AIMS: Current knowledge on the prognosis of metabolically healthy but obese phenotype is limited due to the exclusive use of the body mass index to define obesity and the lack of information on cardiorespiratory fitness. We aimed to test the following hypotheses: (i) metabolically healthy but obese individuals have a higher fitness level than their metabolically abnormal and obese peers; (ii) after accounting for fitness, metabolically healthy but obese phenotype is a benign condition, in terms of cardiovascular disease and mortality. METHODS AND RESULTS: Fitness was assessed by a maximal exercise test on a treadmill and body fat per cent (BF%) by hydrostatic weighing or skinfolds (obesity = BF% ≥ 25 or ≥ 30%, men or women, respectively) in 43 265 adults (24.3% women). Metabolically healthy was considered if meeting 0 or 1 of the criteria for metabolic syndrome. Metabolically healthy but obese participants (46% of the obese subsample) had a better fitness than metabolically abnormal obese participants (P < 0.001). When adjusting for fitness and other confounders, metabolically healthy but obese individuals had lower risk (30-50%, estimated by hazard ratios) of all-cause mortality, non-fatal and fatal cardiovascular disease, and cancer mortality than their metabolically unhealthy obese peers; while no significant differences were observed between metabolically healthy but obese and metabolically healthy normal-fat participants. CONCLUSIONS: (i) Higher fitness should be considered a characteristic of metabolically healthy but obese phenotype. (ii) Once fitness is accounted for, the metabolically healthy but obese phenotype is a benign condition, with a better prognosis for mortality and morbidity than metabolically abnormal obese individuals.
AIMS: Current knowledge on the prognosis of metabolically healthy but obese phenotype is limited due to the exclusive use of the body mass index to define obesity and the lack of information on cardiorespiratory fitness. We aimed to test the following hypotheses: (i) metabolically healthy but obese individuals have a higher fitness level than their metabolically abnormal and obese peers; (ii) after accounting for fitness, metabolically healthy but obese phenotype is a benign condition, in terms of cardiovascular disease and mortality. METHODS AND RESULTS: Fitness was assessed by a maximal exercise test on a treadmill and body fat per cent (BF%) by hydrostatic weighing or skinfolds (obesity = BF% ≥ 25 or ≥ 30%, men or women, respectively) in 43 265 adults (24.3% women). Metabolically healthy was considered if meeting 0 or 1 of the criteria for metabolic syndrome. Metabolically healthy but obeseparticipants (46% of the obese subsample) had a better fitness than metabolically abnormal obeseparticipants (P < 0.001). When adjusting for fitness and other confounders, metabolically healthy but obese individuals had lower risk (30-50%, estimated by hazard ratios) of all-cause mortality, non-fatal and fatal cardiovascular disease, and cancer mortality than their metabolically unhealthy obese peers; while no significant differences were observed between metabolically healthy but obese and metabolically healthy normal-fat participants. CONCLUSIONS: (i) Higher fitness should be considered a characteristic of metabolically healthy but obese phenotype. (ii) Once fitness is accounted for, the metabolically healthy but obese phenotype is a benign condition, with a better prognosis for mortality and morbidity than metabolically abnormal obese individuals.
Authors: Rachel P Wildman; Paul Muntner; Kristi Reynolds; Aileen P McGinn; Swapnil Rajpathak; Judith Wylie-Rosett; MaryFran R Sowers Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2008-08-11
Authors: Steven P Hooker; Xuemei Sui; Natalie Colabianchi; John Vena; James Laditka; Michael J LaMonte; Steven N Blair Journal: Stroke Date: 2008-08-07 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: K G M M Alberti; Robert H Eckel; Scott M Grundy; Paul Z Zimmet; James I Cleeman; Karen A Donato; Jean-Charles Fruchart; W Philip T James; Catherine M Loria; Sidney C Smith Journal: Circulation Date: 2009-10-05 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Xuemei Sui; Michael J LaMonte; James N Laditka; James W Hardin; Nancy Chase; Steven P Hooker; Steven N Blair Journal: JAMA Date: 2007-12-05 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Lynae J Hanks; Rikki M Tanner; Paul Muntner; Holly Kramer; William M McClellan; David G Warnock; Suzanne E Judd; Orlando M Gutiérrez Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2013-10-31 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Nathalie Jean; Virend K Somers; Ondrej Sochor; Jose Medina-Inojosa; Ernesto M Llano; Francisco Lopez-Jimenez Journal: Curr Atheroscler Rep Date: 2014-12 Impact factor: 5.113
Authors: M Harold Laughlin; Jaume Padilla; Nathan T Jenkins; Pamela K Thorne; Jeffrey S Martin; R Scott Rector; Sadia Akter; J Wade Davis Journal: J Appl Physiol (1985) Date: 2015-07-16
Authors: Mandy J Schmella; Robert E Ferrell; Marcia J Gallaher; David L Lykins; Andrew D Althouse; James M Roberts; Carl A Hubel Journal: Biol Res Nurs Date: 2015-01-07 Impact factor: 2.522
Authors: V A Aparicio; V Segura-Jiménez; I C Alvarez-Gallardo; F Estévez-López; D Camiletti-Moirón; P A Latorre; M Delgado-Fernández; A Carbonell-Baeza Journal: Rheumatol Int Date: 2013-12-10 Impact factor: 2.631
Authors: Angela K Green; Paul F Jacques; Gail Rogers; Caroline S Fox; James B Meigs; Nicola M McKeown Journal: Obesity (Silver Spring) Date: 2014-03-08 Impact factor: 5.002