Differences in resting metabolic rate between paraplegic and able-bodied subjects are explained by differences in body composition
Differences in resting metabolic rate between paraplegic and able-bodied subjects are explained by differences in body composition
复制标题
DOI：
10.1093/ajcn/77.2.371
复制
发表时间：
2003-02-01
影响因子：
7.1
通讯作者：
Pencharz, PB
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Buchholz, AC;McGillivray, CF;Pencharz, PB
背景资料：身体成分和能量代谢之间的关系在parapleg.Objective：我们调查了身体成分和能量代谢之间的关系，在健康的paraplegics与健全的对照组相比。我们假设截瘫患者的无脂肪质量（FFM）、体细胞质量（BLM）、静息代谢率（RMR）和进食热效应（TEF）较低。设计：这项横断面研究包括34名对照受试者和28名截瘫患者（平均年龄：分别为29.1 ± 7.6岁和33.9 ± 9.2岁），体重指数（kg/m2）分别为23.5 ± 1.8和24.3 ± 6.0。我们用间接量热法测量RMR和TEF，用氘稀释法测量全身水，用校正的溴化物空间测量细胞外水。我们计算了FFM（总身体水分/0.732）和[结果：对照组FFM高于截瘫组（分别为77.2 ± 7.2%和69.2 ± 8.7%; P = 0.0002），（分别为47.4 ± 6.7%和35.9 ± 8.1%; P < 0.0001）和RMR（分别为7016 ± 935和6159 ± 954 kJ/d; P = 0.0007）。FFM是两组RMR的最佳预测因子（对照组r（2）= 0.83，截瘫组r（2）= 0.70，P < 0.0001）。对照受试者和截瘫受试者经FFM校正的RMR无显著差异（分别为6670 +/- 504和6588 +/- 501 kJ/d）。TEF在对照组和截瘫组之间也没有显著差异（分别为6.25 +/- 2.2%和5.53 +/- 1.8%的能量摄入）。结论：截瘫组的FFM、RMR和RMR（但不是强制性TEF）低于对照组。调整FFM后，对照组和截瘫受试者的RMR没有差异，表明身体无脂肪区室中的代谢活动相似。
Background: Little is known about the relation between body composition and energy metabolism in paraplegia.Objective: We investigated the relation between body composition and energy metabolism in healthy paraplegics as compared with able-bodied control subjects. We hypothesized that paraplegics would have lower fat-free mass (FFM), body cell mass (BCM), resting metabolic rate (RMR), and thermic effect of feeding (TEF).Design: This cross-sectional study included 34 control subjects and 28 paraplegics (mean age: 29.1 +/- 7.6 and 33.9 +/- 9.2 y, respectively) with body mass indexes (in kg/m(2)) of 23.5 +/- 1.8 and 24.3 +/- 6.0, respectively. We measured RMR and TEF with indirect calorimetry, total body water with deuterium dilution, and extracellular water with corrected bromide space. We calculated FFM (total body water/0.732) and BCM [(total body water - extracellular water)/0.732)].Results: FFM was higher in control subjects than in paraplegics (77.2 +/- 7.2% and 69.2 +/- 8.7%, respectively; P = 0.0002), as were BCM (47.4 +/- 6.7% and 35.9 +/- 8.1%, respectively; P < 0.0001) and RMR (7016 +/- 935 and 6159 +/- 954 kJ/d, respectively; P = 0.0007). FFM was the single best predictor of RMR in both groups (r(2) = 0.83 for control subjects and 0.70 for paraplegics, P < 0.0001 for both). RMR adjusted for FFM did not differ significantly between control subjects and paraplegics (6670 +/- 504 and 6588 +/- 501 kJ/d, respectively). TEF also did not differ significantly between control subjects and paraplegics (6.25 +/- 2.2% and 5.53 +/- 1.8% of energy intake, respectively).Conclusions: FFM, BCM, and RMR, but not obligatory TEF, are lower in paraplegics than in control subjects. RMR does not differ between control and paraplegic subjects after adjustment for FFM, indicating similar metabolic activity in the fat-free compartment of the body.