Is the Relationship between Adipose Tissue and Waist Girth Altered by Weight Loss in Obese Men?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study was to examine whether the association of waist girth to visceral adipose tissue (AT) accumulation was altered by weight loss in abdominally obese men. RESEARCH METHODS AND PROCEDURES: We studied 45 dyslipidemic abdominally obese men (45.4 +/- 6.2 years of age; body mass index [BMI], 31.3 +/- 3.0 kg/m(2); waist circumference, 103.4 +/- 7.6 cm; total cholesterol, <6.72 mM; triglycerides, > or =1.7 mM but < or =5.65 mM; high density lipoprotein cholesterol, < or =1.2 mM). Each of them followed nutritional recommendations combined with a prescription of gemfibrozil (1200 mg/d) or a placebo for 1 year. After 6 months, a training exercise program was added at a frequency of four sessions of 60 minutes per week at 50% of maximal oxygen uptake. RESULTS: In response to the 1-year intervention program, men showed significant reductions in body weight, BMI, waist circumference, and in the partial volume of visceral and abdominal subcutaneous AT measured from two abdominal computed tomography scans performed at lumbar vertebra (L)2 to L3 and L4 to L5 levels. No change in waist-to-hip ratio was observed. Changes in visceral AT were strongly correlated with changes in body weight, BMI, and waist circumference (0.83 < r < 0.85; p < 0.001). However, a weak association was noted between waist-to-hip ratio and changes in visceral AT (r = 0.40; p < 0.05). There was no change in slopes or in intercepts before and after treatment in the relationships between volume or area of abdominal AT and anthropometric markers. DISCUSSION: Despite a greater level of the partial volume of subcutaneous AT than of the partial volume of visceral AT at baseline (p < 0.001), the greater relative reduction in the visceral AT volume in comparison with the subcutaneous AT volume suggested a preferential mobilization of visceral AT with weight loss in these abdominally obese men. The close relationship between changes in the partial volume of visceral AT and changes in cross-sectional areas of visceral AT measured at L2 to L3 (r = 0.94; p < 0.001) or L4 to L5 (r = 0.88; p < 0.001) suggests that a single computed tomography scan performed at L2 to L3 or L4 to L5 could predict changes in the partial volume of visceral AT secondary to weight loss.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".