4.7 Article

Relationship between arm-to-leg and limbs-to-trunk body composition ratio and cardiovascular disease risk factors

Journal

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
Volume 11, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-96874-8

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study found that a higher ratio of body fat mass in the arms and legs was associated with an increased prevalence of cardiovascular disease risk factors, while a higher ratio of body fat mass in the limbs compared to the trunk was associated with a decreased prevalence of these risk factors.
We aimed to analyze the relationship of the distribution of body fat mass (FM) and fat-free mass (FFM) in the limbs and trunk with the prevalence of cardiovascular disease risk factors (CVD-RF). In total, 13,032 adults were selected from the KNHANES (2008-2011). The prevalence of hypertension, diabetes mellitus (DM), dyslipidemia, and metabolic syndrome (MetS) according to the arm-to-leg ratio and limbs-to-trunk ratio for FM and FFM was compared, respectively. The higher the arm-to-leg FM ratio, the higher the prevalence of CVD-RF (DM-male-OR 7.04, 95% CI 4.22-11.74; DM-female-OR 10.57, 95% CI 5.80-19.26; MetS-male-OR 4.47, 95% CI 3.41- 5.86; MetS-female-OR 8.73, 95% CI 6.38-11.95). The higher the limbs-to-trunk FM ratio (DM-male-OR 0.12, 95% CI 0.07-0.21; DM-female-OR 0.12, 95% CI 0.06-0.23; MetS-male-OR 0.06, 95% CI 0.04-0.08; MetS-female-OR 0.02, 95% CI 0.01-0.04), the higher the limbs-to-trunk FFM ratio (DM-male-OR 0.19, 95% CI 0.11-0.31; DM-female-OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.30-0.70; MetS-male-OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.31-0.50; MetS-female-OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.50-0.78), and the higher the arm-to-leg FFM ratio (MetS-male-OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.59-0.94; MetS-female-OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.58-0.92), the lower the prevalence of CVD-RF. The higher the FM of the legs compared to the arms, FFM of the arms compared to the legs, and FM or FFM of the limbs compared to the trunk, the lower the prevalence of CVD-RF.

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