Background & aims: In dietary practice, it is common to estimate protein requirements on actual bodyweight, but corrected bodyweight (in cases with BMI <20 kg/m2 and BMI ≥30 kg/m2) and fat free mass (FFM) are also used. Large differences on individual level are noticed in protein requirements using these different approaches. To continue this discussion, the answer is sought in a large population to the following question: Will choosing actual bodyweight, corrected bodyweight or FFM to calculate protein requirements result in clinically relevant differences? Methods: This retrospective database study, used data from healthy persons ≥55 years of age and in- and outpatients ≥18 years of age. FFM was measured by air displacement plethysmography technology or bioelectrical impedance analysis. Protein requirements were calculated as 1) 1.2 g (g) per kilogram (kg) actual bodyweight or 2) corrected bodyweight or 3) 1.5 g per kg FFM. To compare these three approaches, the approach in which protein requirement is based on FFM, was used as reference method. Bland–Altman plots with limits of agreement were used to determine differences, analyses were performed for both populations separately and stratified by BMI category and gender. Results: In total 2291 subjects were included. In the population with relatively healthy persons (n = 506, ≥55 years of age) mean weight is 86.5 ± 18.2 kg, FFM is 51 ± 12 kg and in the population with adult in- and outpatients (n = 1785, ≥18 years of age) mean weight is 72.5 ± 18.4 kg, FFM is 51 ± 11 kg. Clinically relevant differences were found in protein requirement between actual bodyweight and FFM in most of the participants with overweight, obesity or severe obesity (78–100%). Using corrected bodyweight, an overestimation in 48–92% of the participants with underweight, healthy weight and overweight is found. Only in the Amsterdam UMC population, protein requirement is underestimated when using the approach of corrected bodyweight in participants with severe obesity. Conclusion: The three approaches in estimation of protein requirement show large differences. In the majority of the population protein requirement based on FFM is lower compared to actual or corrected bodyweight. Correction of bodyweight reduces the differences, but remain unacceptably large. It is yet unknown which method is the best for estimation of protein requirement. Since differences vary by gender due to differences in body composition, it seems more accurate to estimate protein requirement based on FFM. Therefore, we would like to advocate for more frequent measurement of FFM to determine protein requirements, especially when a deviating body composition is to be expected, for instance in elderly and persons with overweight, obesity or severe obesity.
DOCUMENT
Bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) may be used to assess fat free mass (FFM) with reasonable validity based on mean-level comparisons, but differences between BIA and DXA may vary by about 4 kg in an individual patient. These results require confirmation in a larger sample of HNC (Head and neck cancer) patients.
DOCUMENT
Background: Our aim was to identify dietary patterns by the level of maternal education that contribute to BMI, fat mass index (FMI), and fat-free mass index (FFMI) in children at age 5 and to assess if these dietary patterns are related to BMI at age 10. Methods: Per group (low/middle/high level), Reduced Rank Regression (RRR) was used to derive dietary patterns for the response variables BMI z-score, FMI, and FFMI in 1728 children at age 5 in the Amsterdam Born Children and their Development (ABCD) cohort. Regression analyses were then used to determine the association with BMI at age 10. Results: In each group, pattern 1 was characterized by its own cluster of food groups. Low: water/tea, savory snacks, sugar, low-fat meat, and fruits; middle: water/tea, low-fat cheese, fish, low-fat dairy, fruit drink, low-fat meat, and eggs; and high: low-fat cheese, fruits, whole-grain breakfast products, and low-fat and processed meat. Additionally, in each group, pattern 1 was positively associated with BMI z-scores at age 10 (low: β ≤ 0.43 [95% CI ≤ 0.21; 0.66], p < 0.001, middle: β ≤ 0.23 [0.09; 0.36], p ≤ 0.001, and high: β ≤ 0.24 [0.18; 0.30], p < 0.001). Conclusions: The dietary patterns stratified by the level of maternal education are characterized by different food groups. But in all the groups, pattern 1 is positively associated with BMI at age 10.
MULTIFILE
