Hubbry Logo
Lean body massLean body massMain
Open search
Lean body mass
Community hub
Lean body mass
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Contribute something
Lean body mass
Lean body mass
Lean body mass
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Part of a series on
Human body weight
General concepts
Medical concepts
Measurements
Related conditions
Obesity-associated morbidity
Management of obesity
Social aspects

Lean body mass (LBM), sometimes conflated with fat-free mass, is a component of body composition. Fat-free mass (FFM) is calculated by subtracting body fat weight from total body weight: total body weight is lean plus fat. In equations:

LBM = BW − BF
Lean body mass equals body weight minus body fat
LBM + BF = BW
Lean body mass plus body fat equals body weight

LBM differs from FFM in that cellular membranes are included in LBM although this is only a small percent difference in the body's mass (up to 3% in men and 5% in women)[1]

Overview

[edit]

The percentage of total body mass that is lean is usually not quoted – it would typically be 60–90%. Instead, the body fat percentage, which is the complement, is computed, and is typically 10–40%. The lean body mass (LBM) has been described as an index superior to total body weight for prescribing proper levels of medications and for assessing metabolic disorders, as body fat is less relevant for metabolism. LBW is used by anesthesiologists to dose certain medications. For example, due to the concern of postoperative opioid-induced ventilatory depression in the obese patient, opioids are best based on lean body weight. The induction dose of propofol should also be based on LBW.[2]

Estimation

[edit]

LBM is usually estimated using mathematical formulas. Several formulas exist, having different utility for different purposes. For example, the Boer formula is method of choice for LBM estimation to calculate the dose given in contrast CT in obese individuals with BMI between 35 and 40.[3]

A nomogram based on height, weight and arm circumference may be used.[4]

Boer

[edit]

The Boer formula is:[3]

For men: LBM = (0.407 × W) + (0.267 × H) − 19.2

For women: LBM = (0.252 × W) + (0.473 × H) − 48.3

where W is body weight in kilograms and H is body height in centimeters.

Hume

[edit]

The following formula by Hume may be used:[5]

For men: LBM = (0.32810 × W) + (0.33929 × H) − 29.5336

For women: LBM = (0.29569 × W) + (0.41813 × H) − 43.2933

where W is body weight in kilograms and H is body height in centimeters.

Actual measurement

[edit]
Further information: Body composition § Measuring body composition

Instead of mathematical estimation the actual value of LBM may be calculated using various technologies such as Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA).

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Lean body mass

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Lean body mass (LBM), also known as fat-free mass (FFM), is the component of total body weight that excludes fat, encompassing all non-fat tissues such as , , organs, , , and . It can be calculated as total body weight minus fat mass; for example, for a person weighing 78 kg with 19.5 kg of fat mass, LBM = 58.5 kg. Conversely, when lean body mass and body fat percentage are known, total body weight can be calculated using the formula: Total body weight = LBM / (1 - body fat percentage). For example, a person with 106 kg of lean body mass (LBM) and 10% body fat percentage weighs approximately 117.78 kg in total. This is calculated as 106 kg / (1 - 0.10) = 106 kg / 0.90 = 117.78 kg. In this case, fat mass is approximately 11.78 kg (10% of total weight), and lean mass constitutes 90% of total weight. This calculation assumes minimal loss of muscle or other lean tissue during fat reduction. This distinction arises from early definitions, where LBM was conceptualized by Behnke in 1942 as the body weight minus non-essential fat, assuming essential fat constitutes about 10% of LBM, though modern usage treats LBM and FFM as largely synonymous, representing chemically identical components without significant ambiguity. LBM typically accounts for 60-90% of total body weight in healthy adults, varying by age, sex, and fitness level, and serves as a critical indicator of metabolic and physical function. LBM plays a pivotal role in overall health, influencing , insulin sensitivity, and physical strength, with higher levels associated with reduced risks of , frailty, and certain chronic diseases in older adults. In nutritional contexts, preserving LBM during is essential, as its decline can impair recovery from illness and exacerbate mortality risks; for instance, studies show that low LBM predicts higher all-cause mortality in men, independent of fat mass, with an inverse relationship to outcomes. Conversely, excessive LBM loss during interventions like very-low-calorie diets can be mitigated through resistance exercise and adequate protein intake, underscoring its importance in and management. Measurement of LBM relies on indirect techniques due to the impracticality of direct , with (DXA) serving as the gold standard for its precision in quantifying , , and lean soft tissue via X-ray absorption. Alternative methods include (BIA), which estimates LBM through electrical conductivity differences in body tissues, and anthropometric prediction equations based on , , age, and , offering accessible options with mean errors around 0.74 kg compared to DXA. These assessments are vital in fields like and for accurate drug dosing, as LBM-based calculations reduce toxicity risks from agents like . Emerging research highlights sex-specific variations in accuracy, emphasizing the need for standardized protocols to evaluate LBM in diverse populations.

