TG/HDL Ratio Is an Independent Predictor for Estimating Resting Energy Expenditure in Adults with Normal Weight, Overweight, and Obesity
1
Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN 37232, USA
2
College of Arts and Sciences, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN 37212, USA
3
Department of Veterans Affairs, Tennessee Valley Healthcare System, Nashville, TN 37212, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Nutrients 2022, 14(23), 5106; https://doi.org/10.3390/nu14235106
Submission received: 12 October 2022
/
Revised: 18 November 2022
/
Accepted: 21 November 2022
/
Published: 1 December 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Nutritional Regulation of Insulin Resistance and Lipid Metabolism)
Abstract
:Factors that determine resting energy expenditure (REE) remain under investigation, particularly in persons with a high body mass index (BMI). The accurate estimation of energy expenditure is essential for conducting comprehensive nutrition assessments, planning menus and meals, prescribing weight and chronic disease interventions, and the prevention of malnutrition. This study aimed to: (a) determine the contribution of cardiometabolic biomarkers to the inter-individual variation in REE in persons categorized by BMI; and (b) assess the contribution of these biomarkers in the prediction of REE when persons of varying BMI status were categorized by their glycemic and metabolic syndrome status. Baseline data from 645 adults enrolled in diet intervention trials included REE measured by indirect calorimetry, body composition by dual energy X-ray absorptiometry, anthropometrics, and cardiometabolic biomarkers. Multivariate linear regression modeling was conducted to determine the most parsimonious model that significantly predicted REE by BMI category, metabolic syndrome status, and glycemic status. Modeling with the traditional predictors (age, sex, height, weight) accounted for 58–63% of the inter-individual variance in REE. When including age, sex, height, weight and fat-free mass as covariates, adding TG/HDL to regression modeling accounted for 71–87% of the variance in REE. The finding that TG/HDL is an independent predictor in estimating REE was further confirmed when participants were categorized by metabolic syndrome status and by glycemic status. The clinical utility of calculating the TG/HDL ratio not only aids health care providers in identifying patients with impaired lipid metabolism but can optimize the estimation of REE to better meet therapeutic goals for weight and disease management.
1. Introduction
The accurate estimation of daily energy expenditure is essential for conducting comprehensive nutrition assessments, planning menus and meals, prescribing weight and chronic disease interventions, preventing malnutrition, and determining parenteral and enteral nutrition support formulations. Factors that determine energy expenditure in humans remain under investigation, particularly in persons with a high body mass. Resting energy expenditure (REE) continues to be the most frequently measured constituent of total daily energy expenditure (TEE), as it comprises ~60–70% of TEE (with the thermic effect of food comprising ~10% and physical activity energy expenditure comprising the remaining 15–30%). Prior studies show that the prediction of REE including age, sex, height, weight, fat and/or fat-free mass as independent variables accounts for ~65% of the inter-individual variability in REE [1,2]. As current evidence does not support a robust genetic effect, with heritability estimates of REE being only 0.3 MJ/day [3], it is likely that a significant portion of the unexplained inter-individual variance in REE is related to cardiometabolic risk factors including biomarkers indicative of impaired glucose or lipid metabolism and insulin resistance [3].
The findings of studies in adults with obesity on the relationship between glycemia and REE are ambiguous. Whereas one study in adults with obesity and type 2 diabetes detected no correlation between fasting plasma glucose or HbA1c and REE [4], another showed that including fasting plasma glucose in regression modeling improved the prediction of REE by 3% [5]. Further, glucose disposal and fasting insulin level were significant determinants of REE in Pima peoples, independent of age, sex and body composition [6]. The relationship between glucose, insulin, insulin resistance and REE has also been observed in an inter-generational study of 149 families [3]. More recently, a positive association between insulin resistance and REE has been shown in normal and overweight healthy adults after adjustment for age and sex [7]. As insulin resistance is an early pathological indicator for the development of T2D, the higher REE observed in persons with T2D [3,8] and the metabolic syndrome [9] may be a function of their insulin resistance.
However, the gold standard method of determining the presence of insulin resistance, the hyperinsulinemic-euglycemic clamp [10], is a costly, time-consuming and invasive approach used primarily in research settings. Consequently, surrogate markers of insulin resistance are more widely used, including the HOMA-IR and HOMA-2IR scores. Yet, the measurement of blood insulin level is not a routinely performed component of standard clinical practice, assay methods have not been standardized [11], and it is an expensive test. Thus, other non-insulin-based surrogate indicators of insulin resistance that are more widely available across health care settings include the calculation of the ratio of triglyceride to HDL-cholesterol (TG/HDL) and the triglyceride glucose index (TyG). Both an increased plasma triglyceride level and a decreased HDL-cholesterol level are independent predictors of insulin resistance [12]. An increased TG/HDL ratio has been observed in persons with impaired fasting glucose, prediabetes, T2D and the metabolic syndrome compared to normoglycemic individuals [13,14,15]. Moreover, analysis from 10,132 participants of the U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) showed that each 0.1 unit increase in the TG/HDL ratio was associated with a 51% increased risk of insulin resistance after adjustment for demographic, anthropometric and clinical covariates [16].
Beyond being a surrogate biomarker of insulin resistance, an elevated TG/HDL ratio may be an indicator of imbalance in the delivery and uptake of lipids to the liver, and consequently, dysfunctional hepatic lipid metabolism that contributes to the pathophysiology of insulin resistance. Indeed, the TG/HDL ratio is independently associated with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease [17]. Moreover, it is now under investigation that changes in the liver, including the increased delivery of free fatty acids to the liver in the state of high adiposity (obesity), when subcutaneous adipose tissue has reached its limit of expansion to store excess lipid, alters endocrine and paracrine functions to cause insulin resistance [18]. Notably, more recent metabolomic and lipidomic methods have identified lipid families and subclasses that function in regulating insulin sensitivity and action [19]. Yet, scientific debate continues as to the causative role and specific mechanisms underlying the impact of lipid classes on the development of insulin resistance.
The investigation of the combined effects of the traditional predictors (sex, age, height, weight) and clinically available cardiometabolic biomarkers on REE to better approximate daily energy (caloric) needs in persons of varying body mass status is limited. Therefore, the purpose of the current study was to: (1) determine the cardiometabolic biomarkers that significantly contribute to the inter-individual variation in REE after adjustment for age, sex, height, weight and fat or fat-free mass in individuals with normal weight, overweight, and obesity; and (2) assess the contribution of cardiometabolic biomarkers in the prediction of REE when individuals with a normal weight, overweight and obesity are categorized by their glycemic and metabolic syndrome status.
2. Methods
2.1. Subjects
The present findings derive from compiling baseline data from adults who participated in one of five diet intervention trials conducted at the Vanderbilt Diet, Body Composition and Human Metabolism Core between 2011 and 2021. Subjects were recruited by email distribution lists announcing the trials and enrolled if they met the following eligibility criteria: age ≥ 18 years, BMI ≥ 18.5 kg/m2, weight stable for at least 3 months prior to enrollment, no diagnosis of cancer, heart, liver, lung, kidney or thyroid disease, no diagnosis of infectious or auto-immune disease, no prior bariatric surgery, not taking medications affecting appetite or weight, no food allergies or dietary restrictions and not pregnant or lactating. Approvals were obtained from the Ethics Committee of the Vanderbilt University Medical Center Institutional Review Board, and all subjects provided written informed consent prior to study visits. All physical and metabolic assessments were conducted at the Vanderbilt Clinical Research Center, with subjects arriving in a 10 h overnight fasted state. Upon arrival, vital signs and a fasting venous sample were obtained by a clinical research center nurse.
2.2. Clinical Labs
Whole blood samples were submitted to the Vanderbilt Department of Pathology Diagnostic Laboratory for analysis. Serum glucose was measured by the colorimetric timed endpoint method, and serum insulin was measured by chemiluminescent immunoassay. Serum triglycerides, total cholesterol and HDL-cholesterol were assayed by selective enzymatic hydrolysis. The homeostatic model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) was calculated as ([fasting glucose (mM) × fasting insulin (mU/L)]/22.5) and HOMA-%β using the online HOMA2 calculator [20,21]. Metabolic syndrome status was classified according to the 2009 joint statement criteria [22]. Glycemic status was classified based on ICD-code diagnosis in the electronic medical record and fasting plasma glucose level: normoglycemic (no diagnosis and glucose < 100 mg/dL), prediabetes (diagnosis or glucose 100–125 mg/dL), diabetes (diagnosis or glucose ≥ 126 mg/ dL) [23].
2.3. Anthropometry and Body Composition
Height (±0.1 cm), weight (±0.1 kg) and waist and hip circumferences (±0.1 cm) were measured in triplicate by a research dietitian using standardized procedures. Whole and regional body composition were measured by one certified densitometrist using a Lunar iDXA™ (GE Healthcare, Madison, WI, USA), which was phantom-calibrated each morning before data collection to ensure instrument reliability. Coefficients of variation (CV) from repeated measures performed in 12 randomly selected subjects were <1.5% for total fat, total lean, trunk fat and trunk lean masses, ensuring the precision and reliability of the DXA measurements [24]. Visceral adipose tissue (VAT) mass was quantified using the CoreScan algorithm in Encore software version 13.6 (GE Healthcare, Madison, WI, USA), which computes VAT mass (g) in the android region.
