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":"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":null,"pages":null},"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}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
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.