Weight & Body Composition
Visceral Fat After Menopause
Visceral fat rose about 8% a year around the final period in SWAN and tracked with artery thickening. Aerobic exercise reduces it, even without dieting.
Around menopause, some women find their waistline changing faster than their weight. Part of that shift can be visceral fat, the fat packed deep in the belly around the liver and intestines. That difference between waist and weight is the thread Humanic Blue follows here. Heart researchers have tracked it through the menopause transition, and cardiovascular disease is “the leading cause of death in women,” according to the American Heart Association. That puts visceral fat after menopause squarely in the conversation about living longer.
The research is specific about timing. In the SWAN Heart study of about 360 midlife women, average visceral fat did not change clearly until about two years before the final period. It then rose about 8% a year, and about 6% a year afterward. These are group estimates, rather than a schedule every woman follows. More visceral fat in that window was linked to thicker walls in one neck artery, a marker of early artery disease rather than a measured heart attack or stroke. Exercise, especially aerobic exercise, reduced visceral fat in combined studies, including studies without a calorie-restricted diet. The exercise evidence was not specific to menopausal women.
Key Takeaways
- The American Heart Association describes a rise in visceral fat across the transition. One study, SWAN Heart, found the fastest rise in the two years before the final period.
- The fat gained in that window was linked to thicker artery walls in the neck. This was an association in one study, rather than proof of cause.
- Aerobic exercise reduces visceral fat, even without cutting calories. The combined studies were not specific to menopausal women.
- GLP-1 medications reduced visceral fat along with weight. Many of the combined studies were small.
- Hormone therapy reduced abdominal fat in pooled trials, but its approved uses are symptoms and bone protection, not fat loss.
- Whether reducing visceral fat after menopause helps women live longer hasn’t been tested.
What is visceral fat?
Visceral fat sits inside the abdominal cavity, around the liver, intestines and other organs. Subcutaneous fat is the layer just under the skin.
The two don’t behave the same way. In a Framingham Heart Study analysis of about 3,000 adults, run by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, both kinds of fat were linked to higher odds of high blood pressure, diabetes and metabolic syndrome, a cluster of risk factors involving blood pressure, blood sugar, waist size and blood fats. Visceral fat was more strongly tied to most metabolic risk factors, and its link held after accounting for body mass index and waist size. The link for fat under the skin didn’t.
A second Framingham analysis, led by Brigham and Women’s Hospital researchers and published in 2009, looked at about 900 participants. Each fat-storage area they measured went with lower levels of adiponectin, a hormone made by fat tissue, and visceral fat’s tie was the closest. It was still weak, and the team concluded that adiponectin can’t stand in for measuring the fat itself. The study details
When it rises
SWAN Heart is part of the Study of Women’s Health Across the Nation (SWAN), a long-running study of women moving through midlife, funded by the US National Institutes of Health (NIH). Epidemiologists at the University of Pittsburgh, led by Saad Samargandy with senior author Samar El Khoudary and working with Rush University colleagues, measured belly fat on computed tomography (CT) scans in about 360 women without heart disease. The women averaged 51 years old at the start. The team then lined up each woman’s results against the date of her final menstrual period:
- More than two years before the final period: no significant change.
- The two years before the final period: an 8.2% increase per year.
- After the final period: a 5.8% increase per year.
Those rates held after the researchers accounted for age, body mass index, lifestyle and heart risk factors. Each woman had at most two scans, which limits how finely any one woman’s path can be traced. How the study worked
The wider shift in body composition during the transition is covered in Body Composition During Menopause.
Why does visceral fat matter for cardiovascular risk?
In SWAN Heart, the visceral fat women gained in the two years before their final period predicted thicker walls in the internal carotid artery, one of the main arteries in the neck. Thicker walls there are an early, symptom-free sign of atherosclerosis, the buildup that stiffens and narrows arteries. A 20% greater amount of visceral fat was associated with walls about 2% thicker; that is not a 2% estimate of heart-attack risk. The link showed up only in that two-year window and only in that one artery measure.
A separate SWAN analysis of about 300 women, from the same Pittsburgh group with University of Pennsylvania researchers, followed up two years later. Women with more visceral fat had less favorable HDL (“good”) cholesterol: lower HDL levels, fewer large HDL particles and HDL that was less able to clear cholesterol away. Insulin resistance, in which the body responds less well to insulin, accounted for part of that link in the researchers’ analysis.