2.4. Indirect Calorimetry
Resting energy expenditure (REE) was measured in the overnight fasted state under standard thermoneutral conditions using a metabolic cart system (ParvoMedics TrueOne 2400®, Sandy, UT, USA). Before each study visit, the system was calibrated to room air and a single gas tank (~16% O2, 1% CO2). The whole-body rates of oxygen consumption (O2) and carbon dioxide (CO2) production were determined from measurements of expired volume and the differences in O2 and CO2 between inspired and expired air. Ventilation was measured by a mass flow meter, oxygen concentration was measured by a paramagnetic O2 analyzer and carbon dioxide was measured by an infrared CO2 analyzer. Data were collected for a total of 15 min upon subjects having rested in the supine position for ≥10 min and reaching a steady state under the hood with an average change in minute VO2 ≤ 10% and an RQ ≤ 5% [25,26]. No subjects had an RQ < 0.7 or >1.0. Measurement of VO2 and VCO2 in liters per minute enabled the automated calculation of REE via the Weir equation [27]. Substrate oxidation rates as a percentage of REE, after adjustment for 24 h urinary urea nitrogen excretion, were automatically calculated using the methods of Frayn [28].
2.5. Statistical Analysis
Continuous variables were checked for normality by the visual inspection of histograms and the Shapiro–Wilk test. Descriptive statistics are summarized for continuous variables as the mean ± standard deviation and for categorical variables as the frequency and percentage. Preliminary analysis showed no significant differences between participants with Class I (BMI 30.0–34.9 kg/m2) and Class II (BMI 35.0–39.9 kg/m2) obesity for age, HOMA-IR, TG/HDL ratio, REE or the variance accounted for in REE with the traditional model (age, sex, height, weight). Thus, final analyses were conducted with subjects assigned to one of four BMI categories: normal weight (18.5–24.9 kg/m2), overweight (25.0–29.9 kg/m2), Class I/II obesity (30.0–39.9 kg/m2) and Class III obesity (≥40 kg/m2). Univariate associations between independent demographic, clinical, and body composition variables and REE were explored by Pearson’s correlation coefficients and simple linear regression to identify potential predictors for inclusion in multivariate regression modeling. A forward stepwise approach was used for multivariate linear regression modeling to determine the most parsimonious model that significantly predicted REE by BMI category and again with subjects categorized by metabolic syndrome and glycemic status. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS version 28.0 (IBM, Montauk, NY, USA).
3. Results
Of the 645 participants who met the eligibility criteria (Figure 1), 380 (58.9%) were female, 265 (41.1%) were male, 418 (64.8%) self-identified as white and 227 (35.2%) self-identified as Black, with no significant differences observed in the proportion of participants in each of the four BMI categories by sex or race/ethnicity. Overall, 38 (5.9%) participants were normal weight, 86 (13.3%) were overweight, 442 (68.6%) had class I/II obesity and 79 (12.2%) had class III obesity (Table 1). The average age was 42.2 ± 13.5 years, with obese participants being significantly older than normal weight participants by 7–10 years (F = 6.413, p < 0.001).
The primary outcome, resting energy expenditure, was significantly lower in normal weight participants compared to all other BMI groups (all Ps < 0.001), with a mean difference of an additional 266.9 ± 67.2 kcal/day being expended over 24 h in overweight participants, 247.9 ± 58.4 kcal/day in obesity class I/II participants and 492.8 ± 69.4 kcal/day in obesity class III participants. The REE in class III participants was also significantly higher than that in overweight and class I/II participants by a mean difference of 225–245 kcal/day (Ps < 0.001). There was no difference in respiratory quotient across the four groups (p = 0.24), which averaged 0.82 ± 0.06, and no significant differences among groups were observed in substrate utilization, as the proportions of fat, carbohydrates and protein being oxidized during metabolic testing were similar (all Ps > 0.20).
3.1. Differences in Linear Regression Models by BMI Category
Univariate analysis confirmed that there were significant associations between the traditional predictors of age, sex, height, weight and REE (Table 2). In addition, REE correlated with fat-free mass (r = 0.76, p < 0.001), HOMA-IR score (r = 0.19, p < 0.001) and TG/HDL ratio (r = 0.34, p < 0.001). The univariate relationship between REE and TG/HDL ratio was more robust than the relationship between REE and HOMA-IR score (adjusted R2 = 0.11 vs. 0.03, Figure 2). Measurements of regional and total fat (amounts and percentages), including VAT, were not significantly associated with REE.
Multivariate regression modeling with the traditional predictors (age, sex, height, weight) accounted for 58–63% of the variance in REE: normal weight adjusted R2 = 0.62, overweight adjusted R2 = 0.63, obese class I/II adjusted R2 = 0.58, obese class III adjusted R2 = 0.61 (Table 3, Model 1). Adjusting the traditional model for fat-free mass increased the amount of the variability in REE, accounting for only 1% in the normal weight group but for 16% in the overweight group and for 7% in the Class I/II and Class III obese groups (Table 3, Model 2).
Within these groups, there were significant differences in TG/HDL ratios and HOMA-IR scores. The TG/HDL ratio was significantly higher in overweight, obese Class I/II and obese Class III participants compared to normal weight participants (1.68 ± 0.99, 2.63 ± 2.03, 3.26 ± 2.05, respectively, vs. 1.12 ± 0.55, all Ps < 0.001). Adding the TG/HDL ratio to the models further increased the amount of the variance in REE accounted for by 16% in the normal weight group, 8% in the overweight group and 6% in the obese Class I/II and Class III groups (Table 3, Model 3). Thus, 71–87% of the overall inter-individual variability in REE was accounted for in the models that included the TG/HDL ratio.
The HOMA-IR score was 4.2–5.5 units higher in obesity Class III participants compared to normal weight, overweight and obesity Class I/II participants (all Ps < 0.001). However, adding the HOMA-IR score to the models decreased the amount of the variance in REE accounted for in the normal weight and overweight groups and only increased the variance accounted for by 2% in the Class I/II obesity group and by 1% in the Class III obesity group (Table 3, Model 4).
3.2. Differences in Linear Regression Models by Glycemic and Metabolic Syndrome Status
To further assess the impact of the TG/HDL ratio as a predictor of REE, we conducted two sub-analyses; first, participants were grouped by their glycemic status and then by their metabolic syndrome status. A comparison of descriptive characteristics by subgroups is presented in Table 4 and Table 5. Among the 645 participants, the REE was 162.5 ± 41.4 kcal/day higher in those with type 2 diabetes (T2D) compared to normoglycemic participants and 174.7 ± 47.2 kcal/day higher compared to those with prediabetes (Ps < 0.001), but no difference was detected in REE between the normoglycemic and prediabetic participants (12.2 ± 34.4 kcal/day, p = 0.93).
As with REE, there was no significant difference detected in HOMA-IR scores between normoglycemic and prediabetic participants (p = 0.48). However, the TG/HDL ratio differed among the three groups from 2.0 ± 1.5 in normoglycemic participants to 2.7 ± 1.8 in prediabetic participants and 4.3 ± 2.7 in those with T2D (all Ps < 0.001). As shown in Table 6 (Models 2 and 3), adding fat-free mass to the traditional model (age, sex, height, weight) and including the TG/HDL ratio as a predictor variable increased the amount of the inter-individual variance accounted for in predicting REE by 11–13%. In contrast, adding HOMA-IR to these models (Table 6, Model 4) either reduced or increased the variance accounted for in predicting REE by only 1%.
The REE, HOMA-IR score and TG/HDL ratio were also significantly higher when comparing participants by metabolic syndrome status (Table 5), with 125.6 ± 29.4 kcal more being expended daily by participants with metabolic syndrome (p < 0.001) compared to those without metabolic syndrome. Both the HOMA-IR score and TG/HDL ratio were >2 times higher in those with metabolic syndrome. Consistent with the findings when participants were grouped by glycemic status, including the TG/HDL ratio in the final model increased the inter-individual variability accounted for in predicting REE by 9–12% when participants were grouped by metabolic syndrome status (Table 7).
4. Discussion
The major novel finding of the present study, conducted in a large cohort of adults with a wide range of age and BMI, is that TG/HDL ratio is an independent predictor of REE. Importantly, the TG/HDL ratio was significantly associated with the REE in both univariate and multivariate regression analyses. It is noteworthy that the estimation of REE in these 645 participants, who ranged in age from 18 to 81 years, showed substantial improvement when adjusting for TG/HDL ratio. Overall, 71–87% of the inter-individual variability in estimating REE was accounted for when the traditional predictors (age, sex, height, weight) were adjusted for fat-free mass and TG/HDL ratio.
An elevated TG/HDL ratio has long been associated with having an atherogenic lipid profile and, more recently, with being in a state of insulin resistance [29,30]. Thus, the TG/HDL ratio is a biomarker for both impaired glucose and lipid metabolism. Indeed, a high TG/HDL ratio is associated with insulin resistance in children, adolescents, and adults of various ages and BMIs [16,31,32,33,34], and much prior evidence demonstrates that the TG/HDL ratio is equal or more accurate when compared to any other surrogate biomarker of insulin resistance. It is interesting that both the normoglycemic participants and participants who did not meet the criteria for having metabolic syndrome encompassed a range of BMIs and of hyperinsulinemia. While some studies have suggested that the TG/HDL ratio is only a biomarker for insulin resistance in Caucasian or white persons, data from larger longitudinal or population-based studies show a similar relationship in Hispanics, African Americans, and Asians, as observed with Caucasians [35,36,37]. In the present study, we found no effect on the inter-individual variability in REE when including race/ethnicity in regression models.
