Should we use fat-free mass or body mass and percentage body fat as separate predictors to predict maximum oxygen uptake?

IF 3.2 Q1 SPORT SCIENCES
BMJ Open Sport & Exercise Medicine Pub Date : 2026-03-12 eCollection Date: 2026-01-01 DOI:10.1136/bmjsem-2025-003029
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·X b , 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.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

我们应该使用无脂质量还是体重和体脂百分比作为预测最大摄氧量的单独预测指标?
背景/目的:评估无脂质量(fat-free mass, FFM)或体质量(body mass, M)是预测最大摄氧量(VO2max, L⋅min-1)更合适的体尺寸变量。方法:数据(3930心肺运动试验)来自FRIEND注册表。我们的预测方程采用著名的异速生长/幂函数模型VO2max (L⋅min-1)=a·X b,以FFM或M作为预测变量(X)。这些模型可以通过对数变换进行线性化,然后可以使用协方差分析(ANCOVA)来估计未知参数。结果:最初,仅使用Ln(FFM)对年龄和性别进行调整预测时,解释方差为R2=0.718(赤池信息标准(Akaike information criterion, AIC)=-1882.5), FFM指数b=0.658。然而,当分别使用M和体脂%预测Ln(VO2max)时,解释方差增加到R2=0.733 (AIC=-2077.4),其中M指数b=0.636。R2和aic的差异证实了使用单独的M和体脂%来预测VO2max的好处。该分析确定了一个增大的负体脂%项,改善了VO2max的预测,这后来被中央肥胖(腰围)所解释。这些最终的、更具包容性的M和FFM指数估计为b=0.67,这表明VO2max应该使用VO2max (mL·FFM-2/3·min-1)或VO2max (mL·M-2/3·min-1)而不是VO2max (mL·FFM-1·min-1)进行归一化。我们还发现线性预测模型系统地低估了超重和体重不足个体的最大摄氧量,而高估了平均体重个体的最大摄氧量。结论:将FFM纳入预测VO2max的方程并不能解释中心性肥胖的负面影响。然而,通过将M和体脂百分比(BF%)分别纳入异速模型,更大/扩大的负BF%项解释了这种明显的遗漏/缺失。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.10
自引率
4.20%
发文量
106
审稿时长
20 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书