The scientists based their study on information from NHANES, a cross-sectional representative sample of the US population collected between 1999 and 2006. The information was collected using dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA), a diagnostic framework that evaluates adiposity and muscle mass. Based on which side of the 50th percentile they ranked, people were classified into one of 4 proposed phenotypes: low-adiposity/high-muscle, high-adiposity/high-muscle, low-adiposity/low-muscle or low-adiposity/high-muscle.
” If we are looking at cardiometabolic danger at the population level, BMI can provide you a inexpensive and fast concept about what is happening,” Santosa says.
Recommendation: “Body-composition phenotypes and their associations with cardiometabolic threats and health behaviours in a representative basic US sample” by Lisa Kakinami, Sabine Plummer, Tamara R. Cohen, Sylvia Santosa and Jessica Murphy, 30 September 2022, Preventive Medicine.DOI: 10.1016/ j.ypmed.2022.107282.
The findings showed that even high levels of muscle mass did not counteract the negative impacts of extreme adiposity (fat tissue) on an individuals cardiometabolic health.
An analysis of muscle and fat mass information from a big sample population has revealed the constraints in properly forecasting cardiometabolic threats.
Scientists from Concordia University, who were examining body phenotypes (observable traits such as height, behavior, appearance, and other measurable characteristics), discovered that regardless of their muscle mass, high levels of fat mass in a private were associated with lower total health.
The outcomes of the research study, released in the journal Preventive Medicine, were based on information from a long-term study in the United States. The findings exposed that high levels of muscle mass did not neutralize the damaging impacts of excessive adiposity (fat tissue) on an individuals cardiometabolic health.
The scientists based their study on information from NHANES, a cross-sectional representative sample of the US population gathered in between 1999 and 2006. The data was collected utilizing double energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA), a diagnostic structure that analyzes adiposity and muscle mass. Based on which side of the 50th percentile they ranked, people were classified into one of 4 proposed phenotypes: low-adiposity/high-muscle, high-adiposity/high-muscle, low-adiposity/low-muscle or low-adiposity/high-muscle.
The high-adiposity/high-muscle group had unfavorable values for all cardiometabolic and adiposity measures. This group was also 49 to 67 percent less most likely to fulfill physical activity recommendations, roughly 80 percent more most likely to have high blood pressure, and 23 to 35 percent more most likely to go beyond recommended saturated fat intake.
The high-adiposity/low-muscle group had higher overall cholesterol levels, lower levels of high-density lipoprotein (” good” cholesterol), and lower nutrient consumption. This group was likewise 56 to 66 percent less most likely to meet weekly physical activity recommendations.
The high-adiposity/high-muscle group had undesirable values for all adiposity and cardiometabolic procedures. Nutrient intake was likewise lower. This group was also 49 to 67 percent less likely to meet physical activity recommendations, roughly 80 percent more likely to have hypertension, and 23 to 35 percent most likely to surpass advised saturated fat intake.
In general, the high-adiposity/high-muscle phenotype was the least likely to meet exercise and nutrient recommendations and was at the best risk of poor cardiometabolic health.
The low-adiposity/low-muscle group had considerably lower BMI and waist circumferences. This group likewise had the most affordable grip strength across the 4 phenotypes.
The researchers took a look at how the adiposity/muscle phenotypes connected to lipid levels, consisting of cholesterol and triglycerides, along with blood sugar level glucose and high blood pressure. Results were likewise changed for age, race, sex, and education.
Sylvia Santosa, an associate teacher in the Department of Health, Kinesiology, and Applied Physiology at Concordia University Credit: Concordia University.
” We desired to see whether this proposed categorization was much better than the conventional body-mass index (BMI) at predicting all these various cardiometabolic outcomes,” says Sylvia Santosa, an associate teacher in the Department of Health, Kinesiology, and Applied Physiology and among the authors of the paper.
Remarkably, they found BMI, however far from ideal, remained in some cases a much better predictor of cardiometabolic dangers like diabetes and hypertension.
Associate teacher Lisa Kakinami, Concordia alumna and existing Rhodes Scholar Sabine Plummer, BSc 22, Ph.D. student Jessica Murphy and Tamara Cohen of the University of British Columbia co-authored the paper.
Advantages of BMI
The data did expose numerous striking findings. In comparison to the low-adiposity/high-muscle group, which was the healthiest of the four, the scientists kept in mind the following outcomes:
The two high-adiposity groups were less likely to be physically active and more likely to have irregular lipids and less healthy diets.