Premium
Measurement Site and the Association Between Visceral and Abdominal Subcutaneous Adipose Tissue With Metabolic Risk in Women
Author(s) -
Kuk Jennifer L.,
Church Timothy S.,
Blair Steven N.,
Ross Robert
Publication year - 2010
Publication title -
obesity
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.438
H-Index - 199
eISSN - 1930-739X
pISSN - 1930-7381
DOI - 10.1038/oby.2009.414
Subject(s) - medicine , adipose tissue , metabolic syndrome , odds ratio , overweight , visceral fat , abdominal obesity , obesity , abdomen , intra abdominal fat , endocrinology , gastroenterology , surgery , insulin resistance
The associations between visceral adipose tissue (VAT) and abdominal subcutaneous adipose tissue (ASAT) and metabolic risk may be influenced by measurement site. The aim of this study was to compare the strength of the associations between VAT and ASAT, as assessed by a cross‐sectional image (area) or total volume, and prevalent metabolic syndrome (MetS). We also examined the association between changes in abdominal AT area and volume with concomitant changes in metabolic risk. Abdominal AT volume and areas were derived using ∼35 continuous computed tomography (CT) images from T10–T11 to L5–S1 in overweight or obese postmenopausal women before ( n = 67) and after ( n = 39) a 6‐month exercise intervention. At baseline, measurement site did not influence the inter‐relationship between ASAT area and total volume, and between ASAT and MetS. Conversely, VAT areas at L1–L2 and L2–L3 were stronger correlates of VAT volume at baseline (L1–L2 ( r = 0.94), L2–L3 ( r = 0.95), L4–L5 ( r = 0.89)) and changes therein (L1–L2 ( r = 0.77), L2–L3 ( r = 0.75), L4–L5 ( r = 0.55)) as compared to L4–L5, but were not significantly better predictors of MetS as compared to L4–L5 or the total volume (L2–L3: odds ratio (OR) = 2.68 (1.6–4.4), L1–L2: OR = 1.88 (1.2–3.0), L4–L5: OR = 2.56 (1.6–4.1), volume: OR = 2.07 (1.1–3.8)). Changes in VAT and ASAT were not associated with changes in MetS ( P > 0.10). Although measurement site has an impact on the prediction of VAT volume, this does not translate into an improved prediction for the MetS. Thus, there is not enough evidence to support changing the current research practice of assessing VAT volume or at L4–L5 for the prediction of metabolic risk.