Biomarkers · Anthropometric

Visceral Fat Mass

Lower values go with lower risk of death. Not measured in our NHANES panel. The curve is drawn from the published study (source below).

Visceral Fat Mass and risk of death

Published curve higher than the NHANES fitNHANES fit higher

Risk of death relative to the curve's reference value, drawn from the published study (source below).

Published risk of death1.17×per 1-SD increment in VAT (pooled, 8 studies) (95% CI 1.03–1.33) · Dose-response meta-analysis of prospective general-population cohorts; VAT estimate pooled from 8 studies (35 cohorts, 923,295 participants overall)

Visceral Fat Mass by age and sex

Each bar runs from the 5th to the 95th percentile, the darker part from the 25th to the 75th, and the tick is the median. Not a reference range or a target.

The percentiles as a table

Each row is one sex and age band: the values below which 5%, 25%, 50%, 75% and 95% of people fall (kg), from the survey named in the row. Not a reference range or a target.
Sex	Age	5th	25th	Median	75th	95th	n	Cycle / source
All	20-39	0.12	0.22	0.33	0.51	0.84	1,228	NHANES 2017-2018
All	40-59	0.18	0.38	0.56	0.76	1.11	1,297	NHANES 2017-2018
All	all	0.14	0.27	0.45	0.65	1.04	2,525	NHANES 2017-2018
Men	20-39	0.18	0.24	0.36	0.52	0.84	629	NHANES 2017-2018
Men	40-59	0.27	0.47	0.61	0.80	1.14	648	NHANES 2017-2018
Men	all	0.19	0.30	0.49	0.70	1.07	1,277	NHANES 2017-2018
Women	20-39	0.09	0.19	0.32	0.50	0.84	599	NHANES 2017-2018
Women	40-59	0.13	0.33	0.49	0.69	1.10	649	NHANES 2017-2018
Women	all	0.10	0.24	0.40	0.60	1.00	1,248	NHANES 2017-2018

What studies found when this marker was changed

They describe what happened in those study groups, not a recommendation. See all catalogued interventions.

Measured changes in Visceral Fat Mass, study by study

4 effects with a numeric size, each from one study arm: the dot is the reported change, the line its 95% interval where one was given. Green points move the marker the way lower risk of death lies; amber the other way. Study results in the groups studied, not predictions for a person.

Each row is one study: what was changed, the effect it reported on this marker, and the source.
Type	Intervention	Reported effect	Evidence	Source
diet	Caloric restriction of 390 kcal/day for 14 weeks in adults with obesity and prediabetes	DXA visceral fat -9.5% at 14 weeks (liraglutide -4.8%, sitagliptin 0%)	RCT	Silver HJ, Olson D, Mayfield D, et al. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2023.
exercise	Combined aerobic and resistance training during a ~10% diet-induced weight loss over 6 months in obese older adults	MRI visceral adipose tissue -36% at 6 months with combined exercise (aerobic -19%, resistance -21%)	RCT	Waters DL, Aguirre L, Gurney B, et al. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2022.
pharmacologic	Subcutaneous semaglutide 2.4 mg once weekly for 68 weeks plus lifestyle advice in East Asian adults with obesity (STEP 6)	Abdominal visceral fat area -40.0% vs -6.9% placebo (treatment difference -33.2%, 95% CI -42.1 to -24.2) at week 68	RCT	Kadowaki T, Isendahl J, Khalid U, et al. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2022.

Sources

Risk curve: Jayedi 2022 (PMID 35717418): all-cause HR 1.17 (1.03-1.33) per 1-SD increment in VAT (pooled, 8 studies). Scaled to US values (NHANES).
Jayedi et al. Body fat and risk of all-cause mortality: a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies. International journal of obesity (2005). 2022;46:1573-1581.

Map Visceral Fat Mass against another biomarker.

Map Visceral Fat Mass against another marker