Deurenberg P, Andreoli A, Borg P, Kukkonen-Harjula K, de Lorenzo A, van Marken Lichtenbelt W D, Testolin G, Vigano R, Vollaard N
Department of Nutrition and Epidemiology, Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Eur J Clin Nutr. 2001 Nov;55(11):973-9. doi: 10.1038/sj.ejcn.1601254.
To test and compare the validity of a body mass index (BMI)-based prediction equation and an impedance-based prediction equation for body fat percentage among various European population groups.
Cross-sectional observational study.
The study was performed in five different European centres: Maastricht and Wageningen (The Netherlands), Milan and Rome (Italy) and Tampere (Finland), where body composition studies are routinely performed.
A total of 234 females and 182 males, aged 18-70 y, BMI 17.0-41.9 kg/m(2).
The reference method for body fat percentage (BF%(REF)) was either dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) or densitometry (underwater weighing). Body fat percentage (BF%) was also predicted from BMI, age and sex (BF%(BMI)) or with a hand-held impedance analyser that uses in addition to arm impedance weight, height, age and sex as predictors (BF%(IMP)).
The overall mean (+/-s.e.) bias (measured minus predicted) for BF%(BMI) was 0.2+/-0.3 (NS) and-0.7+/-0.3 (NS) in females and males, respectively. The bias of BF%(IMP) was 0.2+/-0.2 (NS) and 1.0+/-0.4 (P<0.01) for females and males, respectively. There were significant differences in biases among the centres. The biases were correlated with level of BF% and with age. After correction for differences in age and BF% between the centres the bias of BF%(BMI) was not significantly different from zero in each centre and was not different among the centres anymore. The bias of BF%(IMP) decreased after correction and was significant from zero and significant from the other centres only in males from Tampere. Generally, individual biases can be high, leading to a considerable misclassification of obesity. The individual misclassification was generally higher with the BMI-based prediction.
The prediction formulas give generally good estimates of BF% on a group level in the five population samples, except for the males from Tampere. More comparative studies should be conducted to get better insight in the generalisation of prediction methods and formulas. Individual results and classifications have to be interpreted with caution.
测试并比较基于体重指数(BMI)的预测方程和基于阻抗的预测方程在不同欧洲人群组中对体脂百分比的有效性。
横断面观察性研究。
该研究在五个不同的欧洲中心进行:马斯特里赫特和瓦赫宁根(荷兰)、米兰和罗马(意大利)以及坦佩雷(芬兰),这些地方常规开展身体成分研究。
总共234名女性和182名男性,年龄在18至70岁之间,BMI为17.0至41.9kg/m²。
体脂百分比(BF%(REF))的参考方法为双能X线吸收法(DXA)或密度测定法(水下称重)。体脂百分比(BF%)也可根据BMI、年龄和性别进行预测(BF%(BMI)),或使用手持式阻抗分析仪进行预测,该分析仪除了将手臂阻抗作为预测指标外,还使用体重、身高、年龄和性别作为预测指标(BF%(IMP))。
BF%(BMI)在女性和男性中的总体平均(±标准误)偏差(测量值减去预测值)分别为0.2±0.3(无显著性差异)和 -0.7±0.3(无显著性差异)。BF%(IMP)在女性和男性中的偏差分别为0.2±0.2(无显著性差异)和1.0±0.4(P<0.01)。各中心之间的偏差存在显著差异。偏差与BF%水平和年龄相关。在校正各中心年龄和BF%的差异后,BF%(BMI)在每个中心的偏差与零无显著差异,且各中心之间也无差异。BF%(IMP)的偏差在校正后减小,仅在坦佩雷的男性中与零有显著差异且与其他中心有显著差异。一般来说,个体偏差可能较大,导致肥胖的错误分类相当严重。基于BMI的预测的个体错误分类通常更高。
除了坦佩雷的男性外,在这五个总体样本中,预测公式在群体水平上对BF%的估计总体较好。应该进行更多的比较研究,以便更好地了解预测方法和公式的普遍性。个体结果和分类必须谨慎解读。