3.9 Article

Profile of free fatty acids (FFA) in serum of young Colombians with obesity and metabolic syndrome.

期刊

ARCHIVOS LATINOAMERICANOS DE NUTRICION
卷 64, 期 4, 页码 248-257

出版社

ARCHIVOS LATINOAMERICANOS NUTRICION

关键词

Obesity; metabolic syndrome; free fatty acid; young

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Obesity produces greater circulation of free fatty acids (FFA). In adults, the FFA composition changes in states of obesity; in adolescents, the results are contradictory. This study compare the FFA profile of obese youth with and without Metabolic Syndrome (MetS) and explore the association between FFA and metabolic alterations of obesity and MetS. A cross-sectional study with 96 young people between 10 and 18 years old was divided into three groups: 1) obese youth with MetS, 2) obese youth without MetS; and 3) adequate weight (AW), matched according to age, gender, pubertal maturation and socioeconomic stratum. The nutritional status was classified according to the body-mass index (BMI), according to the World Health Organization 2007 (WHO, 2007); the waist circumference (WC), adiposity, lipid profile, highly-sensitive reactive C protein (hsRCP), glucose, insulin and insulin resistance (IR), according to the homeostatic model assessment (HOMA Calculator Version 2.2.2). The FFA serum concentration was determined by gas chromatography. Both obese groups had higher adiposity, inflamation (hsRCP), FFA totals and frequency palmitoleic-16:In7, compared to AW. The obese with MetS presented more metabolic alterations, a greater amount of dihomo-gamma-linolenic (DHGL-20:3n6) and a 20: 3n6/18:2n6 relation, indicative of increased activity of Delta 6 desaturase (D6D). The FFA totals, palmitoleic-16:1n7, DHGL-20:3n6, D6D activity and hsRCP significantly correlated with variables of adiposity, IR and triglicerides. The results in obese with MetS corroborate the association among central obesity, inflammation and increased lipolysis in visceral adipose tissue and metabolic alterations.

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

3.9
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