{"title":"Body weight, body fat and skeletal muscle status in elderly patients with diabetes","authors":"Qizhi An, Xin Tao, Lirui Wang, Chun-wei Li","doi":"10.3760/CMA.J.ISSN.1674-635X.2018.03.006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective \nTo investigate the status of body weight, total body fat and skeletal muscle in elderly patients with diabetes. \n \n \nMethods \nA total of 71 elderly diabetic patients (study group) who met entry criteria and signed informed consent were consecutively enrolled, and 70 healthy subjects (control group) matched for age and gender were selected into the study. Body weight, body mass index (BMI), waist-to-hip ratio (WHR), total body fat (TBF), abdominal fat (AF), visceral fat (VF), visceral fat area (VFA), fat-free mass (FFM), total body muscle (TBM), skeletal muscle (SM), skeletal muscle height index (SMHI) and grip strength (GS) were measured by anthropometry and multi-frequency bioelectric impedance analysis. The rate of low weight, overweight and obesity was judged by BMI; the rate of abdominal obesity by WHR; and the status of muscle by TBM, SM, MHI and GS. \n \n \nResults \nThe two groups were comparable at baseline. Compared to the control group, the rate of low weight [36.6% (26/71) vs. 20.0% (14/70), χ2=4.791, P=0.039], weight loss [(1.37±1.57)kg vs. (0.82±1.12)kg, t=2.402, P=0.018], ratio of people who experienced weight loss>5% in 3 months [22.5% (16/71) vs. 8.6% (6/70), χ2=5.219, P=0.035], TBF%[(32.3±5.0)% vs. (30.3±5.2)%, t=2.294, P=0.023], WHR(0.91±0.55 vs. 0.87±0.51, t=2.661, P=0.009), the rate of abdominal obesity[49.3% (35/71) vs. 25.7%(18/70), χ2=8.355, P=0.005], AF[(12.1±3.4)kg vs. (10.3±3.6)kg, t=2.981, P=0.003], VF[(2.9±0.8)kg vs.(2.5±0.9)kg, t=2.853, P=0.005] and VFA[(99.8±26.3)cm2vs. (84.9±31.1)cm2,t=3.045, P=0.003] were increased significantly in study group, while the FFM[(34.9±7.5)kg vs. (37.9±5.6)kg, t=-2.691, P=0.008], SM[(25.8±4.5)kg vs.(27.3±3.5)kg, t=-2.140, P=0.034], SMHI[(9.4±1.8)kg/m2vs. (10.2±1.5)kg/m2,t=-3.081, P=0.002] and GS[(29.3±6.6)kg vs. (31.8±5.7)kg, t=-2.406, P=0.017] were decreased significantly in study group. \n \n \nConclusion \nAbnormal weight, abdominal obesity and loss of skeletal muscle were more likely to be observed in elderly patients with diabetes. \n \n \nKey words: \nDiabetes mellitus; Aged; Body fat; Obesity, abdominal; Skeletal muscle; Grip strength","PeriodicalId":9877,"journal":{"name":"中华临床营养杂志","volume":"26 1","pages":"170-175"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"中华临床营养杂志","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3760/CMA.J.ISSN.1674-635X.2018.03.006","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Nursing","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective
To investigate the status of body weight, total body fat and skeletal muscle in elderly patients with diabetes.
Methods
A total of 71 elderly diabetic patients (study group) who met entry criteria and signed informed consent were consecutively enrolled, and 70 healthy subjects (control group) matched for age and gender were selected into the study. Body weight, body mass index (BMI), waist-to-hip ratio (WHR), total body fat (TBF), abdominal fat (AF), visceral fat (VF), visceral fat area (VFA), fat-free mass (FFM), total body muscle (TBM), skeletal muscle (SM), skeletal muscle height index (SMHI) and grip strength (GS) were measured by anthropometry and multi-frequency bioelectric impedance analysis. The rate of low weight, overweight and obesity was judged by BMI; the rate of abdominal obesity by WHR; and the status of muscle by TBM, SM, MHI and GS.
Results
The two groups were comparable at baseline. Compared to the control group, the rate of low weight [36.6% (26/71) vs. 20.0% (14/70), χ2=4.791, P=0.039], weight loss [(1.37±1.57)kg vs. (0.82±1.12)kg, t=2.402, P=0.018], ratio of people who experienced weight loss>5% in 3 months [22.5% (16/71) vs. 8.6% (6/70), χ2=5.219, P=0.035], TBF%[(32.3±5.0)% vs. (30.3±5.2)%, t=2.294, P=0.023], WHR(0.91±0.55 vs. 0.87±0.51, t=2.661, P=0.009), the rate of abdominal obesity[49.3% (35/71) vs. 25.7%(18/70), χ2=8.355, P=0.005], AF[(12.1±3.4)kg vs. (10.3±3.6)kg, t=2.981, P=0.003], VF[(2.9±0.8)kg vs.(2.5±0.9)kg, t=2.853, P=0.005] and VFA[(99.8±26.3)cm2vs. (84.9±31.1)cm2,t=3.045, P=0.003] were increased significantly in study group, while the FFM[(34.9±7.5)kg vs. (37.9±5.6)kg, t=-2.691, P=0.008], SM[(25.8±4.5)kg vs.(27.3±3.5)kg, t=-2.140, P=0.034], SMHI[(9.4±1.8)kg/m2vs. (10.2±1.5)kg/m2,t=-3.081, P=0.002] and GS[(29.3±6.6)kg vs. (31.8±5.7)kg, t=-2.406, P=0.017] were decreased significantly in study group.
Conclusion
Abnormal weight, abdominal obesity and loss of skeletal muscle were more likely to be observed in elderly patients with diabetes.
Key words:
Diabetes mellitus; Aged; Body fat; Obesity, abdominal; Skeletal muscle; Grip strength
期刊介绍:
The Chinese Journal of Clinical Nutrition was founded in 1993. It is the first professional academic journal (bimonthly) in my country co-sponsored by the Chinese Medical Association and the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences to disseminate information on clinical nutrition support, nutrient metabolism, the impact of nutrition support on outcomes and "cost-effectiveness", as well as translational medicine and nutrition research. It is also a professional journal of the Chinese Medical Association's Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition Branch.
The purpose of the Chinese Journal of Clinical Nutrition is to promote the rapid dissemination of knowledge on nutrient metabolism and the rational application of parenteral and enteral nutrition, focusing on the combination of multidisciplinary and multi-regional field investigations and clinical research. It mainly reports on nutritional risk screening related to the indications of parenteral and enteral nutrition support, "cost-effectiveness" research on nutritional drugs, consensus on clinical nutrition, guidelines, expert reviews, randomized controlled studies, cohort studies, glycoprotein and other nutrient metabolism research, systematic evaluation of clinical research, evidence-based case reports, special reviews, case reports and clinical experience exchanges, etc., and has a special column on new technologies related to the field of clinical nutrition and their clinical applications.