| Literature DB >> 25993528 |
Kensaku Sasayama1, Eisuke Ochi2, Minoru Adachi3.
Abstract
Associations between body mass index (BMI), peak oxygen consumption (VO(2peak)), and metabolic syndrome (MetS) risk factors have not been adequately studied in Japanese children. Here the relationships between these parameters and the threshold aerobic fitness level necessary for low MetS risk were determined. The participants (299 children; 140 boys and 159 girls, aged 9.1 ± 0.3 years) were divided into four groups using the medians of predicted VO(2peak) (pVO(2peak)) and BMI. MetS risk scores were calculated using z-scores. Receiver Operating Characteristic analysis was used to determine the threshold aerobic fitness level necessary for low MetS risk. The MetS risk score of the High BMI group was significantly higher than that of the Low BMI group for both sexes (p < 0.0001). However, the High BMI/High Fitness group had a significantly lower MetS risk score than the High BMI/Low Fitness group for both sexes. The (p)VO(2peak )cut-off values for low MetS risk were 47.9 and 44.9 ml/kg/min for boys and girls, respectively. Our results suggest that improvements in both fatness and aerobic fitness are important for decreasing MetS risk. We also confirmed the (p)VO(2peak) of cut-off values necessary for low MetS risk in Japanese children.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 25993528 PMCID: PMC4438983 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0127400
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Participants characteristics and MetS risk factors by BMI categories.
| Boys | Girls | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Low BMI | High BMI | Low BMI | High BMI | ||
| n = 70 | n = 70 | n = 80 | n = 79 | ||
| Age | (years) | 9.2 | 9.1 | 9.1 | 9.1 |
| (0.4) | (0.3) | (0.3) | (0.3) | ||
| Height | (cm) | 133.2 | 138.0 | 135.2 | 136.9 |
| (4.9) | (5.9) | (5.4) | (5.4) | ||
| Weight | (kg) | 27.0 | 37.5 | 27.6 | 34.5 |
| (2.7) | (8.6) | (2.8) | (5.2) | ||
| BMI | (kg/m2) | 15.2 | 19.6 | 15.1 | 18.4 |
| (0.9) | (3.4) | (0.9) | (2.0) | ||
|
| (ml/kg/min) | 53.6 | 48.5 | 48.3 | 44.4 |
| (3.6) | (5.6) | (2.8) | (3.5) | ||
| WC | (cm) | 54.5 | 65.6 | 54.3 | 62.0 |
| (3.1) | (9.6) | (3.3) | (6.4) | ||
| Waist / height | 0.41 | 0.47 | 0.40 | 0.45 | |
| (0.03) | (0.06) | (0.02) | (0.04) | ||
| TG | (mg/dl) | 67.0 | 84.7 | 76.1 | 88.7 |
| (37.2) | (47.5) | (42.2) | (59.0) | ||
| HDL-c | (mg/dl) | 74.7 | 66.5 | 69.9 | 62.6 |
| (14.4) | (14.6) | (14.0) | (13.1) | ||
| SBP | (mmHg) | 106.2 | 110.5 | 108.4 | 109.6 |
| (8.5) | (8.3) | (9.6) | (9.8) | ||
| DBP | (mmHg) | 60.0 | 60.8 | 61.8 | 61.4 |
| (9.0) | (7.6) | (8.1) | (8.5) | ||
Values are means (S.D.)
Participants were divided into two groups using a median split of BMI; Low BMI and High BMI groups in each gender.
BMI; Body Mass Index, MetS risk score; metabolic syndrome risk score, WC; waist circumference
Waist / height; Waist to height ratio, TG; Triglycerides, HDL-c; high density lipoprotein cholesterol
SBP; systolic blood pressure, DBP; diastolic blood pressure
*; p<0.05 for differences between Low BMI and High BMI.
Participants characteristics and MetS risk factors among BMI and pVO2peak groups.
