.5=−2.5 kg
These values were lower than those of the base data. Their BIA total fat estimate was 33%
which was higher than the individual data by 10.3%.
Difference∈BIA=33 %−22.7 %=10.3 %
Thus, these set of individuals had a thicker subcutaneous fat (Locke, 2015). Similarly, they
had more visceral fat because their skin total fat estimate is 31.25%.
Group data 5
For group data of subject ID 8, their quality factor was 5. They recorded a slightly higher
SKA total fat estimate of 18.63% from 18.1% of the individual data. This showed that this
group had a thicker subcutaneous fat layer. BIA total fat estimate for the group data was
15.3%. This meant that visceral fat deposits were lower by 7.2% as compared to the
individual data.
Group data 6
The next group data had a subject ID 40 and its quality factor was 6. The group had a height
of 180.5 cm and a weight of 67.5 kg. In comparison to individual data, the group was taller
and heavier respectively.

Difference∈height=180.5−171=9.5 cm
Difference∈weight=67.5−65.5=2.0 kg
Their circumference measurements of chest, abdomen and hips were greater than that of
individual data. Its SKA total fat estimate was 11.9%. This was a 0.9% higher value than the
individual data (Ogden, 2014). Therefore, they had a slightly thicker subcutaneous fat layer.
Looking at the BIA, they had 11.2%. This means that their visceral fat layer was thinner than
that of individual data. Overall, their body fat content was smaller than the base data.
Group data 7
Another group data was assigned subject ID 40 and had a quality factor 7. Their skin fold
measurements were smaller than those of individual data. They had equal height to the
individual data but a lower weight. Their SKFA total body fat was estimated as 24.83%. This
was a 6.73% higher subcutaneous fat layer compared to individual data. BIA total fat was
estimated as 28.9%. The visceral fat deposit was also 6.2% higher than that of base data. This
meant that the group had a large fat deposit in their body (Who Bell, 2012).
Group 8
Last group data was assigned subject ID 61 and had a quality factor of 11. Their height and
weight were 12.25 cm and 5.5 kg less than the base data respectively. Their circumference
measurements were largely greater. The value of BIA was 25.5% which was smaller than the
base value. This insinuates that the subcutaneous fat deposit was larger in the group than in
the individual. The skin total fat was estimated as 26.55%. It was higher than the base value.
Thus, the visceral fats were higher in this group.
The combined data of height, weight and BIA was represented and graphed as shown;
Description Height Weight BIA
Individual data 171 65.5 22.7
Group 1 163 84.7 45
Group 2 165 50 23.28
Group 3 178 67 13
Group 4 163 63 33
Group 5 166 54 15.3
Group 6 180.5 67.5 11.2
Group 7 171 64 28.9
Group 8 158.75 60 25.5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
Height
Weight
BIA
Description
Vaalues of variables
Conclusion
In conclusion, the null hypothesis was invalid. The alternative hypothesis stood. Modern diet
altered the way humans distribute their body fats. A large proportion is stored viscerally.

References
Flegal, K. C. M. K. B. O., 2012. Prevalence of obesity and trends in the distribution of body
mass index among US adults. In: s.l.:Jama, pp. 491-497.
Novosad, S., Wolfe, B. and Khan, A., 2013. Role of obesity in asthma control. Journal of
allergy, 2013.
Locke, M. Y. J. a. C.-C., 2015. Genetics studies of body mass index yield new insights for
obesity biology. In: s.l.:Nature, p. 197.
Ogden, F. C. M. a. F. K., 2014. Mean body weight, height and body mass index. In: s.l.:Jam,
pp. 1960-2000.
Prospective Studies Collaboration, 2009. Body-mass index and cause-specific mortality in
900 000 adults. In: s.l.:The Lancet, pp. 1083-1096.
Who Bell, E., 2012. Appropriate body mass index for Asian populations and its implications.
In: London: Lancet, pp. 156-176.