The relation between insulin resistance and lung function: a cross sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Impaired lung function and insulin resistance have been associated and thereby have also been indicated to be powerful predictors of cardiovascular mortality. Therefore, the co-existence of insulin resistance and impaired lung function accompanied with cardiovascular risk factors should induce cardiovascular mortality even in patients without known respiratory disease in a cumulative pattern. It could be useful to determine the lung function of patients with insulin resistance in order to decrease cardiovascular mortality by means of taking measures that minimize the risk of decline in lung function. However, no prior studies have been done on association between insulin resistance and lung function in adults in Turkey. We aimed to determine if insulin resistance plays a detrimental role in lung function in outpatients admitted to internal medicine clinics in adults from Turkey. METHODS: A total of 171 outpatients (mean ± SD) age: 43.1 ± 11.9) years) admitted to internal medicine clinics were included in this single-center cross-sectional study, and were divided into patients with (n = 63, mean ± SD) age: 43.2 ± 12.5) years, 83.5 % female) or without (n = 108, mean ± SD) age: 43.0 ± 11.6) years, 93.5 % female) insulin resistance. All patients were non-smokers. Data on gender, age, anthropometrics, blood pressure, blood biochemistry, metabolic syndrome (MetS), and lung function tests were collected in each patient. Correlates of insulin resistance were determined via logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Insulin resistance was present in 36.8 % of patients. Logistic regression analysis revealed an increase in the likelihood of having insulin resistance of 1.07 times with every 1-point increase in waist circumference, 1.01 times with every 1-point increase in triglycerides, 0.93 times with every 1-point decrease in HDL (high density lipoprotein) cholesterol, and 0.86 times with every 1-point decrease in percentage of FEV1/FVC pre (FEV1%pre: Forced expiratory volume in the first second of expiration for predicted values; FVC%pre.: Forced vital capacity for predicted values). CONCLUSIONS: Insulin resistance should also be considered amongst the contributing factors for decline in lung function.

Application of alternative anthropometric measurements to predict metabolic syndrome.

OBJECTIVE: The association between rarely used anthropometric measurements (e.g., mid-upper arm, forearm, and calf circumference) and metabolic syndrome has not been proven. The aim of this study was to assess whether mid-upper arm, forearm, calf, and waist circumferences, as well as waist/height ratio and waist-to-hip ratio, were associated with metabolic syndrome. METHODS: We enrolled 387 subjects (340 women, 47 men) who were admitted to the obesity outpatient department of Istanbul Medeniyet University Goztepe Training and Research Hospital between September 2010 and December 2010. The following measurements were recorded: waist circumference, hip circumference, waist/height ratio, waist-to-hip ratio, mid-upper arm circumference, forearm circumference, calf circumference, and body composition. Fasting blood samples were collected to measure plasma glucose, lipids, uric acid, insulin, and HbA1c. RESULTS: The odds ratios for visceral fat (measured via bioelectric impedance), hip circumference, forearm circumference, and waist circumference/hip circumference were 2.19 (95% CI, 1.30-3.71), 1.89 (95% CI, 1.07-3.35), 2.47 (95% CI, 1.24-4.95), and 2.11(95% CI, 1.26-3.53), respectively. The bioelectric impedance-measured body fat percentage correlated with waist circumference only in subjects without metabolic syndrome; the body fat percentage was negatively correlated with waist circumference/hip circumference in the metabolic syndrome group. All measurements except for forearm circumference were equally well correlated with the bioelectric impedance-measured body fat percentages in both groups. Hip circumference was moderately correlated with bioelectric impedance-measured visceral fat in subjects without metabolic syndrome. Muscle mass (measured via bioelectric impedance) was weakly correlated with waist and forearm circumference in subjects with metabolic syndrome and with calf circumference in subjects without metabolic syndrome. CONCLUSION: Waist circumference was not linked to metabolic syndrome in obese and overweight subjects; however, forearm circumference, an unconventional but simple and appropriate anthropometric index, was associated with metabolic syndrome and bioelectric impedance-measured visceral fat, hip circumference, and waist-to-hip ratio.

Application of alternative anthropometric measurements to predict metabolic syndrome

OBJECTIVE: The association between rarely used anthropometric measurements (e.g., mid-upper arm, forearm, and calf circumference) and metabolic syndrome has not been proven. The aim of this study was to assess whether mid-upper arm, forearm, calf, and waist circumferences, as well as waist/height ratio and waist-to-hip ratio, were associated with metabolic syndrome. METHODS: We enrolled 387 subjects (340 women, 47 men) who were admitted to the obesity outpatient department of Istanbul Medeniyet University Goztepe Training and Research Hospital between September 2010 and December 2010. The following measurements were recorded: waist circumference, hip circumference, waist/height ratio, waist-to-hip ratio, mid-upper arm circumference, forearm circumference, calf circumference, and body composition. Fasting blood samples were collected to measure plasma glucose, lipids, uric acid, insulin, and HbA1c. RESULTS: The odds ratios for visceral fat (measured via bioelectric impedance), hip circumference, forearm circumference, and waist circumference/hip circumference were 2.19 (95% CI, 1.30-3.71), 1.89 (95% CI, 1.07-3.35), 2.47 (95% CI, 1.24-4.95), and 2.11(95% CI, 1.26-3.53), respectively. The bioelectric impedance-measured body fat percentage correlated with waist circumference only in subjects without metabolic syndrome; the body fat percentage was negatively correlated with waist circumference/hip circumference in the metabolic syndrome group. All measurements except for forearm circumference were equally well correlated with the bioelectric impedance-measured body fat percentages in both groups. Hip circumference was moderately correlated with bioelectric impedance-measured visceral fat in subjects without metabolic syndrome. Muscle mass (measured via bioelectric impedance) was weakly correlated with waist and forearm circumference in subjects with metabolic syndrome and with calf circumference in subjects without metabolic syndrome. ...