Dual-photon absorptiometry (DPA) allows separation of body mass into bone mineral, fat, and fat-free soft tissue. This report evaluates the potential of DPA to isolate appendages of human subjects and to quantify extremity skeletal muscle mass (limb fat-free soft tissue). The method was evaluated in 34 healthy adults who underwent DPA study, anthropometry of the limbs, and estimation of whole-body skeletal muscle by models based on total body potassium (TBK) and nitrogen (TBN) and on fat-free body mass (FFM). DPA appendicular skeletal muscle (22.0 +/- 3.1 kg, mean +/- SD) represented 38.7% of FFM, with similar proportions in males and females. There were strong correlations (all p less than 0.001) between limb muscle mass estimated by DPA and anthropometric limb muscle areas (r = 0.82-0.92), TBK (r = 0.94), and total-body muscle mass based on TBK-FFM (r = 0.82) and TBK-TBN (r = 0.82) models. Appendicular skeletal muscle mass estimated by DPA is thus a potentially practical and accurate method of quantifying human skeletal muscle mass in vivo.
BackgroundIn order to establish a consistent method for brachial artery reactivity assessment, we analyzed commonly used approaches to the test and their effects on the magnitude and time-course of flow mediated dilation (FMD), and on test variability and repeatability. As a popular and noninvasive assessment of endothelial function, several different approaches have been employed to measure brachial artery reactivity with B-mode ultrasound. Despite some efforts, there remains a lack of defined normal values and large variability in measurement technique.MethodsTwenty-six healthy volunteers underwent repeated brachial artery diameter measurements by B-mode ultrasound. Following baseline diameter recordings we assessed endothelium-dependent flow mediated dilation by inflating a blood pressure cuff either on the upper arm (proximal) or on the forearm (distal).ResultsThirty-seven measures were performed using proximal occlusion and 25 with distal occlusion. Following proximal occlusion relative to distal occlusion, FMD was larger (16.2 ± 1.2% vs. 7.3 ± 0.9%, p < 0.0001) and elongated (107.2 s vs. 67.8 s, p = 0.0001). Measurement of the test repeatability showed that differences between the repeated measures were greater on average when the measurements were done using the proximal method as compared to the distal method (2.4%; 95% CI 0.5–4.3; p = 0.013).ConclusionThese findings suggest that forearm compression holds statistical advantages over upper arm compression. Added to documented physiological and practical reasons, we propose that future studies should use forearm compression in the assessment of endothelial function.
We measured fat in 286 healthy volunteers by underwater weighing (FUWW) and dual-photon absorptiometry (FDPA) to develop a translation table for the differing results from these entirely different techniques and to study the sources of these differences. In 99 males and 187 females aged 19-94 yr, fatness was 7-47%. Prediction equations are presented for FUWW-FDPA (delta F), density of lean body mass (DLBM), and FDPA. FUWW and FDPA were significantly different from each other (P less than 0.01). Calculated DLBM is less than the assumed constant of 1.10 (P less than 0.01), ranging widely from 1.05 to 1.13 and being highly correlated with the ratio of total body bone mineral to lean body mass (TBBM/LBM). delta F, the differences between FUWW and FDPA measurements in individual subjects, varied widely (-7 to +11% in males and -18 to +13% in females). The difference was positively correlated with the DLBM. FUWW was no better than anthropometrics in equations for predicting FDPA. The FDPA predicted from anthropometrics showed smaller standard errors than when FUWW was used. Neither anthropometrics nor FUWW equations are clearly superior to those previously available.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.