Prediction of resting energy from fat-free mass and fat Karl

M Nelson,

Roland

L Weinsier,

expenditure ,2

Calvin

L Long,

and

Yves

Schiti: establish

ABSTRACT ship

On the basis

between

energy adults

fat-free

expenditure (86 males,

model

and

(FFM),

fat

mass

to evaluate

to predict

REE

FFM)

the

(FM),

based

the contribution

+ (13.2

(R2

X FM)

resting

body FM

specific

FM.

their

should

tween

individuals

position. in REE

1265

the

ofenergy

ofthe

model

same

weight also

with

the same

of FM

person

in energy

should

ofindividuals

but

explain

and

to person,

this

expenditure

different some

FFM

to energy

FFM

aerobic

from

for differences

of the

contribution

vary

with tissues

associated

individual

rates

account

This

expenditure

the mass metabolic

model

compo=

rates

Because

associated

to REE.

1) REE

be-

body

ofthe

com-

variability

by taking

into

account

expenditure.

1 1 14 + (90.4

=

0.001);




resting

termined

energy

by the

body.

sum

Presently,

bolically It is not ofeach

organ

the

the

correlation with

88%

rates

of energy

REE

statistical

of the

single

FFM,

predictor

variation

FFM, by

in REE

FFM

Our uate

848

objective the

relative

was

contribution

to develop

a mathematical of FFM

( 1,

be

dissimilar are only

The

grouping

FM

were

and/or

for differences the

the

same

FM

A,n

J C/in

organs

determined

each

were

or

by den-

other.

based

the

of covariance

on the

T

and/

or sex whereas

covariates are

coefficients

SYSTA

FFM

by analysis

on the assumptions

covariates

Regression

with

obesity

variable that

and made

Analysis

means

and

REE

for, were

covariates.

dependent

group

with

between

variables the

of the

in each

FM

I From Birmingham,

(1 7)

for

not

for FFM the

are highly and

following

at Birmingham,

of Lausanne,

2

to

1992:56:848-56.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article-abstract/56/5/848/4715527 by guest on 17 February 2018

Department of Research, Baptist Medical Centers, AL; the Department of Nutrition Sciences, University

University to

and

the

ofAlabama

to eval-

Nuir

con-

(males)

be

has a positive, of the positive,

to REE,

slopes

were

were

20%

>

sets

8 1 of whom

Subjects

was

FM,

data

was determined

controlled

in adjusted

correlated

Address

Baptist

and

obesity

FFM that

obese.

lab-

FFM,

combined females,

fat

composition

relationship

sex and

ofcovanance. tests

were

our

anthropometry. ofthe

with

because

The

body

from

for never-obese

53-

for by FFM.

model

and

selected

I 27 adult

1 32 ofwhom percent

data

loss and

subject.

and

(2). Body

Comparisons or FM,

males

if their

30% (females)

were

for each

and

obese

sets

similar

weight

re-

to

(2-7),

data

listed

with

before

models:

equations

of some

in FFM.

two and

is considered

1) is accounted

ofchanges contribution

meta-

can

investigators

is that

the

the

regression

nonzero

intercept

REE

Despite the

regression of REE on FFM One possible interpretation

is independent

of all

and

Furthermore, the nonzero intercept. REE

in the

However,

expenditure

(5-1

tissues

mass (FFM) of techniques

FM,

various

1). Although of energy

is de-

by indirect calorimetry. specific metabolic rates

techniques.

derived

(Table

humans

expenditures

noninvasively.

to estimate

to FFM

similar

of the

and

between

used

markably best

ofadult

of body composition, fat-free can be measured by a variety

methodologies

the

sum

metabolic

simultaneously

determined relating

of the

(REE)

active tissues can be estimated possible to separately measure

compartments fat mass (FM), 2), and

expenditure

These

nonobese

sitometry The

subjects

of 86 adult

sidered Introduction

(3, 4, 8, 12-15)

were

consisted

loss

REE

for obese

subjects

and

ofFFM and FM to REE was tested by comfrom published data sets that included FM,

reprint

Medical

September

Accepted

for

Printed

requests

Centers,

Received

Birmingham;

Lausanne,

publication

in USA.

to KM

701 24.

and

the Institute

of Physiology,

Switzerland. Nelson,

Princeton

Department

Avenue,

of Research,

Birmingham,

AL 3521

1991. March

17,

1992 American

1992.

