Issues in characterizing resting energy expenditure in obesity and after weight loss
Issues in characterizing resting energy expenditure in obesity and after weight loss
复制标题
DOI：
10.3389/fphys.2013.00047
复制
发表时间：
2013-01-01
影响因子：
4
通讯作者：
Mueller, Manfred J.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Bosy-Westphal, Anja;Braun, Wiebke;Mueller, Manfred J.
现有方法的局限性：使用2室模型脂肪质量（FM）和无脂肪质量（FFM）的身体组成的静息能量消耗（BEE）的标准化对于REE的解释具有固有的局限性，并且在比较具有广泛肥胖的人以及在大量减肥之前和之后时可能导致错误的结论。实验目的：我们比较了BEE标准化的不同方法：（1）对于FFM和FM，（2）通过纳入%FM作为肥胖的量度，以及（3）基于器官和组织肿块。结果进行了比较健康受试者之间的不同程度的肥胖以及受试者内减肥前后。从“BEE vs. FFM和FM方程”标准化REE，（1）在肥胖参与者中推导并应用于瘦人，或（2）在减肥前推导并在减肥后应用，导致错误的结论：（i）瘦人的代谢率较低，（0减肥后这是通过器官和组织质量的BEE标准化揭示的，该标准化在瘦型和肥胖型之间或在基线和体重减轻后之间没有显著差异。有证据表明FFM的比代谢率随着%FM的增加而增加，这可以通过肥胖症中肝脏、肾脏和心脏质量对FFM的贡献更高来解释。使用“BEE与FFM和FM方程”具体为不同水平的肥胖1% FM）消除差异BEE之前和之后的重量loss in women.Conclusion：最既定的方法BEE正常化的基础上FFM和FM可能会导致虚假的结论代谢率在肥胖症和体重减轻相关的适应性产热的现象。当研究%FM差异较大的受试者时，使用FFM和FM（kg）的%FM特异性BEE预测可改善BEE的标准化。
Limitations of current methods: Normalization of resting energy expenditure (BEE) for body composition using the 2-compartment model fat mass (FM), and fat-free mass (FFM) has inherent limitations for the interpretation of REE and may lead to erroneous conclusions when comparing people with a wide range of adiposity as well as before and after substantial weight loss.Experimental objectives: We compared different methods of BEE normalization: (1) for FFM and FM (2) by the inclusion of %FM as a measure of adiposity and (3) based on organ and tissue masses. Results were compared between healthy subjects with different degrees of adiposity as well as within subject before and after weight loss.Results: Normalizing REE from an "BEE vs. FFM and FM equation" that (1) was derived in obese participants and applied to lean people or (2) was derived before weight loss and applied after weight loss leads to the erroneous conclusion of a lower metabolic rate (i) in lean persons and (0 after weight loss. This is revealed by the normalization of BEE for organ and tissue masses that was not significantly different between lean and obese or between baseline and after weight loss. There is evidence for an increasing specific metabolic rate of FFM with increasing %FM that could be explained by a higher contribution of liver, kidney and heart mass to FFM in obesity. Using "BEE vs. FFM and FM equations" specific for different levels of adiposity 1% FM) eliminated differences in BEE before and after weight loss in women.Conclusion: The most established method for normalization of BEE based on FFM and FM may lead to spurious conclusions about metabolic rate in obesity and the phenomenon of weight loss-associated adaptive thermogenesis. Using %FM-specific BEE prediction from FFM and FM in kg may improve the normalization of BEE when subjects with wide differences in %FM are investigated.