Why the study?
Is gender-specific pattern of fat mass distribution related to gender differences in cardiometabolic risk factors in healthy middle-aged adults?
Is gender-specific pattern of fat mass distribution related to gender differences in cardiometabolic risk factors in healthy middle-aged adults?
Android and gynoid patterns of fat mass distribution contribute to gender differences in cardiometabolic risk factors in healthy middle-aged adults.
Supports sex-specific fat distribution in cardiometabolic risk assessment; extends observational data but leaves causal inference open.
The aim of this study was to assess whether the gender-specific pattern of fat mass (FM) distribution is related to gender differences in cardiometabolic risk factors. 207 healthy middle-aged Japanese were included in the study. We measured FM in the total body, trunk, and lower-body with dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA). The percentage of trunk FM (TFM) and lower-body FM (LFM) is noted as %TFM and %LFM, respectively. Other measurements included glucose and insulin during oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT), leptin, adiponectin, plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 (PAI-1), tumor necrosis factor- α (TNF- α ), C-reactive protein (CRP), and systemic oxidative stress marker. Arterial properties were indicated by cardio-ankle vascular index (CAVI) and intima-media thickness (IMT) of the common carotid artery. The results showed that %TFM is higher whereas %LFM is lower in men than in women and men have a more atherogenic cardiometabolic profile. In both genders, %TFM (%LFM) is related to an unfavorable (favorable) cardiometabolic profile. In particular, the relation between %LFM and OGTT-derived insulin sensitivity index is stronger in women than in men. These findings suggested that in relatively healthy adults, android and gynoid pattern of FM distribution contributes to gender differences in cardiometabolic risk factors.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wu et al. (2018) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: