Observatorio de I+D+i UPM

Memorias de investigación
Communications at congresses:
Metabolic risk score indexes validation in overweight healthy people
Research Areas
  • Physical education and sport
Introduction. The constellation of adverse cardiovascular disease (CVD) and metabolic risk factors, including elevated abdominal obesity, blood pressure (BP), glucose, and triglycerides (TG) and lowered high-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (HDL-C), has been termed the metabolic syndrome (MetSyn) [1]. A number of different definitions have been developed by the World Health Organization (WHO) [2], the National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III (ATP III) [3], the European Group for the Study of Insulin Resistance (EGIR) [4] and, most recently, the International Diabetes Federation (IDF) [5]. Since there is no universal definition of the Metabolic Syndrome, several authors have derived different risk scores to represent the clustering of its components [6-11]. Objective. To compare the Metabolic Risk Score (MRS) found in the literature and reproducible, with the validated MRS and to study the diverse methodologies used to calculate them, considering the mathematics procedures and the included variables. Methods. The MRS was calculated in 62 overweight women (mean±SD age, 36±8 years; body mass index, 29±2 kg/m2) and 45 overweight men age, (age 35±8 years; body mass index, 29±2 kg/m2), through 6 different scores published [6-11]. Only one of them was previously validated [10]. The scores were derived from the levels of triglycerides, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDLc), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDLc), glucose, anthropometric measurements of the waist and hip circumference, height, weight, skinfolds and blood pressure. Each MRS was contrasted with the only validated one. Results. There were not mean differences between other scores with the validated, for men and women respectively. However, the high variability of the scores can obtain opposite health status depending in which one is used when calculated in the same person. The only score which showed graphs with points similarly dispersed and no tendency, according to the method described by Bland and Altman, was MRS4 and MRS4_4 [9], in men and women. The bias for MRS4 was of 0.0009 ± 0.38 and of 0.0001 ± 0.27 for men and women respectively. For MRS4_4 was of 0.0002 ± 0.36 and of 0.0001 ± 0.29 for men and women respectively. Conclusion. Following the results obtained we can conclude that the most valid score with respect to Wijndaele et al. (2006) score is the one used by Rizzo et al. (2007). References. 1. Third Report of the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults (Adult Treatment Panel III) final report. Circulation, 2002. 106(25): p. 3143-421. 2. World Health Organization, Definition, diagnosis and classification of diabetes mellitus and its complications. Report of a WHO consultation. 1999, WHO: Geneve. 3. Grundy, S.M., et al., Definition of metabolic syndrome: Report of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute/American Heart Association conference on scientific issues related to definition. Circulation, 2004. 109(3): p. 433-8. 4. Balkau, B. and M.A. Charles, Comment on the provisional report from the WHO consultation. European Group for the Study of Insulin Resistance (EGIR). Diabet Med, 1999. 16(5): p. 442-3. 5. Alberti, K.G., P. Zimmet, and J. Shaw, The metabolic syndrome--a new worldwide definition. Lancet, 2005. 366(9491): p. 1059-62. 6. Garcia-Artero, E., et al., [Lipid and metabolic profiles in adolescents are affected more by physical fitness than physical activity (AVENA study)]. Rev. Esp. Cardiol., 2007. 60(6): p. 581-8. 7. Ekelund, U., et al., Independent associations of physical activity and cardiorespiratory fitness with metabolic risk factors in children: the European youth heart study. Diabetología, 2007. 50(9): p. 1832-40. 8. Franks, P.W., et al., Does the association of habitual physical activity with the metabolic syndrome differ by level of cardiorespiratory fitness? Diabetes Care, 2004. 27(5): p. 1187-93.
Congreso internacional PRONAF
Start Date
End Date
From page
To page
Book of abstracts
  • Autor: Esther Morencos Martínez (UPM)
  • Autor: Pedro Jose Benito Peinado (UPM)
  • Autor: Fco. Javier Calderon Montero (UPM)
Research Group, Departaments and Institutes related
  • Creador: Grupo de Investigación: Ejercicio Físico, Salud y sus Fundamentos Fisiológicos (EFISAF)
  • Departamento: Salud y Rendimiento Humano
S2i 2020 Observatorio de investigación @ UPM con la colaboración del Consejo Social UPM
Cofinanciación del MINECO en el marco del Programa INNCIDE 2011 (OTR-2011-0236)
Cofinanciación del MINECO en el marco del Programa INNPACTO (IPT-020000-2010-22)