4.7 Article

Percentage of Body Fat and Fat Mass Index as a Screening Tool for Metabolic Syndrome Prediction in Colombian University Students

Journal

NUTRIENTS
Volume 9, Issue 9, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/nu9091009

Keywords

obesity; adiposity; fat mass; metabolic syndrome

Funding

  1. Centre for Studies on Measurement of Physical Activity, School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Universidad del Rosario [FIUR DN-BG001]
  2. Universidad de Boyaca [RECT 60]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

High body fat is related to metabolic syndrome (MetS) in all ethnic groups. Based on the International Diabetes Federation (IDF) definition of MetS, the aim of this study was to explore thresholds of body fat percentage (BF%) and fat mass index (FMI) for the prediction of MetS among Colombian University students. A cross-sectional study was conducted on 1687 volunteers (63.4% women, mean age = 20.6 years). Weight, waist circumference, serum lipids indices, blood pressure, and fasting plasma glucose were measured. Body composition was measured by bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) and FMI was calculated. MetS was defined as including more than or equal to three of the metabolic abnormalities according to the IDF definition. Receiver operating curve (ROC) analysis was used to determine optimal cut-off points for BF% and FMI in relation to the area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity in both sexes. The overall prevalence of MetS was found to be 7.7%, higher in men than women (11.1% vs. 5.3%; p < 0.001). BF% and FMI were positively correlated to MetS components (p < 0.05). ROC analysis indicated that BF% and FMI can be used with moderate accuracy to identify MetS in university-aged students. BF% and FMI thresholds of 25.55% and 6.97 kg/m(2) in men, and 38.95% and 11.86 kg/m(2) in women, were found to be indicative of high MetS risk. Based on the IDF criteria, both indexes' thresholds seem to be good tools to identify university students with unfavorable metabolic profiles.

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