3.8 Article

Both subcutaneous and visceral adipose tissue correlate highly with insulin resistance in African Americans

Journal

OBESITY RESEARCH
Volume 12, Issue 8, Pages 1352-1359

Publisher

NORTH AMER ASSOC STUDY OBESITY
DOI: 10.1038/oby.2004.170

Keywords

abdominal obesity; colinearity; insulin resistance complications; African American

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: The contribution of visceral adipose tissue (VAT) to insulin resistance is well-established; however, the role of subcutaneous abdominal adipose tissue (SAT) in insulin resistance remains controversial. Sex may determine which of these two components of abdominal obesity is more strongly related to insulin resistance and its consequences. The aim of this study was to determine whether both VAT and SAT contribute to insulin resistance in African Americans and to examine the effects of sex on this relationship. Research Methods and Procedures: This was a cross-sectional study of 78 nondiabetic African-American volunteers (44 men, 35 women; age 33.8 +/- 7.3 years; BMI 30.9 +/- 7.4 kg/m(2)). VAT and SAT volumes were measured using serial computerized tomography slices from the dome of the diaphragm to the iliac crest. The insulin sensitivity index (S,) was determined from the minimal model using data obtained from the frequently sampled intravenous glucose tolerance test. Results: In men, both VAT and SAT were negatively correlated with S-I (r for both correlations = -0.57; p < 0.01). In women, the correlation coefficient between VAT and S, was -0.50 (p < 0.01) and between SAT and S-I was -0.67 (p < 0.01). In women, the correlation coefficient for SI with SAT was significantly greater than the correlation coefficient with VAT (p = 0.02). Discussion: Both SAT and VAT are strongly correlated with insulin resistance in African Americans. For AfricanAmerican women, SAT may have a greater effect than VAT on insulin resistance.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available