J C K Wells1, T J Cole. 1. MRC Childhood Nutrition Research Centre, Institute of Child Health, London, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To explore the relationships between height and (a) fat-free mass (FFM) and (b) fat mass (FM) in children in order to determine the optimum means of adjusting body composition for height. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SUBJECTS: Sixty-nine children aged 8 y. MEASUREMENTS AND METHODS: Weight and height (HT) were measured, and total body water by deuterium dilution for estimation of fat-free mass and fat mass. The indices FFM/HT(2) and FM/HT(2) were calculated, as were the indices FFM/HT(p) and FM/HT(p) where P was selected in order to eliminate the correlation of these indices with height. RESULTS: FFM was optimally adjusted for height by calculating FFM/HT(2). FM was optimally adjusted by calculating FM/HT(6). However, height accounted for <8% of the variation in FM/HT(2), indicating that the bias of this simpler index is small. CONCLUSIONS: Different adjustments of FFM and FM for height are possible, depending on the study design. The indices FFM/HT(2) and FM/HT(2) are appropriate for many purposes, and have the advantage of expressing both aspects of body composition in common units. However, in some scenarios a more sophisticated approach is required for evaluating body fatness.
OBJECTIVE: To explore the relationships between height and (a) fat-free mass (FFM) and (b) fat mass (FM) in children in order to determine the optimum means of adjusting body composition for height. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SUBJECTS: Sixty-nine children aged 8 y. MEASUREMENTS AND METHODS: Weight and height (HT) were measured, and total body water by deuterium dilution for estimation of fat-free mass and fat mass. The indices FFM/HT(2) and FM/HT(2) were calculated, as were the indices FFM/HT(p) and FM/HT(p) where P was selected in order to eliminate the correlation of these indices with height. RESULTS: FFM was optimally adjusted for height by calculating FFM/HT(2). FM was optimally adjusted by calculating FM/HT(6). However, height accounted for <8% of the variation in FM/HT(2), indicating that the bias of this simpler index is small. CONCLUSIONS: Different adjustments of FFM and FM for height are possible, depending on the study design. The indices FFM/HT(2) and FM/HT(2) are appropriate for many purposes, and have the advantage of expressing both aspects of body composition in common units. However, in some scenarios a more sophisticated approach is required for evaluating body fatness.
Authors: Erynn M Bergner; Roman Shypailo; Chonnikant Visuthranukul; Joseph Hagan; Andrea R O'Donnell; Keli M Hawthorne; Steven A Abrams; Amy B Hair Journal: Breastfeed Med Date: 2020-04-16 Impact factor: 1.817
Authors: Katherine A Bell; Carol L Wagner; Wei Perng; Henry A Feldman; Roman J Shypailo; Mandy B Belfort Journal: J Pediatr Date: 2018-03-15 Impact factor: 4.406
Authors: Laura Johnson; Cornelia H M van Jaarsveld; Pauline M Emmett; Imogen S Rogers; Andy R Ness; Andrew T Hattersley; Nicholas J Timpson; George Davey Smith; Susan A Jebb Journal: PLoS One Date: 2009-03-04 Impact factor: 3.240