Evidence Hub

Clinical characteristics of Sarcopenic obesity in Japanese people with type 2 diabetes: A post hoc analysis of the sub-cohort iDIAMOND study

Mori H, Ko K, Notomi S, Yoshida S, Yasuda T, Umayahara Y, Shimizu S, Ryomoto K et al.

Journal of diabetes investigation, 2026

930 participants

Abstract

Aims/introduction: Sarcopenic obesity, defined by reduced muscle mass and strength with excess adiposity, is poorly characterized in Japanese individuals with type 2 diabetes (T2D). This post hoc analysis assessed its prevalence and associations with physical quality of life (QOL), walking ability, and falls.

Materials and methods: This post hoc cross-sectional analysis used sub-cohort data from the Impact of Diabetes Mellitus on Dynapenia (iDIAMOND) study, conducted across seven medical centers. The study included 930 individuals aged 40-75 years (527 with T2D and 403 without diabetes [non-D]). Sarcopenia was diagnosed using the Asian Working Group for Sarcopenia criteria, defined as low grip strength and/or slow gait speed with low skeletal muscle mass index. Sarcopenic obesity was diagnosed using the Japanese Working Group on Sarcopenic Obesity criteria, defined as high body mass index (BMI) or waist circumference combined with low grip strength, low skeletal muscle mass relative to BMI, and high body fat percentage. Participants meeting neither criterion were classified as robust.

Results: Among participants aged 40-75 years, sarcopenic obesity was observed in 4.9% of those with T2D and 0.5% of non-D individuals (P < 0.001). In the T2D group, sarcopenic obesity was associated with lower physical QOL, reduced physical activity, slow gait speed, and a high incidence of falls compared with the robust group. Multivariate logistic regression identified advanced age, high BMI,…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a secondary / pooled analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 930 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free