首页> 外文期刊>The British Journal of Nutrition >The paediatric option for BodPod to assess body composition in preschool children: what fat-free mass density values should be used?
【24h】

The paediatric option for BodPod to assess body composition in preschool children: what fat-free mass density values should be used?

机译:BODPOD的儿科选择评估学龄前儿童的身体组成:应使用哪种无脂肪的质量密度值?

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
获取外文期刊封面目录资料

摘要

Air displacement plethysmography utilises a two-component model to assess body composition, which relies on assumptions regarding the density of fat-free mass (FFM). To date, there is no evidence as to whether Lohman’s or Wells et al.’s FFM density values are more accurate in young children. Therefore, the aims of this study were to compare total body fat percentage (TBF%) assessed using the BodPod with both Lohman’s and Wells et al.’s FFM density values with TBF% from the three-component (3C) model in forty healthy Swedish children aged 5·5 years. Average TBF% calculated using Lohman’s FFM density values underestimated TBF% in comparison with the corresponding value assessed using the 3C model (22·2 (sd 5·7) and 25·1 (sd 5·5) %, respectively; P<0·001). No statistically significant difference was observed between TBF% assessed using Wells et al.’s FFM density values and the 3C model (24·9 (sd 5·5) and 25·1 (sd 5·5) %, respectively; P=0·614). The Bland and Altman plots for TBF% using both Lohman’s and Wells et al.’s FFM density values did not show any bias across the range of body fatness (Lohman: r 0·056, P=0·733 and Wells et al.: r ?0·006, P=0·970). These results indicate that Wells et al.’s FFM density values should be used when assessing body composition with the paediatric option for BodPod in 5-year-old children. However, future studies are needed to confirm these results in other populations, including a wider age range of children.
机译:空气位移体积描记法利用双组分模型来评估体组合物,这依赖于关于无脂肪块密度(FFM)的假设。迄今为止,没有证据是Lohman或Wells等。幼儿的FFM密度值更加准确。因此,本研究的目的是将使用Lohman和Wells等人的BODPOD进行比较评估的总体脂肪百分比(TBF%)。FFM密度值与四分之三(3C)模型的TBF%在四十次健康中瑞典儿童5岁5岁。与使用3C模型评估的相应值(22·2(SD 5·7)和25·1(SD 5·5)%评估的相应值相比,使用Lohman的FFM密度值计算的平均TBF%低估了TBF%; P <0 ·001)。在使用Wells等人的TBF%之间观察到统计学上有显着差异。的FFM密度值和3C模型(24·9(SD 5·5)和25·1(SD 5·5)%; P = 0·614)。使用Lohman和Wells等人的Bland和Altman绘制TBF%。的FFM密度值没有显示身体脂肪范围的任何偏差(Lohman:R 0·056,P = 0·733和Wells等。 :R?0·006,p = 0·970)。这些结果表明井。在评估5岁儿童的儿童博德博士的儿科选择时,应使用FFM密度值。然而,需要未来的研究以确认这些群体的结果,包括更广泛的儿童年龄范围。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号