Skip to main content
. 2018 Mar 22;13:14. doi: 10.1186/s13024-018-0246-8

Table 2.

Body weight, adiposity-related parameters, serum parameters, and HOMA-IR index

NF HF45 HF60
Body weight (g) 477 (27) 466 (23) 472 (32)
Fat mass (%) 18.4 (3.3) a 20.5 (4.8) a,b 23.4 (4.5) b*
Adiposity index (%) 9.32 (1.51) a 11.2 (2.5) a,b 13.5 (2.7) b*
Weight of adipose tissues (g)
eWAT 14.0 (2.1) a 16.0 (4.5) a,b 18.1 (5.5) b*
iWAT 11.9 (2.5) a 16.1 (4.6) a,b* 15.7 (5.0) b*
mWAT 6.89 (1.87) 7.05 (2.92) 7.90 (2.18)
rWAT 11.9 (3.2) a 13.6 (4.2) a,b 17.6 (6.1) b*
Visceral fat content (g) 32.1 (6.9) a 36.6 (10.9) a,b 43.6 (13.1) b*
Liver fat content (mg/ g liver) 38.3 (6.2) a 57.9 (15.4) b* 56.2 (11.9) b*
Glucose (mg·dl−1) Feeding 93.3 (9.4) a 106 (5.5) b* 111 (13.3) b*
Fasting 89.6 (7.4) a 98.4 (8.4) b* 97.4 (7.1) b*
Insulin (μg·l−1) Feeding 2.21 (0.85) 1.88 (0.89) 1.68 (0.67)
Fasting 0.32 (0.11) a 0.51 (0.28) a,b 0.80 (0.37) b*
HOMA-IR 1.7 (0.7) a 2.8 (1.6) a,b 4.5 (2.1) b*

Data correspond to male Wistar rats fed a control diet (NF), a moderate high-fat diet (45% kcal from fats, HF45 group), or a very high-fat diet (60% kcal from fats, HF60 group) from the age of 2 months until the age of 6 months. Food in HF groups was offered in isocaloric amounts to the control group

Abbreviations: eWAT epididymal white adipose tissue; iWAT inguinal WAT; mWAT mesenteric WAT; rWAT retroperitoneal WAT

Results represent mean (SD) (n = 10 in all groups). Statistics: *different vs control group (Student’s t test, p < 0.05). A one-way ANOVA was performed followed by an LSD post hoc test. Values not sharing a common letter (a, b) are significantly different (p < 0.05). No letters = no statistical difference