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 , Sergio K. Bustamante-Villagomez , Sarahí Vazquez-Álvarez , Gabriela Vázquez-Marroquín , Leonardo M. Porchia , Enrique Torres-Rasgado , Ricardo Pérez-Fuentes , 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 < 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].</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 , Sergio K. Bustamante-Villagomez , Sarahí Vazquez-Álvarez , Gabriela Vázquez-Marroquín , Leonardo M. Porchia , Enrique Torres-Rasgado , Ricardo Pérez-Fuentes , 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 < 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].</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。
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.