Table 2.
Unadjusted baseline and adjusted 18-month intervention effects on computed tomography muscle metrics. WL= Weight loss alone; WL+AT= WL plus aerobic training; WL+RT= WL plus resistance training; kg= kilogram; m= meter; cm= centimeter; HU= Hounsfield unit; %= percentage. Aggregate baseline data presented as raw mean (SD). 18-month values presented as model adjusted means (95% confidence interval).
| Outcome Variable | Baseline (n=55) | WL (n=9) | WL + AT (n=13) | WL + RT (n=12) | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trunk | |||||
| Muscle Area, cm2 | 145.0 (39.5) | ||||
| Δ Model 1a | −5.24 (−10.54, 0.04) | −8.14 (−12.64, −3.63) | −4.97 (−9.30, −0.63) | <0.001 | |
| Δ Model 2b | −7.82 (−12.30, −3.35) | −7.72 (−11.36, −4.07) | −5.14 (−8.65, −1.63) | <0.001 | |
| Muscle Attenuation, HU | 30.5 (7.0) | ||||
| Δ Model 1 | −1.21 (−3.86, 1.43) | 1.44 (−0.63, 3.51) | 0.64 (−1.57, 2.85) | 0.31 | |
| Δ Model 2 | −0.57 (−2.84, 1.69) | 0.68 (−1.12, 2.49) | 0.34 (−1.53, 2.22) | 0.01 | |
| Intermuscular Fat Area, cm2 | 17.44 (12.1) | ||||
| Δ Model 1 | −1.59 (−4.13, 0.95) | −3.61 (−5.61, −1.60) | −2.81 (−4.95, −0.67) | 0.23 | |
| Δ Model 2 | −2.43 (−4.43, −0.42) | −2.89 (−4.48, −1.30) | −2.55 (−4.22, −0.89) | <0.001 | |
| Intermuscular Fat, % | 10.9 (5.7) | ||||
| Δ Model 1 | −0.41 (−1.95, 1.12) | −1.69 (−2.90, −0.49) | −1.36 (−2.65, −0.08) | 0.38 | |
| Δ Model 2 | −0.85 (−2.19, 0.48) | −1.31 (−2.36, −0.25) | −1.24 (−2.34, −0.14) | 0.02 | |
| SMICT, cm2/m2 | 50.3 (11.5) | ||||
| Δ Model 1 | −2.54 (−4.43, −0.65) | −3.26 (−4.84, −1.68) | −2.41 (−3.97, −0.86) | <0.001 | |
| Δ Model 2 | −3.32 (−4.76, −1.87) | −2.80 (−3.99, −1.60) | −2.26 (−3.42, −1.10) | <0.001 | |
| Mid-thigh | |||||
| Muscle Area, cm2 | 124.6 (31.2) | ||||
| Δ Model 1 | −3.94 (−9.12, 1.25) | −8.85 (−13.11, −4.60) | −0.57 (−5.10, 3.96) | 0.006 | |
| Δ Model 2 | −6.20 (−10.39, −2.02) | −7.84 (−11.19, −4.48) | −0.60 (−4.14, 2.94) | <0.001 | |
| Muscle Attenuation, HU | 49.9 (3.4) | ||||
| Δ Model 1 | −0.66 (−2.13, 0.81) | 0.39 (−0.74, 1.52) | 0.77 (−0.44, 1.99) | 0.40 | |
| Δ Model 2 | −0.45 (−1.90, 1.01) | 0.19 (−0.92, 1.31) | 0.70 (−0.48, 1.88) | 0.25 | |
| Intermuscular Fat Area, cm2 | 16.0 (7.8) | ||||
| Δ Model 1 | −3.05 (−5.58, −0.51) | −4.83 (−6.85, −2.81) | −3.85 (−6.01, −1.69) | <0.001 | |
| Δ Model 2 | −3.85 (−5.92, −1.77) | −4.17 (−5.83, −2.52) | −3.69 (−5.43, −1.95) | <0.001 | |
| Intermuscular Fat, % | 11.3 (3.9) | ||||
| Δ Model 1 | −1.51 (−3.27, 0.25) | −2.59 (−3.95, −1.23) | −2.73 (−4.18, −1.27) | 0.05 | |
| Δ Model 2 | −2.07 (−3.44, −0.70) | −2.07 (−3.13, −1.01) | −2.59 (−3.71, −1.47) | <0.001 | |
Model 1 treatment effects were estimated using a generalized linear model fit with treatment group, sex, and wave, adjusted for baseline value of each outcome. Pairwise Tukey comparisons reveal no difference among groups, except between mid-thigh muscle area changes in WL+RT and WL+AT (p=0.02).
Model 2 adjusts for Model 1 and weight change. Pairwise Tukey comparisons reveal no difference among groups, except between mid-thigh muscle area changes in WL+RT and WL+AT (p=0.01).