Monica C Serra1, Daniel P Beavers2, Rebecca M Henderson3, Jessica L Kelleher4, Jessica R Kiel5, Kristen M Beavers6. 1. Department of Medicine, Atlanta VA Medical Center, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA, mserra@emory.edu. 2. Department of Biostatistical Sciences, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, USA. 3. Department of Internal Medicine, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, USA. 4. Department of Medicine, Atlanta VA Medical Center, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA. 5. Medifast, Inc., Baltimore, Maryland, USA. 6. Department of Health and Exercise Science, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Whether improvements in cardiometabolic health following weight loss (WL) are associated with changes in regional body fat distribution (gluteal vs. -android) is not well documented. METHODS:Older (age: 70± 4 years; mean ± SD) adults with obesity were randomized to a 6-month WL program (WL; n = 47), accomplished using a hypocaloric, nutritionally complete, higher protein -(targeting ≥1.0 g/kg/day) meal plan, or a weight stability (WS; n = 49) program. Android, gynoid, visceral, and subcutaneous abdominal fat masses (via dual energy X-ray absorptiometry ) and fasting glucose and lipid profiles were assessed at baseline and 6 months. RESULTS: The WL group lost more body weight (WL: -8.6% vs. WS: -1.7%, p < 0.01), resulting in a reduction in fat mass at each region only following WL (all p < 0.05). The decline in the ratio of android/gynoid fat mass also was significant only following WL, resulting in greater declines than WS (mean [95% CI]; WL: -0.026 [-0.040 to -0.011] vs. WS: 0.003 [-0.012 to 0.019] g, p < 0.01). The change in the ratio of visceral/subcutaneous abdominal fat mass was not significant in either group and did not differ between groups (WL: 0.65 [-0.38 to 1.68] vs. WS: 0.05 [-1.00 to 1.10] g, p = 0.42). In general, the improvements in glucose and lipid profiles were associated with declines in fat mass at the gynoid and android regions (r's = 0.20-0.42, all p < 0.05), particularly the visceral depot but not the ratios. CONCLUSION: WL achieved via a hypocaloric, nutritionally complete, higher protein meal plan is effective in reducing body fat in the android, gynoid, and visceral depots, which relate to cardiometabolic improvements.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Whether improvements in cardiometabolic health following weight loss (WL) are associated with changes in regional body fat distribution (gluteal vs. -android) is not well documented. METHODS: Older (age: 70 ± 4 years; mean ± SD) adults with obesity were randomized to a 6-month WL program (WL; n = 47), accomplished using a hypocaloric, nutritionally complete, higher protein -(targeting ≥1.0 g/kg/day) meal plan, or a weight stability (WS; n = 49) program. Android, gynoid, visceral, and subcutaneous abdominal fat masses (via dual energy X-ray absorptiometry ) and fasting glucose and lipid profiles were assessed at baseline and 6 months. RESULTS: The WL group lost more body weight (WL: -8.6% vs. WS: -1.7%, p < 0.01), resulting in a reduction in fat mass at each region only following WL (all p < 0.05). The decline in the ratio of android/gynoid fat mass also was significant only following WL, resulting in greater declines than WS (mean [95% CI]; WL: -0.026 [-0.040 to -0.011] vs. WS: 0.003 [-0.012 to 0.019] g, p < 0.01). The change in the ratio of visceral/subcutaneous abdominal fat mass was not significant in either group and did not differ between groups (WL: 0.65 [-0.38 to 1.68] vs. WS: 0.05 [-1.00 to 1.10] g, p = 0.42). In general, the improvements in glucose and lipid profiles were associated with declines in fat mass at the gynoid and android regions (r's = 0.20-0.42, all p < 0.05), particularly the visceral depot but not the ratios. CONCLUSION:WL achieved via a hypocaloric, nutritionally complete, higher protein meal plan is effective in reducing body fat in the android, gynoid, and visceral depots, which relate to cardiometabolic improvements.
Authors: K M Beavers; M M Gordon; L Easter; D P Beavers; K G Hairston; B J Nicklas; M Z Vitolins Journal: J Nutr Health Aging Date: 2015-01 Impact factor: 4.075
Authors: Noel D Aldrich; Marla M Reicks; Shalamar D Sibley; J Bruce Redmon; William Thomas; Susan K Raatz Journal: Nutr Res Date: 2011-02 Impact factor: 3.315
Authors: Prachi Singh; Virend K Somers; Abel Romero-Corral; Fatima H Sert-Kuniyoshi; Snigdha Pusalavidyasagar; Diane E Davison; Michael D Jensen Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2012-07-03 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: M Garaulet; F Pérez-Llamas; J C Baraza; M D Garcia-Prieto; P S Fardy; F J Tébar; S Zamora Journal: J Nutr Health Aging Date: 2002 Impact factor: 4.075
Authors: P Björntorp; C Bengtsson; G Blohmé; A Jonsson; L Sjöström; E Tibblin; G Tibblin; L Wilhelmsen Journal: Metabolism Date: 1971-10 Impact factor: 8.694
Authors: A H Kissebah; N Vydelingum; R Murray; D J Evans; A J Hartz; R K Kalkhoff; P W Adams Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 1982-02 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Ellen E Quillen; Daniel P Beavers; Anderson O'Brien Cox; Cristina M Furdui; Jingyun Lee; Ryan M Miller; Hanzhi Wu; Kristen M Beavers Journal: Nutrients Date: 2020-10-19 Impact factor: 5.717