Society

for Clinical

Nutrition

1.

ENERGY TABLE 1 Published regression REE

= constant

REE REE REE REE REE REE REE

= 2001

+

2772

+

LBM.

*

equations

=

(k

+

= 1641

+

1972

+

-

of resting

(87.5 (83.7 (91.3 (87.1

= 1729

+ (82.5

= 1026

+

= 1491

+

lean body

(85.4 (95.9

mass;

REE

EXPENDITURE

energy

expenditure

(kJ/24

X

FFM)

r2

x x x X x x X

FFM) LBM) FFM) FFM) FFM) FFM) FFM)

0.67 0.61 0.82 0.68 0.64 0.88 0.53

REE,

resting

energy

AND

expenditure;

h) on fat-free

= constant

+ k2FM

REE

= constant

+ k1FFM

REE

=

In performing made:

these

1) FFM

rates

over

2) FFM

k1FFM

FFM,

fat-free

and

the

FM

range

have

machinery,

and

but

assumptions

and

FM

was made if it includes

investigators

variably

These

data sets were the REE could

with

of FFM sets

and

used,

selected because be calculated

weight

body

or weight

and

composition

anthropometry,

the FFM from the percent

was

or total

body

surfaces

for males

lean

compared

(4)

(Table

results

and

obese

subjects

were

4). The grouping

FFM,

FM,

variable

or both

FFM

the regression lines were be used in interpretation tion

2 for lean

correlated

in

The regres(9, 1 1, 18-27) REE

resulting residuals

(3)

to adipose

measured

7 8 9 10 11

5. The

and

with

obese

FM

adjustments the REE

values.

are ofmales

and

equations

four

equations

and

females

as well

by analysis

FM.

as for

of covanance The

In all cases

covariate

the

slopes

of

The

subjects

REE and

is not

the

slopes

significantly are

nearly

0.055).

=

subjects

made

these

was sex or obesity. and

subjects.

for lean

(P

from of these

not different. However, caution should ofthe analysis ofcovanance for equa-

for FFM (P = 0.006). However, variate, there is no difference

the

the

the

in Figure

report

by

with

4), and

nonhomogeneous of lean and obese

or FFM, sometimes inappropriately. were tested on separate data sets predicted

3 and

are depicted

FM can have a tissue with met-

because a body

5 6

are plotted in Figure 6. The regression equations

k2; and

is equivalent

Reference

(2)

metabolic

ie, k1

terms of LBM sion equations comparing

I

were

independent

in adults,

method

mass.

was

found

to LBM,

tissue. The last assumption metabolic rate if and only

+ k2FM

following

constant

of values

is equivalent

abolic

the

mass*

(eqs

11\

+ k2FM

analyses,

849

Densitometry (n = 1 18) Total body potassium (n = 42) Densitometry (n = 249) Anthropometry (n = 30) Anthropometry (n = 498) Densitometry (n = 24) Total body potassium (n = 35)

V

REE

COMPOSITION

Body-composition

+ k1FFM

= constant

BODY

The difference between the REE still exists when the REE is adjusted when FM in the REE

for FFM, females

there

(P

=

is included 0.740).

(P

is no difference

0.895).

However,

as a coWhen between

when

FM

and FM associated listed mean values body

determined

fat.

In the

data

by densitometry,

potassium.

Results The

relationship

1 . FFM

and

between FM

were

FFM not

and

FM

highly

is presented

in Figure

(r

correlated

=

0.2

1 5,

The body composition and REE ofthe 86 males 127 females are presented in Table 2. The FFM (P < 0.001)

= 0.002).

(P

REE