Cargando…

Association between Appendicular Fat Mass and Metabolic Risk Factors

BACKGROUND: Different regional fat depots have different effects on lipid and glucose metabolism. The purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between body fat distribution as measured by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) and metabolic risk factors and to disclose whether there is...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Park, Si Young, Kwon, Kil Young, Kim, Jung Hwan, Choi, Hyung Hwa, Han, Kun Hee, Han, Jee Hye
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: The Korean Academy of Family Medicine 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4129245/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25120889
http://dx.doi.org/10.4082/kjfm.2014.35.4.182
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Different regional fat depots have different effects on lipid and glucose metabolism. The purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between body fat distribution as measured by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) and metabolic risk factors and to disclose whether there is any difference between groups with and without metabolic syndrome (MS). METHODS: A total of 292 participants (98 men, 194 women) over 19 years old underwent whole-body DEXA to evaluate body composition with respect to the whole body, leg, arm, and android regions. Anthropometry and blood tests for metabolic risks were measured. RESULTS: One hundred and seven participants were diagnosed with MS. The MS group had significantly higher android fat (%) and had lower leg fat (%), arm fat (%), and appendicular (arms + legs) fat (%) than the non-MS group. Android fat (%) had a positive correlation with waist circumference (WC), systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), glucose, log insulin, hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), triglyceride (TG), and low density lipoprotein cholesterol, and had a negative correlation with high density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol. Appendicular fat (%) had a negative correlation with WC, SBP, DBP, glucose, log insulin, HbA1c, and TG, and had a positive correlation with HDL cholesterol. The association of appendicular fat with metabolic risk was consistently observed in non-MS, but the association was not observed except for SBP, glucose and log insulin in MS. CONCLUSION: In contrast with the adverse effects of android fat, appendicular fat distribution was associated with decreased risks of MS. The protective effect of appendicular fat against metabolic risk factors in non-MS was less characteristic in MS.