4.7 Article

Predictors of Metabolically Healthy Obesity in Children

Journal

DIABETES CARE
Volume 37, Issue 5, Pages 1462-1468

Publisher

AMER DIABETES ASSOC
DOI: 10.2337/dc13-1697

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Canadian Institutes of Health Research
  2. Alberta Innovates-Health Solutions

Ask authors/readers for more resources

OBJECTIVETo determine the prevalence of metabolically healthy obesity (MHO) in children and examine the demographic, adiposity, and lifestyle predictors of MHO status.RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODSThis cross-sectional study included 8-17 year olds with a BMI 85th percentile who were enrolled in a multidisciplinary pediatric weight management clinic from 2005-2010. Demographic, anthropometric, lifestyle, and cardiometabolic data were retrieved by retrospective medical record review. Participants were dichotomized as either MHO or metabolically unhealthy obese (MUO) according to two separate classification systems based on: 1) insulin resistance (IR) and 2) cardiometabolic risk (CR) factors (blood pressure, serum lipids, and glucose). Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine predictors of MHO using odds ratios (ORs) with 95% CIs.RESULTSThe prevalence of MHO-IR was 31.5% (n = 57 of 181) and MHO-CR was 21.5% (n = 39 of 181). Waist circumference (OR 0.33 [95% CI 0.18-0.59]; P = 0.0002) and dietary fat intake (OR 0.56 [95% CI 0.31-0.95]; P = 0.04) were independent predictors of MHO-IR; moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (OR 1.80 [95% CI 1.24-2.62]; P = 0.002) was the strongest independent predictor of MHO-CR.CONCLUSIONSUp to one in three children with obesity can be classified as MHO. Depending on the definition, adiposity and lifestyle behaviors both play important roles in predicting MHO status. These findings can inform for whom health services for managing pediatric obesity should be prioritized, especially in circumstances when boys and girls present with CR factors.

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