Here, CVD means cardiovascular disease, which includes heart and blood-vessel disease. Both findings are associations. They show that visceral fat and artery or cholesterol changes travel together, not that one causes the other. The American Heart Association’s 2020 scientific statement on menopause, led by El Khoudary, calls the menopause transition “a time of accelerating CVD risk” and midlife “a critical window for implementing early intervention strategies to reduce CVD risk.” The broader picture is covered in Does Menopause Increase Heart Disease Risk?
What separates an arterial-wall finding from a demonstrated change in heart-event risk?
How to gauge it
Research studies measure visceral fat with CT, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or certain dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scans. Waist size is a simpler measure of abdominal size rather than a direct measure of visceral fat. The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute uses waist circumference as a risk indicator. It says, “A waist circumference of more than 35 inches for women or more than 40 inches for men increases your risk” of heart disease and type 2 diabetes.
To measure, the NHLBI says to “stand and place a tape measure around your middle, just above your hipbones,” and to measure “just after you breathe out.”
A tape measure isn’t a scan, though. In the Framingham analysis of about 3,000 adults, visceral fat measured on CT still added information after waist size was taken into account. A clinician can read a waist number alongside blood pressure, blood sugar and cholesterol. Measurement details
What can a waist measurement tell us that a visceral-fat scan measures differently?
What has reduced visceral fat in trials?
Search for menopause belly fixes and they arrive by the dozen. The list tested against visceral-fat scans is shorter.
Exercise, especially aerobic. Researchers at the University of Antwerp pooled studies of about 850 adults with overweight or obesity in a 2013 meta-analysis. Participants exercised without cutting calories, and exercise reduced visceral fat overall. The authors’ summary: “Aerobic training of moderate or high intensity has the highest potential to reduce visceral adipose tissue in overweight males and females.” The studies weren’t limited to midlife women.
A 2026 meta-analysis led by exercise physiologists at Ferdowsi University of Mashhad in Iran pooled small studies of about 350 people of normal or near-normal weight. Exercise reduced visceral fat there too, with aerobic training the most consistent. The authors rated the certainty of that evidence as low. The exercise numbers
GLP-1 medications. The US National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases describes these drugs as activating hormone receptors involved in blood-sugar regulation, hunger and digestion. A 2026 meta-analysis from Poznan University of Medical Sciences in Poland pooled studies of GLP-1 drugs, such as semaglutide and liraglutide, and newer dual-action drugs in adults with overweight or obesity. At three months, the authors reported “marked reductions in fat mass and visceral adipose tissue,” with modest loss of lean mass. They note that relatively few studies reported detailed body-composition data and that results varied widely. The review had no drug-company funding.
Hormone therapy. A 2006 Stanford-led analysis of randomized trials found hormone therapy reduced abdominal fat by about 7% in women without diabetes, as covered in Body Composition During Menopause. Abdominal fat includes more than the visceral fat around organs, so that result is not an exact measure of visceral-fat reduction. Fat loss isn’t among its approved uses: an FDA-approved estradiol tablet label lists menopause hot flashes, vaginal symptoms and osteoporosis prevention, among others. Its risks and benefits are covered in Menopause and Longevity. The medication details
Crunches alone. In a small 2011 trial at Southern Illinois University Edwardsville, about 20 sedentary adults aged 18 to 40 did abdominal exercises five days a week for six weeks. Their abdominal endurance improved, but belly-fat measures, including waist size, didn’t change significantly. That trial didn’t scan for visceral fat specifically. The exercise reductions described above came from whole-body programs.
What’s Interesting
Midlife body changes can feel like a slow, steady creep. In SWAN Heart, average visceral fat began rising faster about two years before the final period. With at most two scans per woman, the study cannot establish a sudden switch in an individual woman.
The timing has a practical wrinkle. A final period only counts as final once a woman has gone 12 months without one, so the fastest-rising window is only visible in hindsight. What women can see in real time is their cycle. The STRAW+10 staging system, drawn up by scientists from five countries, marks the late menopausal transition by gaps of 60 days or more without a period and estimates it lasts, on average, 1 to 3 years. That’s roughly the same stretch.
What This Means in Practice
The NHLBI uses waist circumference as one indicator of heart-disease and diabetes risk, with a threshold above 35 inches for women. A waist measurement cannot reveal exactly how much fat surrounds the organs or determine a treatment by itself. A clinician can interpret it alongside blood pressure, blood sugar, cholesterol and medical history.
For living longer and better, the evidence here concerns risk markers and body composition, rather than added years of life. For adults generally, the Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans describe 150–300 minutes of moderate-intensity aerobic activity weekly and muscle-strengthening activity on at least two days. That is broad health guidance. The exercise reviews here do not establish a menopause-specific dose for visceral fat; Strength Training During Menopause separates strength outcomes from symptom-treatment evidence.
The studies include mixed groups of adults as well as women in the menopause transition. Their averages cannot predict an individual woman’s timing or response. Medication findings are also population- and treatment-specific: the GLP-1 review involved adults with overweight or obesity, while hormone therapy’s approved uses do not include fat loss. A clinician can explain whether any treatment is indicated and how its benefits and risks fit the person’s health history.
Bottom Line
SWAN Heart found that average visceral fat rose fastest in the two years before the final menstrual period and continued rising afterward. In SWAN Heart, the gain in that window went with thicker artery walls, an association rather than proof of harm. Aerobic exercise reduced visceral fat in pooled trials even without dieting, GLP-1 drugs reduced it along with weight, and hormone therapy reduced abdominal fat, though that isn’t what it’s approved for. No study has tested whether shrinking visceral fat helps women live longer. The NHLBI’s waist threshold is a risk indicator, while federal activity guidance addresses broad adult health. Neither supplies a personal visceral-fat diagnosis or treatment plan.
A NOTE FROM LONGEVITY365
We read research, consult expert perspectives and work to make complicated health information easier to understand. What you’re reading here reflects how we’ve interpreted and organized that information. It is educational content—not personal medical advice, diagnosis or treatment guidance.
We’re not perfect, and neither is the available research. Evidence changes, new studies emerge and what’s appropriate for one person may not be appropriate for another.
Use this article as a starting point for your own research and conversations with qualified professionals. Always talk with your doctor or another trusted healthcare professional before making decisions that could affect your health, particularly if you take medications, are receiving treatment, have existing health conditions, are pregnant or have other circumstances that could affect what’s appropriate for you.
Reader Questions
A few questions to carry into the comments or your next conversation. Please leave out identifying or personal medical details.
- 01Which part of the menopause conversation still feels most under-explained: muscle, bone, heart health, sleep, body composition, or symptoms?
- 02Where did this article help separate a normal transition from something worth bringing into care?
- 03What question would make a midlife health visit more specific without overgeneralizing from population evidence?
Extra Insights & Sources
For readers who want the details behind each claim above. A confidence interval (CI) describes uncertainty around an estimate. An odds ratio compares the odds between groups; 1 means no difference. A standardized mean difference (SMD) expresses a difference on a shared statistical scale so studies using different measures can be combined; it is not a percentage or a number of kilograms. Heterogeneity describes how much study results differ. P and p values describe how compatible a result is with a model of no difference; < means less than. A small P value does not show that a change is large, clinically useful or causal. I² describes variation among study estimates beyond what sampling chance would explain; it is not a percentage of participants who improved. These statistical measures do not establish cause.
What We Know
- Visceral fat rises across the menopause transition. Supported (AHA statement). The fastest rise, in the two years before the final period, comes from one study. Preliminary (SWAN Heart).
- Visceral fat is more strongly tied to metabolic risk factors than fat under the skin. Supported (Framingham).
- It’s associated with artery wall thickening and less favorable HDL cholesterol. Preliminary (one SWAN analysis each; associations).
- Aerobic exercise reduces visceral fat.
- A waist over 35 inches signals higher risk in women. Established (NHLBI).
What We Don’t Know
- Whether reducing visceral fat during menopause prevents heart disease or extends lifespan.
- How much of the rise comes from hormonal change versus aging and lifestyle. Uncertain.
- What exercise dose works for visceral fat in midlife women specifically. Uncertain.
- How well the SWAN Heart pattern applies to women of other backgrounds; its participants were 61% White and 39% Black.
SWAN Heart and the HDL analysis in detail
SWAN Heart (2021). Saad Samargandy and colleagues (senior author Samar R. El Khoudary) at the University of Pittsburgh, with co-authors at Rush University, published the study in Menopause. Participants were 362 women with no cardiovascular disease, mean baseline age 51.1 years with a standard deviation of 2.8 years (the spread of ages around that average), 61% White and 39% Black. Visceral fat area was measured with electron-beam CT, a single 6-mm image between the L4 and L5 vertebrae, and each woman had up to two measurements of visceral fat and carotid intima-media thickness (cIMT, the thickness of the inner layers of a neck artery). A statistical model allowed the rate of change to vary over time and identified three segments: more than 2 years before the final menstrual period (FMP), 2 years before FMP to FMP, and after FMP. Visceral fat rose 8.2% per year (95% CI 4.1%–12.5%) in the second segment and 5.8% per year (3.7%–7.9%) in the third, with no significant change in the first. Estimates were adjusted for age at FMP, body mass index, and sociodemographic, lifestyle and cardiovascular risk factors. In the second segment, a 20% greater visceral fat was associated with 2.0% (0.8%–3.1%) greater internal carotid artery wall thickness. Visceral fat was not an independent predictor of internal carotid IMT in the other segments, or of the other cIMT measures, after adjustment. Here, VAT means visceral adipose tissue, the fat around abdominal organs; IMT refers to artery-wall thickness. The authors concluded: “Women experience an accelerated increase in VAT starting 2 years before menopause. This menopause-related increase in VAT is associated with greater risk of subclinical atherosclerosis in the internal carotid artery.” The authors reported no conflicts of interest. (Note 1)
SWAN HDL analysis (2022). Alexis Nasr and colleagues (senior author El Khoudary), with co-authors including University of Pennsylvania researchers, studied 299 women (baseline mean age 51.1, 67% White, 33% Black) in the SWAN HDL ancillary study, published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism. In multivariable models, higher abdominal visceral fat was associated with lower HDL cholesterol efflux capacity, HDL phospholipids, HDL cholesterol and large HDL particles, and smaller HDL size, measured about two years later. An estimate of insulin resistance called HOMA-IR statistically accounted for part of several associations. That analysis does not by itself establish a causal pathway. The authors concluded that managing insulin resistance might prevent visceral fat’s unfavorable effect on HDL measures. (Note 2)
American Heart Association scientific statement (2020). In the quotations below, MT means menopause transition. Written by a panel led by El Khoudary and published in Circulation, the statement opens: “Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of death in women.” It reports that longitudinal studies have documented “adverse alterations in body composition, lipids and lipoproteins, and measures of vascular health over the MT,” and underlines “the significance of the MT as a time of accelerating CVD risk.”
The Framingham analyses in detail
Fox et al., 2007. Caroline S. Fox and colleagues at the NHLBI’s Framingham Heart Study, writing in Circulation, studied 3,001 participants (48% women, mean age 50) free of cardiovascular disease, who had multidetector CT of visceral and subcutaneous fat between 2002 and 2005. In women, the odds ratio for metabolic syndrome per 1-standard-deviation increase (a change measured relative to the spread of values in this sample) was 4.7 for visceral fat and 3.0 for subcutaneous fat (P for difference < 0.0001); in men, 4.2 and 2.5. Relations between visceral fat and risk factors were consistently stronger in women than in men. Visceral fat, but not subcutaneous fat, contributed significantly to risk factor variation after adjustment for BMI and waist circumference. Estimated heritability—the share of variation linked to inherited differences in this population—was 57% for subcutaneous fat and 36% for visceral fat. The authors concluded that visceral fat “remains more strongly associated with an adverse metabolic risk profile even after accounting for standard anthropometric indexes.” (Note 3)
Jain et al., 2009. Shilpa H. Jain (Brigham and Women’s Hospital) and colleagues, including senior author Caroline S. Fox, analyzed 916 Framingham Offspring participants (55% women, mean age 59) in Diabetes Care. Visceral fat, fat under the skin, fat around the heart (pericardial) and fat elsewhere inside the chest (intrathoracic) were all negatively correlated with adiponectin (r = −0.19 to −0.34 in women). A correlation coefficient, r, runs from −1 to +1. These small negative values mean more fat tended to occur with less adiponectin; they are neither percentages nor proof of cause. The closest association was between visceral fat and adiponectin, but it was weak; adding visceral fat raised the share of adiponectin variation explained by the model (R²) from 2–4% to 10–13%. Accounting for adipokines—signaling substances released by fat tissue—didn’t fully explain the links between visceral fat and cardiometabolic risk factors. The authors concluded that “none of the adipokines can serve as surrogates for the fat depots.” (Note 4)
Measuring visceral fat
The NHLBI’s healthy-weight page (last updated December 11, 2025) says: “If most of your fat is around your waist rather than at your hips, you are at a higher risk for heart disease and type 2 diabetes. A waist circumference of more than 35 inches for women or more than 40 inches for men increases your risk. To correctly measure your waist circumference, stand and place a tape measure around your middle, just above your hipbones. Measure your waist just after you breathe out.”