The steeper slope of the regression line that was observed for the association between TG/HDL ratio and REE compared to the association between HOMA-IR and REE indicates not only a stronger relationship between TG/HDL ratio and REE but that an increase in the TG/HDL ratio is associated with a greater increase in REE. Supporting these findings, when participants were categorized by glycemic or metabolic syndrome status, we found that the TG/HDL ratio was a robust independent predictor of REE. Further, adding HOMA-IR to the regression models did not improve the proportion of the variance accounted for in predicting REE.
Beyond the current awareness of TG/HDL ratio as a biomarker of insulin resistance, it has become evident that an elevated TG/HDL ratio may be indicative of the lipid handling dysfunction in the liver and skeletal muscle that likely causes insulin resistance. In the normal weight individual, it is expected that metabolically healthy subcutaneous adipose tissue (SAT) will store large amounts of energy in the form of triglycerides. In the obese state, it is more likely that the dysregulation of SAT expansion and storage will occur, and lipids will begin to accumulate in other depots. Excess lipid deposits in the intraabdominal space (visceral adiposity) are part of a complex pathophysiological phenotype that includes the release of free fatty acids and the storage of triglycerides in the liver, in skeletal muscle, adjacent to and surrounding the heart, in the pancreas, and in the kidneys. This accumulation of ectopic fat disrupts organ and tissue function, promoting a state of impaired sensitivity or response to insulin action, i.e., insulin resistance. Intrahepatic triglyceride content is a robust predictor of insulin action, not only in the liver but also in skeletal muscle and adipose tissue [38]. In a normal (non-hyperinsulinemic) state, the oxidation of VLDL-TG would contribute 10–20% to resting energy expenditure [39]. However, a state of chronic hyperinsulinemia is associated with overproduction and reduced clearance of VLDL-triglyceride. While de novo lipogenesis typically supplies about 5% to the hepatic triglyceride pool, the investigation of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease has shown that this contribution increases to 25–40% in a state of hyperglycemia and hyperinsulinemia. Such dysregulation of lipid metabolism may be a result of diet (i.e., high saturated fat or high simple sugar dietary intake) and/or genetics [40]. Of relevance is that these factors likely induce mitochondrial dysfunction and oxidative stress from the overproduction of reactive oxygen species [41]. Evidence from rodent and in vitro models has shown that hepatic steatosis is a marker for this impaired metabolic milieu [42].
Another distinctive finding from the present study was that REE did not differ between persons with Class I and Class II obesity but was significantly higher in those with Class III obesity (BMI ≥ 40 kg/m2). Limited evidence has been published on REE in persons with severe obesity. The present data suggest that the impact of having a high body mass on REE becomes most influential when both body mass and insulin resistance are severely high. Baseline data from bariatric surgery patients with Class III obesity showed that those with insulin resistance had a higher REE than those who were insulin-sensitive, even when adjusted for fat-free mass [43]. Both the HOMA-IR score and TG/HDL ratio were significantly higher in participants with Class III obesity compared to those with Class I/II obesity. In Class III obese participants, the univariate and multivariate relationship between TG/HDL ratio and REE was stronger than that between HOMA-IR score and REE, which is in line with the other findings of this study.
It is interesting that we did not detect any difference in substrate oxidation or respiratory quotient among the BMI groups. While it is theorized that increased fatty acid oxidation would produce increased energy expenditure, little published evidence supports the concept that switching to greater fat oxidation increases energy expenditure. However, the flow of the substrate to storage or oxidation is controlled by insulin action. To date, there remains several mechanisms under study to explain ectopic fat, other factors, and pathways associated with reduced insulin action. One area of continued investigation and debate is the potential for altered mitochondrial activity and function in the state of insulin resistance, which may affect bioenergetics. The evidence remains conflicting, as some studies show a compensatory increase in mitochondrial oxidative capacity in insulin resistance, while others show decreased or unchanged capacity [44,45,46].
The limitations of the present study include that we did not assess all conceivable factors that may associate with REE, such as cardiorespiratory fitness or physical activity level. Adding time spent in moderate-to-vigorous physical activity had a small effect in estimating REE in young adults [47]. It is also possible that the energy cost of exercise and weight-bearing activities, including movement, differs among persons with varying BMI status. Secondly, cross-sectional data do not allow for elucidating the factors involved in the dynamic nature of energy expenditure. Lastly, the measurement of body composition by more technologically advanced imaging methods, such as CT and MRI, may be superior to DXA, although DXA is more widely available and cost-effective. Moreover, our prior data showed only slight differences in measurements of whole body and regional fat between MRI and DXA, with a small potential overestimation of lean tissue by DXA [24]. The strengths of the present study include the large sample size, the presence of a wide range of ages, BMI status, and glycemic and insulinemic statuses among participants and the use of the gold standard indirect calorimetry method for measuring REE, which was performed in the fasted state under well-controlled thermoneutral environmental conditions.
In conclusion, the results indicate that adjusting the classical covariates associated with REE (age, sex, height, weight) for fat-free mass (representing metabolically active organs and tissue) substantially increases the variance accounted for in the prediction modeling of persons who are overweight and have Class I, II or III obesity. However, there remains a significant portion of the inter-individual variability in REE that can be accounted for by including the TG/HDL ratio. Furthermore, an elevated TG/HDL ratio has proven to be a robust risk factor for impaired fasting glucose, prediabetes, type 2 diabetes, metabolic syndrome and cardiovascular disease in multiple studies. Thus, the utility of calculating the TG/HDL ratio, a parameter widely accessible in standard clinical practice, is not only to aid healthcare providers in identifying patients with lipid handling dysfunction and/or insulin resistance but to optimize the estimation of REE to better determine energy requirements and meet therapeutic goals for weight and chronic disease management.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, H.J.S.; methodology, H.J.S.; software, H.J.S.; validation, A.W. and H.J.S.; formal analysis, H.J.S.; investigation, H.J.S.; resources, A.W., M.G.M., H.J.S.; data curation, A.W., M.G.M., H.J.S.; writing—original draft preparation, A.W., M.G.M., H.J.S.; writing—review and editing, H.J.S.; visualization, H.J.S.; supervision, H.J.S.; project administration, H.J.S.; funding acquisition, H.J.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This study was funded by grants to H.J.S. from the International Tree Nut Council Nutrition Research Foundation and the Robert C. and Veronica Atkins Foundation.
Institutional Review Board Statement
Approvals were obtained from the Ethics Committee of the Vanderbilt University Medical Center Institutional Review Board.
Informed Consent Statement
All subjects provided written informed consent prior to study visits.
Data Availability Statement
The data presented in this study may be available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly shared due to privacy and ethical considerations based on the agreement as stated in the signed consent form.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
- Harris, J.A.; Benedict, F.G. A Biometric Study of Human Basal Metabolism. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1918, 4, 370–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Schofield, W.N. Predicting basal metabolic rate, new standards and review of previous work. Hum. Nutr. Clin. Nutr. 1985, 39 (Suppl. 1), 5–41. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Bosy-Westphal, A.; Wolf, A.; Buhrens, F.; Hitze, B.; Czech, N.; Monig, H.; Selberg, O.; Settler, U.; Pfeuffer, M.; Schrezenmeir, J.; et al. Familial influences and obesity-associated metabolic risk factors contribute to the variation in resting energy expenditure: The Kiel Obesity Prevention Study. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2008, 87, 1695–1701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Ryan, M.; Salle, A.; Guilloteau, G.; Genaitay, M.; Livingstone, M.B.; Ritz, P. Resting energy expenditure is not increased in mildly hyperglycaemic obese diabetic patients. Br. J. Nutr. 2006, 96, 945–948. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Gougeon, R.; Lamarche, M.; Yale, J.F.; Venuta, T. The prediction of resting energy expenditure in type 2 diabetes mellitus is improved by factoring for glycemia. Int. J. Obes. Relat. Metab. Disord. 2002, 26, 1547–1552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Weyer, C.; Bogardus, C.; Pratley, R.E. Metabolic factors contributing to increased resting metabolic rate and decreased insulin-induced thermogenesis during the development of type 2 diabetes. Diabetes 1999, 48, 1607–1614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Drabsch, T.; Holzapfel, C.; Stecher, L.; Petzold, J.; Skurk, T.; Hauner, H. Associations Between C-Reactive Protein, Insulin Sensitivity, and Resting Metabolic Rate in Adults: A Mediator Analysis. Front. Endocrinol. 2018, 9, 556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Weyer, C.; Snitker, S.; Rising, R.; Bogardus, C.; Ravussin, E. Determinants of energy expenditure and fuel utilization in man: Effects of body composition, age, sex, ethnicity and glucose tolerance in 916 subjects. Int. J. Obes. Relat. Metab. Disord. 1999, 23, 715–722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Soares, M.; Zhao, Y.; Calton, E.; Pathak, K.; Chan She Ping-Delfos, W.; Cummings, N.; Nsatimba, P. The Impact of the Metabolic Syndrome and Its Components on Resting Energy Expenditure. Metabolites 2022, 12, 722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- DeFronzo, R.A.; Tobin, J.D.; Andres, R. Glucose clamp technique: A method for quantifying insulin secretion and resistance. Am. J. Physiol. 