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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:European journal of clinical nutrition 2023-05, Vol.77 (5), p.515-524
Hauptverfasser: González-Arellanes, Rogelio, Urquidez-Romero, Rene, Rodríguez-Tadeo, Alejandra, Esparza-Romero, Julián, Méndez-Estrada, Rosa Olivia, Ramírez-López, Erik, Robles-Sardin, Alma-Elizabeth, Pacheco-Moreno, Bertha-Isabel, Alemán-Mateo, Heliodoro
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
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