Journal
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF OBESITY
Volume 36, Issue 8, Pages 1135-1140Publisher
NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/ijo.2011.212
Keywords
abnormal glucose metabolism; body mass; cardiorespiratory fitness; maximal oxygen uptake
Categories
Funding
- Ministry of Education of Finland [116/722/2004, 134/627/2005, 44/627/2006, 113/627/2007, 41/627/2008]
- Academy of Finland [104943, 211119, 123885]
- European Commission [LSHM-CT-2004-005272]
- City of Kuopio
- Finnish Diabetes Association
- Kuopio University Hospital
- Paivikki and Sakari Sohlberg Foundation
- Social Insurance Institution of Finland
- Finnish Medical Foundation
- Swedish Council for Working Life
- Finnish Heart Association
- Bruno Krachler
- Academy of Finland (AKA) [211119] Funding Source: Academy of Finland (AKA)
Ask authors/readers for more resources
OBJECTIVE: Cardiorespiratory fitness is currently estimated by dividing maximal oxygen consumption (VO2max) by body weight (per-weight standard). However, the statistically correct way to neutralize the effect of weight on VO2max in a given population is adjustment for body weight by regression techniques (adjusted standard). Our objective is to quantify the bias introduced by the per-weight standard in a population distributed across different categories of body mass. DESIGN: This is a cross-sectional study. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Baseline measures from participants of the Dose-Responses to Exercise Training Study (DR's EXTRA), 635 men (body mass index (BMI): 19-47 kgm(-2)) and 638 women (BMI: 16-49 kgm(-2)) aged 57-78 years who performed oral glucose tolerance tests and maximal exercise stress tests with direct measurement of VO2max. We compare the increase in VO2max implied by the per-weight standard with the real increase of VO2max per kg body weight. A linear logistic regression model estimates odds for abnormal glucose metabolism (either impaired fasting glycemia or impaired glucose tolerance or Type 2 diabetes) of the least-fit versus most-fit quartile according to both per-weight standard and adjusted standard. RESULTS: The per-weight standard implies an increase of VO2max with 20.9 ml min(-1) in women and 26.4 ml min(-1) in men per additional kg body weight. The true increase per kg is only 7.0 ml min(-1) (95% confidence interval: 5.3-8.8) and 8.0 ml min(-1) (95% confidence interval: 5.3-10.7), respectively. Risk for abnormal glucose metabolism in the least-fit quartile of the population is overestimated by 52% if the per-weight standard is used. CONCLUSIONS: In comparisons across different categories of body mass, the per-weight standard systematically underestimates cardiorespiratory fitness in obese subjects. Use of the per-weight standard markedly inflates associations between poor fitness and co-morbidities of obesity.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available