1979, 237, E214–E223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reaven, G. Wanted!: A standardized measurement of plasma insulin concentration. Arterioscler Thromb. Vasc. Biol. 2011, 31, 954–955. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Laws, A.; Reaven, G.M. Evidence for an independent relationship between insulin resistance and fasting plasma HDL-cholesterol, triglyceride and insulin concentrations. J. Intern. Med. 1992, 231, 25–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ren, X.; Chen, Z.A.; Zheng, S.; Han, T.; Li, Y.; Liu, W.; Hu, Y. Association between Triglyceride to HDL-C Ratio (TG/HDL-C) and Insulin Resistance in Chinese Patients with Newly Diagnosed Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0154345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Kimm, H.; Lee, S.W.; Lee, H.S.; Shim, K.W.; Cho, C.Y.; Yun, J.E.; Jee, S.H. Associations between lipid measures and metabolic syndrome, insulin resistance and adiponectin: Usefulness of lipid ratios in Korean men and women. Circ. J. 2010, 74, 931–937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Chauhan, A.; Singhal, A.; Goyal, P. TG/HDL Ratio: A marker for insulin resistance and atherosclerosis in prediabetics or not? J. Family Med. Prim. Care 2021, 10, 3700–3705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gong, R.; Luo, G.; Wang, M.; Ma, L.; Sun, S.; Wei, X. Associations between TG/HDL ratio and insulin resistance in the US population: A cross-sectional study. Endocr. Connect 2021, 10, 1502–1512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fan, N.; Peng, L.; Xia, Z.; Zhang, L.; Song, Z.; Wang, Y.; Peng, Y. Triglycerides to high-density lipoprotein cholesterol ratio as a surrogate for nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: A cross-sectional study. Lipids Health Dis. 2019, 18, 39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- De Fano, M.; Bartolini, D.; Tortoioli, C.; Vermigli, C.; Malara, M.; Galli, F.; Murdolo, G. Adipose Tissue Plasticity in Response to Pathophysiological Cues: A Connecting Link between Obesity and Its Associated Comorbidities. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022, 23, 5511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, Q.; Vijayakumar, A.; Kahn, B.B. Metabolites as regulators of insulin sensitivity and metabolism. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2018, 19, 654–672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Matthews, D.R.; Hosker, J.P.; Rudenski, A.S.; Naylor, B.A.; Treacher, D.F.; Turner, R.C. Homeostasis model assessment: Insulin resistance and beta-cell function from fasting plasma glucose and insulin concentrations in man. Diabetologia 1985, 28, 412–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wallace, T.M.; Levy, J.C.; Matthews, D.R. Use and abuse of HOMA modeling. Diabetes Care 2004, 27, 1487–1495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Alberti, K.G.; Eckel, R.H.; Grundy, S.M.; Zimmet, P.Z.; Cleeman, J.I.; Donato, K.A.; Fruchart, J.C.; James, W.P.; Loria, C.M.; Smith, S.C., Jr.; et al. Harmonizing the metabolic syndrome: A joint interim statement of the International Diabetes Federation Task Force on Epidemiology and Prevention; National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; American Heart Association; World Heart Federation; International Atherosclerosis Society; and International Association for the Study of Obesity. Circulation 2009, 120, 1640–1645. [Google Scholar] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- American Diabetes Association. 6. Glycemic Targets: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2021. Diabetes Care 2021, 44, S73–S84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Silver, H.J.; Niswender, K.D.; Kullberg, J.; Berglund, J.; Johansson, L.; Bruvold, M.; Avison, M.J.; Welch, E.B. Comparison of gross body fat-water magnetic resonance imaging at 3 Tesla to dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry in obese women. Obesity 2013, 21, 765–774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Compher, C.; Frankenfield, D.; Keim, N.; Roth-Yousey, L.; Evidence Analysis Working, G. Best practice methods to apply to measurement of resting metabolic rate in adults: A systematic review. J. Am. Diet Assoc. 2006, 106, 881–903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ferrannini, E. The theoretical bases of indirect calorimetry: A review. Metabolism 1988, 37, 287–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weir, J.B. New methods for calculating metabolic rate with special reference to protein metabolism. J. Physiol. 1949, 109, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Frayn, K.N. Calculation of substrate oxidation rates in vivo from gaseous exchange. J. Appl. Physiol. Respir. Environ. Exerc. Physiol. 1983, 55, 628–634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ginsberg, H.N.; Packard, C.J.; Chapman, M.J.; Boren, J.; Aguilar-Salinas, C.A.; Averna, M.; Ference, B.A.; Gaudet, D.; Hegele, R.A.; Kersten, S.; et al. Triglyceride-rich lipoproteins and their remnants: Metabolic insights, role in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, and emerging therapeutic strategies-a consensus statement from the European Atherosclerosis Society. Eur. Heart J. 2021, 42, 4791–4806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carey, V.J.; Bishop, L.; Laranjo, N.; Harshfield, B.J.; Kwiat, C.; Sacks, F.M. Contribution of high plasma triglycerides and low high-density lipoprotein cholesterol to residual risk of coronary heart disease after establishment of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol control. Am. J. Cardiol. 2010, 106, 757–763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Murguia-Romero, M.; Jimenez-Flores, J.R.; Sigrist-Flores, S.C.; Espinoza-Camacho, M.A.; Jimenez-Morales, M.; Pina, E.; Mendez-Cruz, A.R.; Villalobos-Molina, R.; Reaven, G.M. Plasma triglyceride/HDL-cholesterol ratio, insulin resistance, and cardiometabolic risk in young adults. J. Lipid Res. 2013, 54, 2795–2799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Salazar, M.R.; Carbajal, H.A.; Espeche, W.G.; Dulbecco, C.A.; Aizpurua, M.; Marillet, A.G.; Echeverria, R.F.; Reaven, G.M. Relationships among insulin resistance, obesity, diagnosis of the metabolic syndrome and cardio-metabolic risk. Diab. Vasc. Dis. Res. 2011, 8, 109–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gonzalez-Chavez, A.; Simental-Mendia, L.E.; Elizondo-Argueta, S. Elevated triglycerides/HDL-cholesterol ratio associated with insulin resistance. Cir. Cir. 2011, 79, 126–131. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Iwani, N.A.; Jalaludin, M.Y.; Zin, R.M.; Fuziah, M.Z.; Hong, J.Y.; Abqariyah, Y.; Mokhtar, A.H.; Wan Nazaimoon, W.M. Triglyceride to HDL-C Ratio is Associated with Insulin Resistance in Overweight and Obese Children. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 40055. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Young, K.A.; Maturu, A.; Lorenzo, C.; Langefeld, C.D.; Wagenknecht, L.E.; Chen, Y.I.; Taylor, K.D.; Rotter, J.I.; Norris, J.M.; Rasouli, N. The triglyceride to high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (TG/HDL-C) ratio as a predictor of insulin resistance, beta-cell function, and diabetes in Hispanics and African Americans. J. Diabetes Complicat. 2019, 33, 118–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, D.; Qi, Y.; Huang, C.; Wu, M.; Wang, C.; Li, F.; Yang, C.; Yan, L.; Ren, M.; Sun, K. Associations of lipid parameters with insulin resistance and diabetes: A population-based study. Clin. Nutr. 2018, 37, 1423–1429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, C.; Ford, E.S.; Meng, Y.X.; Mokdad, A.H.; Reaven, G.M. Does the association of the triglyceride to high-density lipoprotein cholesterol ratio with fasting serum insulin differ by race/ethnicity? Cardiovasc. Diabetol. 2008, 7, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Korenblat, K.M.; Fabbrini, E.; Mohammed, B.S.; Klein, S. Liver, muscle, and adipose tissue insulin action is directly related to intrahepatic triglyceride content in obese subjects. Gastroenterology 2008, 134, 1369–1375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gormsen, L.C.; Nellemann, B.; Sorensen, L.P.; Jensen, M.D.; Christiansen, J.S.; Nielsen, S. Impact of body composition on very-low-density lipoprotein-triglycerides kinetics. Am. J. Physiol. Endocrinol. Metab. 2009, 296, E165–E173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Boren, J.; Taskinen, M.R.; Bjornson, E.; Packard, C.J. Metabolism of triglyceride-rich lipoproteins in health and dyslipidaemia. Nat. Rev. Cardiol. 2022, 19, 577–592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paradies, G.; Paradies, V.; Ruggiero, F.M.; Petrosillo, G. Oxidative stress, cardiolipin and mitochondrial dysfunction in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. World J. Gastroenterol. 2014, 20, 14205–14218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lockman, K.A.; Baren, J.P.; Pemberton, C.J.; Baghdadi, H.; Burgess, K.E.; Plevris-Papaioannou, N.; Lee, P.; Howie, F.; Beckett, G.; Pryde, A.; et al. Oxidative stress rather than triglyceride accumulation is a determinant of mitochondrial dysfunction in in vitro models of hepatic cellular steatosis. Liver Int. 2012, 32, 1079–1092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Manzoni, G.; Oltolini, A.; Perra, S.; Muraca, E.; Ciardullo, S.; Pizzi, M.; Castoldi, G.; Lattuada, G.; Pizzi, P.; Perseghin, G. Resting Whole Body Energy Metabolism in Class 3 Obesity; from Preserved Insulin Sensitivity to Overt Type 2 Diabetes. Diabetes Metab. Syndr. Obes. 2020, 13, 489–497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Das, M.; Sauceda, C.; Webster, N.J.G. Mitochondrial Dysfunction in Obesity and Reproduction. Endocrinology 2021, 162, bqaa158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Montgomery, M.K.; Turner, N. Mitochondrial dysfunction and insulin resistance: An update. Endocr. Connect 2015, 4, R1–R15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Boudina, S.; Graham, T.E. Mitochondrial function/dysfunction in white adipose tissue. Exp. Physiol. 2014, 99, 1168–1178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shook, R.P.; Hand, G.A.; Paluch, A.E.; Wang, X.; Moran, R.; Hebert, J.R.; Lavie, C.J.; Blair, S.N. Moderate cardiorespiratory fitness is positively associated with resting metabolic rate in young adults. Mayo Clin. Proc. 2014, 89, 763–771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1.
