4.7 Article

Associations of Cardiorespiratory Fitness and Obesity With Risks of Impaired Fasting Glucose and Type 2 Diabetes in Men

Journal

DIABETES CARE
Volume 32, Issue 2, Pages 257-262

Publisher

AMER DIABETES ASSOC
DOI: 10.2337/dc08-1377

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health [AG06945, HL62508]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

OBJECTIVE - The purpose of this study was to examine the associations of cardiorespiratory fitness (hereafter fitness) and various obesity measures with risks of incident impaired Fasting glucose (IFG) and type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS - This was a prospective cohort Study of 14,006 men (7,795 for the analyses of IFG), who did not have an abnormal electrocardiogram or a history of heart attack, stroke, cancer, or diabetes. RESULTS - Of the men, 3,612 (39,61.0 person-years) and 477 (101,419 person-years) developed IFG and type 2 diabetes, respectively. Compared with the least fit 20% in multivariate analyses, IFG and type 2 diabetes risks in the most fit 20% were 14 and 52% lower, respectively (both P 0.001). Men with BMI >= 30.0 kg/m(2), waist girth > 102.0 cm, or percent body fat >=-25 had 2.7-, 1.9-, and 1.3-fold higher risks for type 2 diabetes, respectively, compared with those for nonobese men (all P < 0.01), and the results for IFG were similar. in the combined analyses, obese unfit (least fit 20%) men had a 5.7-fold higher risk for type 2 diabetes compared with normal-weight fit (most fit 80%) men. We observed similar trends for the joint associations of BMI and fitness with IFG and those of waist girth or percent body fat and fitness with both IFG and type 2 diabetes. CONCLUSIONS- Low fitness and obesity increased the risks of IFG and type 2 diabetes by approximately similar magnitudes. When considered simultaneously, fitness attenuated but did not eliminate the increased risks of IFG and type 2 diabetes associated with obesity, and the highest risk was found in obese and unfit 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

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available