W C Miller1, T Swensen, J P Wallace. 1. The George Washington University Medical Center, Washington, DC 20052, USA. wmiller@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this research was to derive and compare regression equations for predicting residual volume (RV) in overweight and normal weight adults. METHODS: RV was determined on land, in 311 men and women, following an overnight fast, using the nitrogen-dilution technique. Subjects were then weighed underwater at RV; 5-10 underwater weights were recorded; and the heaviest 3 measurements were averaged as the underwater weight. Percent body fat was calculated using the Siri equation. Group analyses were performed on overweight men (N = 59, body fat > 25%) and women (N = 126, body fat > 30%) compared with normal weight men (N = 68, body fat < or = 25%) and women (N = 58, body fat < or = 30%). A stepwise regression was performed for each group using the Systat Statistical Package (Evanston, IL). RESULTS: When RV was regressed on sex, age (yr), body weight (kg), and height (cm), sex was not found to be a significant predictor variable for RV. Subsequent regressions revealed that prediction equations for the overweight (RV = 0.0277 AGE + 0.0048 WT + 0.0138 HT - 2.3967, F = 44.0, P < 0.0000, SEE = 0.403) were different from those generated for normal weight men and women (RV = 0.0275 AGE + 0.0189 HT - 2.6139, F = 58.6, P < 0.0000, SEE = 0.405). Similar equations were obtained when a cross validation was performed on a separate sample of normal weight (N = 31) and overweight (N = 46) men and women. CONCLUSION: These data suggest that prediction equations for RV are separate and distinct for the overweight and normal weight populations.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this research was to derive and compare regression equations for predicting residual volume (RV) in overweight and normal weight adults. METHODS: RV was determined on land, in 311 men and women, following an overnight fast, using the nitrogen-dilution technique. Subjects were then weighed underwater at RV; 5-10 underwater weights were recorded; and the heaviest 3 measurements were averaged as the underwater weight. Percent body fat was calculated using the Siri equation. Group analyses were performed on overweight men (N = 59, body fat > 25%) and women (N = 126, body fat > 30%) compared with normal weight men (N = 68, body fat < or = 25%) and women (N = 58, body fat < or = 30%). A stepwise regression was performed for each group using the Systat Statistical Package (Evanston, IL). RESULTS: When RV was regressed on sex, age (yr), body weight (kg), and height (cm), sex was not found to be a significant predictor variable for RV. Subsequent regressions revealed that prediction equations for the overweight (RV = 0.0277 AGE + 0.0048 WT + 0.0138 HT - 2.3967, F = 44.0, P < 0.0000, SEE = 0.403) were different from those generated for normal weight men and women (RV = 0.0275 AGE + 0.0189 HT - 2.6139, F = 58.6, P < 0.0000, SEE = 0.405). Similar equations were obtained when a cross validation was performed on a separate sample of normal weight (N = 31) and overweight (N = 46) men and women. CONCLUSION: These data suggest that prediction equations for RV are separate and distinct for the overweight and normal weight populations.