Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 605

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 14 of the 14 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Sex differences in fat storage, fat metabolism, and the health risks from obesity: possible evolutionary origins

Open access
Power, Michael L., Schulkin, Jay·2008·British Journal of Nutrition
DOI 10.1017/s0007114507853347
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Human beings are susceptible to sustained weight gain in the modern environment. Although both men and women can get fat, they get fat in different ways, and suffer different consequences. We review differences between men and women in the incidence of obesity, fat deposition patterns, fat metabolism, and the health consequences of obesity, and examine potential evolutionary explanations for these differences. Women generally have a larger proportion of body mass as fat, and are more likely to deposit fat subcutaneously and on their lower extremities; men are more likely to deposit fat in the abdominal region. Excess adipose tissue in the abdominal region, especially visceral fat, is associated with more health risks. Women have higher rates of reuptake of NEFA into adipose tissue; however, they also have higher rates of fat oxidation during prolonged exercise. Oestrogen appears to underlie many of these differences. Women bear higher nutrient costs during reproduction. Fat and fertility are linked in women, through leptin. Low leptin levels reduce fertility. Ovarian function of adult women is associated with their fatness at birth. In our evolutionary past food insecurity was a frequent occurrence. Women would have benefited from an increased ability to store fat in easily metabolisable depots. We suggest that the pattern of central obesity, more commonly seen in men, is not adaptive, but rather reflects the genetic drift hypothesis of human susceptibility to obesity. Female obesity, with excess adiposity in the lower extremities, reflects an exaggeration of an adaptation for female reproductive success.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s0007114507853347

Cites

14 of 14 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 14 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Power, M. L., & Schulkin, J.
Venue
British Journal of Nutrition
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Published
2008-05
Volume
99
Issue
5
Pages
931-940
ISSN
  • 0007-1145 (ISSN-L)
  • 1475-2662
DOI
10.1017/s0007114507853347
OpenAlex
W2122426204
Cited by
605
References
14
FWCI
3.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.