4.7 Article

Additional role of sarcopenia to waist circumference in predicting the odds of metabolic syndrome

期刊

CLINICAL NUTRITION
卷 33, 期 4, 页码 668-672

出版社

CHURCHILL LIVINGSTONE
DOI: 10.1016/j.clnu.2013.08.008

关键词

Sarcopenia; Abdominal obesity; Waist circumference; Metabolic syndrome

资金

  1. Inje University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background & aims: It is unclear whether sarcopenia contributes to the prediction of metabolic dysregulations in addition to that predicted by waist circumference. Methods: Subjects consisted of 6832 adult participants in the 2009 Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, grouped into categories of waist circumference (normal vs. high). Sarcopenia was assessed by appendicular skeletal muscle mass divided by weight. Results: In the normal waist circumference category, the risk of metabolic syndrome was nearly 3.5-fold higher in sarcopenic men (OR, 339; 95% CI, 1.67-6.90) than in those without sarcopenia. For the high waist circumference category, the risk of metabolic syndrome was 2.5-fold higher in sarcopenic women (OR, 2.37; 95% CI, 1.66-3.40) than in those without sarcopenia. The corresponding risk was also higher in sarcopenic men (OR, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.11-2.94) than in those without sarcopenia. With the exception in men with high waist circumference category, adjustments for other potential confounders did not substantially affect the results. Appendicular skeletal muscle mass divided by weight as a continuous variable was also associated with metabolic syndrome in men (OR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.35-0.44) and women (OR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.48-0.60). Conclusions: Sarcopenia is associated with metabolic syndrome in men with normal waist circumference and women with high waist circumference. Our results emphasize that sarcopenia may contribute additionally to the risk of metabolic abnormalities beyond what is predicted by the abdominal obesity category. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd and European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism. 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

4.7
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