Identification of a healthy visceral adipose tissue range reducing diabetes and osteoporosis risk in mid-life women, suggesting effective risk stratification.
Context Visceral adipose tissue (VAT) is increasingly recognized as a key determinant of diabetes and osteoporosis risk. However, clinically relevant VAT thresholds associated with both osteoporosis and type 2 diabetes remain undefined. Objective Utilizing the diametrically opposing effects of VAT for risk of diabetes and osteoporosis, this study aimed to identify a healthy VAT range minimizing risk for both conditions. Methods We used baseline data from the Integrated Women’s Health Program (IWHP), cohort of community-dwelling mid-life Singaporean women, to construct a spline-based odds ratio (OR) curve to assess the nonlinear relationship between VAT and the combined risk of osteoporosis and/or diabetes. A healthy VAT range was defined as the interval where the OR approached 1.0. Validation was conducted using longitudinal follow-up over 6.8 years, with modified Poisson regression models adjusted for age and ethnicity to estimate relative risks for incident (new) disease. Results In mid-life women (n = 1185, mean age: 56.3 ± 6.2, age range: 45.0 to 69.6 years), U-shaped spline OR curve for the combined risk of osteoporosis and/or diabetes was observed. An optimal VAT range of 46.5-116.6 cm2 was identified wherein OR was ≤1.0 for both conditions. Participants with VAT <46.5 cm2 had a twofold increased risk of developing incident osteoporosis (adjusted relative risk, aRR: 2.04, 95% confidence intervals, CI: 0.95-4.40) but no incident diabetes. Conversely, those with VAT >116.6 cm2 had significantly higher risk of incident diabetes (aRR: 2.89, 95% CI: 1.68-4.98) and lower risk of incident osteoporosis (aRR: 0.33, 95% CI: 0.17-0.64). Conclusion These findings establish a clinically actionable VAT range (46.5-116.6 cm2) that may guide metabolic and skeletal disease risk stratification and inform preventive care strategies.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tan et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: