Longitudinally evaluated the relationship between body fat percentage and the risk for type 2 diabetes mellitus: Korean Genome and Epidemiology Study (KoGES)

19Citations
Citations of this article
44Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Background: Body fat plays the significant role in maintaining glucose homeostasis. However, it is not fully identified how body fat percentage (BF%) has an impact on the development of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Thus, this study was to evaluate the incidental risk for T2DM according to BF% level. Methods: In a community-based Korean cohort, 5972 Korean adults were divided into quintile groups by BF% and followed up for 10 years to monitor the development of T2DM. Cox proportional hazard model was used to evaluate the hazard ratios (HRs) for T2DM according to BF% quintile. Additionally, subgroup analysis was conducted by low and high level of BF% (cut-off: 25 in men and 35 in women) and body mass index (BMI). Results: In adjusted model, compared to the BF% quintile 1 group, the risk for T2DM significantly increased over BF% of 22.8% in men and 32.9% in women (≥quintile 4). The level of BF% related to the increased risk for T2DM was lower in non-obese men (22.8%) than obese men (28.4%). In subgroup analysis, men with low BMI (<25) and high BF% (≥25) had the highest risk for T2DM than other subgroups (HRs: 1.83 (1.33–2.52)). However, this association did not show the statistical significance in women (HRs: 1.63 (0.98–2.72)). Conclusion: The incidental risk for T2DM significantly increased over the specific level of BF%, which was lower in non-obese population than obese population. Gender difference was suggested in the incidental relationship between BF% and T2DM.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Park, S. K., Ryoo, J. H., Oh, C. M., Choi, J. M., & Jung, J. Y. (2018). Longitudinally evaluated the relationship between body fat percentage and the risk for type 2 diabetes mellitus: Korean Genome and Epidemiology Study (KoGES). European Journal of Endocrinology, 178(5), 513–521. https://doi.org/10.1530/EJE-17-0868

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free