OBJECTIVE: To test whether resting oxygen uptake (VO(2)), submaximal VO(2), and maximal VO(2) (VO(2max)) differs between obese adolescents (n = 18; BMI > 30) and a matched normal-weight control group after adjustment for differences in fat-free mass (FFM) and fat mass (FM). RESEARCH METHODS AND PROCEDURES: FFM and FM were assessed by DXA. Resting VO(2), submaximal VO(2), and VO(2max) were measured by indirect calorimetry. RESULTS: There was no difference in resting VO(2) between groups after adjusting for FFM and FM. Submaximal VO(2) did not differ between groups after adjusting for body weight. Percentage VO(2max) and NET VO(2) (VO(2max) - resting VO(2)) were significantly higher in the obese group during submaximal exercise, however not after adjusting for body weight. VO(2max) was not significantly different between groups after adjusting for FFM. DISCUSSION: When body compositions are appropriately controlled for, resting VO(2), submaximal VO(2), and VO(2max) do not differ between obese and normal-weight adolescents. These data suggested that the higher relative VO(2) observed in obese adolescent subjects is due to their higher FM and not to an impaired VO(2max) even though they may be less physically active.
OBJECTIVE: To test whether resting oxygen uptake (VO(2)), submaximal VO(2), and maximal VO(2) (VO(2max)) differs between obese adolescents (n = 18; BMI > 30) and a matched normal-weight control group after adjustment for differences in fat-free mass (FFM) and fat mass (FM). RESEARCH METHODS AND PROCEDURES: FFM and FM were assessed by DXA. Resting VO(2), submaximal VO(2), and VO(2max) were measured by indirect calorimetry. RESULTS: There was no difference in resting VO(2) between groups after adjusting for FFM and FM. Submaximal VO(2) did not differ between groups after adjusting for body weight. Percentage VO(2max) and NET VO(2) (VO(2max) - resting VO(2)) were significantly higher in the obese group during submaximal exercise, however not after adjusting for body weight. VO(2max) was not significantly different between groups after adjusting for FFM. DISCUSSION: When body compositions are appropriately controlled for, resting VO(2), submaximal VO(2), and VO(2max) do not differ between obese and normal-weight adolescents. These data suggested that the higher relative VO(2) observed in obese adolescent subjects is due to their higher FM and not to an impaired VO(2max) even though they may be less physically active.
Authors: B Adar Emken; Ming Li; Gautam Thatte; Sangwon Lee; Murali Annavaram; Urbashi Mitra; Shrikanth Narayanan; Donna Spruijt-Metz Journal: J Phys Act Health Date: 2011-05-11
Authors: David A White; Vincent S Staggs; Veronica Williams; Trent C Edwards; Robin Shook; Valentina Shakhnovich Journal: Child Obes Date: 2019-03-19 Impact factor: 2.992
Authors: Kwok-Kei Mak; Sai-Yin Ho; Wing-Sze Lo; G Neil Thomas; Alison M McManus; Jeffrey R Day; Tai-Hing Lam Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2010-02-23 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Linda Mustelin; Kirsi H Pietiläinen; Aila Rissanen; Anssi R Sovijärvi; Päivi Piirilä; Jussi Naukkarinen; Leena Peltonen; Jaakko Kaprio; Hannele Yki-Järvinen Journal: Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab Date: 2008-05-06 Impact factor: 4.310
Authors: Donald J Weaver; Thomas R Kimball; Timothy Knilans; Wayne Mays; Sandra K Knecht; Yvette M Gerdes; Sandy Witt; Betty J Glascock; Janis Kartal; Philip Khoury; Mark M Mitsnefes Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2008-01-09 Impact factor: 10.121