## 3 Results  
Comparison of Cardiovascular and Body Composition Parameters between Menopausal Weight Gain and Menopausal Weight Maintenance Groups  
General characteristics of the study population are reported in Table 1.  
The comparison of physiological parameters between the MWGG and MWMG revealed no statistically significant differences in brachial and central, systolic, and diastolic BP levels, as well as in heart rate. There was no significant difference in the pulse wave analysis (PWA) between the two groups. However, the augmentation index (Ai@75) resulted as significantly higher in the MWGG compared to the MWMG (33.90 \(\pm\) 2.63 vs. 22.42 \(\pm\) 5.27, \(p\) = 0.04) (Figure 1).  
MWGG women presented with a higher BMI (29.00 \(\pm\) 1.03 vs. 23.46 \(\pm\) 1.16, \(p\) = 0.003), greater total fat mass (Kg) (28.19 \(\pm\) 1.56 vs. 17.58 \(\pm\) 2.02, \(p\) < 0.001), and higher percentage of total fat mass (38.71 \(\pm\) 1.24 vs. 28.62 \(\pm\) 2.48, \(p\) < 0.001) than MWMG ones. Additionally, patients in the MWGG showed a lower lean-to-fat mass ratio (1.53 \(\pm\) 0.08 vs. 2.52 \(\pm\) 0.29, \(p\) = 0.001) than those in the MWMG. However, there were no significant differences in waist-hip ratio, visceral adipose tissue (VAT), or appendicular skeletal muscle mass index (ASMI) between the two groups (\(p\) > 0.05).  
Interestingly, we also reported a significant difference of intermuscular adipose tissue (IMAT) between groups (1.14 \(\pm\) 0.09 vs. 0.62 \(\pm\) 0.09, \(p\) = 0.001) (Figure 2).  
MWGG women showed significantly higher levels of insulinemia, LDL-C, triglycerides, FT3, FT3/FT4 ratio, Homeostatic Model Assessment for Insulin Resistance (HOMA index), TyG index, Chol Tot/HDL ratio, LDL/HDL ratio, and TG/HDL ratio (9.21 \(\pm\) 0.38 vs. 6.86 \(\pm\) 0.79, \(p\) < 0.007; 146.41 \(\pm\) 7.43 vs. 109.74 \(\pm\) 10.38, \(p\) = 0.001; 137.08 \(\pm\) 16.31 vs. 85.14 \(\pm\) 13.73, \(p\) = 0.04; 22.9 \(\pm\) 0.37 vs. 3.70 \(\pm\) 0.25, \(p\) = 0.02; 2,28 \(\pm\) 0.17 vs. 1.45 \(\pm\) 0.14, \(p\) = 0.005; 8.73 \(\pm\) 0.11 vs. 8.14 \(\pm\) 0.15, \(p\) = 0.007; 5.46 \(\pm\) 0.74 vs. 2.54 \(\pm\) 0.17, \(p\) = 0.009; 3.71 \(\pm\) 0.58 vs. 1.36 \(\pm\) 0.14, \(p\) = 0.008; 3.60 \(\pm\) 0.71 vs. 1.04 \(\pm\) 1.75, \(p\) = 0.01, respectively) and lower levels of HDL-C than MWMG patients (48.15 \(\pm\) 5.26 vs. 81.85 \(\pm\) 3.81, \(p\) < 0.001) (Figure 3).  
Figure 1: Blood Pressure Parameters. \(t\)-test performed for statistical analysis. Patients were categorized as MWGG for the menopausal weight gain group or MWMG for the menopausal weight maintenance group. Ai@75: Augmentation Index; PWA: Pulse wave velocity. \(t\)-test. \(p\) < 0.05 *.  
Figure 3: Laboratory parameters. TOT-C: Total Cholesterol; High-density and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, respectively, HDL-C; LDL-C; TSH: Thyroid Stimulating Hormone; FT3: Free Triiodothy-ronine; FT4:Free Thyroxine; HOMA Index: Homeostatic Model Assessment of Insulin Resistance; TyG Index: A newer marker assessing insulin resistance and metabolic syndrome; Chol Tot/HDL, LDL, TDG/HDL Ratios: Ratios used to assess cardiovascular risk; AIP: Atherogenic Index of Plasma; A marker used to evaluate the risk of cardiovascular diseases; PRL: platelet-Lymphocyte ratio, NRL: neutrophil-lymphocyte ratios; GOT: Glutamate Oxaloacetate Transaminase; GPT: Glutamate Pyruvate Transaminase. _t_-test. \(p\) < 0.05 *; \(p\) < 0.01 **; \(p\) < 0.001 ***.  
Figure 2: Body composition Parameters evaluated with DEXA (Total Fat % and Kg; Lean/fat mass ratio; VAT (g): visceral adipose tissue; IMAT (kg): intramuscular adipose tissue; ASMI: appendicular skeletal muscle mass index. _t_-test. \(p\) < 0.05 *; \(p\) < 0.01 **; \(p\) < 0.001 ***.