CONSORT Style Flowchart of Subject Recruitment and Retention.
Figure 2.
Correlation between HOMA-IR score, TG/HDL ratio and Resting Energy Expenditure (REE) in 645 adults.
Figure 2.
Correlation between HOMA-IR score, TG/HDL ratio and Resting Energy Expenditure (REE) in 645 adults.
Table 1.
Characteristics of 645 Study Participants by Body Mass Index (BMI) Category.
| Normal (BMI 18.5–24.9) n = 38 | Overweight (BMI 25.0–29.9) n = 86 | Class I/II Obese (BMI 30.0–39.9) n = 442 | Class III Obese (BMI ≥ 40.0) n = 79 | p-Value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (y) | 35.5 ± 13.0 | 39.3 ± 17.9 | 42.8 ± 12.6 | 45.4 ± 11.5 | <0.001 |
| Weight (kg) | 67.3 ± 10.3 | 85.3 ± 11.9 | 98.5 ± 14.4 | 123.0 ± 15.8 | <0.001 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 23.3 ± 1.5 | 27.9 ± 1.4 | 34.6 ± 2.7 | 43.3 ± 3.4 | <0.001 |
| Glucose (mg/dL) | 84.2 ± 31.9 | 93.9 ± 23.7 | 99.8 ± 28.4 | 114.7 ± 46.3 | <0.001 |
| Insulin (μIU/mL) | 6.1 ± 3.6 | 7.7 ± 8.2 | 10.9 ± 8.6 | 18.9 ± 16.5 | <0.001 |
| HOMA-IR (score) | 1.6 ± 2.3 | 1.9 ± 2.4 | 2.9 ± 3.1 | 7.0 ± 9.3 | <0.001 |
| Triglycerides (mg/dL) | 66.5 ± 29.1 | 81.1 ± 35.3 | 110.4 ± 64.1 | 129.4 ± 59.2 | <0.001 |
| HDL-cholesterol (mg/dL) | 62.3 ± 13.6 | 53.4 ± 13.6 | 47.5 ± 12.5 | 44.3 ± 10.8 | <0.001 |
| TG/HDL (ratio) | 1.1 ± 0.5 | 1.7 ± 1.0 | 2.6 ± 2.0 | 3.3 ± 2.0 | <0.001 |
| REE (kcal) | 1475.4 ± 369.3 | 1742.3 ± 365.5 | 1721.9 ± 338.3 | 1968.2 ± 362.8 | <0.001 |
| % CHO (kcal) | 32.1 ± 14.9 | 32.4 ± 14.7 | 31.6 ± 15.5 | 29.3 ± 14.2 | 0.618 |
| % Fat (kcal) | 50.8 ± 18.2 | 52.8 ± 15.4 | 49.9 ± 15.7 | 52.8 ± 14.6 | 0.276 |
| Metabolic Equivalents (kcal/min) | 0.88 ± 0.11 | 0.82 ± 0.10 | 0.74 ± 0.11 | 0.66 ± 0.08 | <0.001 |
| Respiratory Quotient (VCO2/VO2) | 0.82 ± 0.07 | 0.82 ± 0.05 | 0.82 ± 0.06 | 0.81 ± 0.05 | 0.235 |
| Total Tissue Mass (kg) a | 77.2 ± 13.6 | 89.2 ± 12.8 | 96.9 ± 13.7 | 119.0 ± 15.4 | <0.001 |
| Total Fat Mass (kg) | 18.5 ± 9.0 | 27.1 ± 6.5 | 40.8 ± 7.6 | 58.1 ± 9.5 | <0.001 |
| Total Fat (% tissue) | 28.1 ± 8.4 | 33.1 ± 8.6 | 43.8 ± 7.2 | 49.3 ± 6.2 | <0.001 |
| Trunk Fat (kg) | 9.5 ± 5.7 | 15.6 ± 5.0 | 22.9 ± 5.3 | 35.4 ± 7.1 | <0.001 |
| Trunk Fat (% tissue) | 31.5 ± 16.5 | 37.0 ± 10.4 | 47.1 ± 7.3 | 54.5 ± 5.3 | <0.001 |
| Visceral Adipose Tissue (kg) | 1.1 ± 0.7 | 1.4 ± 0.9 | 1.7 ± 1.1 | 2.5 ± 1.2 | <0.001 |
| Android Fat (kg) | 1.5 ± 1.1 | 2.6 ± 1.0 | 4.0 ± 1.1 | 6.3 ± 1.4 | <0.001 |
| Android Fat (% tissue) | 31.8 ± 13.6 | 40.1 ± 11.2 | 50.9 ± 7.4 | 57.0 ± 5.8 | <0.001 |
| Gynoid Fat (kg) | 3.6 ± 1.5 | 4.0 ± 1.2 | 6.6 ± 1.7 | 9.5 ± 2.1 | <0.001 |
| Gynoid Fat (% tissue) | 35.9 ± 10.7 | 33.4 ± 10.5 | 44.9 ± 9.0 | 49.8 ± 7.5 | <0.001 |
| Total Lean Mass (kg) | 45.5 ± 8.4 | 57.6 ± 14.1 | 53.2 ± 12.6 | 59.9 ± 12.2 | <0.001 |
| Trunk Lean (kg) | 21.9 ± 4.2 | 27.5 ± 7.1 | 25.3 ± 5.9 | 28.8 ± 5.6 | <0.001 |
| Android Lean (kg) | 2.9 ± 0.7 | 3.9 ± 0.9 | 3.8 ± 0.8 | 4.5 ± 0.9 | <0.001 |
| Gynoid Lean (kg) | 6.4 ± 1.4 | 8.9 ± 2.4 | 8.4 ± 2.1 | 9.7 ± 2.2 | <0.001 |
a Total tissue mass by DXA = fat mass + lean mass + bone mineral content.
Table 2.
Univariate Associations between Predictor Variables and Resting Energy Expenditure in 645 adults.
Table 2.
Univariate Associations between Predictor Variables and Resting Energy Expenditure in 645 adults.
| Variable | rho | 95% CI | p-Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sex (f/m) | 0.34 | 0.26, 0.41 | <0.001 |
| Race/Ethnicity (w/b) | −0.17 | −0.24, −0.09 | <0.001 |
| Age (y) | −0.16 | −0.24, −0.08 | <0.001 |
| Height (cm) | 0.64 | 0.58, 0.68 | <0.001 |
| Weight (kg) | 0.66 | 0.61, 0.71 | <0.001 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 0.28 | 0.21, 0.36 | <0.001 |
| Glucose (mg/dL) | 0.19 | 0.11, 0.27 | <0.001 |
| Insulin (μIU/mL) | 0.18 | 0.09, 0.27 | <0.001 |
| HOMA-IR (score) | 0.19 | 0.10, 0.28 | <0.001 |
| HOMA-%β | 0.05 | −0.04, 0.15 | 0.255 |
| Triglycerides (mg/dL) | 0.27 | 0.16, 0.32 | <0.001 |
| HDL-cholesterol (mg/dL) | −0.37 | −0.42, −0.27 | <0.001 |
| TG/HDL (ratio) | 0.34 | 0.26, 0.42 | <0.001 |
| Visceral Adipose Tissue (g) | −0.09 | −0.85, 0.79 | 0.87 |
| Trunk Fat (g) | 0.40 | −0.07, 0.72 | 0.08 |
| Android Fat (g) | 0.40 | −0.07, 0.72 | 0.08 |
| Gynoid Fat (g) | −0.01 | −0.46, 0.45 | 0.97 |
| Total Fat Mass (g) | 0.33 | −0.15, 0.68 | 0.16 |
| Trunk Lean (g) | 0.77 | 0.48, 0.91 | <0.001 |
| Android Lean (g) | 0.78 | 0.50, 0.91 | <0.001 |
| Gynoid Lean (g) | 0.74 | 0.43, 0.89 | <0.001 |
| Total Fat-Free Mass (g) | 0.76 | 0.46, 0.90 | <0.001 |
| Total Body Mass (g) | 0.82 | 0.74, 0.88 | <0.001 |
| Total Body Fat (%) | 0.07 | −0.39, 0.51 | 0.76 |
| Trunk Fat (%) | −0.09 | −0.85, 0.79 | 0.87 |
| Android Fat (%) | 0.20 | −0.28, 0.60 | 0.39 |
| Gynoid Fat (%) | −0.26 | −0.64, 0.22 | 0.27 |
Table 3.
Linear Regression Modeling to Predict Resting Energy Expenditure in 645 Normal Weight, Overweight, and Obese Adults.
Table 3.
