Table 1

Comparison of demographic and clinical characteristics

VariableBaselinePeak weightP**
IS (n = 15)IR (n = 16)PISIRP
Age (years)54 ± 857 ± 60.27
Sex (n)0.42
 Male88
 Female78
Race (n)0.06
 Caucasian129
 Asian05
 Black31
 Hispanic01
BMI (kg/m2)29.3 ± 2.430.7 ± 2.70.1130.5 ± 2.6§31.5 ± 2.7§0.310.22
Weight (kg)86.2 ± 10.189.4 ± 11.20.4289.6 ± 10.3§92.1 ± 11.1§0.520.23
%BF37.0 ± 7.039.1 ± 7.70.4338.3 ± 7.2§40.2 ± 7.8§0.480.38
Waist (cm)100 ± 7105 ± 60.049107 ± 7108 ± 70.410.48
SSPG (mg/dL)82 ± 24200 ± 40<0.001118 ± 41§216 ± 35<0.0010.01
Fasting glucose (mg/dL)94 ± 9102 ± 110.0298 ± 9106 ± 150.100.80
Blood pressure (mmHg)
 Systolic122 ± 13125 ± 70.47127 ± 12124 ± 140.560.62
 Diastolic 77 ± 581 ± 60.0580 ± 581 ± 50.660.20
TG (mg/dL)80 ± 39138 ± 820.007100 ± 38185 ± 1150.540.13
Cholesterol (mg/dL)190 ± 34181 ± 270.78194 ± 29197 ± 260.740.79
 VLDL16.4 ± 8.220.0 ± 7.60.03726.3 ± 12.437.0 ± 23.10.0250.13
 LDL111 ± 36108 ± 220.94108 ± 30114 ± 240.010.26
 HDL63 ± 1850 ± 140.0466 ± 2250 ± 170.0270.69
SAT (cm3)*147 ± 54140 ± 340.04162 ± 51148 ± 370.0180.68
VAT (cm3)*37 ± 2264 ± 16<0.00144 ± 2873 ± 270.010.76
%VAT*20 ± 1232 ± 8<0.00122 ± 1333 ± 110.0050.86
Thigh (cm3)*61 ± 2454 ± 220.0268 ± 2154 ± 210.0010.86
IHL (lipid/H2O)*0.03 ± 0.210.23 ± 0.310.020.07 ± 0.040.30 ± 0.220.0020.03
FFA (mmol/L)
 Fasting*374 ± 80374 ± 1060.16369 ± 169348 ± 880.900.75
 AUC*958 ± 2661,234 ± 2370.01919 ± 2331,152 ± 2020.010.77
 Insulin suppression of lipolysis*71 ± 50123 ± 690.0994 ± 56124 ± 860.430.046
Insulin AUC (μU/mL)92 ± 40151 ± 890.01110 ± 43§199 ± 1140.010.023
  • Data are shown as mean ± SD of IS vs. IR subjects at baseline, peak weight, and changes for each variable after weight gain, with change from baseline denoted by symbols in peak weight column for each group. AUC was calculated by the trapezoidal method.

  • *Regional fat depot mass was adjusted for sex and %BF (baseline and peak weight); IHL and all FFA comparisons were adjusted for %BF (baseline or peak weight) to minimize potential confounding;

  • Paired t test comparing peak weight to baseline P < 0.05;

  • Paired t test comparing peak weight to baseline P < 0.01;

  • §Paired t test comparing peak weight to baseline P < 0.001;

  • **ANCOVA comparing ∆absolute value between IR and IS groups with adjustment for Δ%BF. Because baseline SSPG differed substantially (by design), comparison was for %change SSPG.