Table 2. Multivariate associations between social, behavioral and physiologic factors and adiposity phenotypes in Hispanics from the IRAS Family Study^a.

	Adiposity phenotype
	BMI β ± SE; P N=925	VAT β ± SE; P N=842	SAT β ± SE; P N=842
Age, years	−.002 ± .0005; P=.0003	.064 ± .006; P<.0001	−.029 ± .010; P=.004
Female sex	.002 ± .013; P=.89	−1.114 ± .245; P<.0001	3.783 ± .382; P<.0001
Diabetes	.080 ± .018; P<.0001	1.455 ± .232; P<.0001	.844 ± .360; P=.02
Current smoker	−.073 ± .015; P<.0001	b	−1.370 ± .303; P<.0001
Hours of sleep	−.013 ± .004; P=.003	b	−.203 ± .086; P= .02
Frequency of vigorous activity	−.017 ± .005; P=.0008	−.221 ± .065; P=.0007	−.286 ± .099; P= .004
25[OH]D, ng/mL	−.005 ± .0008; P<.0001	−.073 ± .010; P<.0001	−.097 ± .015; P<.0001
% calories from fat	b	b	.045 ± .020; P=.03
Height, cm	b	.039 ± .014; P=.005	.066 ± .022; P=.003
Clinic population, SLV vs SA	−.054 ± .018; P=.004	−.516 ± .204; P=.01	−.801 ± .365; P= .03
Proportion of variance explained by   clinic population univariately	.045	.028	.027
Proportion of variance explained by   adjusted model	.182	.358	.294
Proportion of variance explained by   clinic population in adjusted model	.014	.008	.006

SLV, San Luis Valley; SA, San Antonio

^aAll models were adjusted for age and sex regardless of statistical significance. Additional variables were added based on statistical significance. The clinic population variable was then added to determine the amount of remaining variance in adiposity that is explained by being in the San Antonio population compared with San Luis Valley after accounting for environmental and behavioral characteristics.

^bNot included in model because it was not statistically significant.