Linear Regression Modeling to Predict Resting Energy Expenditure in 645 Normal Weight, Overweight, and Obese Adults.
| Variables | Normal Weight BMI | Overweight BMI | Obese Class I/II BMI | Obese Class III BMI | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model 1 | Adjusted R2 = 0.62, p < 0.001 | Adjusted R2 = 0.63, p < 0.001 | Adjusted R2 = 0.58, p < 0.001 | Adjusted R2 = 0.61, p < 0.001 | ||||||||||||
| Estimate | St Error | t Statistic | p value | Estimate | St Error | t Statistic | p value | Estimate | St Error | t Statistic | p value | Estimate | St Error | t Statistic | p value | |
| Constant | −930.04 | 1263.68 | −0.736 | 0.47 | −854.30 | 707.82 | −1.207 | 0.23 | −1100.58 | 239.24 | −4.600 | <0.001 | −1875.3 | 713.07 | −2.630 | 0.01 |
| Height | 7.85 | 10.73 | 0.731 | 0.47 | 10.45 | 6.32 | 1.654 | 0.10 | 13.05 | 2.02 | 6.454 | <0.001 | 16.72 | 5.70 | 2.935 | 0.005 |
| Weight | 14.71 | 9.74 | 1.511 | 0.14 | 9.71 | 5.49 | 1.766 | 0.08 | 7.35 | 1.40 | 5.248 | <0.001 | 9.92 | 2.90 | 3.424 | 0.001 |
| Sex | 246.02 | 113.41 | 2.169 | 0.04 | 113.92 | 67.12 | 1.696 | 0.09 | 55.20 | 25.73 | 2.146 | 0.03 | −45.46 | 62.31 | −0.730 | 0.47 |
| Age | −7.12 | 3.43 | −2.075 | 0.05 | −6.21 | 1.45 | −4.296 | <0.001 | −4.20 | 0.87 | −4.824 | <0.001 | −2.95 | 2.31 | −1.277 | 0.21 |
| Model 2 | Adjusted R2 = 0.63, p = 0.001 | Adjusted R2 = 0.79, p < 0.001 | Adjusted R2 = 0.65, p < 0.001 | Adjusted R2 = 0.68, p < 0.001 | ||||||||||||
| Estimate | St Error | t Statistic | p value | Estimate | St Error | t Statistic | p value | Estimate | St Error | t Statistic | p value | Estimate | St Error | t Statistic | p value | |
| Constant | 1894.29 | 1358.7 | 1.394 | 0.19 | −1291.30 | 1087.25 | −1.188 | 0.24 | 363.55 | 277.06 | 1.312 | 0.19 | −38.13 | 849.88 | −0.045 | 0.96 |
| Height | −14.42 | 11.51 | −1.252 | 0.23 | 13.50 | 9.92 | 1.362 | 0.18 | 2.19 | 2.27 | 0.963 | 0.34 | 3.21 | 6.77 | 0.474 | 0.64 |
| Weight | 10.68 | 9.73 | 1.097 | 0.29 | 2.92 | 7.37 | 0.396 | 0.69 | 1.51 | 1.45 | 1.044 | 0.30 | 5.29 | 3.12 | 1.702 | 0.09 |
| Sex | −60.21 | 118.61 | −0.508 | 0.62 | −10.82 | 88.21 | −0.123 | 0.90 | 4.84 | 24.21 | 0.200 | 0.84 | −151.22 | 64.56 | −2.342 | 0.02 |
| Age | −1.91 | 3.68 | −0.519 | 0.61 | −3.53 | 2.07 | −1.704 | 0.10 | −2.51 | 0.82 | −3.039 | 0.003 | −2.34 | 2.26 | −1.033 | 0.31 |
| Fat-Free Mass | 0.03 | 0.01 | 2.953 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 1.618 | 0.10 | 0.02 | 0.002 | 9.501 | <0.001 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 3.831 | <0.001 |
| Model 3 | Adjusted R2 = 0.79, p = 0.01 | Adjusted R2 = 0.87, p < 0.001 | Adjusted R2 = 0.71, p < 0.001 | Adjusted R2 = 0.74, p < 0.001 | ||||||||||||
| Estimate | St Error | t Statistic | p value | Estimate | St Error | t Statistic | p value | Estimate | St Error | t Statistic | p value | Estimate | St Error | t Statistic | p value | |
| Constant | 2354.36 | 1360.47 | 1.731 | 0.13 | 1335.92 | 2110.63 | 0.633 | 0.54 | 387.33 | 292.48 | 1.324 | 0.19 | 284.93 | 884.85 | 0.322 | 0.75 |
| Height | −19.05 | 12.70 | −1.500 | 0.18 | −6.24 | 18.25 | −0.342 | 0.74 | 2.02 | 2.38 | 0.848 | 0.40 | −0.18 | 6.90 | −0.027 | 0.98 |
| Weight | 1.12 | 8.00 | 0.140 | 0.89 | 4.74 | 14.54 | 0.326 | 0.75 | 1.24 | 1.49 | 0.837 | 0.40 | 6.62 | 3.21 | 2.062 | 0.05 |
| Sex | −167.42 | 114.91 | −1.457 | 0.19 | −153.94 | 147.25 | −1.045 | 0.31 | 1.62 | 24.22 | 0.067 | 0.95 | −131.12 | 69.25 | −1.893 | 0.06 |
| Age | −5.45 | 4.00 | −1.363 | 0.22 | −5.71 | 6.94 | −0.823 | 0.42 | −2.61 | 1.01 | −2.587 | 0.01 | −2.52 | 2.63 | −0.959 | 0.34 |
| Fat-Free Mass | 0.06 | 0.02 | 2.410 | 0.05 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 1.715 | 0.11 | 0.02 | 0.002 | 9.210 | <0.001 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 3.518 | <0.001 |
| TG/HDL ratio | 173.48 | 91.09 | 1.904 | 0.09 | 86.18 | 71.10 | 2.212 | 0.02 | 21.68 | 5.77 | 3.759 | <0.001 | 30.22 | 14.62 | 2.068 | 0.04 |
| Model 4 | Adjusted R2 = 0.75, p < 0.001 | Adjusted R2 = 0.84, p = 0.01 | Adjusted R2 = 0.73, p < 0.001 | Adjusted R2 = 0.75, p < 0.001 | ||||||||||||
| Estimate | St Error | t Statistic | p value | Estimate | St Error | t Statistic | p value | Estimate | St Error | t Statistic | p value | Estimate | St Error | t Statistic | p value | |
| Constant | 1294.20 | 1473.54 | 0.878 | 0.40 | 2317.58 | 4406.44 | 0.526 | 0.62 | 219.82 | 323.78 | 0.679 | 0.49 | 1294.2 | 1473.54 | 0.878 | 0.40 |
| Height | −7.48 | 12.95 | −0.577 | 0.57 | −3.28 | 37.70 | −0.087 | 0.93 | 3.68 | 2.6 | 1.418 | 0.16 | −7.48 | 12.90 | −0.577 | 0.57 |
| Weight | 5.85 | 10.37 | 0.564 | 0.58 | −13.67 | 27.76 | −0.493 | 0.64 | 0.49 | 1.67 | 0.292 | 0.77 | 5.85 | 10.37 | 0.564 | 0.58 |
| Sex | −129.40 | 107.59 | −1.203 | 0.25 | −225.14 | 251.89 | −0.894 | 0.41 | −7.18 | 25.08 | −0.286 | 0.78 | −129.39 | 107.59 | −1.203 | 0.25 |
| Age | −1.33 | 5.13 | −0.260 | 0.80 | −10.47 | 12.08 | −0.866 | 0.43 | −2.76 | 1.42 | −1.949 | 0.05 | −1.33 | 5.13 | −0.260 | 0.80 |
| Fat-Free Mass | 20.77 | 7.96 | 2.610 | 0.02 | 29.38 | 15.59 | 1.89 | 0.12 | 16.44 | 2.08 | 7.900 | <0.001 | 20.77 | 7.96 | 2.610 | 0.02 |
| TG/HDL ratio | 67.78 | 27.58 | 2.457 | 0.03 | 162.37 | 114.72 | 1.42 | 0.22 | 23.41 | 6.49 | 3.61 | <0.001 | 67.78 | 27.58 | 2.46 | 0.03 |
| HOMA-IR | −2.46 | 5.52 | −0.446 | 0.66 | 11.69 | 23.12 | 0.505 | 0.64 | 8.03 | 3.78 | 2.12 | 0.04 | −2.64 | 5.52 | −0.446 | 0.66 |
Table 4.
Characteristics of 645 Study Participants by Glycemic Status.
