Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2007 May-Jun;11(3):203-13.

Measurement of body composition changes with weight loss in postmenopausal women: comparison of methods

Affiliations
Comparative Study

Measurement of body composition changes with weight loss in postmenopausal women: comparison of methods

A K Mahon et al. J Nutr Health Aging. 2007 May-Jun.

Abstract

Background: The accurate measurement of body composition changes is important when evaluating the efficacy of medical nutrition therapy and weight management programs, yet is not well documented in older women.

Objective: We compared methods of estimating energy-restriction-induced body composition changes in postmenopausal women.

Design: 27 women (59 +/- 8 y; BMI 29.0 +/- 2.9 kg/m2; mean +/- SD) completed a 9-wk energy restriction period (5233 kJ/d, (1250 kcal/d)). Changes in % body fat (delta%BF), fat mass (deltaFM), and fatfree mass (deltaFFM) were measured by hydrostatic weighing (HW), air-displacement plethysmography (ADP), dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA), and deuterium oxide dilution (D2O). The Baumgartner et al. (Am J Clin Nutr 53:1345-1353, 1991) four-compartment (4C) model with body volume from HW was the criterion method. The 4C model with body volume from ADP was also compared. Regression equations were developed based on 4CHW (dependent variable) utilizing results of change (POST-PRE) for each method.

Results: The women lost 6.8 +/- 3.2 kg; 9% of baseline weight. Based on 4CHW, the body composition changes were -2.4 +/- 4.5 delta%BF, -4.7 +/- 3.3 kg deltaFM, and -2.6 +/- 4.4 kg deltaFFM. No differences were detected by ANOVA for delta%BF, deltaFM, and deltaFFM among 4CHW, HW, ADP, DXA, D2O, and 4CADP. Bland-Altman limits of agreement showed differences between methods that ranged from 14.5 to -14.1 delta%BF, 7.8 to -8.1 kg deltaFM, and 7.5 to -8.4 kg deltaFFM for individuals. A bias was shown with 4CADP overestimating delta%BF (1.4 %) and FM (0.6 kg) and underestimating deltaFFM (-1.2 kg) compared to 4CHW. The regression model was acceptable for %BF (4CADP, 2CHW, and 2CD2O); FM and FFM (4CADP, 3CDXA, 2CHW, and 2CD2O), but not for other estimates of %BF, FM, FFM.

Conclusions: These body composition assessment methods may be used interchangeably to quantify changes in % body fat, fat mass, and fat-free mass with weight loss in groups of postmenopausal women. 4CADP overestimates delta%BF and underestimates deltaFFM. When utilizing one of these comparison methods (4CADP, 3CDXA, 2CHW, 2CD2O) to quantify changes in fat mass and fat-free mass for an individual postmenopausal woman, regression equations may be used to relate the data to 4CHW.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Relation between a) change in % body fat (Δ%BF) estimated by 4CHW compared with 4CADP; b) delta difference (ΔΔ) against mean change (Δ) in %BF by 4CHW compared with 4CADP;, c) Δ fat-free mass (FFM) estimated by 4CHW compared with 4CADP; d) ΔΔFFM against ΔFFM by 4CHW compared with 4CADP; e) Δ%BF estimated by 4CHW compared with 3CDXA; f) ΔΔ%BF against Δ%BF by 4CHW compared with 3CDXA; g) Δ%BF estimated by 4CHW compared with 2CHW; h) ΔΔ%BF against Δ%BF by 4CHW compared with 2CHW; i) Δ%BF estimated by 4CHW compared with 2CADP; j) ΔΔ%BF against Δ%BF by 4CHW compared with 2CADP; k) Δ%BF estimated by 4CHW compared with 2CD2O; l) ΔΔ%BF against Δ%BF by 4CHW compared with 2CD2O
Figure 1
Figure 1
Relation between a) change in % body fat (Δ%BF) estimated by 4CHW compared with 4CADP; b) delta difference (ΔΔ) against mean change (Δ) in %BF by 4CHW compared with 4CADP;, c) Δ fat-free mass (FFM) estimated by 4CHW compared with 4CADP; d) ΔΔFFM against ΔFFM by 4CHW compared with 4CADP; e) Δ%BF estimated by 4CHW compared with 3CDXA; f) ΔΔ%BF against Δ%BF by 4CHW compared with 3CDXA; g) Δ%BF estimated by 4CHW compared with 2CHW; h) ΔΔ%BF against Δ%BF by 4CHW compared with 2CHW; i) Δ%BF estimated by 4CHW compared with 2CADP; j) ΔΔ%BF against Δ%BF by 4CHW compared with 2CADP; k) Δ%BF estimated by 4CHW compared with 2CD2O; l) ΔΔ%BF against Δ%BF by 4CHW compared with 2CD2O

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Heymsfield SB, Wang ZM. Measurement of total-body fat by underwater weighing: new insights and uses for old method. Nutrition. 1993;9:472–3. - PubMed
    1. McCrory MA, Gomez TD, Bernauer EM, Mole PA. Evaluation of a new air displacement plethysmograph for measuring human body composition. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1995;27:1686–91. - PubMed
    1. Roubenoff R, Kehayias JJ, Dawson-Hughes B, Heymsfield SB. Use of dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry in body-composition studies: not yet a ”gold standard”. Am J Clin Nutr. 1993;58:589–91. - PubMed
    1. Brozek J, Grande F, Anderson JT, Keys A. Densitometric Analysis of Body Composition: Revision of Some Quantitative Assumptions. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1963;110:113–40. - PubMed
    1. Fogelholm GM, Sievanen HT, Lichtenbelt WDVM, Westerterp KR. Assessment of Fat-mass loss during weight reduction in obese women. Metabolism. 1997;46:968–975. - PubMed

Publication types