Metabolic effects of menopause: a cross-sectional characterization of body composition and exercise metabolism

Lacey M Gould; Amanda N Gordon; Hannah E Cabre; Andrew T Hoyle; Eric D Ryan; Anthony C Hackney; Abbie E Smith-Ryan

doi:10.1097/GME.0000000000001932

Metabolic effects of menopause: a cross-sectional characterization of body composition and exercise metabolism

Menopause. 2022 Feb 28;29(4):377-389. doi: 10.1097/GME.0000000000001932.

Authors

Lacey M Gould¹, Amanda N Gordon¹, Hannah E Cabre^{1

2

3

4}, Andrew T Hoyle¹, Eric D Ryan^{1

2

3

4}, Anthony C Hackney^{1

2

3

4}, Abbie E Smith-Ryan^{1

2

3

4}

Affiliations

¹ Applied Physiology Laboratory, Department of Exercise and Sport Science, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC.
² Human Movement Science Curriculum, Department of Allied Health Science, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC.
³ Neuromuscular Assessment Laboratory, Department of Exercise and Sport Science, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC; and.
⁴ Department of Nutrition, Gillings School of Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC. Funding/support: This research study was supported by a grant from the Center for Women's Health Research.

PMID: 35231009
DOI: 10.1097/GME.0000000000001932

Abstract

Objectives: To evaluate body composition, fat distribution, and metabolism at rest and during exercise in premenopausal, perimenopausal, and postmenopausal women.

Methods: This cross-sectional study in 72 women ages 35 to 60 years evaluated body composition via a fourcompartment model, fat distribution using dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry-derived android to gynoid ratio, metabolic measures via indirect calorimetry, and lifestyle factors using surveys. One-way analyses of variance and one-way analyses of covariance covaried for age and hormone levels (estrogen and progesterone) were used to compare groups.

Results: Body fat percent was significantly lower in premenopausal than perimenopausal women (mean difference ± standard error: - 10.29 ± 2.73%, P = 0.026) despite similarities in fat mass and fat-free mass between groups (P≥0.217). Android to gynoid ratio was significantly lower in premenopausal than perimenopausal women (MD ± SE: -0.16 ± 0.05 a.u., P = 0.031). Resting energy expenditure was similar between groups (P = 0.999). Fat oxidation during moderate intensity cycle ergometer exercise was significantly greater in premenopausal than postmenopausal women (MD ± SE: 0.09 ± 0.03 g/min, P = 0.045). The change in respiratory exchange ratio between rest and moderate intensity exercise was significantly lower in premenopausal women than peri- (MD ± SE: -0.05 ± 0.03 a.u., P = 0.035) and postmenopausal women (MD ± SE: -0.06 ± 0.03 a.u., P = 0.040). Premenopausal women reported significantly fewer menopause symptoms than peri- (MD ± SE: -6.58 ± 1.52 symptoms, P = 0.002) and postmenopausal participants (MD ± SE: -4.63 ± 1.52 symptoms, P = 0.044), while similarities between groups were observed for lifestyle factors including diet and physical activity (P>0.999).

Conclusions: Perimenopause may be the most opportune window for lifestyle intervention, as this group experienced the onset of unfavorable body composition and metabolic characteristics.

Video summary: http://links.lww.com/MENO/A932.

MeSH terms

Absorptiometry, Photon
Adult
Body Composition*
Body Mass Index
Cross-Sectional Studies
Exercise
Female
Humans
Menopause*
Middle Aged