4.7 Article

Gender differences of regional abdominal fat distribution and their relationships with insulin sensitivity in healthy and glucose-intolerant thais

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM
Volume 89, Issue 12, Pages 6266-6270

Publisher

ENDOCRINE SOC
DOI: 10.1210/jc.2004-0209

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

To determine gender differences of regional abdominal fat distribution and their relationships with insulin sensitivity in healthy and glucose-intolerant Thais, 44 subjects, 22 men and 22 body mass index-matched women, with normal and abnormal glucose tolerance, which included subjects with impaired glucose tolerance and diabetes, were studied. Total body fat and total abdominal fat (TAF) at L-1-L-4 were measured by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry. Regional abdominal fat, which consists of sc abdominal fat and visceral abdominal fat, was determined by single-slice computerized tomography of the abdomen at L-4-L-5 disc space level. Insulin sensitivity was determined by euglycemic hyperinsulinemic clamp and expressed as glucose infusion rate (GIR). With comparable body mass index, visceral abdominal fat was most strongly correlated with GIR after adjustment with percent total body fat in both healthy (r = -0.8155; P = 0.007) and glucose-intolerant women (r = -0.7597; P = 0.011), whereas TAF was most strongly correlated with GIR in both healthy (r = -0.8114; P = 0.008) and glucose-intolerant men (r = -0.6194; P = 0.101). By linear regression analysis, visceral abdominal fat accounted for 35.0% (beta = -3.53 x 10(-2); P = 0.001) of GIR variance in women, whereas TAF accounted for 39.3% (beta = -1.28 x 10(-4); P<0.0001) of GIR variance in men. We conclude that there are gender differences in the relationships of regional abdominal fat and insulin sensitivity in slightly obese healthy and glucose-intolerant Thais, the difference of which may possibly be in part due to the difference of abdominal fat patterning between genders.

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