Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Scopus||Web of Science®||Altmetric|
|Title:||Impact of indexing resting metabolic rate against fat-free mass determined by different body composition models|
|Author:||La Forgia, J.|
van der Ploeg, G.
|Citation:||European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 2004; 58(8):1132-1141|
|Publisher:||Nature Publishing Group|
|LaForgia, J; van der Ploeg, GE; Withers, RT; Gunn, SM; Brooks, AG and Chatterton BE.|
|Abstract:||OBJECTIVE: To examine the differences arising from indexing resting metabolic rate (RMR) against fat-free mass (FFM) determined using two-, three- and four-compartment body composition models. DESIGN: All RMR and body composition measurements were conducted on the same day for each subject following compliance with premeasurement protocols. SUBJECTS: Data were generated from measurements on 104 males (age 32.1+/-12.1 y (mean+/-s.d.); body mass 81.15+/-12.85 kg; height 179.5+/-6.5 cm; body fat 20.6+/-7.6%). INTERVENTIONS: Body density (BD), total body water (TBW) and bone mineral mass (BMM) were measured by hydrodensitometry, deuterium dilution and dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), respectively. These measures were used to determine two (hydrodensitometry: BD; hydrometry: TBW)-, three (BD and TBW)- and four- compartment (BD, TBW and BMM) FFM values. DXA also provided three compartment derived FFM values. RMR was measured using open circuit indirect calorimetry. RESULTS: Three (body fat group: lean, moderate, high) x five (body composition determination: hydrodensitometry, hydrometry, three-compartment, DXA, four-compartment) ANOVAs were conducted on FFM and RMR kJ.kg FFM(-1).d(-1). Within-group comparisons revealed that hydrodensitometry and DXA were associated with significant (P<0.001) overestimations and underestimations of FFM and RMR kJ.kg FFM(-1).d(-1), respectively, compared with four-compartment-derived criterion values. A significant interaction (P<0.001) resulted from DXA's greater deviations from criterion values in lean subjects. While hydrometric means were not significantly (P> or =0.68) different from criterion values intraindividual differences were large (FFM: -1.5 to 2.9 kg; RMR: -6.0 to 3.2 kJ.kg FFM(-1).d(-1)). CONCLUSION: The relationship between RMR kJ.kg FFM(-1).d(-1) and exercise status would best be investigated using three (BD, TBW)- or four (BD, TBW, BMM)-compartment body composition models to determine FFM. Other models either significantly underestimate indexed RMR (hydrodensitometry, DXA) or display large intraindividual differences (hydrometry) compared with four-compartment derived criterion values. SPONSORSHIP: Australian Research Council (small grants scheme).|
|Keywords:||Muscle, Skeletal; Adipose Tissue; Body Water; Humans; Absorptiometry, Photon; Basal Metabolism; Radioisotope Dilution Technique; Analysis of Variance; Predictive Value of Tests; Immersion; Body Composition; Energy Metabolism; Models, Biological; Adolescent; Adult; Middle Aged; Male|
|Appears in Collections:||Medicine publications|
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.