Mean differences in cardiometabolic risk factors by body mass index and muscular fitness categories in girls.

<p>Data are presented as marginal estimated mean ± SE.</p><p>MAP = mean arterial blood pressure (DBP + {0.333 x (SBP—DBP)}); Log Insulin = logarithm of fasting insulin; Log TG/HDL-c = logarithm of triglyceride to high density lipoprotein cholesterol ratio. CMRI = cardiometabolic risk index.</p><p>Categories of body mass index (BMI) are Normal Weight (NW), Overweight (OW) and Obesity (OB) according to gender-and-age-specific cut-offs defined by Cole and Lobstein. Categories of muscular fitness (an index was measured by the sum of the standardized z score of dynamometry/weight and standing long jump) are Lower Q (representing 1^st quartile), Middle Q (2^nd and 3^rd quartiles), and Upper Q (4th quartile).</p><p>Model 1 controlling for age. All the pairwise mean comparisons using Bonferroni post-hoc test were statistically significant (p<0.001) (NWMiddle Q>Upper Q for muscular fitness), except for superscript letters.</p><p>Model 2 further adjustments for muscular fitness to BMI (NW</p><p>Analysis of differences in CMRI and cardiometabolic risk factors among SLJ and dynamometry/weight categories showed that the children with better MF had lower cardiometabolic risk (controlling for age); but when BMI was added as a covariate (model 2) the differences disappeared in both sexes (A–D Tables in <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0116506#pone.0116506.s001" target="_blank">S1 File</a>). Similar results have been found when SLJ, dynamometry and MF index were normalized by allometric parameters (E–G Tables in <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0116506#pone.0116506.s001" target="_blank">S1 File</a>) and also when we used residuals of body mass regression on the fitness phenotypes (data not shown).</p><p>Mean differences in cardiometabolic risk factors by body mass index and muscular fitness categories in girls.