4.3 Article

Ageing, adiposity indexes and low muscle mass in a clinical sample of overweight and obese women

期刊

OBESITY RESEARCH & CLINICAL PRACTICE
卷 6, 期 1, 页码 E63-E70

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.orcp.2011.05.001

关键词

Ageing; Muscle mass; Body composition; Waist circumference; Bioelectrical impedance analysis

资金

  1. Joint European Post-Doctoral Programme: The European Research Area in Ageing (ERA-AGE) Network FLARE Programme

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Ageing is associated with a progressive decline in the quantity (mass) and quality (function) of the muscular tissue. To assess the prevalence of low muscle mass (LMM) alone and in combination with high adiposity (LMM-HA) in a clinical representative sample of adult women and to determine how the prevalence of (LMM-HA) changes using different adiposity indexes. Methods: 763 overweight and obese women (age range: 18-87 years) attending a weight loss clinic. Weight, height, and waist circumference (WC) were measured and BMI calculated. Bioelectrical impedance (BIA) was used to measure fat mass (FM). Skeletal muscle index (SMI) was used for the diagnosis of LMM. Adiposity indexes (BMI, WC, FM%, FM index) were combined with SMI to assess the prevalence of LMM-HA. Results: The prevalence of LMM was 27.4% in women older than 60 years. Established cut-off scores for excess adiposity determined differences in the prevalence of LMM-HA. The lowest was observed using the BMI derived cut-off score (>= 30 kg/m(2)), with FM% (>= 35%) the most inclusive, classifying more than 90% of sarcopenia cases as LMM-HA. Conclusions: The prevalence of LMM-HA is different between anthropometric (BMI, WC) and bioimpedance measures (FM% and FMI) of adiposity. The sensitivity of the adiposity indexes for the diagnosis of sarcopenic obesity and its impact on the prediction of cardio-metabolic diseases remain to be tested. (C) 2011 Asian Oceanian Association for the Study of Obesity. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.3
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