Literature DB >> 19220892

Physiological models of body composition and human obesity.

David G Levitt1, Steven B Heymsfield, Richard N Pierson, Sue A Shapses, John G Kral.   

Abstract

Correction to Levitt DG, Heymsfield SB, Pierson Jr RN, Shapses SA, Kral JG: Physiological models of body composition and human obesity. Nutrition & Metabolism 2007, 4:19.

Entities:  

Year:  2009        PMID: 19220892      PMCID: PMC2649131          DOI: 10.1186/1743-7075-6-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Nutr Metab (Lond)        ISSN: 1743-7075            Impact factor:   4.169


Correction

Since publication of our first article [1] we have noticed that the following corrections needed to be made. There is an error in the calculation of the body fat in the original version of this article. The tritium distribution space was not properly corrected for non-aqueous hydrogen exchange and water density resulting in estimates of percent body fat that are about 2% less then the correct percent. This produces small errors in the regression relations for the prediction of body fat from BMI or body density described originally in Tables 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9. The corrected tables (calculated using TBW = 3H2O × 0.96 × 0.994) are provided.
Table 3

Caucasian males: Dependence of fat fraction on age for two BMI ranges.

BMI RangeAve age (SD)Age rangeAve BMIAve Fat FractionN
18 – 2421.86 (2.44)18 – 2522.19 (1.08)0.1193 (.046)29

29.94 (2.36)26 – 3322.12 (1.34)0.134 (.048) (NS)32

52.83 (19.42)34 – 8422.39 (1.31)0.173 (.057) (p < .01)30

24 – 4425.94 (2.66)21 – 3027.64 (4.00)0.188 (.084)47

38.17 (5.07)31 – 4827.42 (3.96)0.211 (.072) (NS)48

66.25 (10.69)49 – 9727.93 (3.41)0.284 (.075) (p < .01)47

The p values are for comparisons to the closest younger age group.

Table 4

Caucasian females: Dependence of fat fraction on age for three BMI ranges.

BMI RangeAve age (SD)Age rangeAve BMIAve Fat FractionN
17 – 2224.95 (3.41)18 – 3020.00 (1.38)0.219 (.045)42

38.04 (5.87)30 – 4920.60 (1.07)0.241 (.056) (p < .05)42

63.32 (11.18)49 – 8920.55 (1.01)0.298 (.053) (p < .01)40

22 – 25.926.14 (4.72)18 – 3323.30 (1.03)0.26 (.049)43

39.12 (4.91)33 – 5123.45 (1.05)0.30 (.055) (p < .01)41

68.12 (10.47)52 – 8824.12 (1.15)0.36 (.059) (p < .01)39

26 – 5634.94 (6.198)21 – 4531.19 (6.12)0.408 (.074)36

54.0 (4.69)46 – 6131.72 (5.89).428 (.056) (NS)35

70.49 (6.87)62 – 9029.36 (2.68)0.414 (.053) (NS)35

The p values are for comparisons to the closest younger age group

Table 5

Ethnic dependence of BMI versus fat fraction for males.

NAge range (ave)BMI range (ave)Ave Fat Fract. (SD)
Caucasian12920 – 57 (37.4)22 – 34 (25.42)0.321 (0.071)

Black9520 – 52 (37.8)20 – 34 (26.57)0.328 (0.074) (NS)

Hispanic3720 – 60 (36.1)20 – 34 (25.40)0.311 (0.09) (NS)

Puerto Rican4120 – 52 (35.7)20 – 30 (26.18)0.348 (0.058) (p < .05)

Caucasian15323 – 53 (35.41)17 – 25 (21.72)0.257 (.061)

Asian3523 – 53 (36.7)17 – 28 (21.25)0.282 (.066) (p = 0.07)

The age range of the Caucasians was adjusted to match the age range of the comparison group. The p values are for comparisons between the ethnic group and Caucasians.

Table 6

Ethnic dependence of BMI versus fat fraction for females.

NAge range (ave)BMI range (ave)Ave Fat Fract. (SD)
Caucasian12920 – 57 (37.4)22 – 34 (25.42)0.321 (0.071)

Black9520 – 52 (37.8)20 – 34 (26.57)0.328 (0.074) (NS)

Hispanic3720 – 60 (36.1)20 – 34 (25.40)0.311 (0.09) (NS)

Puerto Rican4120 – 52 (35.7)20 – 30 (26.18)0.348 (0.058) (p < .05)

Caucasian15323 – 53 (35.41)17 – 25 (21.72)0.257 (.061)

Asian3523 – 53 (36.7)17 – 28 (21.25)0.282 (.066) (p = 0.07)

The age range of the Caucasians was adjusted to match the age range of the comparison group. The p values are for comparisons between the ethnic group and Caucasians.

Table 7

Comparison of linear (eq. (16)) and non-linear (eq. (9)) regression expressions for predicting body fat fraction from BMI and age.

Subjects± AgeLinearNon-linear Model I

abcMSRBMI0f1cMSR
Male CaucasiansNo-.166.0141----0.0040417.20.624----.00409

Yes-.218.0129.002070.0026319.15.500.00194.00287

Male Caucasian +Hispanic+BlackNo-.145.0134-----.0038016.71.594----.00385

Yes-.206.0127.001820.0027018.73.496.00172.00288

Male AsianYes-.156.0126.001690.0020115.72.438.00169.00212

Male Puerto RicanYes-.155.0119.001630.0018917.84.536.00150.00188

Female CaucasianNo0.0409.0113-----0.0039113.50.739-----.00314

Yes-.0240.0104.001860.0028114.39.635.00151.00244

Female Caucasian +Hispanic+BlackNo0.0494.0109------.0035113.50.728-----.00276

Yes-.0160.0104.001690.0026014.37.642.00132.00222

Female AsianYes-.0903.0153.001220.0013712.38.573.00122.00140

Female Puerto RicanYes0.0718.00919.000947.0015912.82.639.000737.00142

The regression parameters (either a, b and c; or BMI0, f1 and c) and the mean square residual error (MSR) for the different ethnic groups are listed.

