Interindividual variation in abdominal subcutaneous and visceral adipose tissue: influence of measurement site.

We evaluated the influence of measurement site on the ranking (low to high) of abdominal subcutaneous (SAT) and visceral (VAT) adipose tissue. We also determined the influence of measurement site on the prediction of abdominal SAT and VAT mass. The subjects included 100 men with computed tomography (CT) measurements at L4-L5 and L3-L4 levels and 100 men with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) measurements at L4-L5 and 5 cm above L4-L5 (L4-L5 +5 cm). Corresponding mass values were determined by using multiple-image protocols. For SAT, 90 and 92 of the 100 subjects for CT and MRI, respectively, had a difference in rank position at the two levels. The change in rank position exceeded the error or measurement for approximately 75% of the subjects for both methods. For VAT, 91 and 95 of the 100 subjects for CT and MRI, respectively, had a difference in rank position at the two levels. The change in rank position exceeded the error of measurement for 36% of the subjects for CT and for 8% of the subjects for MRI. For both imaging modalities, the variance explained in SAT and VAT mass (kg) was comparable for L4-L5, L4-L5 +5 cm, and L3-L4 levels. In conclusion, the ranking of subjects for abdominal SAT and VAT quantity is influenced by measurement location. However, the ability to predict SAT and VAT mass by using single images obtained at the L4-L5, L4-L5 +5 cm, or L3-L4 levels is comparable.

[1]  Pablo R. Ros,et al.  Computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging , 2005 .

[2]  Jimmy D Bell,et al.  Influence of undersampling on magnetic resonance imaging measurements of intra-abdominal adipose tissue , 2003, International Journal of Obesity.

[3]  R. Ross,et al.  Abdominal Adipose Tissue Distribution and Metabolic Risk , 2003, Sports medicine.

[4]  R. Ross,et al.  Abdominal obesity, muscle composition, and insulin resistance in premenopausal women. , 2002, The Journal of clinical endocrinology and metabolism.

[5]  D. Chisholm,et al.  Regional intra-subject variability in abdominal adiposity limits usefulness of computed tomography. , 2002, Obesity research.

[6]  Robert Ross,et al.  Abdominal adiposity and insulin resistance in obese men. , 2002, American journal of physiology. Endocrinology and metabolism.

[7]  R. Ross,et al.  Effects of an energy-restrictive diet with or without exercise on abdominal fat, intermuscular fat, and metabolic risk factors in obese women. , 2002, Diabetes care.

[8]  S. Rich,et al.  Detection of subclinical cardiovascular disease: the emerging role of electron beam computed tomography. , 2002, Preventive medicine.

[9]  S B Heymsfield,et al.  Cadaver validation of skeletal muscle measurement by magnetic resonance imaging and computerized tomography. , 1998, Journal of applied physiology.

[10]  R. Ross,et al.  Influence of diet and exercise on skeletal muscle and visceral adipose tissue in men. , 1996, Journal of applied physiology.

[11]  Wojciech Pawlina,et al.  A.D.A.M. student atlas of anatomy , 1996 .

[12]  S. Heymsfield,et al.  Human Body Composition , 1996 .

[13]  R. Ross,et al.  Visceral adiposity, androgens, and plasma lipids in obese men. , 1994, Metabolism: clinical and experimental.

[14]  R Guardo,et al.  Quantification of adipose tissue by MRI: relationship with anthropometric variables. , 1992, Journal of applied physiology.

[15]  Charles A. Gooding,et al.  Computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging , 1990 .

[16]  L. Sjöström,et al.  Adipose tissue volume determinations in women by computed tomography: technical considerations. , 1986, International journal of obesity.

[17]  W. S. Snyder,et al.  Report of the task group on reference man , 1979, Annals of the ICRP.