4.6 Article

Macular pigment and percentage of body fat

期刊

INVESTIGATIVE OPHTHALMOLOGY & VISUAL SCIENCE
卷 45, 期 11, 页码 3940-3950

出版社

ASSOC RESEARCH VISION OPHTHALMOLOGY INC
DOI: 10.1167/iovs.04-0273

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PURPOSE. To investigate the relationship between percentage of body fat and macular pigment (MP) optical density. METHODS. One hundred healthy subjects of ages between 22 and 60 years volunteered to participate in this study. NIP optical density was measured psychophysically, serum lutein and zeaxanthin were quantified by HPLC, and dietary intake of lutein and zeaxanthin was assessed using a validated food frequency questionnaire. Body fat was measured by dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA); body mass index (BMI) was also calculated for each subject. Clinical and personal details were recorded, with particular attention directed toward putative risk factors for AMD. RESULTS. There was a significant inverse relationship between the percentage of body fat and NIP optical density in males (r = -0.392, P < 0.01), and after correcting for age and dietary lutein and zeaxanthin, this inverse relationship remained Significant (r = -0.290, P < 0.05). The relationship between MP optical density and percentage of body fat in females was inverse, but not significant (r = -0.197, P = 0.149). A significant and inverse relationship between serum zeaxanthin and percentage of body fat was observed for females only (r = -0.354, P < 0.01). Dietary intake of fat was inversely related to serum lutein and zeaxanthin, and significantly so for lutein (r = -0.256, P < 0.05). However, dietary fat was unrelated to MP optical density (r = 0.041, P = 0.688). CONCLUSIONS. A relative lack of MP is associated with adiposity in men, and may underlie the association between body fat and risk for AMD progression in males. Further, the processes governing accumulation and/or stabilization of lutein and zeaxanthin in fat tissue appear to differ for males and females.

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

4.6
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