Background: The diagnosis of sarcopenia is essential for early treatment of sarcopenia in older adults, for which assessment of appendicular lean mass (ALM) is needed. Multi-frequency bio-electrical impedance analysis (MF-BIA) may be a valid assessment tool to assess ALM in older adults, but the evidences are limited. Therefore, we validated the BIA to diagnose low ALM in older adults.Methods: ALM was assessed by a standing-posture 8 electrode MF-BIA (Tanita MC-780) in 202 community-dwelling older adults (age ≥ 55 years), and compared with dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) (Hologic Inc., Marlborough, MA, United States; DXA). The validity for assessing the absolute values of ALM was evaluated by: (1) bias (mean difference), (2) percentage of accurate predictions (within 5% of DXA values), (3) the mean absolute error (MAE), and (4) limits of agreement (Bland-Altman analysis). The lowest quintile of ALM by DXA was used as proxy for low ALM (< 22.8 kg for men, < 16.1 kg for women). Sensitivity and specificity of diagnosing low ALM by BIA were assessed.Results: The mean age of the subjects was 72.1 ± 6.4 years, with a BMI of 25.4 ± 3.6 kg/m2, and 71% were women. BIA slightly underestimated ALM compared to DXA with a mean bias of -0.6 ± 1.2 kg. The percentage of accurate predictions was 54% with a MAE of 1.1 kg, and limits of agreement were -3.0 to + 1.8 kg. The sensitivity for ALM was 80%, indicating that 80% of subjects who were diagnosed as low ALM according to DXA were also diagnosed low ALM by BIA. The specificity was 90%, indicating that 90% of subjects who were diagnosed as normal ALM by DXA were also diagnosed as normal ALM by the BIA.Conclusion: This comparison showed a poor validity of MF-BIA to assess the absolute values of ALM, but a reasonable sensitivity and specificity to recognize the community-dwelling older adults with the lowest muscle mass.
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.
PurposePhysical stores are increasingly dependent on impulse visits and the impulse purchases of passers-by. Interactive advertising screens in store windows could help retailers increase impulse-visit urges and impulse-buying urges. However, the effects of interactive screens in physical surroundings have not been studied before. Therefore, this study aimed to examine the effect of interactive screens on impulse urges and gain insight into the underlying mechanism that explains the possible effect.Design/methodology/approachAn interactive screen was placed in a store window. Using three field experiments, we studied the effect of interactivity-level (high vs low) on the impulse-visit and impulse-buying urges of passers-by, and the mediating role of self-agency in these effects.FindingsHighly interactive (compared to less interactive) advertising screens in store windows positively affect impulse-visit and impulse-buying urges through self-agency. Retailers can therefore use interactive advertising screens to increase the number of impulse purchases if feelings of self-agency are activated.Originality/valueThis is the first study to examine the extent to which interactive screens in a store window enhance the impulse-visit and impulse-buying urges of passers-by and the mediating factor of these effects. By conducting three field experiments, we achieved a high external validity and managed to share very reliable results owing to the replication of the findings.
