AJCN North Carolina Research Campus
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Purchase Article
Right arrow View Shopping Cart
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Sohlstrom, A.
Right arrow Articles by Forsum, E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Sohlstrom, A.
Right arrow Articles by Forsum, E.
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Sohlstrom, A.
Right arrow Articles by Forsum, E.

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol 66, 1315-1322, Copyright © 1997 by The American Society for Clinical Nutrition, Inc


ORIGINAL RESEARCH COMMUNICATIONS

Changes in total body fat during the human reproductive cycle as assessed by magnetic resonance imaging, body water dilution, and skinfold thickness: a comparison of methods

A Sohlstrom and E Forsum
Department of Physiology and Pharmacology, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden.

Total body fat and fat-free mass were assessed by magnetic resonance imaging (TBFMRI and FFMMRI) in 11-16 healthy Swedish women before pregnancy and 5-10 d and 2, 6, and 12 mo after delivery. On these occasions, TBF was also measured by the body water dilution (TBFBWD) and skinfold-thickness (TBFSFT) techniques. The results were used to compare changes in TBFSFT and TBFBWD during reproduction with changes in TBFMRI. TBFBWD was 1.5-4.0 kg higher than TBFMRI and at all postpartum measurements the difference between these estimates increased significantly with increased body fat content. This difference was also significantly higher 6 mo after delivery than it was 2 and 12 mo postpartum. The possibility that this was due to variations in the degree of hydration of FFM postpartum was considered. TBFSFT was 1.7-3.1 kg higher than TBFMRI and this difference increased with increasing body fat content. The agreement between changes in TBFMRI and TBFSFT was different during different times in the reproductive cycle and was also influenced by the amount of fat lost or gained. The findings thus suggest that there is a risk for bias when changes in TBF during reproduction are estimated by the skinfold- thickness technique as well as by isotope dilution.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Am. J. Clin. Nutr.Home page
N. F Butte, W. W Wong, M. S Treuth, K. J Ellis, and E O'Brian Smith
Energy requirements during pregnancy based on total energy expenditure and energy deposition
Am. J. Clinical Nutrition, June 1, 2004; 79(6): 1078 - 1087.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1997 by The American Society for Nutrition