Predictive equations for fat mass in older Hispanic adults with excess adiposity using the 4‐compartment model as a reference method
Background Predictive equations are the best option for assessing fat mass in clinical practice due to their low cost and practicality. However, several factors, such as age, excess adiposity, and ethnicity can compromise the accuracy of the equations reported to date in the literature. Objective To...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | European journal of clinical nutrition 2023-05, Vol.77 (5), p.515-524 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Background
Predictive equations are the best option for assessing fat mass in clinical practice due to their low cost and practicality. However, several factors, such as age, excess adiposity, and ethnicity can compromise the accuracy of the equations reported to date in the literature.
Objective
To develop and validate two predictive equations for estimating fat mass: one based exclusively on anthropometric variables, the other combining anthropometric and bioelectrical impedance variables using the 4C model as the reference method.
Subjects/Methods
This is a cross-sectional study that included 386 Hispanic subjects aged ≥60 with excess adiposity. Fat mass and fat-free mass were measured by the 4C model as predictive variables. Age, sex, and certain anthropometric and bioelectrical impedance data were considered as potential predictor variables. To develop and to validate the equations, the multiple linear regression analysis, and cross-validation protocol were applied.
Results
Equation 1 included weight, sex, and BMI as predictor variables, while equation 2 considered sex, weight, height squared/resistance, and resistance as predictor variables.
R
2
and RMSE values were ≥0.79 and ≤3.45, respectively, in both equations. The differences in estimates of fat mass by equations 1 and 2 were 0.34 kg and −0.25 kg, respectively, compared to the 4C model. This bias was not significant (
p
|
---|---|
ISSN: | 0954-3007 1476-5640 |
DOI: | 10.1038/s41430-022-01171-w |