4.3 Article

Postprandial Triglyceride Response in Men: Role of Overweight, Abdominal Fat and Nutrition

Journal

OBESITY FACTS
Volume 1, Issue 1, Pages 45-51

Publisher

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000115361

Keywords

Postprandial triglyceride response; Postprandial triglyceride peak value; Triglyceride-area under curve; Fasting triglyceride levels; Cardiometabolic risk

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: The study analyses i) the effect of overweight, waist circumference and dietary habits on postprandial (pp) triglyceride (TG) response and compares ii) pp TG response with fasting TG levels and iii) pp TG peak values with TG-AUC (area under curve) with respect to cardiometabolic risk assessment. Methods: In 100 men (44-68 years) body composition (air-displacement plethysmography), dietary habits, cardiometabolic risk and pp lipid metabolism (standardised lipid load) were assessed. A pp TG peak value of 260 mg/dl was used as a cut-off to classify TG normal- and high-responders. Results: pp TG response had positive associations with BMI (r = 0.24; p < 0.05), fat mass (r = 0.28; p < 0.01), waist circumference (r = 0.33; p < 0.01), systolic blood pressure (r = 0.21; p < 0.05), fasting (r = 0.29; p < 0.01) and pp glucose (r = 0.40; p < 0.001), fasting (r = 0.38; p < 0.001) and pp insulin levels (r = 0.46; p < 0.001), and inverse associations with HDL-C (r = -0.43; p < 0.001) and intake of dietary fibre (r = -0.31; p < 0.05). Fasting TG levels had a greater contribution to the variance in 12 of 14 cardiometabolic risk factors compared to pp TG response. TG-AUC was highly correlated to cardiometabolic risk. Conclusion: Overweight, abdominal fat and a low intake of dietary fibre were determinants of increased pp TG response. Contrary to findings in younger normal-weight men, fasting TG levels had a stronger association with cardiometabolic risk compared to pp TG response. This might be explained by differences in fat mass.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available