Prevalence of associations among sarcopenia, obesity, and metabolic syndrome in Brazilian older adults

BackgroundAlthough aging is a process associated with the development of obesity, metabolic syndrome (MetS), and sarcopenia, the prevalence of these conditions in older adults from São Paulo, Brazil, is unclear. MethodsTherefore, the current study aimed to investigate the prevalence of obesity, sarcopenia, and MetS, both separately and together, in a community-based sample of older adults from São Paulo, Brazil. Data from the medical records of 418 older adults of both genders, aged 60 years or older (mean age 69.3 ± 6.5 years), who were not physically active, were used to conduct this retrospective cross-sectional study. Anthropometric variables were used to determine both body mass index (BMI) and Conicity index (C index). Sarcopenia and MetS were defined according to the criteria of the European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People and by the Brazilian Society of Endocrinology and Metabolism, respectively. ResultsBased on BMI, the group of older men (n = 91) showed a predominance of adequate weight (n = 49) and the group of older women (n = 327) showed a predominance of obesity (n = 181). In association with obesity, while only the group of older women presented with sarcopenia (n = 5), 52 older women and 9 older men presented with MetS, and two older women presented with sarcopenia + MetS [prevalence ratio = 0.0385, 95% CI (0.007;0.1924)]. Based on the C index, 58 older women and 11 older men presented with MetS, while the occurrence of sarcopenia or MetS + sarcopenia was found in 32 and 5 older women, respectively [prevalence ratio = 0.0910, 95% CI (0.037;0.2241)]. DiscussionOur results suggest that obesity, as measured by BMI or the C Index, was more closely associated with the occurrence of MetS than sarcopenia, regardless of gender, and also that sarcopenic obesity was only found in the group of older women. Additionally, the prevalence ratio of obesity, sarcopenia, and MetS evidenced using the C index was 2.3 times higher than the values found using the BMI classification.