| Literature DB >> 18840293 |
James L Hargrove1, Grete Heinz2, Otto Heinz2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study evaluated whether the changes in several anthropometric and functional measures during caloric restriction combined with walking and treadmill exercise would fit a simple model of approach to steady state (a plateau) that can be solved using spreadsheet software (Microsoft Excel). We hypothesized that transitions in waist girth and several body compartments would fit a simple exponential model that approaches a stable steady-state.Entities:
Year: 2008 PMID: 18840293 PMCID: PMC2596786 DOI: 10.1186/1476-5918-7-16
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Dyn Med ISSN: 1476-5918
Figure 1Protocol for the Minnesota human starvation study. After a 12 wk control period with balanced energy intake and expenditure, energy intake (closed circles) was reduced to about 1600 kcal/d and adjusted so that the 32 subjects would achieve a 24% loss of body mass (open diamonds) during the next 24 wks. Arrows indicate body mass at weeks C12 (end of control period), and after 12 and 24 weeks (S12 and S24) of energy restriction when most data were collected. During the recovery phase, 4 groups were fed different amounts of energy at increasing levels. The bar at the bottom indicates the control period (unfilled), starvation (hashed) and recovery (stippled).
Figure 2Model behavior compared to predictive equation used by Keys. Upper panel shows observed values for body mass (closed diamonds), values predicted by the Keys equation (open triangles), and results of fitting the data to a monoexponential approach to steady state (open squares). Lower panel shows solutions for fat mass (open triangles), fat free mass (open circles), calculated body mass (open squares) and observed body mass (filled diamonds) over 24 weeks of partial fasting.
Kinetic parameters for endpoints from the Minnesota starvation study based on group averages (n = 32).
| Body mass (kg) | 69.39 | 57.28 | 52.57 | 0.079 | 49.6 |
| Fat mass (kg) | 9.84 | 4.57 | 3.04 | 0.103 | 2.41 |
| Fat free mass (kg)b | 59.55 | 52.71 | 49.53 | 0.064 | 46.8 |
| Body Mass Indexa (kg/m2) | 21.7 | 17.92 | 16.44 | 0.078 | 15.5 |
| Chest girthb (cm) | 89.28 | 83.69 | 82.61 | 0.137 | 82.4 |
| Waist girth (cm) | 78.08 | 71.23 | 70.7 | 0.213 | 70.7 |
| Girth Sumsd (cm) | 113.3 | 98 | 92.5 | 0.085 | 89.4 |
| Active Tissue Massc (kg) | 39.9 | 32.0 | 29.2 | 0.086 | 27.7 |
| Red blood cellsc (kg) | 2.74 | 2.11 | 1.99 | 0.138 | 1.96 |
| REEd (kcal/d) | 1608 | 1100 | 994 | 0.131 | 966 |
| Harvard work test | 64.1 | 33.1 | 18.1 | 0.060 | 4.04 |
| Hand dynamometer (kg) | 58.2 | 47.2 | 41.8 | 0.059 | 36.6 |
| N excretion (g/24 h) | 13.17 | 8.12 | 7.42 | 0.165 | 7.31 |
Values for C12, the last week before energy restriction was imposed, were used as t = 0 in the model. S12 and S24 are the values recorded during the 12th and 24th weeks of energy restriction (t = 12 and 24 weeks, respectively).
aAll parameter values were calculated from group mean data at C12, S12 and S24 by the 3 point method. Mean stature was 1.788 m.
bFat free mass was calculated by subtracting measured fat mass from body mass.
cActive tissue mass equals body mass minus the sum of fat mass, bone mineral, and thiocyanate space. Group data for active tissue mass, and red blood cell mass are from Table 152, and mean chest girths are from Table 49 [1].
dSum of girths of calf, arm and thigh. REE, resting energy expenditure.
Figure 3Observed and theoretical values for study endpoints. Top panel shows results for fitting data for BMI (squares) and waist girth (circles) to a monoexponential model for approach to steady state. Bottom panel shows results for resting energy expenditure (REE, triangles) and the Harvard work test (diamonds). The filled symbols represent the observed group means for each endpoint.
Figure 4Change in weight for a relatively lean subject compared to an overweight subject. Comparisons between subjects were made based on best fit of the model to data from weeks C12 through S24 and then projecting through the midpoint of week 72. During the 24 weeks of the study, the model fit the data for subjects 5 and 127 with R2 of 0.998 and 0.996, respectively.