4.1 Article

Anthropometric Measurements and Diabetes Mellitus: Clues to the Pathogenic and Protective Potential of Adipose Tissue

期刊

METABOLIC SYNDROME AND RELATED DISORDERS
卷 8, 期 4, 页码 307-315

出版社

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/met.2009.0089

关键词

-

资金

  1. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Increased visceral adipose tissue (VAT) is pathogenic through adverse endocrine and immune contributions to metabolic diseases such as diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and dyslipidemia. Increased VAT increases waist circumference (WC), and WC is a recommended anthropometric measure of pathogenic adipose tissue distribution. Increased subcutaneous adipose tissue (SAT) is often described as protective against metabolic disease and frequently approximated by hip circumference (HC). Methods: The Study to Help Improve Early evaluation and management of risk factors Leading to Diabetes (SHIELD) evaluated a study sample weighted to reflect the U. S. adult population. Respondents diagnosed with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM; n = 3825) and without T2DM (n = 13,327) self-reported their weight and height, WC, and HC. Results: T2DM men and women had a disproportionate increase in body mass index (BMI) and WC, with 30% of T2DM men and 40% of T2DM women having a WC within the highest quintile compared to the overall study population. Waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) appeared to be the best anthropometric predictor of T2DM. However, both T2DM men and women also had a disproportionate increase in HC, with 30% of T2DM men and 34% of T2DM women having a HC within the highest quintile, which was generally similar to the distribution of BMI and WHR. Conclusions: This analysis suggests that: (1) An increase in adipose tissue generally increases the risk of T2DM; (2) central adiposity is more pathogenic than peripheral subcutaneous adiposity; and (3) SAT accumulation, as assessed by increased HC, does not always protect against metabolic diseases such as T2DM.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据