4.7 Article

Body Composition and Energy Metabolism Following Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass Surgery

Journal

OBESITY
Volume 18, Issue 9, Pages 1718-1724

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1038/oby.2010.89

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases [RO1-DK070860]
  2. National Center for Research Resources [1 UL1 RR024975]
  3. Vanderbilt Diabetes Research and Training Center [DK20593]
  4. Vanderbilt Digestive Disease Research Center [DK058404]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) surgery has become an accepted treatment for excessive obesity. We conducted a longitudinal study to assess regional body composition, muscle proteolysis, and energy expenditure before RYGB, and 6 and 12 months after RYGB. Whole-body and regional fat mass (FM) and lean mass (LM) were assessed via dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), and myofibrillar protein degradation was estimated by urinary 3-methylhistidine (3-MeH) in 29 subjects. Energy expenditure and substrate oxidation were also determined using a whole-room, indirect calorimeter in 12 of these subjects. LM loss constituted 27.8 +/- 10.2% of total weight loss achieved 12 months postoperatively, with the majority of LM loss (18 +/- 6% of initial LM) occurring in the first 6 months following RYGB. During this period, the trunk region contributed 66% of whole-body LM loss. LM loss occurred in the first 6 months after RYGB despite decreased muscle protein breakdown, as indicated by a decrease in 3-MeH concentrations and muscle fractional breakdown rates. Sleep energy expenditure (SEE) decreased from 2,092 +/- 342 kcal/d at baseline to 1,495 +/- 190 kcal/day at 6 months after RYGB (P < 0.0001). Changes in both LM and FM had an effect on the reduction in SEE (P < 0.001 and P = 0.005, respectively). These studies suggest that loss of LM after RYGB is significant and strategies to maintain LM after surgery should be explored.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available