Table 3—

Mid-thigh muscle attenuation and distribution of AT in subjects with NGT, IGT, and type 2 diabetes

NGTIGTType 2 diabetesP
Men
n815235397
 Muscle area (cm2)131.2 ± 21.5134.3 ± 23.5135.5 ± 23.50.01
 Muscle attenuation (HU)38.0 ± 6.236.5 ± 6.7*36.8 ± 6.60.003
 Mid-thigh AT (cm2)
  Subcutaneous46.8 ± 20.050.3 ± 22.546.8 ± 19.60.06
  Intermuscular9.21 ± 5.910.3 ± 5.8*11.2 ± 9.40.0001
 Abdominal AT (cm2)
  Visceral144.9 ± 65.9163.0 ± 72.5*172.2 ± 790.0001
  Subcutaneous221.2 ± 87.1244.6 ± 94.1*245.7 ± 93.80.0001
Women
n823365329
 Muscle area (cm2)90.2 ± 16.693.7 ± 17.6*99.8 ± 23.50.0001
 Muscle attenuation (HU)34.7 ± 6.533.7 ± 7.233.0 ± 7.20.02
 Mid-thigh AT (cm2)
  Subcutaneous104.0 ± 44.6110.6 ± 52.1107.7 ± 45.20.32
  Intermuscular9.4 ± 5.310.9 ± 6.5*12.1 ± 6.10.0001
 Abdominal AT (cm2)
  Visceral116.1 ± 54140.8 ± 60.3*162.2 ± 65.50.0001
  Subcutaneous322.4 ± 120.4345.6 ± 135.4*370.0 ± 1270.0001
  • Data are means ± SD. Overall P values reflect differences across the three groups determined by ANOVA. A multiple comparison procedure was performed using a Bonferoni correction to determine specific group differences in the various regional fat distribution characteristics. P values <0.016 are considered significant in multiple comparisons;

  • *

    * NGT vs. IGT,

  • NGT vs. type 2 diabetes,

  • IGT vs. type 2 diabetes. The Kruskal-Wallis test with χ2 approximation, a nonparametric one-way ANOVA by ranks, was used in the case of data that were not normally distributed.