4.0 Article Proceedings Paper

Altered body composition affects resting energy expenditure and intel pretation of body mass index in children with spinal cord injury

期刊

JOURNAL OF SPINAL CORD MEDICINE
卷 27, 期 -, 页码 S24-S28

出版社

AMER PARAPLEGIA SOC
DOI: 10.1080/10790268.2004.11753781

关键词

spinal cord injuries; children; adolescence; paraplegia; tetraplegia; body mass index; metabolic rate; dual energy x-ray absorptiometry; obesity

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Individuals with spinal cord injury (SCI) typically undergo changes in their body composition (reduction in lean body mass and an increase in fat mass) that can lead to secondary complications associated with diminished physical activity and obesity. Methods: This study used dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) to estimate the total lean tissue mass (LTM), total body fat, and total bone mineral content (BMC) to assess the relationship between body mass index (BMI), body composition, and resting metabolic rate (RMR) in a group of children with SCI who were matched with able-bodied controls for age and sex. Body composition and RMR were measured in 18 boys and 9 girls (10-21 years of age) who had a SCI in the previous 1 to 3 years and in 27 age- and sex-matched controls. Results: Children with SCI had significantly lower mean LTM than control subjects (37.6 +/- 9.6 kg and 46.7 +/- 9.2 kg, respectively; P < 0.001) and higher percent body fat (26.4 +/- 7.9% and 20.2 +/- 8.5%, respectively; P < 0.02) as measured by DXA, despite their reduced BMI (18.9 +/- 3.8 kg/m(2) and 21.2 +/- 2.9 kg/m(2), respectively; P < 0.01). Children with SCI had lower RMR than the controls subjects (1213 +/- 334 kJ/d and 1511 +/- 257 kJ/d, respectively), but there was no difference in RMR when adjusted for LTM. Conclusion: Children with SCI have lower RMRs that are associated with their reduced LTM. The reduction in LTM and RMR may predispose children with SCI to relative gains in body fat. BMI significantly underestimates body fat in children with SCI.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据