Literature DB >> 7896634

The need to scale for differences in body size and mass: an explanation of Kleiber's 0.75 mass exponent.

A M Nevill1.   

Abstract

When modeling intraspecific relationships between selected measurements (Y) for differences in body mass (m) using the allometric equation Y = amb (where a is a constant and b is the exponent parameter), various studies have reported exponents greater than the anticipated 2/3, often closer to the exponent 0.75 identified by Kleiber. A possible explanation for these exponents is proposed based on the findings of Alexander et al. (J. Zool. Lond. 194: 539-552, 1981), who observed that, within a variety of species, larger mammals have a greater proportion of proximal leg muscle mass in relation to their body mass, m1.1. If subjects that are used to record Y exhibit a similar disproportionate increase in muscle mass with body size, then the allometric equation is likely to identify both a contribution proportional to the subject's body mass and a contribution from the disproportionate increase in muscle mass within the group. These confounding influences in Y can be identified separately by incorporating a body size parameter as well as a mass component in the allometric equation. The factor "body size" can be introduced either by partitioning the sample into discrete subgroups according to body size or, in studies involving human subjects, by introducing height as a continuous covariate. In both studies reported involving human maximal exercise, these methods were able to identify a systematic increase in Y with body size, leaving the subject's body mass component, found to be proportional to m2/3, independent of body size.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1994        PMID: 7896634     DOI: 10.1152/jappl.1994.77.6.2870

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Appl Physiol (1985)        ISSN: 0161-7567


  8 in total

Review 1.  Assessment and interpretation of isokinetic muscle strength during growth and maturation.

Authors:  Mark De Ste Croix; Martine Deighan; Neil Armstrong
Journal:  Sports Med       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 11.136

Review 2.  Factors affecting the energy cost of level running at submaximal speed.

Authors:  Jean-René Lacour; Muriel Bourdin
Journal:  Eur J Appl Physiol       Date:  2015-02-14       Impact factor: 3.078

Review 3.  Assessment of aerobic exercise capacity in obesity, which expression of oxygen uptake is the best?

Authors:  Na Zhou
Journal:  Sports Med Health Sci       Date:  2021-02-10

Review 4.  The measurement and interpretation of aerobic fitness in children: current issues.

Authors:  J R Welsman; N Armstrong
Journal:  J R Soc Med       Date:  1996-05       Impact factor: 18.000

5.  Adaptive response of brain tissue oxygenation to environmental hypoxia in non-sedated, non-anesthetized arctic ground squirrels.

Authors:  Yilong Ma; Shufen Wu; Brian Rasley; Lawrence Duffy
Journal:  Comp Biochem Physiol A Mol Integr Physiol       Date:  2009-06-25       Impact factor: 2.320

6.  Exploring Metrics to Express Energy Expenditure of Physical Activity in Youth.

Authors:  Robert G McMurray; Nancy F Butte; Scott E Crouter; Stewart G Trost; Karin A Pfeiffer; David R Bassett; Maurice R Puyau; David Berrigan; Kathleen B Watson; Janet E Fulton
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-06-23       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  The influence of increased body fat or lean body mass on aerobic performance.

Authors:  Marcin Maciejczyk; Magdalena Więcek; Jadwiga Szymura; Zbigniew Szyguła; Szczepan Wiecha; Jerzy Cempla
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-04-21       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 8.  Metabolic scaling: consensus or controversy?

Authors:  Paul S Agutter; Denys N Wheatley
Journal:  Theor Biol Med Model       Date:  2004-11-16       Impact factor: 2.432

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.