LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Powell, Mark; Lara, Jose; Mocciaro, Gabriele; Prado, Carla; Battezzati, A.; Leone, A.; Tagliabue, A.; de Amicis, R.; Vignati, L.; Bertoli, S.; Siervo, Mario (2016)
Publisher: Wiley-Blackwell
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: B900, C400
Identifiers:doi:10.1111/cob.12165
The ratio between fat mass (FM) and fat-free mass (FFM) has been used to discriminate individual differences in body composition and improve prediction of metabolic risk. Here, we evaluated whether the use of a visceral adipose tissue-to-fat-free mass index (VAT:FFMI) ratio was a better predictor of metabolic risk than a fat mass index to fat-free mass index (FMI:FFMI) ratio. This is a cross-sectional study including 3441 adult participants (age range 18–81; men/women: 977/2464). FM and FFM were measured by bioelectrical impedance analysis and VAT by ultrasonography. A continuous metabolic risk Z score and harmonised international criteria were used to define cumulative metabolic risk and metabolic syndrome (MetS), respectively. Multivariate logistic and linear regression models were used to test associations between body composition indexes and metabolic risk. In unadjusted models, VAT:FFMI was a better predictor of MetS (OR 8.03, 95%CI 6.69–9.65) compared to FMI:FFMI (OR 2.91, 95%CI 2.45–3.46). However, the strength of association of VAT:FFMI and FMI:FFMI became comparable when models were adjusted for age, gender, clinical and sociodemographic factors (OR 4.06, 95%CI 3.31–4.97; OR 4.25, 95%CI 3.42–5.27, respectively). A similar pattern was observed for the association of the two indexes with the metabolic risk Z score (VAT:FFMI: unadjusted b = 0.69 ± 0.03, adjusted b = 0.36 ± 0.03; FMI:FFMI: unadjusted b = 0.28 ± 0.028, adjusted b = 0.38 ± 0.02). Our results suggest that there is no real advantage in using either VAT:FFMI or FMI:FFMI ratios as a predictor of metabolic risk in adults. However, these results warrant confirmation in longitudinal studies.
  • No references.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article