| Normoglycemic n = 384 | Prediabetic n = 159 | Diabetic n = 102 | p-Value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (y) | 36.9 ± 12.1 | 49.2 ±12.5 | 51.1 ± 9.6 | <0.001 |
| Weight (kg) | 93.7 ± 17.9 | 102.7 ± 18.3 | 106.2 ± 17.9 | <0.001 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 32.6 ± 5.0 | 36.4 ± 5.6 | 36.2 ± 4.8 | <0.001 |
| Glucose (mg/dL) | 87.9 ± 9.6 | 100.6 ± 15.7 | 143.9 ± 55.4 | <0.001 |
| Insulin (μIU/mL) | 9.1 ± 7.0 | 9.6 ± 8.1 | 20.0 ± 15.3 | <0.001 |
| HOMA-IR (score) | 2.0 ± 1.7 | 2.6 ± 2.3 | 7.9 ± 7.9 | <0.001 |
| Triglycerides (mg/dL) | 90.1 ± 49.2 | 116.8 ± 54.9 | 162.2 ± 79.0 | <0.001 |
| HDL-cholesterol (mg/dL) | 50.7 ± 13.5 | 47.2 ± 10.9 | 41.9 ± 12.1 | <0.001 |
| TG/HDL (ratio) | 2.0 ± 1.5 | 2.7 ± 1.8 | 4.3 ± 2.7 | <0.001 |
| REE (kcal) | 1717.3 ± 367.9 | 1701.1 ± 350.1 | 1879.8 ± 318.0 | <0.001 |
| % CHO (kcal) | 32.9 ± 15.8 | 31.0 ± 14.9 | 26.7 ± 12.1 | 0.002 |
| % Fat (kcal) | 50.3 ± 16.2 | 48.4 ± 15.2 | 55.9 ± 13.2 | 0.001 |
| Metabolic Equivalents (kcal/min) | 0.77 ± 0.11 | 0.73 ± 0.18 | 0.74 ± 0.08 | 0.003 |
| Respiratory Quotient (VCO2/VO2) | 0.82 ± 0.06 | 0.82 ± 0.06 | 0.80 ± 0.05 | 0.068 |
| Total Tissue Mass (kg) a | 96.3 ± 14.7 | 94.7 ± 13.8 | 104.5 ± 17.7 | <0.001 |
| Total Fat Mass (kg) | 38.2 ± 10.9 | 44.7 ± 12.1 | 44.2 ± 10.7 | <0.001 |
| Total Fat (% tissue) | 41.8 ± 9.6 | 45.3 ± 6.9 | 43.4 ± 6.5 | <0.001 |
| Trunk Fat (kg) | 19.9 ± 7.1 | 25.9 ± 7.8 | 27.0 ± 6.8 | <0.001 |
| Trunk Fat (% tissue) | 44.3 ± 10.3 | 49.7 ± 6.6 | 48.5 ± 5.6 | <0.001 |
| Android Fat (kg) | 3.4 ± 1.4 | 4.6 ± 1.5 | 4.8 ± 1.4 | <0.001 |
| Android Fat (% tissue) | 47.7 ± 10.9 | 53.2 ± 6.6 | 52.3 ± 5.9 | <0.001 |
| Visceral Adipose Tissue (kg) | 1.3 ± 0.9 | 2.0 ± 1.1 | 2.4 ± 1.3 | <0.001 |
| Gynoid Fat (kg) | 6.2 ± 2.1 | 7.2 ± 2.4 | 6.6 ± 2.1 | <0.001 |
| Gynoid Fat (% tissue) | 44.1 ± 10.8 | 45.4 ± 8.7 | 42.6 ± 8.7 | 0.098 |
| Total Lean Mass (kg) | 53.6 ± 14.1 | 53.4 ± 10.8 | 57.3 ± 11.1 | 0.049 |
| Trunk Lean Mass (kg) | 25.2 ± 6.9 | 25.6 ± 5.2 | 27.8 ± 4.9 | 0.007 |
| Android Lean Mass (kg) | 3.7 ± 0.9 | 3.9 ± 0.8 | 4.3 ± 0.9 | <0.001 |
| Gynoid Lean Mass (kg) | 8.5 ± 2.5 | 8.5 ± 1.8 | 8.7 ± 1.9 | 0.686 |
a Total tissue mass by DXA = fat mass + lean mass + bone mineral content.
Table 5.
Characteristics of 645 Study Participants by Metabolic Syndrome Status.
| Metabolic Syndrome n = 254 | No Metabolic Syndrome n = 391 | p-Value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (y) | 46.8 ± 12.8 | 39.3 ± 13.1 | <0.001 |
| Weight (kg) | 93.0 ± 17.3 | 105.4 ± 18.4 | <0.001 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 36.5 ± 4.9 | 32.5 ± 5.2 | <0.001 |
| Glucose (mg/dL) | 111.4 ± 40.9 | 92.5 ± 20.3 | <0.001 |
| Insulin (μIU/mL) | 16.9 ± 13.0 | 8.7 ± 7.0 | <0.001 |
| HOMA-IR (score) | 5.5 ± 6.2 | 2.1 ± 2.4 | <0.001 |
| Triglycerides (mg/dL) | 143.7 ± 70.9 | 81.0 ± 35.0 | <0.001 |
| HDL-cholesterol (mg/dL) | 42.9 ± 10.8 | 52.7 ± 13.1 | <0.001 |
| TG/HDL (ratio) | 3.7 ± 2.4 | 1.7 ± 0.9 | <0.001 |
| REE (kcal) | 1813.0 ± 374.3 | 1689.9 ± 344.5 | <0.001 |
| % CHO (kcal) | 30.6 ± 14.7 | 32.0 ± 15.5 | 0.267 |
| % Fat (kcal) | 50.0 ± 14.7 | 51.2 ± 16.3 | 0.374 |
| Metabolic Equivalents (kcal/min) | 0.74 ± 0.13 | 0.77 ± 0.12 | 0.029 |
| Respiratory Quotient (VCO2/VO2) | 0.82 ± 0.05 | 0.82 ± 0.06 | 0.828 |
| Total Tissue Mass (kg) a | 104.9 ± 16.2 | 95.0 ± 14.5 | 0.938 |
| Total Fat Mass (kg) | 45.1 ± 10.8 | 37.9 ± 11.2 | <0.001 |
| Total Fat (% tissue) | 44.4 ± 6.9 | 41.9 ± 9.5 | <0.001 |
| Trunk Fat (kg) | 26.8 ± 7.2 | 20.0 ± 7.2 | <0.001 |
| Trunk Fat (% tissue) | 49.5 ± 6.3 | 44.3 ± 9.9 | <0.001 |
| Visceral Adipose Tissue (kg) | 2.1 ± 1.2 | 1.4 ± 1.0 | <0.001 |
| Android Fat (kg) | 4.7 ± 1.4 | 3.4 ± 1.4 | <0.001 |
| Android Fat (% tissue) | 52.9 ± 6.5 | 47.9 ± 10.8 | <0.001* |
| Gynoid Fat (kg) | 7.1 ± 2.1 | 6.1 ± 2.2 | <0.001 |
| Gynoid Fat (% tissue) | 44.2 ± 8.5 | 44.2 ± 10.9 | 0.945 |
| Total Lean Mass (kg) | 56.6 ± 12.9 | 52.4 ± 12.5 | <0.001 |
| Trunk Lean Mass (kg) | 26.7 ± 5.9 | 25.0 ± 6.1 | 0.004 |
| Android Lean Mass (kg) | 4.1 ± 0.9 | 3.7 ± 0.9 | <0.001 |
| Gynoid Lean Mass (kg) | 8.8 ± 2.2 | 8.3 ± 2.2 | 0.010 |
a Total tissue mass by DXA = fat mass + lean mass + bone mineral content.
Table 6.
Linear Regression Modeling in 645 Adults to Predict Resting Energy Expenditure by Glycemic Status.
Table 6.
Linear Regression Modeling in 645 Adults to Predict Resting Energy Expenditure by Glycemic Status.
| Variables | Normoglycemia | Prediabetes | Diabetes Type 2 | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model 1 | Adjusted R2 = 0.65, p < 0.001 | Adjusted R2 = 0.55, p < 0.001 | Adjusted R2 = 0.62, p < 0.001 | |||||||||
| Estimate | St Error | t Statistic | p value | Estimate | St Error | t Statistic | p value | Estimate | St Error | t Statistic | p value | |
| Constant | −1372.58 | 214.23 | −6.407 | <0.001 | −613.78 | 420.35 | −1.460 | 0.15 | 588.92 | 570.80 | 1.032 | 0.31 |
| Age | −5.39 | 0.98 | −5.521 | <0.001 | −3.69 | 1.59 | −2.325 | 0.02 | −8.50 | 2.24 | −3.800 | <0.001 |
| Sex | 62.24 | 25.82 | 2.410 | 0.02 | 68.98 | 53.08 | 1.299 | 0.20 | 174.89 | 67.12 | 2.606 | 0.01 |
| Height | 14.31 | 1.45 | 9.862 | <0.001 | 8.52 | 2.97 | 2.867 | 0.01 | 2.49 | 4.06 | 0.613 | 0.54 |
| Weight | 8.21 | 0.78 | 10.548 | <0.001 | 9.55 | 1.26 | 7.577 | <0.001 | 9.90 | 1.54 | 6.449 | <0.001 |
| Model 2 | Adjusted R2 = 0.75, p < 0.001 | Adjusted R2 = 0.60, p < 0.001 | Adjusted R2 = 0.63, p < 0.001 | |||||||||
| Estimate | St Error | t Statistic | p value | Estimate | St Error | t Statistic | p value | Estimate | St Error | t Statistic | p value | |
| Constant | 205.00 | 276.14 | 0.742 | 0.46 | 787.46 | 495.81 | 1.588 | 0.12 | 852.83 | 594.70 | 1.434 | 0.16 |
| Age | −2.67 | 0.94 | −2.829 | 0.01 | −3.39 | 1.54 | −2.201 | 0.03 | −6.86 | 2.38 | −2.881 | 0.01 |
| Sex | 1.15 | 24.03 | 0.048 | 0.96 | −64.98 | 57.92 | −1.122 | 0.26 | 2.63 | 94.96 | 0.028 | 0.98 |
| Height | 2.24 | 2.04 | 1.098 | 0.27 | −2.26 | 3.60 | −0.628 | 0.53 | 0.19 | 4.24 | 0.045 | 0.96 |
| Weight | 3.79 | 0.95 | 3.975 | <0.001 | 3.22 | 1.81 | 1.781 | 0.08 | 4.38 | 2.66 | 1.646 | 0.10 |
| Fat-Free Mass | 0.02 | 0.00 | 8.604 | <0.001 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 4.869 | <0.001 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 2.585 | 0.01 |
| Model 3 | Adjusted R2 = 0.78, p < 0.001 | Adjusted R2 = 0.66, p < 0.001 | Adjusted R2 = 0.73, p < 0.001 | |||||||||