| Boys | Girls | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Low BMI | High BMI | Low BMI | High BMI | ||||||||||||
| High Fit | Low Fit | High Fit | Low Fit | High Fit | Low Fit | High Fit | Low Fit | ||||||||
| n = 47 | n = 23 | n = 23 | n = 47 | n = 58 | n = 22 | n = 21 | n = 58 | ||||||||
| Age | (years) | 9.2 | 9.1 | 9.1 | 9.1 | 9.1 | 9.2 | 9.1 | 9.1 | ||||||
| (0.4) | (0.3) | (0.3) | (0.2) | (0.3) | (0.4) | (0.4) | (0.3) | ||||||||
| Height | (cm) | 133.9 | 131.9 | 135.5 | 139.2 | 135.6 | 133.9 | 138.8 | 136.2 | ||||||
| (5.1) | (4.4) | (6.2) | (5.3) | (5.4) | (5.3) | (4.8) | (5.4) | ||||||||
| Weight | (kg) | 27.4 | 26.4 | 32.1 | 40.2 | 27.5 | 28.1 | 32.9 | 35.1 | ||||||
| (2.9) | (2.0) | (4.2) | (8.9) | (3.0) | (2.4) | (3.1) | (5.7) | ||||||||
| BMI | (kg/m2) | 15.2 | 15.2 | 17.4 | 20.6 | 14.9 | 15.6 | 17.1 | 18.8 | ||||||
| (0.9) | (0.8) | (0.9) | (3.7) | (0.9) | (0.4) | (0.8) | (2.1) | ||||||||
|
| (ml/kg/min) | 55.6 | 49.6 | 54.1 | 45.7 | 49.5 | 45.3 | 48.8 | 42.9 | ||||||
| (2.6) | (1.4) | (1.8) | (4.7) | (2.4) | (0.8) | (1.7) | (2.5) | ||||||||
| WC | (cm) | 54.4 |
| 54.9 |
| 59.2 | ¶ | 68.7 | 53.9 |
| 55.6 |
| 58.6 |
| 63.2 |
| (2.8) | (3.5) | (3.8) | (10.0) | (3.4) | (2.6) | (3.5) | (6.7) | ||||||||
| Waist / height | 0.41 |
| 0.42 |
| 0.44 | ¶ | 0.49 | 0.40 |
| 0.42 |
| 0.42 |
| 0.46 | |
| (0.02) | (0.03) | (0.02) | (0.07) | (0.03) | (0.02) | (0.02) | (0.04) | ||||||||
| TG | (mg/dl) | 67.7 | 65.6 | 73.8 | 90.0 | 76.6 | 74.8 | 62.6 |
| 98.1 | |||||
| (37.8) | (36.6) | (30.2) | (53.4) | (41.9) | (43.9) | (21.3) | (65.3) | ||||||||
| HDL-c | (mg/dl) | 75.7 |
| 72.6 | 70.1 | 64.7 | 70.4 |
| 68.6 |
| 69.9 |
| 60.0 | ||
| (14.1) | (15.2) | (15.2) | (14.1) | (14.6) | (12.3) | (13.5) | (12.0) | ||||||||
| SBP | (mmHg) | 107.0 |
| 104.6 |
| 107.0 | 112.1 | 107.3 | 111.5 | 110.2 | 109.3 | ||||
| (7.9) | (9.4) | (8.2) | (7.9) | (9.4) | (9.4) | (9.4) | (10.0) | ||||||||
| DBP | (mmHg) | 59.9 | 60.2 | 59.7 | 61.3 | 61.2 | 63.2 | 58.9 | 62.3 | ||||||
| (10.0) | (6.8) | (8.1) | (7.3) | (7.3) | (10.0) | (8.1) | (8.5) | ||||||||
Values are means (S.D.)
Participants were divided into four groups using a median split of pVO2peak and BMI; Low BMI/High Fitness (LH), Low BMI/Low Fitness (LL), High BMI/High Fitness (HH), and High BMI/Low Fitness (HL) groups.
BMI; Body Mass Index, MetS risk score; metabolic syndrome risk score, WC; waist circumference
Waist / height; Waist to height ratio, TG; Triglycerides, HDL-c; high density lipoprotein cholesterol
SBP; systolic blood pressure, DBP; diastolic blood pressure
*; p<0.05 Low BMI/High fit significantly different from Low BMI/Low fit
†; p<0.05 Low BMI/High fit significantly different from High BMI/High fit
‡; p<0.05 Low BMI/High fit significantly different from High BMI/Low fit
§; p<0.05 Low BMI/Low fit significantly different from High BMI/High fit
||; p<0.05 Low BMI/Low fit significantly different from High BMI/Low fit
¶; p<0.05 High BMI/High fit significantly different from High BMI/Low fit.
Fig 1MetS risk score by BMI categories in boys (black bar) and girls (white bar).
Values are means S.E. MetS risk scores were calculated from the sums of sex-standardized values (z-scores) of the following six parameters: WC, W/H, TG, HDL-c, SBP, and DBP. For significance notations see the figure. The results showed that high BMI/low Fit group had the highest MetS risk score in both sexes (boys: p<0.05, girls: p<0.05). MetS risk score was significantly higher in the High BMI group than Low BMI group in both sexes (p<0.0001). Abbreviations: MetS risk score, metabolic syndrome risk score; BMI, body mass index.
Fig 2Differences in the metabolic syndrome risk score across BMI and pVO2peak groups in boys (black bar) and girls (white bar).
Values are means S.E. MetS risk scores were calculated from the sums of sex-standardized values (z-scores) of the following six parameters: WC, W/H, TG, HDL-c, SBP, and DBP. For significance notations see the figure. The results showed that high BMI/low Fit group had the highest MetS risk score in both sexes (boys: p<0.05, girls: p<0.05). Abbreviations: MetS risk score, metabolic syndrome risk score; BMI, body mass index.
Fig 3Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis to identify low/high metabolic risk score in boys and girls.
ROC curves showing the optimal pVO2peak cut-off point for metabolic syndrome risk score of <75%ile in boys and girls. AUC indicates the area under the curve (95% confidence interval). In boys, the optimal pair of true- and false-positive rates were 0.92 and 0.66, respectively (AUC = 0.80%; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.70–0.90; p < 0.0001). In girls, these parameters were 0.82 and 0.74, respectively (AUC = 0.85%; 95% CI: 0.74–0.92; p < 0.0001). pVO2peak of cut-off value for low metabolic risk was 47.9 and 44.9 mL/kg/min in boys and girls, respectively.