Rebecca S Gold1, Jonathan T Unkart2, Britta A Larsen2, Candice A Price3, Mallory Cless1, Maria Rosario G Araneta2, Matthew A Allison2. 1. School of Medicine, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, California, USA. 2. Department of Family Medicine and Public Health, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, California, USA. 3. Department of Molecular Biosciences, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California Davis, Davis, California, USA.
Abstract
AIMS: Previous characterisation of body composition as a type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) risk factor has largely focused on adiposity, but less is known about the independent role of skeletal muscle. We examined associations between abdominal muscle and measures of glucose regulation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Cross-sectional analysis of 1,891 adults enrolled in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis. Multivariable regression assessed associations between abdominal muscle area and density (measured by computed tomography) with fasting glucose, homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR), and prevalent T2DM (fasting glucose ≥126 mg/dL or medication use). RESULTS: In minimally adjusted models (age, sex, race/ethnicity, income), a 1-SD increment in abdominal muscle area was associated with higher HOMA-IR (β = 0.20 ± SE 0.03; 95%CI: 0.15, 0.25; P < 0.01) and odds of T2DM (OR = 1.47; 95%CI: 1.18, 1.84; P < 0.01), while higher density was associated with lower fasting glucose (-4.49 ± 0.90; -6.26, -2.72; P < 0.01), HOMA-IR (-0.16 ± 0.02; -0.20, -0.12; P < 0.01), and odds of T2DM (0.64; 0.52, 0.77; P < 0.01). All associations persisted after adjustment for comorbidities and health behaviours. However, after controlling for height, BMI, and visceral adiposity, increasing muscle area became negatively associated with fasting glucose (-2.23 ± 1.01; -4.22, -0.24; P = 0.03), while density became positively associated with HOMA-IR (0.09 ± 0.02; 0.05, 0.13; P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Increasing muscle density was associated with salutary markers of glucose regulation, but associations inverted with further adjustment for body size and visceral adiposity. Conversely, after full adjustment, increasing muscle area was associated with lower fasting glucose, suggesting some patients may benefit from muscle-building interventions.
AIMS: Previous characterisation of body composition as a type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) risk factor has largely focused on adiposity, but less is known about the independent role of skeletal muscle. We examined associations between abdominal muscle and measures of glucose regulation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Cross-sectional analysis of 1,891 adults enrolled in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis. Multivariable regression assessed associations between abdominal muscle area and density (measured by computed tomography) with fasting glucose, homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR), and prevalent T2DM (fasting glucose ≥126 mg/dL or medication use). RESULTS: In minimally adjusted models (age, sex, race/ethnicity, income), a 1-SD increment in abdominal muscle area was associated with higher HOMA-IR (β = 0.20 ± SE 0.03; 95%CI: 0.15, 0.25; P < 0.01) and odds of T2DM (OR = 1.47; 95%CI: 1.18, 1.84; P < 0.01), while higher density was associated with lower fasting glucose (-4.49 ± 0.90; -6.26, -2.72; P < 0.01), HOMA-IR (-0.16 ± 0.02; -0.20, -0.12; P < 0.01), and odds of T2DM (0.64; 0.52, 0.77; P < 0.01). All associations persisted after adjustment for comorbidities and health behaviours. However, after controlling for height, BMI, and visceral adiposity, increasing muscle area became negatively associated with fasting glucose (-2.23 ± 1.01; -4.22, -0.24; P = 0.03), while density became positively associated with HOMA-IR (0.09 ± 0.02; 0.05, 0.13; P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Increasing muscle density was associated with salutary markers of glucose regulation, but associations inverted with further adjustment for body size and visceral adiposity. Conversely, after full adjustment, increasing muscle area was associated with lower fasting glucose, suggesting some patients may benefit from muscle-building interventions.
Authors: Bryan C Bergman; Leigh Perreault; Devon M Hunerdosse; Mary C Koehler; Ali M Samek; Robert H Eckel Journal: J Appl Physiol (1985) Date: 2010-03-18
Authors: Kate E Therkelsen; Alison Pedley; Elizabeth K Speliotes; Joseph M Massaro; Joanne Murabito; Udo Hoffmann; Caroline S Fox Journal: Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol Date: 2013-01-24 Impact factor: 8.311
Authors: Thanh-Binh Nguyen-Duy; Milton Z Nichaman; Timothy S Church; Steven N Blair; Robert Ross Journal: Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab Date: 2003-01-28 Impact factor: 4.310
Authors: Bret H Goodpaster; Shanthi Krishnaswami; Helaine Resnick; David E Kelley; Catherine Haggerty; Tamara B Harris; Ann V Schwartz; Steven Kritchevsky; Anne B Newman Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2003-02 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Britta A Larsen; Christina L Wassel; Stephen B Kritchevsky; Elsa S Strotmeyer; Michael H Criqui; Alka M Kanaya; Linda F Fried; Ann V Schwartz; Tamara B Harris; Joachim H Ix Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2016-03-01 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Sundar Natarajan; Henry Glick; Michael Criqui; David Horowitz; Stuart R Lipsitz; Bruce Kinosian Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2003-07 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: J Aubrey; N Esfandiari; V E Baracos; F A Buteau; J Frenette; C T Putman; V C Mazurak Journal: Acta Physiol (Oxf) Date: 2014-03 Impact factor: 6.311
Authors: Iva Miljkovic; Jane A Cauley; Patty Y Wang; Kathleen F Holton; Christine G Lee; Yahtyng Sheu; Elizabeth Barrett-Connor; Andrew R Hoffman; Cora B Lewis; Eric S Orwoll; Marcia L Stefanick; Elsa S Strotmeyer; Lynn M Marshall Journal: Obesity (Silver Spring) Date: 2013-05-29 Impact factor: 5.002