AI Article Synopsis
- The study aims to address inconsistencies in defining sarcopenic obesity (SO) and its impact on physical function by comparing various obesity measures using the Asian Working Group for Sarcopenia (AWGS) guidelines.
- Researchers evaluated 535 community-dwelling adults in Singapore, measuring factors like BMI, waist circumference, and muscle strength to assess SO prevalence and its relation to physical performance.
- Results indicated that SO prevalence varied with the definition used, with fat mass index (FMI) showing the strongest association with physical function, suggesting FMI as a more effective tool for diagnosing obesity related to SO.
Article Abstract
Objectives: Due to the lack of a uniform obesity definition, there is marked variability in reported sarcopenic obesity (SO) prevalence and associated health outcomes. We compare the association of SO with physical function using current Asian Working Group for Sarcopenia (AWGS) guidelines and different obesity measures to propose the most optimal SO diagnostic formulation according to functional impairment, and describe SO prevalence among community-dwelling young and old adults.
Design: Obesity was defined according to waist circumference (WC), percentage body fat (PBF), fat mass index (FMI), fat mass/fat-free mass ratio (FM/FFM), or body mass index (BMI). SO was defined as the presence of both obesity and AWGS sarcopenia. Muscle function was compared among phenotypes and obesity definitions using ANOVA. Differences across obesity measures were further ascertained using multiple linear regressions to determine their associations with the Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB).
Setting: Community-dwelling adults 21 years old and above were recruited from a large urban residential town in Singapore.
Participants: 535 community-dwelling Singaporeans were recruited (21-90 years old, 57.9% women), filling quotas of 20-40 participants in each sex- and age-group.
Measurements: We took measurements of height, weight, BMI, waist and hip circumferences, body fat, muscle mass, muscle strength, and functional assessments. Questionnaire-based physical and cognitive factors were also assessed.
Results: Overall prevalence of SO was 7.6% (WC-based), 5.1% (PBF-based), 2.7% (FMI-based), 1.5% (FM/FFM-based), and 0.4% (BMI-based). SO was significantly associated with SPPB only in the FMI model (p<0.05), and total variance explained by the different regression models was highest for the FMI model.
Conclusions: Our findings suggest FMI as the most preferred measure for obesity and support its use as a diagnostic criteria for SO.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
|---|---|
| http://dx.doi.org/10.14283/jfa.2020.65 | DOI Listing |
Publication Analysis
Top Keywords
Similar Publications
Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!