Cargando…

The Relationship between Intramuscular Adipose Tissue, Functional Mobility, and Strength in Postmenopausal Women with and without Type 2 Diabetes

Objectives. To determine (1) whether intramuscular adipose tissue (IntraMAT) differs between women with and without type 2 diabetes and (2) the association between IntraMAT and mobility and strength. Methods. 59 women ≥ 65 years with and without type 2 diabetes were included. A 1-Tesla MRI was used...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Pritchard, Janet M., Karampatos, Sarah, Beattie, Karen A., Giangregorio, Lora M., Ioannidis, George, Atkinson, Stephanie A., Thabane, Lehana, Gerstein, Hertzel, Punthakee, Zubin, Adachi, Jonathan D., Papaioannou, Alexandra
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Hindawi Publishing Corporation 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4322662/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25692042
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2015/872726
Descripción
Sumario:Objectives. To determine (1) whether intramuscular adipose tissue (IntraMAT) differs between women with and without type 2 diabetes and (2) the association between IntraMAT and mobility and strength. Methods. 59 women ≥ 65 years with and without type 2 diabetes were included. A 1-Tesla MRI was used to acquire images of the leg. Timed-up-and-go (TUG) and grip strength were measured. Regression was used to determine associations between the following: (1) type 2 diabetes and IntraMAT (covariates: age, ethnicity, BMI, waist : hip ratio, and energy expenditure), (2) IntraMAT and TUG (covariates: diabetes, age, BMI, and energy expenditure), and (3) IntraMAT and grip strength (covariates: diabetes, age, height, and lean mass). Results. Women with diabetes had more IntraMAT. After adjustment, IntraMAT was similar between groups (diabetes mean [SD] = 13.2 [1.4]%, controls 11.8 [1.3]%, P = 0.515). IntraMAT was related to TUG and grip strength, but the relationships became nonsignificant after adjustment for covariates (difference/percent IntraMAT [95% CI]: TUG = 0.041 seconds [−0.079–0.161], P = 0.498, grip strength = −0.144 kg [−0.335–0.066], P = 0.175). Conclusions. IntraMAT alone may not be a clinically important predictor of functional mobility and strength; however, whether losses in functional mobility and strength are promoted by IntraMAT accumulation should be explored.