| Estimate | St Error | t Statistic | p value | Estimate | St Error | t Statistic | p value | Estimate | St Error | t Statistic | p value | |
| Constant | 453.32 | 299.07 | 1.516 | 0.13 | 1086.18 | 550.69 | 1.972 | 0.05 | 434.26 | 594.02 | 0.731 | 0.47 |
| Age | −3.60 | 1.32 | −2.729 | 0.01 | −4.12 | 1.93 | −2.137 | 0.04 | 0.28 | 2.78 | 0.099 | 0.92 |
| Sex | 2.85 | 23.98 | 0.119 | 0.91 | −172.80 | 66.44 | −2.601 | 0.01 | −51.52 | 89.51 | −0.576 | 0.57 |
| Height | 0.99 | 2.18 | 0.455 | 0.65 | −4.76 | 4.00 | −1.188 | 0.24 | 0.01 | 4.31 | 0.001 | 1.00 |
| Weight | 2.96 | 1.02 | 2.916 | 0.004 | 3.78 | 1.98 | 1.912 | 0.06 | 3.27 | 2.48 | 1.317 | 0.19 |
| Fat-Free Mass | 0.02 | 0.00 | 8.321 | <0.001 | 0.03 | 0.01 | 5.220 | <0.001 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 3.654 | <0.001 |
| TG/HDL ratio | 31.57 | 7.50 | 4.212 | <0.001 | −5.79 | 11.98 | −0.483 | 0.63 | 16.11 | 9.41 | 1.712 | 0.09 |
| Model 4 | Adjusted R2 = 0.77, p < 0.001 | Adjusted R2 = 0.67, p < 0.001 | Adjusted R2 = 0.72, p < 0.001 | |||||||||
| Estimate | St Error | t Statistic | p value | Estimate | St Error | t Statistic | p value | Estimate | St Error | t Statistic | p value | |
| Constant | 179.75 | 342.41 | 0.525 | 0.60 | 224.97 | 1178.83 | 0.191 | 0.85 | 566.34 | 723.76 | 0.782 | 0.44 |
| Age | −3.27 | 1.62 | −2.021 | 0.04 | −1.19 | 6.88 | −0.173 | 0.87 | −2.84 | 3.83 | −0.743 | 0.46 |
| Sex | −2.62 | 24.99 | −0.105 | 0.92 | −403.43 | 101.27 | −3.984 | 0.001 | −7.68 | 122.29 | −0.063 | 0.95 |
| Height | 4.18 | 2.56 | 1.634 | 0.10 | 9.21 | 8.79 | 1.049 | 0.31 | −0.11 | 5.14 | −0.021 | 0.98 |
| Weight | 0.33 | 1.44 | 0.227 | 0.82 | −2.53 | 7.88 | −0.322 | 0.75 | 4.56 | 3.31 | 1.378 | 0.18 |
| Fat-Free Mass | 0.02 | 0.00 | 7.344 | <0.001 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 2.056 | 0.05 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 2.624 | 0.01 |
| TG/HDL ratio | 25.57 | 8.12 | 3.150 | 0.002 | 22.57 | 8.61 | 2.980 | 0.004 | 12.61 | 5.84 | 2.374 | 0.01 |
| HOMA-IR | 18.70 | 7.83 | 2.388 | 0.02 | −12.73 | 20.54 | −0.620 | 0.55 | −2.58 | 3.39 | −0.761 | 0.45 |
Table 7.
Linear Regression Modeling in 645 Adults to Predict Resting Energy Expenditure by Metabolic Syndrome Status.
Table 7.
Linear Regression Modeling in 645 Adults to Predict Resting Energy Expenditure by Metabolic Syndrome Status.
| Variables | No Metabolic Syndrome | Metabolic Syndrome | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model 1 | Adjusted R2 = 0.60, p < 0.001 | Adjusted R2 = 0.66, p < 0.001 | ||||||
| Estimate | St Error | t Statistic | p value | Estimate | St Error | t Statistic | p value | |
| Constant | −1563.30 | 215.27 | −7.262 | <0.001 | −50.71 | 316.33 | −0.16 | 0.87 |
| Age | −3.90 | 0.90 | −4.325 | <0.001 | −6.77 | 1.14 | −5.912 | <0.001 |
| Sex | 55.25 | 26.20 | 2.109 | 0.04 | 130.68 | 40.16 | 3.254 | 0.001 |
| Height | 15.70 | 1.45 | 10.796 | <0.001 | 5.14 | 2.23 | 2.306 | 0.02 |
| Weight | 7.17 | 0.78 | 9.235 | <0.001 | 10.78 | 1.02 | 10.564 | <0.001 |
| Model 2 | Adjusted R2 = 0.69, p < 0.001 | Adjusted R2 = 0.70, p < 0.001 | ||||||
| Estimate | St Error | t Statistic | p value | Estimate | St Error | t Statistic | p value | |
| Constant | −65.64 | 272.16 | −0.241 | 0.81 | 1196.72 | 373.86 | 3.201 | 0.002 |
| Age | −1.34 | 0.87 | −1.545 | 0.12 | −5.23 | 1.24 | −4.210 | <0.001 |
| Sex | −12.02 | 24.34 | −0.494 | 0.62 | 24.97 | 46.70 | 0.535 | 0.59 |
| Height | 4.21 | 2.00 | 2.103 | 0.04 | −4.65 | 2.77 | −1.682 | 0.09 |
| Weight | 2.81 | 0.92 | 3.052 | 0.00 | 6.09 | 1.37 | 4.443 | <0.001 |
| Fat-Free Mass | 0.02 | 0.00 | 8.451 | <0.001 | 0.02 | 0.00 | 5.471 | <0.001 |
| Model 3 | Adjusted R2 = 0.72, p < 0.001 | Adjusted R2 = 0.75, p < 0.001 | ||||||
| Estimate | St Error | t Statistic | p value | Estimate | St Error | t Statistic | p value | |
| Constant | 202.97 | 315.17 | 0.644 | 0.52 | 1062.65 | 386.41 | 2.75 | 0.01 |
| Age | −2.38 | 1.42 | −1.680 | 0.09 | −4.05 | 1.38 | −2.945 | 0.004 |
| Sex | −39.82 | 25.20 | −1.580 | 0.12 | 35.77 | 47.01 | 0.761 | 0.45 |
| Height | 2.78 | 2.28 | 1.221 | 0.22 | −4.34 | 2.85 | −1.523 | 0.13 |
| Weight | 2.52 | 1.07 | 2.351 | 0.02 | 5.87 | 1.39 | 4.227 | <0.001 |
| Fat-Free Mass | 0.02 | 0.00 | 7.883 | <0.001 | 0.02 | 0.00 | 5.225 | <0.001 |
| TG/HDL ratio | 31.35 | 13.16 | 2.382 | 0.02 | 16.59 | 6.66 | 2.492 | 0.01 |
| Model 4 | Adjusted R2 = 0.70, p < 0.001 | Adjusted R2 = 0.78, p < 0.001 | ||||||
| Estimate | St Error | t Statistic | p value | Estimate | St Error | t Statistic | p value | |
| Constant | −87.01 | 348.05 | −0.250 | 0.80 | 1082.45 | 514.49 | 2.104 | 0.04 |
| Age | −1.46 | 1.57 | −0.928 | 0.36 | −2.26 | 2.22 | −1.017 | 0.31 |
| Sex | −37.23 | 25.73 | −1.447 | 0.15 | 77.96 | 59.67 | 1.307 | 0.20 |
| Height | 6.27 | 2.59 | 2.419 | 0.02 | −5.61 | 3.98 | −1.408 | 0.16 |
| Weight | −0.81 | 1.45 | −0.562 | 0.58 | 8.32 | 2.91 | 2.86 | 0.006 |
| Fat-Free Mass | 15.95 | 2.17 | 7.34 | <0.001 | 14.47 | 4.20 | 3.447 | <0.001 |
| TG/HDL ratio | 24.86 | 13.78 | 1.855 | 0.05 | 19.28 | 8.04 | 2.399 | 0.01 |
| HOMA-IR | 9.45 | 4.59 | 2.061 | 0.04 | −2.73 | 3.28 | −0.830 | 0.41 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
Widmer, A.; Mercante, M.G.; Silver, H.J. TG/HDL Ratio Is an Independent Predictor for Estimating Resting Energy Expenditure in Adults with Normal Weight, Overweight, and Obesity. Nutrients 2022, 14, 5106. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu14235106
AMA Style
Widmer A, Mercante MG, Silver HJ. TG/HDL Ratio Is an Independent Predictor for Estimating Resting Energy Expenditure in Adults with Normal Weight, Overweight, and Obesity. Nutrients. 2022; 14(23):5106. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu14235106
Chicago/Turabian StyleWidmer, Annaliese, Margaret G. Mercante, and Heidi J. Silver. 2022. "TG/HDL Ratio Is an Independent Predictor for Estimating Resting Energy Expenditure in Adults with Normal Weight, Overweight, and Obesity" Nutrients 14, no. 23: 5106. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu14235106
APA StyleWidmer, A., Mercante, M. G., & Silver, H. J. (2022). TG/HDL Ratio Is an Independent Predictor for Estimating Resting Energy Expenditure in Adults with Normal Weight, Overweight, and Obesity. Nutrients, 14(23), 5106. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu14235106
Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.
