Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2019 Sep 10;8(3):77-81.
doi: 10.1097/XCE.0000000000000176. eCollection 2019 Sep.

Relative fat mass is a better predictor of dyslipidemia and metabolic syndrome than body mass index

Ofer Kobo  1   2 , Ronit Leiba  3 , Ophir Avizohar  4 , Amir Karban  2
Affiliations

Relative fat mass is a better predictor of dyslipidemia and metabolic syndrome than body mass index

Ofer Kobo et al. Cardiovasc Endocrinol Metab. .

Abstract

Relative fat mass (RFM) had been recently developed. We aimed to examine RFM predictability to various cardiometabolic risk factors, compared to BMI.

Methods: Observational, cohort study, among patients who visited the Rambam Periodic Examinations Institute (RPEI). We compared the correlation of BMI and RFM to hypertension, impaired fasting glucose, high LDL, low HDL and metabolic syndrome, by gender.

Results: During study years, 20 167 patients visited the RPEI and included in the trial. Compared to BMI, RFM showed significantly better predictability (odds ratio [OR], [95% confidence interval (CI), P value]) of high LDL [1.618 (1.441-1.816, P < 0.001) vs. 0.732 (0.67-0.8, P < 0.001) in men; 1.572 (1.377-1.794, P < 0.001) vs. 0.938 (0.849-1.163, P = 0.94) in women], low HDL [2.944 (2.569-3.373, P < 0.001) vs. 2.177 (2-2.369, P < 0.001) in men, 2.947 (2.519-3.448, P < 0.001) vs. 1.9 (1.658-2.176, P < 0.001) in women], high triglycerides [4.019 (3.332-4.847, P < 0.001) vs. 1.994 (1.823-2.181, P < 0.001) in men, 3.93 (2.943-5.247, P < 0.001) vs. 2.24 (1.887-2.62, P < 0.001) in women] and metabolic syndrome [7.479, (4.876-11.47, P < 0.001) vs. 3.263 (2.944-3.616, P < 0.001) in men, 16.247 (8.348-31.619, P < 0.001) vs. 5.995 (5.099-7.048, P < 0.001) in women]. There was no significant difference in the predictability of BMI and RFM to hypertension and diabetes mellitus.

Conclusion: RFM provides high predictability for dyslipidemias and metabolic syndrome.

Keywords: body mass index; obesity; relative fat mass.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Correlation between RFM and BMI for women (a) and men (b). RFM, relative fat mass.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
ROC curves for identification of metabolic syndrome for BMI and RFM, by gender. (a) Men and (b) Women. RFM, relative fat mass; ROC, receiver operating characteristic curve.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Seidell JC, Halberstadt J. The global burden of obesity and the challenges of prevention. Ann Nutr Metab. 2015; 66Suppl 27–12 - PubMed
    1. Langenberg C, Sharp SJ, Schulze MB, Rolandsson O, Overved K, Forouhi NG, et al. Long-term risk of incident type 2 diabetes and measures of overall and regional obesity: the EPIC-InterAct case-cohort study. PLoS Med. 2012; 9:e1001230. - PMC - PubMed
    1. World Health Organization Definition, Diagnosis and Classification of Diabetes Mellitus and Its Complications: Report of a WHO Consultation. Part 1: Diagnosis and Classification of Diabetes Mellitus. 1999. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization, http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/1999/WHO_NCD_NCS_99.2.pdf. [Accessed 12 December 2003].
    1. Einhorn D, Reaven GM, Cobin RH, Ford E, Ganda OP, Handelsman Y, et al. American college of endocrinology position statement on the insulin resistance syndrome. Endocr Pract. 2003; 9:237–252 - PubMed
    1. Kobo O, Leiba R, Avizohar O, Karban A. Relative fat mass (RFM) as abdominal obesity criterion for metabolic syndrome. Eur J Intern Med. 2019; 63:e9–e11 - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources