## 1 Introduction  
Metabolic syndrome (MetS) is not a worldwide recognized cause of death. However, it is a trigger that increases the chances of multi-systemically and progressively affecting the people who suffer from it, and that creates a pattern of metabolic abnormalities that reflect in the factors associated with the increase in mortality due to diabetes mellitus or Coronary Heart Disease (CHD) [1, 2]. These are non-communicable diseases and are the leading causes of mortality worldwide [3, 4]. Patients who have four out of five significant variables have a 3.7 times higher risk of experiencing cardiac events and 24.5 times more risk of being diagnosed with type 2 diabetes [5]. MetS is coded E88.81 according to the International Classification of Diseases, 10 th Edition (ICD- 10, 2020 version) and is a group of alterations in metabolism that includes dyslipidemia(abnormal concentrations of lipids in the blood: increased triglycerides and decreased HDL cholesterol), hypertension, hyperglycemia, and obesity [6]. The insidious increase in the elements of MetS, obesity, insulin resistance (IR), and dyslipidemia are responsible for the current global epidemic of type 2 diabetes [5]. Other authors relate MetS with the occurrence of cancers and chronic kidney disease [7, 8]. The available evidence indicates that in most countries, between 20% and 30% of the adult population can be characterized as having MetS. In some populations or segments of the population, the MetS prevalence is even higher [9, 10]. The prevalence of the syndrome in countries such as the United States has increased. Three studies have yielded the following results: 23.7% in 2002, 34.2% in 2006 [11, 12] and nearly 34.7% of all U.S. adults were estimated to have the MetS in 2011-2012. During the period 2003-2012, the MetS prevalence was estimated at 50% in adults older than 60 years of age [13]. The Kuopio Ischaemic Heart Disease, Risk Factor Study consisted of a population-based, prospective cohort study of 1209 Finnish men aged 42 to 60 years at baseline (1984-1989), who did not initially present cardiovascular disease, cancer, or diabetes. They found that men with the Metabolic Syndrome as defined by the National Cholesterol Education Programme Adult Treatment Panel III (NCEP ATP III) were 2.9 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.2-7.2) to 4.2 (95% CI, 1.6-10.8) times more likely to die of CHD [14]. Moreover, a review study showed a range of Odds Ratio (OR) three- and 20-fold for developing type 2 diabetes. Thus, it is often considered prediabetes [15, 16]. MetS prevalence in some Latin American countries is high. For example, Mexico has more than 40% prevalence in adults [17]. In Colombia, several studies about the prevalence of the syndrome have focused on specific population ranges. For instance, a short study of 62 people in a northern city of Colombia found that the patients with arterial hypertension showed a very high prevalence level (74.2%) of Metabolic Syndrome, according to the ATP III criteria [5, 18]. Healthcare professionals diagnose the syndrome with a set of risk factors using some threshold levels in the criteria proposed by several medical associations. Several associations have proposed criteria, including the World Health Organization (WHO) [19], the Adult Treatment Panel of the National Cholesterol Education Program (ATP III) [20], the European Group for the study of Insulin Resistance (EGIR) [21], and the International Diabetes Federation (IDF) [22]. Since 2009, specialists arrived at the consensus of a Harmonized Metabolic Syndrome (HMS) through a joint interim statement that several associations and institutes write to unify the diagnosis criteria [23]. Most of the criteria for diagnosing MetS agree that patients must have at least three of the five risk factors to be diagnosed. The contrast is IDF, which requires central obesity plus two more taken from the remaining four risk factors.