Charles P Lambert1, R Lee Archer, William J Evans. 1. Nutrition, Metabolism, and Exercise Laboratory, Donald W. Reynolds Department of Geriatrics, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR 72205, USA. LamberCharlesP@exchange.uams.edu
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare whole-body fat mass and fat-free mass (FFM) in ambulatory patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) and control subjects without MS. DESIGN: Nonrandomized controlled trial or cross-sectional study. SETTING: An exercise physiology laboratory at a medical school. PARTICIPANTS: Seventeen ambulatory patients with MS and 12 control subjects (all subjects were women). The median Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score was 4.0 for the individuals with MS. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Whole-body percentage of fat-free mass (%FFM), percentage of body fat (%BF), FFM, and fat mass. RESULTS: A significant difference in age was observed between the groups; thus, age was used as a covariate in the body composition analyses. No significant differences were observed between the groups in %BF: 32.5+/-13.9 and 27.8+/-5.6 (P=.54) for MS and controls, respectively, or %FFM, 67.1+/-14.9 and 71.3+/-12.4 (P=.42) for MS and controls, respectively. For individuals with MS, no significant relation was observed between EDSS score and %BF (P=.24) or between EDSS score and %FFM (P=.24). CONCLUSION: No significant differences were observed in body composition between ambulatory MS patients and controls. Furthermore, the EDSS score was not a significant predictor of %BF or %FFM for people with MS. Copyright 2002 by the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine and the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
OBJECTIVE: To compare whole-body fat mass and fat-free mass (FFM) in ambulatory patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) and control subjects without MS. DESIGN: Nonrandomized controlled trial or cross-sectional study. SETTING: An exercise physiology laboratory at a medical school. PARTICIPANTS: Seventeen ambulatory patients with MS and 12 control subjects (all subjects were women). The median Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score was 4.0 for the individuals with MS. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Whole-body percentage of fat-free mass (%FFM), percentage of body fat (%BF), FFM, and fat mass. RESULTS: A significant difference in age was observed between the groups; thus, age was used as a covariate in the body composition analyses. No significant differences were observed between the groups in %BF: 32.5+/-13.9 and 27.8+/-5.6 (P=.54) for MS and controls, respectively, or %FFM, 67.1+/-14.9 and 71.3+/-12.4 (P=.42) for MS and controls, respectively. For individuals with MS, no significant relation was observed between EDSS score and %BF (P=.24) or between EDSS score and %FFM (P=.24). CONCLUSION: No significant differences were observed in body composition between ambulatory MSpatients and controls. Furthermore, the EDSS score was not a significant predictor of %BF or %FFM for people with MS. Copyright 2002 by the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine and the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation