Abstract
Objective
The associations between sarcopenia, adiposity indices and metabolic dysregulation still remain controversial. We aimed to assess and compare insulin resistance and metabolic profile in sarcopenic and non-sarcopenic obese Saudi adult men.
Methods
This cross sectional study was conducted at the College of Sports Sciences, King Saud University, Riyadh. We recruited 312 Saudi adult male individuals and 288 were finally selected for the study. Body composition analysis and hand grip strength (HGS) were estimated by bioimpedance analysis (BIA) and dynamometer in all subjects, respectively. Fasting blood samples were collected for glucose (FBG), basal insulin (BI) and lipid profile. The subjects were divided into three groups based on the body composition parameters, appendicular lean mass (ALM) and body fat percentage (BF%), into non-obese (NonOb) [Normal ALM+<25 BF%], obese without sarcopenia (ObNonS) [Normal ALM+>25 BF%] and obese with sarcopenia (ObS) [Low ALM+>25 BF%].
Results
Obese subjects had significantly higher BI, HOMA-IR and HOMA-β compared to non-obese. Moreover, comparison between two obese groups revealed that both BI and HOMA-IR levels were higher in ObS subjects compared to ObNonS individuals revealing that sarcopenia exacerbates the insulin resistance profile. There was a significant trend of higher resistance and lower sensitivity from non-obese to obesity with sarcopenia. Total cholesterol (TC) and triglycerides (TG) were significantly higher and high density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) was significantly lower in sarcopenic obese subjects compared to non-sarcopenic obese individuals. The worsening effects were more significant at cutoff point of 7.46 on insulin indices and lipid profile showing that sarcopenia associated with obesity exacerbates the dyslipidemia.
Conclusion
Our study shows that obesity associated with sarcopenia exhibits significantly greater insulin resistance and dyslipidemia than sarcopenia or obesity per se. Therefore, sarcopenic obesity might be an independent risk factor for metabolic disease progression.
Abbreviations
ALM, appendicular lean mass; BIA, bioelectrical impedance analysis; BMI, body mass index; BF%, body fat percentage; BFM, body fat mass; FFM, fat free mass; ALM, appendicular lean mass; TBW, total body water; FFMI, fat free mass index; TC, total cholesterol; TG, triglycerides; HDL-C, high density lipoprotein cholesterol; BI, basal Insulin, FBG, fasting blood glucose; QUICKI, Quantitative Insulin Sensitivity Check Index; HOMA-IR, homeostasis model assessment for insulin resistance.
Ethical Approval
The present study was approved by institutional review board (IRB) committee of King Saud University: IRB no. E-18-3381. The study is in accordance with 1964 Helsinki declaration and its ethical standards.
Informed Consent
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Acknowledgments
The authors are highly grateful to all Community Development Commissions of Riyadh districts who contributed to the study by contacting the older population of the community and hosting data collection. We also thank Research Support and Services Unit at Deanship of Scientific Research at KSU for the technical support.
Disclosure
The authors report no conflicts of interest for this work.