In research, SWAN Heart used electron-beam CT, the Framingham analyses used multidetector CT, and the 2026 exercise meta-analysis included studies that measured visceral fat by CT, MRI or DXA.
The exercise studies in detail
Vissers et al., 2013. Dirk Vissers and colleagues at the University of Antwerp screened 87 articles and included 15 studies (852 participants) of exercise without caloric restriction, published in PLoS One. The standardized mean difference (Hedges’ g) in visceral fat change was −0.497 (95% CI −0.655 to −0.340; p < 0.001). Subgroup analyses covered sex, type of training and intensity. The authors wrote that an aerobic program without a hypocaloric diet “can show beneficial effects to reduce visceral adipose tissue with more than 30 cm(2) (on CT analysis) in women and more than 40 cm(2) in men, even after 12 weeks.” The quoted square-centimeter values describe fat area on a CT image, not total fat volume or kilograms lost. The authors declared no competing interests. (Note 5)
Arazi et al., 2026. Hamid Arazi (Ferdowsi University of Mashhad), with co-authors at the University of Guilan and Texas Tech University, published in Biological Research for Nursing (online June 2026). The review included 13 studies (354 participants) of adults with mean BMI of 27 or less, searched from January 1999 to July 2024. Between-group analysis favored exercise (SMD −1.590; 95% CI −2.283 to −0.898; p < 0.001), with substantial heterogeneity (I² = 86.4%). Aerobic training showed the most consistent effects; interval training was also associated with reductions, based on a few studies; interventions longer than 5 months were associated with greater effects. Within-group analyses pointed the same way but weren’t statistically significant. The authors wrote: “However, the certainty of evidence is low due to methodological limitations, heterogeneity, and potential bias.” They declared no conflicts of interest. (Note 6)
Vispute et al., 2011. Sachin S. Vispute and colleagues at Southern Illinois University Edwardsville randomly assigned 24 healthy, sedentary adults aged 18 to 40 (14 men, 10 women) to a control group or seven abdominal exercises, 2 sets of 10 repetitions, 5 days a week for 6 weeks, on an isocaloric diet, in the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. There was no significant effect on body weight, body fat percentage, android fat, abdominal circumference or abdominal skinfolds. The exercise group did more curl-ups at the end (47 vs 32). The authors concluded: “Six weeks of abdominal exercise training alone was not sufficient to reduce abdominal subcutaneous fat and other measures of body composition.” (Note 7)
Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans. The HHS Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion’s summary of the second edition (content last updated November 19, 2025) says: “To attain the most health benefits from physical activity, adults need at least 150 to 300 minutes of moderate-intensity aerobic activity, like brisk walking or fast dancing, each week. Adults also need muscle-strengthening activity, like lifting weights or doing push-ups, at least 2 days each week.”
Medications and hormone therapy in detail
Sawicka-Gutaj, Gruszczyński et al., 2026. Nadia Sawicka-Gutaj and Dawid Gruszczyński (equal contributors) and colleagues at Poznan University of Medical Sciences published in the International Journal of Obesity. They included 36 studies in the systematic review and 24 in the meta-analysis, searched through December 2024, covering GLP-1 receptor agonists and dual GLP-1/GIP agonists in adults with overweight or obesity, with or without type 2 diabetes. “At 3 months, mean body weight decreased by approximately 9%, accompanied by marked reductions in fat mass and visceral adipose tissue.” Weight reduction averaged 5% at 6 months and about 4% at 12 months, with variability between agents. “Across studies, fat mass decline predominated, whereas reductions in lean body mass were modest.” The authors list as limitations the relatively limited number of studies with detailed body-composition and cardiometabolic data, and substantial heterogeneity across studies. (Note 8)
Salpeter et al., 2006. S. R. Salpeter and colleagues at Stanford University School of Medicine pooled 107 randomized trials of at least 8 weeks, published in Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism. In women without diabetes, hormone therapy reduced abdominal fat by 6.8% (CI −11.8% to −1.9%), the HOMA-IR estimate of insulin resistance by 12.9% and new-onset diabetes (relative risk 0.7). That relative risk means about 30% lower risk in the hormone-therapy groups compared with controls in the combined trials, not a 30-percentage-point drop in a woman’s individual risk. It does not establish hormone therapy as a diabetes-prevention prescription. Oral agents produced larger beneficial effects than skin-patch ones but increased C-reactive protein, a marker of inflammation. (Note 9)
Approved uses. A generic estradiol tablet label in openFDA (effective January 2025) lists treatment of moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms (hot flashes and night sweats) and vulvar and vaginal atrophy (thinning and drying of tissues around the vaginal opening and inside the vagina). It also lists hypoestrogenism, meaning low estrogen, due to hypogonadism (reduced hormone production by the ovaries), castration (surgical removal of the ovaries in this context) or primary ovarian failure (loss of ovarian function).
