Muscle Quality As a Potential Explanation of the Metabolically Healthy but Obese and Sarcopenic Obese Paradoxes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Obesity has been associated with metabolic complications. However, two subgroups of obese individuals (namely "sarcopenic obese" and "metabolically healthy but obese" individuals) with low muscle mass appear to have a better metabolic profile. Despite having a lower muscle mass, these individuals appear to have higher muscle strength, suggesting higher muscle quality. Studies have reported insulin sensitivity to be related to muscle quality. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to test the hypothesis that low muscle mass was associated with better muscle quality in obese individuals. METHODS: A total of 112 postmenopausal women aged between 50 and 77 years (means, 61±6 years) were recruited. Body composition (bioelectrical impedancemetry), muscle strength (hand dynamometer), and functional capacity (chair stand test, alternate step test and balance test) were measured. RESULTS: Skeletal muscle mass (SM; kg) was significantly positively correlated with muscle strength (kg) in normal weight (r=0.43; P=0.003) and overweight (r=0.42; P=0.020) women, but not in obese (r=0.28; P=0.13) women. Muscle mass (kg) was significantly negatively correlated with muscle quality (kg/SMkg) in normal weight (r=-0.41, P=0.005), overweight (r=-0.59; P<0.001) and obese (r=-0.59; P<0.001) individuals. Skeletal muscle mass index (kg/m(2)) was significantly negatively correlated with muscle quality in normal weight (r=-0.33, P=0.025), overweight (r=-0.47, P=0.008), and obese (r=-0.43, P=0.015) women. Finally, type II sarcopenic individuals had higher muscle quality than type I sarcopenic (P=0.002) and nonsarcopenic (P=0.001) individuals. CONCLUSIONS: Our results support our hypothesis and showed that muscle quality increased as muscle mass and muscle mass index decreased. Thus, muscle quality may potentially explain the favorable metabolic profile observed in metabolically healthy but obese and sarcopenic obese postmenopausal women. Further studies including metabolic data are needed to confirm our results.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".