Sánchez–López M et al. – The data suggest that the region where fat is accumulated might have a differential effect on lipid profile: trunk fat has an adverse effect, leg fat has a protective effect, and arm fat has no effect. The differences observed between upper– and lower–body peripheral fat depots should be further explored.

• This is a cross–sectional study involving 683 university students, aged 18–30 years.
• Total and regional body fat distribution was measured using dual–energy X–ray absorptiometry.
• The associations of trunk, leg and arm fat with CVD risk factors (triglycerides–TG–, high–density lipoprotein cholesterol–HDL–c–, TG/HDL–c ratio, HOMAIR, mean arterial pressure, C–reactive protein) were examined using regression linear models, controlling for age, sex, fat mass index [total body fat(kg)/height(m2)], maximal oxygen consumption and physical activity by accelerometer.

• After controlling for fat mass index, and other confounders, higher levels of trunk fat were found to be associated with a poorer lipid profile, while higher levels of leg fat were found to be associated with a better lipid profile.
• The authors did not find any association between arm fat and lipid profile after controlling for total fatness and other confounders.
• Neither trunk, leg or arm fat was found to be related to insulin resistance, blood pressure or inflammation markers.