Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-9nbrm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-03-27T02:36:53.002Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Total body water and fat-free mass: evaluation of equations based on bioelectrical impedance analysis in infants and young children in India

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 March 2010

Bandana Sen
Affiliation:
Society for Applied Studies, CF-198, Salt Lake City, Sector 1, Kolkata700 064, India
Dilip Mahalanabis*
Affiliation:
Society for Applied Studies, CF-198, Salt Lake City, Sector 1, Kolkata700 064, India
Anura V. Kurpad
Affiliation:
Institute of Population Health and Clinical Research, St John's Medical College, St John's National Academy of Health Sciences, Bangalore560 034, India
Saijuddin Shaikh
Affiliation:
Society for Applied Studies, CF-198, Salt Lake City, Sector 1, Kolkata700 064, India
Kaushik Bose
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, Vidyasagar University, Paschim Midnapore721 102, India
*
*Corresponding author: Dr Dilip Mahalanabis, fax +91 33 2337 0709, email sas_kolkata@vsnl.net
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The association of early postnatal growth with diseases in adults such as hypertension, type 2 diabetes and CHD has generated interest in studying postnatal growth. Bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) is a useful measure to estimate total body water (TBW) and fat-free mass (FFM). We evaluated three published equations (Fjeld et al. (Pediatr Res (1990) 27, 98–102), Bocage (MSc Thesis (1988) University of West Indies) and Kushner et al. (Am J Clin Nutr (1992) 56, 835–839) to measure TBW and derived FFM based on BIA, using 2H2O dilution as a reference method for suitability in infants in India. In a cross-sectional study in seventy-eight apparently healthy infants aged 6–24 months from the urban poor attending an immunisation clinic at a hospital in Kolkata, we measured their length to the nearest 0·1 cm, weight to the nearest 10 g, resistance at 50 kHz using BIA and TBW using 2H2O dilution. TBW was derived using three published BIA-based equations and compared with TBW using 2H2O dilution. Based on the BIA equations of Fjeld et al., Bocage and Kushner et al., the mean TBW values were 2·46 % (P < 0·001), 4·62 % (P < 0·001) and 9·50 % (P < 0·001) lower than the reference 2H2O method, respectively. All three published BIA-based equations consistently underestimated the TBW and FFM and appeared inadequate for studying infants in India. The equation described by Fjeld et al. gave the smallest deviation from the reference method and may be used for field studies. New equations based on population-specific data are desirable for a more precise measure of TBW.

Information

Type
Full Papers
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 2010
Figure 0

Table 1 Characteristics of subjects

Figure 1

Table 2 Total body water (TBW) and fat-free mass (FFM) in kg and as percentage body weight derived by the three equations under study and by the 2H2O dilution technique (reference method)(Mean values and standard deviations)

Figure 2

Table 3 Difference in fat-free mass (FFM) (of paired values) in kg and as percentage body weight between those derived by 2H2O dilution and by each of the three equations under study and each of the two equations based on anthropometry as published previously(6)(Mean values and standard deviations and 95 % confidence intervals of the difference)

Figure 3

Fig. 1 (a) Individual data points for total body water (TBW) in kg comparing values derived by the reference method (2H2O dilution method) with the bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) equation (Fjeld et al.(3); BI-1) under study are plotted along the ‘line of identity’ at the angle of 45° (R2 0·72). (b) Individual data points for TBW in kg comparing values derived by the reference method (2H2O dilution method) with the BIA equation (Bocage(4); BI-2) under study are plotted along the line of identity (R2 0·74). (c) Individual data points for TBW in kg comparing values derived by the reference method (2H2O dilution method) with the BIA equation (Kushner et al.(5); BI-3) under study are plotted along the line of identity (R2 0·71). (d) Bland–Altman plots of the difference in each participant between TBW in kg derived by the 2H2O dilution method and the BI-1(3) method under study plotted against the average of the TBW in kg by the 2H2O method. The solid line and the dotted lines are the mean and 2 sd of the differences, respectively. Mean difference 2H2O − BI-1 = 0·21 (sd 0·44) kg (P = 0·0001). (e) Bland–Altman plots of the difference in each participant between TBW in kg derived by the 2H2O dilution method and the BI-2(4) method under study plotted against the average of the TBW in kg by the 2H2O method. The solid line and the dotted lines are the mean and 2 sd of the differences, respectively. Mean difference 2H2O − BI-2 = 0·38 (sd 0·44) kg (P < 0·0001). (f) Bland–Altman plots of the difference in each participant between TBW in kg derived by the 2H2O dilution method and the BI-3(5) method under study plotted against the average of the TBW in kg by the 2H2O method. The solid line and the dotted lines are the mean and 2 sd of the differences, respectively. Mean difference 2H2O − BI-3 = 0·82 (sd 0·47) kg (P < 0·0001).

Figure 4

Fig. 2 (a) Individual data points for fat-free mass (FFM) in kg comparing values derived by the reference method (2H2O dilution method) with the bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) equation (Fjeld et al.(3); BI-1) under study are plotted along the ‘line of identity’ at the angle of 45° (R2 0·74). (b) Individual data points for FFM in kg comparing values derived by the reference method (2H2O dilution method) with the BIA equation (Bocage(4); BI-2) under study are plotted along the line of identity (R2 0·76). (c) Individual data points for FFM in kg comparing values derived by the reference method (2H2O dilution method) with the BIA equation (Kushner et al.(5); BI-3) under study are plotted along the line of identity (R2 0·73). (d) Bland–Altman plots of the difference in each participant between FFM in kg derived by the 2H2O dilution method and the BI-1(3) method under study plotted against the average of the FFM in kg by the 2H2O method. The solid line and the dotted lines are the mean and 2 sd of the differences, respectively. Mean difference 2H2O − BI-1 = 0·25 (sd 0·56) kg (P = 0·0002). (e) Bland–Altman plots of the difference in each participant between FFM in kg derived by the 2H2O dilution method and the BI-2(4) method under study plotted against the average of the FFM in kg by the 2H2O method. The solid line and the dotted lines are the mean and 2 sd of the differences, respectively. Mean difference 2H2O − BI-2 = 0·47 (sd 0·57) kg (P < 0·0001). (f) Bland–Altman plots of the difference in each participant between FFM in kg derived by the 2H2O dilution method and the BI-3(5) method under study plotted against the average of the FFM in kg by the 2H2O method. The solid line and the dotted lines are the mean and 2 sd of the differences, respectively. Mean difference 2H2O − BI-3 = 1·04 (sd 0·59) kg (P < 0·0001).

Figure 5

Fig. 3 Individual data points for percentage fat-free mass (FFM) derived by the 2H2O dilution method (a) and the bioelectrical impedance analysis equation of Fjeld et al.(3) (b) are plotted against age in months. Age- and sex-specific reference values for percentage FFM in healthy American infants derived by multicomponent models (Butte et al.(15)) are plotted for comparison (data points are connected). ( × ), Boys; (Δ), girls; (–○–), boys, Butte et al.(15); (–□–), girls, Butte et al.(15).