身体体质评级作为识别代谢综合征墨西哥高危人群的一个因素

IF 1.9 Q3 ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM Human Nutrition and Metabolism Pub Date : 2023-09-01 DOI:10.1016/j.hnm.2023.200206
Oscar Herrera-Fomperosa , Sergio K. Bustamante-Villagomez , Sarahí Vazquez-Álvarez , Gabriela Vázquez-Marroquín , Leonardo M. Porchia , Enrique Torres-Rasgado , Ricardo Pérez-Fuentes , M. Elba Gonzalez-Mejia
{"title":"身体体质评级作为识别代谢综合征墨西哥高危人群的一个因素","authors":"Oscar Herrera-Fomperosa ,&nbsp;Sergio K. Bustamante-Villagomez ,&nbsp;Sarahí Vazquez-Álvarez ,&nbsp;Gabriela Vázquez-Marroquín ,&nbsp;Leonardo M. Porchia ,&nbsp;Enrique Torres-Rasgado ,&nbsp;Ricardo Pérez-Fuentes ,&nbsp;M. Elba Gonzalez-Mejia","doi":"10.1016/j.hnm.2023.200206","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background and aims</h3><p>Body physique rating (BPR) is an index in which fat mass and muscle mass are used to indicate nine different body types. To our knowledge, there are no studies testing if there is a correlation between BPR and the risk of developing Metabolic Syndrome (MetS). Our objective was to assess if the BPR classification is an acceptable tool for assessing MetS risk in a population from Central Mexico.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Subjects attending either IMSS UMF-2 or CSU-1 were asked to participate in this cross-sectional study. The participant's BPR was determined using the TANITA bio-analyzer (T-BPR) and an alternative BPR system (A-BPR), which was based on cutoffs for muscle and fat mass. MetS severity was determined with the ESF-I questionnaire. Using logistic regression, the odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (95%CI) were determined.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>MetS severity was correlated with body fat percent (rho = 0.603, p &lt; 0.001) and muscle mass (rho = −0.406, p &lt; 0.001). Comparing the T-BPR to the A-BPR classifications, there was no agreement between the two systems (kappa = 0.024, p = 0.372). Using the “standard” group as the referent, for the A-BPR system, there was a mitigating effect in the high-fat group with increasing muscle mass [hidden obese: OR = 17.8, 95%CI: 5.2–61.6; obese: OR = 10.3, 95%CI: 4.2–25.6; solidly built: OR = 8.6, 95%CI: 3.6–20.8, p &lt; 0.001], but for the T-BPR system, there was an additive effect [hidden obese: OR = 0.5, 95%CI: 0.1–2.5, p = 0.393; obese; OR = 6.1, 95%CI: 3.3–11.4, p &lt; 0.001; solidly built: OR = 31.9, 95%CI: 11.2–90.9, p &lt; 0.001].</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Here, BPR does correlate with MetS risk. Interestingly, with the A-BPR system, increases in muscle mass were associated with a decreased risk for MetS, which is contrary to the T-BPR system.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":36125,"journal":{"name":"Human Nutrition and Metabolism","volume":"33 ","pages":"Article 200206"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Body physique rating as a factor to identify at-risk Mexicans for Metabolic Syndrome\",\"authors\":\"Oscar Herrera-Fomperosa ,&nbsp;Sergio K. Bustamante-Villagomez ,&nbsp;Sarahí Vazquez-Álvarez ,&nbsp;Gabriela Vázquez-Marroquín ,&nbsp;Leonardo M. Porchia ,&nbsp;Enrique Torres-Rasgado ,&nbsp;Ricardo Pérez-Fuentes ,&nbsp;M. Elba Gonzalez-Mejia\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.hnm.2023.200206\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background and aims</h3><p>Body physique rating (BPR) is an index in which fat mass and muscle mass are used to indicate nine different body types. To our knowledge, there are no studies testing if there is a correlation between BPR and the risk of developing Metabolic Syndrome (MetS). Our objective was to assess if the BPR classification is an acceptable tool for assessing MetS risk in a population from Central Mexico.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Subjects attending either IMSS UMF-2 or CSU-1 were asked to participate in this cross-sectional study. The participant's BPR was determined using the TANITA bio-analyzer (T-BPR) and an alternative BPR system (A-BPR), which was based on cutoffs for muscle and fat mass. MetS severity was determined with the ESF-I questionnaire. Using logistic regression, the odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (95%CI) were determined.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>MetS severity was correlated with body fat percent (rho = 0.603, p &lt; 0.001) and muscle mass (rho = −0.406, p &lt; 0.001). Comparing the T-BPR to the A-BPR classifications, there was no agreement between the two systems (kappa = 0.024, p = 0.372). Using the “standard” group as the referent, for the A-BPR system, there was a mitigating effect in the high-fat group with increasing muscle mass [hidden obese: OR = 17.8, 95%CI: 5.2–61.6; obese: OR = 10.3, 95%CI: 4.2–25.6; solidly built: OR = 8.6, 95%CI: 3.6–20.8, p &lt; 0.001], but for the T-BPR system, there was an additive effect [hidden obese: OR = 0.5, 95%CI: 0.1–2.5, p = 0.393; obese; OR = 6.1, 95%CI: 3.3–11.4, p &lt; 0.001; solidly built: OR = 31.9, 95%CI: 11.2–90.9, p &lt; 0.001].</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Here, BPR does correlate with MetS risk. Interestingly, with the A-BPR system, increases in muscle mass were associated with a decreased risk for MetS, which is contrary to the T-BPR system.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36125,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Human Nutrition and Metabolism\",\"volume\":\"33 \",\"pages\":\"Article 200206\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Human Nutrition and Metabolism\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666149723000233\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Human Nutrition and Metabolism","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666149723000233","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景和目的身体体质指数(BPR)是一个用脂肪量和肌肉量来表示九种不同体型的指数。据我们所知,目前还没有研究证实BPR与代谢综合征(MetS)发病风险之间是否存在相关性。我们的目的是评估BPR分类是否是评估墨西哥中部人群MetS风险的可接受工具。方法参加IMSS UMF-2或CSU-1的受试者被要求参加本横断面研究。使用TANITA生物分析仪(T-BPR)和替代BPR系统(A-BPR)确定参与者的BPR,该系统基于肌肉和脂肪量的临界值。通过ESF-I问卷来确定MetS的严重程度。采用logistic回归,确定优势比(OR)和95%置信区间(95% ci)。结果met严重程度与体脂率相关(rho = 0.603, p <0.001)和肌肉质量(rho = - 0.406, p <0.001)。比较T-BPR和A-BPR的分类,两种系统之间没有一致性(kappa = 0.024, p = 0.372)。以“标准”组为参照,对于a - bpr系统,高脂肪组随着肌肉质量的增加有缓解效果[隐性肥胖:OR = 17.8, 95%CI: 5.2-61.6;肥胖:OR = 10.3, 95%CI: 4.2-25.6;可靠构建:OR = 8.6, 95%CI: 3.6-20.8, p <0.001],但对于T-BPR系统,存在加性效应[隐性肥胖:OR = 0.5, 95%CI: 0.1 ~ 2.5, p = 0.393;肥胖;OR = 6.1, 95%CI: 3.3-11.4, p <0.001;坚固:或= 31.9,95%置信区间ci: 11.2 - -90.9, p & lt;0.001]。结论BPR与MetS风险相关。有趣的是,在a - bpr系统中,肌肉质量的增加与met风险的降低有关,这与T-BPR系统相反。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Body physique rating as a factor to identify at-risk Mexicans for Metabolic Syndrome

