4.5 Article

Prevalence of metabolically obese but normal weight (MONW) and metabolically healthy but obese (MHO) in Chinese Beijing urban subjects

Journal

BIOSCIENCE TRENDS
Volume 11, Issue 4, Pages 418-426

Publisher

IRCA-BSSA
DOI: 10.5582/bst.2017.01016

Keywords

Metabolic syndrome; metabolically obese but normal weight (MONW); metabolically healthy but obese (MHO); prevalence

Categories

Funding

  1. China's 12th Five Year Plan Project [2012ZX09303-008-002]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation [51672030]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The aim of this study was to assess the prevalence of metabolic syndrome (MetS) in nonobese adults (body mass index (BMI) < 25 kg/m(2)) and the prevalence of obese adults (body mass index (BMI) >= 25 kg/m(2)) without MetS in Chinese Beijing urban subjects. A crosssectional study was conducted and the subjects who came to the hospital to receive a health examination were enrolled randomly. Regardless of age stratification, men have a higher prevalence of MetS than women. Among the urban Beijing population, prevalence of metabolically obese but normal weight (MONW) is lower than metabolically healthy but obese (MHO) regardless of gender. Except for the underweight group, participants exhibit significant differences between MetS and non-MetS subgroups in all tested variables in normal weight and overweight groups, whereas MONW and MHO participants exhibit significant differences in all variables except for creatinine (CR), aspartate aminotransferase (AST), uric acid (UAC) and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C). Women tend to have a higher MONW prevalence but lower MHO prevalence than men. Accordingly, MetS happens more frequently among those 40-59 yr. Besides, sex, age, WC, SBP, DBP, ALT, FG, UAC, TG, HDL-C and LDL-C are risk factors for MetS after multivariate adjustment. In conclusion, the prevalence of MONW is lower than MHO regardless of gender. Women tend to have a higher MONW prevalence but lower MHO prevalence than men.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available