Other listed uses are osteoporosis prevention and palliation—relief rather than cure—of selected breast and prostate cancers. A DailyMed estradiol tablet label gives the full indication and safety wording: the cancer uses concern selected patients with breast cancer that has spread, and advanced prostate cancer dependent on male hormones. These indications do not include weight or fat loss. Contraindications are medical reasons a treatment should not be used. The Menopause Society’s 2022 position statement says that for women younger than 60 or within 10 years of menopause onset without contraindications, “the benefit-risk ratio is favorable for treatment of bothersome VMS and prevention of bone loss.” VMS means hot flashes and night sweats.
STRAW+10 (2012). Amenorrhea in the quotations below means absence of menstrual periods; FMP means final menstrual period. Siobán D. Harlow (University of Michigan) and the STRAW+10 Collaborative Group wrote that “The late menopausal transition is marked by the occurrence of amenorrhea of 60 days or longer,” and that this stage “is estimated to last, on average, 1 to 3 years.” The final menstrual period is confirmed only at the end of “the 12-month period of amenorrhea required to define that the FMP has occurred.” (Note 10)
Sources
- Samargandy S, et al. SWAN Heart, Menopause, 2021: PubMed 33651741
- Nasr A, et al. SWAN HDL analysis, Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, 2022: PubMed 35298649
- El Khoudary SR, et al. American Heart Association scientific statement, Circulation, 2020: PubMed 33251828
- Fox CS, et al. Framingham visceral and subcutaneous fat, Circulation, 2007: PubMed 17576866
- Jain SH, et al. Framingham fat depots and adipokines, Diabetes Care, 2009: PubMed 19223612
- National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute: Aim for a Healthy Weight
- Vissers D, et al. Exercise and visceral fat meta-analysis, PLoS One, 2013: PubMed 23409182
- Arazi H, et al. Exercise and visceral fat in normal-weight adults, Biological Research for Nursing, 2026: PubMed 42284156
- Vispute SS, et al. Abdominal exercise trial, Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 2011: PubMed 21804427
- Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion: Top 10 Things to Know About the Second Edition of the Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans
- Sawicka-Gutaj N, et al. GLP-1 agonists and body composition meta-analysis, International Journal of Obesity, 2026: PubMed 42034831
- Salpeter SR, et al. Hormone therapy and metabolic syndrome meta-analysis, Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism, 2006: PubMed 16918589
- The North American Menopause Society. 2022 hormone therapy position statement, Menopause, 2022: PubMed 35797481
- Harlow SD, et al. STRAW+10 executive summary, Menopause, 2012: PubMed 22343510
Notes
Note 1: Funded by the National Institutes of Health through the National Institute on Aging, the National Institute of Nursing Research and the NIH Office of Research on Women’s Health (SWAN), and by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (SWAN Heart).
Note 2: Funded by the National Institute on Aging, the National Institute of Nursing Research, the NIH Office of Research on Women’s Health, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the American Heart Association. The authors’ conflict-of-interest statement isn’t listed publicly.
Note 3: Funding isn’t listed publicly. The lead author was based at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute’s Framingham Heart Study.
Note 4: Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute’s Framingham Heart Study, the NIH National Center for Research Resources, an American Diabetes Association career development award to one author, and further NIH grants. No conflicts of interest relevant to the article were reported.
Note 5: The authors reported no support or funding.
Note 6: Funding isn’t listed publicly.
Note 7: Funding isn’t listed publicly.
Note 8: The authors received no external funding and no financial support from pharmaceutical companies, and declared no competing interests.
Note 9: Funding isn’t listed publicly.
Note 10: Funded by the National Institute on Aging and the NIH Office of Research on Women’s Health, with support from The North American Menopause Society, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, the International Menopause Society and the Endocrine Society.
Leave a Reply