Background and aims

Body physique rating (BPR) is an index in which fat mass and muscle mass are used to indicate nine different body types. To our knowledge, there are no studies testing if there is a correlation between BPR and the risk of developing Metabolic Syndrome (MetS). Our objective was to assess if the BPR classification is an acceptable tool for assessing MetS risk in a population from Central Mexico.

Methods

Subjects attending either IMSS UMF-2 or CSU-1 were asked to participate in this cross-sectional study. The participant's BPR was determined using the TANITA bio-analyzer (T-BPR) and an alternative BPR system (A-BPR), which was based on cutoffs for muscle and fat mass. MetS severity was determined with the ESF-I questionnaire. Using logistic regression, the odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (95%CI) were determined.

Results

MetS severity was correlated with body fat percent (rho = 0.603, p < 0.001) and muscle mass (rho = −0.406, p < 0.001). Comparing the T-BPR to the A-BPR classifications, there was no agreement between the two systems (kappa = 0.024, p = 0.372). Using the “standard” group as the referent, for the A-BPR system, there was a mitigating effect in the high-fat group with increasing muscle mass [hidden obese: OR = 17.8, 95%CI: 5.2–61.6; obese: OR = 10.3, 95%CI: 4.2–25.6; solidly built: OR = 8.6, 95%CI: 3.6–20.8, p < 0.001], but for the T-BPR system, there was an additive effect [hidden obese: OR = 0.5, 95%CI: 0.1–2.5, p = 0.393; obese; OR = 6.1, 95%CI: 3.3–11.4, p < 0.001; solidly built: OR = 31.9, 95%CI: 11.2–90.9, p < 0.001].

Conclusion

Here, BPR does correlate with MetS risk. Interestingly, with the A-BPR system, increases in muscle mass were associated with a decreased risk for MetS, which is contrary to the T-BPR system.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Human Nutrition and Metabolism
Human Nutrition and Metabolism Agricultural and Biological Sciences-Food Science
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
30
审稿时长
188 days
期刊最新文献
Contribution of body adiposity index and conicity index in prediction of metabolic syndrome risk and components Effectiveness of nutritional supplements (vitamins, minerals, omega-3, and probiotics) in preventing and treating COVID-19 and viral respiratory infections Prevalence of hypertension and its associated risk factors during COVID-19 pandemic in the capital of Bangladesh Diet and gut microbiome: Impact of each factor and mutual interactions on prevention and treatment of type 1, type 2, and gestational diabetes mellitus Dietary practices of type 2 diabetes mellitus patients concerning Pender's health Promotion Model in Lalitpur district, Nepal
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1