Table 2.
Studies investigating the association between FFM/LBM and GT in children and adolescents
| Reference | Study design | Population n (♀; ♂) | Age | Country | Study period | Method to assess maturation stage | Method to assess body composition | Metabolic variables | GT criteria | Body composition outcome by GT. | Association: body composition– GT | Secondary outcomes | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NGT Mean ± SD |
IGT Mean ± SD |
||||||||||||
| Kim, et al. [25] | CS | 205 adolescents (♀ 66%; ♂ 34%) | 14.6 ± 0.2 | USA | NA |
Tanner scale IV 30% (n = 61); V 70% (n = 115) |
DXA | Glucose; HOMA-IR; insulin; free fatty acids; HbA1c; lipid profile; leptin and adiponectin. | HbA1c and/or a 2-h oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) | (n = 138) | (n = 38) | FFM was progressively and significantly higher from normal weight to obese and from NGT to IGT (p < 0.0001) | |
|
Normal weight (n = 49) Tanner IV (55% n = 27); V (45% (n = 22) FFM (kg) 41.3 ± 1.2 |
Obese (n = 38) Tanner IV (21% n = 8); V (79% n = 30) FFM (kg) 51.4 ± 1.7 |
||||||||||||
|
Obese (n = 89) Tanner IV (29% n = 26); V (71% n = 63) FFM (kg) 49.2 ± 1.0 | |||||||||||||
| Goran et al. [99] | CS | 150 children and adolescents (♀ 43.3% ♂ 56.7%) | 11.0 ± 1.7 | USA | NA |
Tanner stages I (36% n = 54) II (33.3% n = %50) III (8.6% n = 13) IV (12% n = 18) V (9.3% n = 14) |
DXA | Fasting glucose; 2-h oral glucose tolerance test; fasting insulin | 2-h oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) | (n = 87) | (n = 35) | No significant difference between groups with NGT and IGT | |
|
LBM (kg) 35.9 ± 10.3 |
LBM (kg) 36.3 ± 10.0 |
||||||||||||
| Weiss et al. [31] | CS | 28 children and adolescents with obesity (♀ 57.1; ♂ 42.8) | 13.5 ± 2.1 | USA | NA | Tanner stages. PrepubertaTanner (28.6% n = 8); pubertal (71.4% n = 20). | DXA | Fasting glucose; 2 h glucose; fasting insulin; fasting C-peptide; leptin; adiponectin; HbA1c; plasma fatty acids; glycerol; glycerol turnover, and lipid oxidation rates. | Euglycaemic hyperinsulinaemic clamp and the hyperglycaemic clamp. |
(n = 14) (♀ 6; ♂ 8) |
(n = 14) (♀ 6; ♂ 8) |
No significant difference between groups with IGT and NGT | |
|
LBM (kg) 55.9 ± 9.4 |
LBM (kg) 53.2 ± 15.2 |
||||||||||||
CS Cross-sectional studies, NGT Normal glucose tolerance, IGT Impaired glucose tolerance, DXA Dual energy X-ray absorptiometry, LBM Lean body mass, HOMA-IR Homeostasis model assessment insulin resistance index, HbA1c Glycated hemoglobin, OGTT Oral glucose tolerance test, FFM Fat-free mass