Table 3. Body composition and abdominal fat deposition in the TFA and control groups and in lean reference subjectsa.
| Week 0b | Week 16 | ANCOVAc Pdiet | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fat mass (kg) | 0.16 | ||
| TFA (n=24) | 33.4±1.0 | 34.6± 1.1 | |
| Control (n=25) | 31.8±1.1 | 32.7±1.0 | |
| Lean reference subjects (n=19) | 16.8±0.8d | NA | |
| Fat-free mass (kg) | 0.20 | ||
| TFA (n=24) | 45.6±0.7 | 45.6±0.8 | |
| Control (n=25) | 47.0±1.0 | 47.3±0.9 | |
| Lean reference subjects (n=19) | 43.3±0.6d | NA | |
| Whole body fat (%) | 0.12 | ||
| TFA (n=24) | 42.1±0.7 | 43.0±0.7 | |
| Control (n=25) | 40.2±0.9 | 40.7±0.8 | |
| Lean reference subjects (n=19) | 27.8±0.9d | NA | |
| Trunk fat (%) | 0.17 | ||
| TFA (n=24) | 43.2±0.9 | 44.2±0.8 | |
| Control (n=25) | 41.3±1.0 | 42.0±0.9 | |
| Lean reference subjects (n=19) | 25.5±1.1d | NA | |
| Total AAT (cm3)e | 0.85 | ||
| TFA (n=19) | 446±20 | 458±20 | |
| Control (n=19) | 390±21 | 407±21 | |
| Lean reference subjects (n=19) | 138±10d | NA | |
| Subcutaneous AAT (cm3)e | 0.46 | ||
| TFA (n=19) | 313±15 | 317±15 | |
| Control (n=19) | 255±16 | 261±14 | |
| Lean reference subjects (n=19) | 106±7.6d | NA | |
| Intra-AAT (cm3)e | 0.58 | ||
| TFA (n=19) | 133±9 | 141±10 | |
| Control (n=19) | 135±14 | 146±17 | |
| Lean reference subjects (n=19) | 33±4d | NA | |
| Intra/subcutaneous AATe,f | 0.67 | ||
| TFA (n=19) | 0.45±0.04 | 0.46±0.05 | |
| Control (n=19) | 0.56±0.08 | 0.60±0.10 | |
| Lean reference subjects (n=19) | 0.31±0.03d | NA | |
| Liver fat (%)f | 0.87 | ||
| TFA (n=23) | 2.7 (1.3; 5.7) | 1.9 (0.8; 4.6) | |
| Control (n=23) | 2.4 (1.0; 5.6) | 1.8 (0.6; 5.1) | |
| Lean reference subjects (n=19) | 0.1 (0.07; 0.3)d | NA |
Abbreviations: AAT, abdominal adipose tissue; ANCOVA, analysis of covariance; NA, not applicable; TFA, trans fatty acid.
a
Values are means±s.e.m. or geometric means (95% confidence interval) for skewed data, completers only.
b
There were no significant differences in baseline values between diet groups (unpaired t-test).
c
P value refers to differences between diet groups at week 16 with week 0 as a covariate, by ANCOVA. Adjusting for weight change did not affect the results.
d
Significantly different from overweight intervention subjects (diet groups combined) by unpaired t-test or Kruskal–Wallis test for skewed data; P<0.05.
e
Obtained from MR imaging.
f
ANCOVA performed on log10-transformed values.