Table 8

Prediction of fat fraction from BMI for Caucasian + Black + Hispanic subjects.

SubjectsLinearModel IModel II
abMSRf1BMI0MSRf1f0BMI0MSR

Male: 18 – 89-.145.0134.0038.59416.710.00385.647.12922.000.00377

Male: 18 – 31-.201.0134.00273.54319.390.00315.706.11823.780.00261

Male: 32 – 50-.133.0119.00303.50516.540.00312.619.15323.540.00281

Male: 51 – 89-.126.0136.00310.62816.28.00299.661.16721.430.00283

Female: 18 – 90+.0494.0109.00351.72813.50.00276.745.22019.650.00272

Female: 18 – 31-.00685.0116.00237.69513.99.00225.774.21421.300.00181

Female: 32 – 50+0.0700.00963.00306.72313.86.00212.737.20819.710.00209

Female: 51 – 90+0.106.0101.00225.68111.57.00210.682.24918.280.00210

Model parameters and mean square residual error (MSR) for Model I, Model II and Linear fit are listed.

Table 9

Prediction of fat fraction from body density for Caucasian + Black + Hispanic subjects.

Subjectsabf0f1d0d1MSRlsMSRsiri1MSRsiri2MSRbro
Male: 18 – 894.634.2080.1290.6471.06780.954.000481.000693.0007110.000553

Male: 18 – 314.9124.4750.1180.7061.06950.948.000402.000536.0005970.000532

Male: 32 – 504.5594.1410.1530.6191.0610.958.000457.000723.000614.000562

Male: 51 – 894.2313.8210.1670.6611.06120.944.000516.000853.000957.000568

Female: 18 – 904.6734.2390.2200.7451.0480.9376.000640.000813.00202.000662

Female: 18 – 314.7794.3390.2140.7741.050.935.000616.00066.00178.000661

Female: 32 – 504.7854.3470.2080.7371.050.941.000538.000653.00191.000576

Female: 51 – 904.6064.1750.2490.6821.041.948.000722.00102.00223.000732

The parameters a and b are the optimal least square values (fat fraction = a/density – b), and f0 and f1 are the fat fractions used for the determination of d0 and d1 from the values of a and b. The mean square residual error for the least square fit (MSRls), the Siri Model I (MSRsiri1, eq. (13)) and Model II (MSRsiri2, eq. (14)) and the Brozek model (MSRbro, eq. (10)) are also listed.

Caucasian males: Dependence of fat fraction on age for two BMI ranges. The p values are for comparisons to the closest younger age group. Caucasian females: Dependence of fat fraction on age for three BMI ranges. The p values are for comparisons to the closest younger age group Ethnic dependence of BMI versus fat fraction for males. The age range of the Caucasians was adjusted to match the age range of the comparison group. The p values are for comparisons between the ethnic group and Caucasians. Ethnic dependence of BMI versus fat fraction for females. The age range of the Caucasians was adjusted to match the age range of the comparison group. The p values are for comparisons between the ethnic group and Caucasians. Comparison of linear (eq. (16)) and non-linear (eq. (9)) regression expressions for predicting body fat fraction from BMI and age. The regression parameters (either a, b and c; or BMI0, f1 and c) and the mean square residual error (MSR) for the different ethnic groups are listed. Prediction of fat fraction from BMI for Caucasian + Black + Hispanic subjects. Model parameters and mean square residual error (MSR) for Model I, Model II and Linear fit are listed. Prediction of fat fraction from body density for Caucasian + Black + Hispanic subjects. The parameters a and b are the optimal least square values (fat fraction = a/density – b), and f0 and f1 are the fat fractions used for the determination of d0 and d1 from the values of a and b. The mean square residual error for the least square fit (MSRls), the Siri Model I (MSRsiri1, eq. (13)) and Model II (MSRsiri2, eq. (14)) and the Brozek model (MSRbro, eq. (10)) are also listed.
  1 in total

1.  Physiological models of body composition and human obesity.

Authors:  David G Levitt; Steven B Heymsfield; Richard N Pierson; Sue A Shapses; John G Kral
Journal:  Nutr Metab (Lond)       Date:  2007-09-20       Impact factor: 4.169

  1 in total
  3 in total

1.  Air displacement plethysmography for estimating body composition changes with weight loss in middle-aged Japanese men.

Authors:  Hiroyuki Sasai; Yoshio Nakata; Miyuki Nemoto; Kazunori Ohkawara; Hiroyuki Ohkubo; Tomoaki Matsuo; Maeng-Kyu Kim; Yasutomi Katayama; Kiyoji Tanaka
Journal:  Obes Facts       Date:  2010-12-16       Impact factor: 3.942

2.  Body Fat Percentage and Normal-Weight Obesity in the Chinese Population: Development of a Simple Evaluation Indicator Using Anthropometric Measurements.

Authors:  Yuetong Zhu; Zimin Wang; Hitoshi Maruyama; Ko Onoda; Qiuchen Huang
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2022-04-01       Impact factor: 3.390

3.  Forensic alcohol calculations in transgender individuals undergoing gender-affirming hormonal treatment.

Authors:  Peter D Maskell; Katherine J C Sang; Steven B Heymsfield; Sue Shapses; Alanna Dekorompay
Journal:  J Forensic Sci       Date:  2022-05-04       Impact factor: 1.717

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.