Alan Nevill, Matthew Harber, Matthew Wyon, Jonathan Myers, Ross Arena, Tony Myers, Leonard A Kaminsky
{"title":"Should we use fat-free mass or body mass and percentage body fat as separate predictors to predict maximum oxygen uptake?","authors":"Alan Nevill, Matthew Harber, Matthew Wyon, Jonathan Myers, Ross Arena, Tony Myers, Leonard A Kaminsky","doi":"10.1136/bmjsem-2025-003029","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background/objective: </strong>To assess whether fat-free mass (FFM) or body mass (M) is the more appropriate body size variable to predict maximum oxygen uptake (VO<sub>2max</sub>, L⋅min<sup>-1</sup>).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Data (3930 cardiopulmonary exercise tests) were provided from the FRIEND registry. Our prediction equations adopted the well-known allometric/power function model VO<sub>2max</sub> (L⋅min<sup>-1</sup>)=<i>a</i>·<i>X</i> <sup><i>b</i></sup> , using either FFM or M as the predictor variable (<i>X</i>). These models can be linearised with a log-transformation, and analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) can then be used to estimate the unknown parameters.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Initially, when predicting Ln(VO<sub>2max</sub>) using only Ln(FFM) adjusted for age and sex, the explained variance was R<sup>2</sup>=0.718 (Akaike information criterion (AIC)=-1882.5), with the FFM exponent b=0.658. However, when predicting Ln(VO<sub>2max</sub>) using M AND bodyfat% separately, the explained variance increased to R<sup>2</sup>=0.733 (AIC=-2077.4), with the M exponent b=0.636. The difference in R<sup>2</sup> and AICs confirmed the benefit of predicting VO<sub>2max</sub> using separate M and bodyfat% terms. The analysis identified an enlarged negative bodyfat% term that improved the prediction of VO<sub>2max</sub>, explained latterly by central adiposity (waist circumference). These final, more inclusive M and FFM exponents were estimated to be b=0.67, suggesting that VO<sub>2max</sub> should be normalised using VO<sub>2max</sub> (mL·FFM<sup>-2/3</sup>·min<sup>-1</sup>) or <i>preferably</i> VO<sub>2max</sub> (mL·M<sup>-2/3</sup>·min<sup>-1</sup>) rather than VO<sub>2max</sub> (mL·FFM<sup>-1</sup>·min<sup>-1</sup>). We also found that linear prediction models systematically <i>under-estimate</i> the VO<sub>2max</sub> of overweight and underweight individuals, but <i>over-estimate</i> the VO<sub>2max</sub> of average-weight individuals.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Incorporating FFM into equations to predict VO<sub>2max</sub> fails to explain the negative effect of central adiposity. However, by incorporating M and percentage body fat (BF%) separately into the allometric models, a greater/enlarged negative BF% term explains this apparent omission/absence.</p>","PeriodicalId":47417,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Open Sport & Exercise Medicine","volume":"12 1","pages":"e003029"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2026-03-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12983784/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Open Sport & Exercise Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjsem-2025-003029","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SPORT SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background/objective: To assess whether fat-free mass (FFM) or body mass (M) is the more appropriate body size variable to predict maximum oxygen uptake (VO2max, L⋅min-1).
Methods: Data (3930 cardiopulmonary exercise tests) were provided from the FRIEND registry. Our prediction equations adopted the well-known allometric/power function model VO2max (L⋅min-1)=a·Xb , using either FFM or M as the predictor variable (X). These models can be linearised with a log-transformation, and analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) can then be used to estimate the unknown parameters.
Results: Initially, when predicting Ln(VO2max) using only Ln(FFM) adjusted for age and sex, the explained variance was R2=0.718 (Akaike information criterion (AIC)=-1882.5), with the FFM exponent b=0.658. However, when predicting Ln(VO2max) using M AND bodyfat% separately, the explained variance increased to R2=0.733 (AIC=-2077.4), with the M exponent b=0.636. The difference in R2 and AICs confirmed the benefit of predicting VO2max using separate M and bodyfat% terms. The analysis identified an enlarged negative bodyfat% term that improved the prediction of VO2max, explained latterly by central adiposity (waist circumference). These final, more inclusive M and FFM exponents were estimated to be b=0.67, suggesting that VO2max should be normalised using VO2max (mL·FFM-2/3·min-1) or preferably VO2max (mL·M-2/3·min-1) rather than VO2max (mL·FFM-1·min-1). We also found that linear prediction models systematically under-estimate the VO2max of overweight and underweight individuals, but over-estimate the VO2max of average-weight individuals.
Conclusion: Incorporating FFM into equations to predict VO2max fails to explain the negative effect of central adiposity. However, by incorporating M and percentage body fat (BF%) separately into the allometric models, a greater/enlarged negative BF% term explains this apparent omission/absence.