OBJECTIVE: To examine the cross-sectional association between hostility and measures of abdominal fat (visceral, subcutaneous) in middle-aged African American and white women. Because fat-patterning characteristics are known to differ by race, we were particularly interested in examining whether these associations were similar for women of both racial/ethnic groups. METHODS: Participants were 418 (45% African American, 55% white) middle-aged women from the Chicago site of the Study of Women's Health Across the Nation. Visceral and subcutaneous fat were measured by computed tomographic scans and hostility was assessed via questionnaire. Multivariate linear regression models were conducted to test associations among race/ethnicity, hostility, and measures of abdominal fat. RESULTS: In models adjusted for race/ethnicity and total percent fat, higher levels of hostility were associated with a greater amount of visceral fat (B = 1.8, standard error = 0.69, p = .01). This association remained significant after further adjustments for education, and multiple coronary heart disease (CHD) risk factors. Hostility was not associated with subcutaneous fat (p = .8). Although there were significant racial/ethnic differences in hostility (p < .001) and the amount of total body (p < .001), subcutaneous (p < .001) and visceral fat (p < .001), the associations between hostility and measures of abdominal fat did not differ for African American compared with white women (race/ethnicity x hostility interaction, p = .67 for visceral, p = .85 for subcutaneous). CONCLUSIONS: Hostility may affect CHD risk in women via the accumulation of visceral fat. Despite significant black-white differences in fat patterning and overall CHD risk, the association between hostility and visceral fat seems to be similar for both African American and white women.
OBJECTIVE: To examine the cross-sectional association between hostility and measures of abdominal fat (visceral, subcutaneous) in middle-aged African American and white women. Because fat-patterning characteristics are known to differ by race, we were particularly interested in examining whether these associations were similar for women of both racial/ethnic groups. METHODS:Participants were 418 (45% African American, 55% white) middle-aged women from the Chicago site of the Study of Women's Health Across the Nation. Visceral and subcutaneous fat were measured by computed tomographic scans and hostility was assessed via questionnaire. Multivariate linear regression models were conducted to test associations among race/ethnicity, hostility, and measures of abdominal fat. RESULTS: In models adjusted for race/ethnicity and total percent fat, higher levels of hostility were associated with a greater amount of visceral fat (B = 1.8, standard error = 0.69, p = .01). This association remained significant after further adjustments for education, and multiple coronary heart disease (CHD) risk factors. Hostility was not associated with subcutaneous fat (p = .8). Although there were significant racial/ethnic differences in hostility (p < .001) and the amount of total body (p < .001), subcutaneous (p < .001) and visceral fat (p < .001), the associations between hostility and measures of abdominal fat did not differ for African American compared with white women (race/ethnicity x hostility interaction, p = .67 for visceral, p = .85 for subcutaneous). CONCLUSIONS: Hostility may affect CHD risk in women via the accumulation of visceral fat. Despite significant black-white differences in fat patterning and overall CHD risk, the association between hostility and visceral fat seems to be similar for both African American and white women.
Authors: Raymond Niaura; John F Todaro; Laura Stroud; Avron Spiro; Kenneth D Ward; Scott Weiss Journal: Health Psychol Date: 2002-11 Impact factor: 4.267
Authors: Lily A Chaput; Sally H Adams; Joel A Simon; Roger S Blumenthal; Eric Vittinghoff; Feng Lin; Evan Loh; Karen A Matthews Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2002-12-15 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Felix Kreier; Eric Fliers; Peter J Voshol; Corbert G Van Eden; Louis M Havekes; Andries Kalsbeek; Caroline L Van Heijningen; Arja A Sluiter; Thomas C Mettenleiter; Johannes A Romijn; Hans P Sauerwein; Ruud M Buijs Journal: J Clin Invest Date: 2002-11 Impact factor: 14.808
Authors: Richard S Surwit; Redford B Williams; Ilene C Siegler; James D Lane; Michael Helms; Katherine L Applegate; Nancy Zucker; Mark N Feinglos; Cynthia M McCaskill; John C Barefoot Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2002-05 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Susan A Everson-Rose; Tené T Lewis; Kelly Karavolos; Sheila A Dugan; Deidre Wesley; Lynda H Powell Journal: Psychosom Med Date: 2009-04-27 Impact factor: 4.312
Authors: LaBarron K Hill; Andrew Sherwood; Maya McNeilly; Norman B Anderson; James A Blumenthal; Alan L Hinderliter Journal: Psychosom Med Date: 2018 Feb/Mar Impact factor: 4.312
Authors: Kiarri N Kershaw; Mariël Droomers; Whitney R Robinson; Mercedes R Carnethon; Martha L Daviglus; W M Monique Verschuren Journal: Eur J Epidemiol Date: 2013-09-14 Impact factor: 8.082
Authors: Sheila A Dugan; Brittney Lange-Maia; Kelly Karavolos; Rasa Kazlauskaite; Chiquia S Hollings; Elizabeth Avery; Lisa Nackers; Elizabeth Lynch; Jennifer Ventrelle; Patricia Normand; Tricia Johnson; Francis Fullam; Karla Shipp-Johnson; JoEllen Wilbur; Lynda H Powell Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Commun Date: 2016-07-20
Authors: Erin Delker; Bandar AlYami; Linda C Gallo; John M Ruiz; Moyses Szklo; Matthew A Allison Journal: Psychosom Med Date: 2021-10-01 Impact factor: 3.864