No abstract

ABSTRACT:Mounting evidence has firmly established that low levels of cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) are associated with a high risk of cardiovascular disease, all-cause mortality, and mortality rates attributable to various cancers. A growing body of epidemiological and clinical evidence demonstrates not only that CRF is a potentially stronger predictor of mortality than established risk factors such as smoking, hypertension, high cholesterol, and type 2 diabetes mellitus, but that the addition of CRF to traditional risk factors significantly improves the reclassification of risk for adverse outcomes. The purpose of this statement is to review current knowledge related to the association between CRF and health outcomes, increase awareness of the added value of CRF to improve risk prediction, and suggest future directions in research. Although the statement is not intended to be a comprehensive review, critical references that address important advances in the field are highlighted. The underlying premise of this statement is that the addition of CRF for risk classification presents health professionals with unique opportunities to improve patient management and to encourage lifestyle-based strategies designed to reduce cardiovascular risk. These opportunities must be realized to optimize the prevention and treatment of cardiovascular disease and hence meet the American Heart Association's 2020 goals.M ounting evidence over the past 3 decades has firmly established that low levels of cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) are associated with a high risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and all-cause mortality, as well as mortality rates attributable to various cancers, especially of the breast and colon/digestive tract. [1][2][3][4] Importantly, improvements in CRF are associated with reduced mortality risk.5 Although CRF is now recognized as an important marker of cardiovascular health, it is currently the only major risk factor not routinely assessed in clinical practice.In 2013, the American Heart Association and the American College of Cardiology jointly released new guidelines for the prevention and treatment of coronary artery disease.6 Although CRF is the fourth-leading risk factor for CVD and has long been established as a significant prognostic marker, 7 it was excluded from the risk calculator. The authors of the guidelines noted that the evidence that CRF would enhance risk classification was inconclusive, and thus, the added contribution of CRF to determine CVD risk was uncertain. There is, however, a large body of epidemiological and clinical evidence demonstrating not only that CRF is a potentially stronger predictor of mortality than established risk factors such as smoking, hypertension, high cholesterol, and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), but that the addition of CRF to traditional risk factors significantly improves the reclassification of risk for adverse outcomes.

No abstract

Selective CB1-receptor blockade with rimonabant significantly reduces body weight and waist circumference and improves the profile of several metabolic risk factors in high-risk patients who are overweight or obese and have an atherogenic dyslipidemia.

There is currently substantial confusion between the conceptual definition of the metabolic syndrome and the clinical screening parameters and cut-off values proposed by various organizations (NCEP-ATP III, IDF, WHO, etc) to identify individuals with the metabolic syndrome. Although it is clear that in vivo insulin resistance is a key abnormality associated with an atherogenic, prothrombotic, and inflammatory profile which has been named by some the “metabolic syndrome” or by others “syndrome X” or “insulin resistance syndrome”, it is more and more recognized that the most prevalent form of this constellation of metabolic abnormalities linked to insulin resistance is found in patients with abdominal obesity, especially with an excess of intra-abdominal or visceral adipose tissue. We have previously proposed that visceral obesity may represent a clinical intermediate phenotype reflecting the relative inability of subcutaneous adipose tissue to act as a protective metabolic sink for the clearance and storage of the extra energy derived from dietary triglycerides, leading to ectopic fat deposition in visceral adipose depots, skeletal muscle, liver, heart, etc. Thus, visceral obesity may partly be a marker of a dysmetabolic state and partly a cause of the metabolic syndrome. Although waist circumference is a better marker of abdominal fat accumulation than the body mass index, an elevated waistline alone is not sufficient to diagnose visceral obesity and we have proposed that an elevated fasting triglyceride concentration could represent, when waist circumference is increased, a simple clinical marker of excess visceral/ectopic fat. Finally, a clinical diagnosis of visceral obesity, insulin resistance, or of the metabolic syndrome is not sufficient to assess global risk of cardiovascular disease. To achieve this goal, physicians should first pay attention to the classical risk factors while also considering the additional risk resulting from the presence of abdominal obesity and the metabolic syndrome, such global risk being defined as cardiometabolic risk.