Relative fat mass is a better predictor of dyslipidemia and metabolic syndrome than body mass index.

Abstract

Relative fat mass (RFM) had been recently developed. We aimed to examine RFM predictability to various cardiometabolic risk factors, compared to BMI. Methods Observational, cohort study, among patients who visited the Rambam Periodic Examinations Institute (RPEI). We compared the correlation of BMI and RFM to hypertension, impaired fasting glucose, high LDL, low HDL and metabolic syndrome, by gender. Results During study years, 20 167 patients visited the RPEI and included in the trial. Compared to BMI, RFM showed significantly better predictability (odds ratio [OR], [95% confidence interval (CI), P value]) of high LDL [1.618 (1.441-1.816, P < 0.001) vs. 0.732 (0.67-0.8, P < 0.001) in men; 1.572 (1.377-1.794, P < 0.001) vs. 0.938 (0.849-1.163, P = 0.94) in women], low HDL [2.944 (2.569-3.373, P < 0.001) vs. 2.177 (2-2.369, P < 0.001) in men, 2.947 (2.519-3.448, P < 0.001) vs. 1.9 (1.658-2.176, P < 0.001) in women], high triglycerides [4.019 (3.332-4.847, P < 0.001) vs. 1.994 (1.823-2.181, P < 0.001) in men, 3.93 (2.943-5.247, P < 0.001) vs. 2.24 (1.887-2.62, P < 0.001) in women] and metabolic syndrome [7.479, (4.876-11.47, P < 0.001) vs. 3.263 (2.944-3.616, P < 0.001) in men, 16.247 (8.348-31.619, P < 0.001) vs. 5.995 (5.099-7.048, P < 0.001) in women]. There was no significant difference in the predictability of BMI and RFM to hypertension and diabetes mellitus. Conclusion RFM provides high predictability for dyslipidemias and metabolic syndrome.