Fundamentals

Definition and Terminology

Lean body mass (LBM) is defined as the total weight of the body minus the mass of , encompassing all non-fat components such as muscle, , organs, and . This represents the metabolically active portion of the body, excluding storage fat but potentially including minimal essential . In adults, LBM typically comprises 60-90% of total body weight, varying by age, sex, and fitness level, with higher proportions in leaner individuals. The fundamental equation for LBM is: LBM=Total Body Weight (kg)−Fat Mass (kg)\text{LBM} = \text{Total Body Weight (kg)} - \text{Fat Mass (kg)} This calculation relies on accurate determination of fat mass through validated methods. For example, for an individual weighing 78 kg with 19.5 kg of fat mass, LBM would be 78 kg - 19.5 kg = 58.5 kg. This formula assumes that LBM remains roughly constant during fat loss, provided there is minimal muscle loss, which can often be achieved through interventions such as adequate protein intake and resistance exercise. Conversely, given lean body mass and body fat percentage, total body weight can be calculated using the rearranged formula: Total Body Weight=LBM1−body fat percentage\text{Total Body Weight} = \frac{\text{LBM}}{1 - \text{body fat percentage}} For example, a person with 106 kg of lean body mass and 10% body fat percentage weighs approximately 117.78 kg in total (106 kg / 0.90 ≈ 117.78 kg). In this case, fat mass is approximately 11.78 kg (10% of total weight), and lean body mass constitutes 106 kg (90% of total weight). LBM is often distinguished from fat-free mass (FFM), though the terms are sometimes used interchangeably in literature. Specifically, LBM includes a small amount of essential integral to cell membranes and other structures—approximately 2-3% of LBM, consistent across sexes—while FFM, as chemically defined, excludes extractable neutral fats but includes these essential structural . Modern analyses confirm LBM and FFM have the same , and FFM is preferred in scientific contexts to reduce ambiguity. This subtle difference arises from the physiological versus strictly chemical perspectives in analysis. The concept of LBM originated in early 20th-century studies on , particularly through work on body density and assessment. Captain Albert R. Behnke formalized the term in , defining it as the body's excluding non-essential to better index physiological leanness beyond total body weight alone. This evolved from underwater weighing techniques that differentiated from denser tissues. LBM is typically expressed in kilograms for absolute measures or as a of total body weight for relative comparisons across individuals.

Components of Lean Body Mass

Lean body mass (LBM) consists of all non-adipose tissues in the body, encompassing , , organs, connective tissues, , and minor biochemical elements such as non-fat cellular lipids. These components interrelate structurally and functionally, with forming the largest proportion and influencing overall LBM stability through hydration status. Skeletal muscle represents the dominant tissue in LBM, typically comprising 40-50% of its total mass in adults, with proportions reaching up to 50% in young males due to higher muscle development. Bone mineral content accounts for approximately 15-20% of LBM, providing structural support and varying by density, while organs and connective tissues contribute 10-15%, including vital structures like the heart, liver, and tendons. Body water constitutes 70-75% of LBM, distributed across all tissues and serving as a solvent for metabolic processes, with dehydration potentially altering LBM estimates by 1-2 kg. Non-fat cellular lipids, essential structural fats in cell membranes and organelles, make up a small fraction (about 2-3%) of LBM, distinguishing it from adipose tissue. Biochemically, LBM includes proteins such as myofibrillar proteins in that enable contraction, minerals like calcium and concentrated in for mineralization, and stores primarily in muscle and liver cells for energy reserve, typically amounting to 300-500 grams in adults. These elements maintain , with proteins forming 15-20% of dry LBM weight and minerals about 6-7%. Proportional breakdowns shift across demographics and life stages; for instance, muscle mass declines with age, dropping 3-8% per decade after age 30, reducing its share of LBM from peak levels in . Males generally exhibit higher proportions due to greater density (about 10-15% more than females), contributing to overall LBM differences. During , LBM increases by 2-5 kg, driven by expansions in uterine tissue, , and extracellular fluids, enhancing maternal physiological capacity.

Biological Significance

Metabolic and Physiological Roles

Lean body mass (LBM), encompassing fat-free tissues such as muscle, organs, and bones, serves as the primary driver of resting energy expenditure (REE), explaining 70-80% of the inter-individual variance in REE. This metabolic contribution arises because LBM components, particularly metabolically active tissues like and viscera, consume the majority of energy at rest to maintain cellular functions and . A common method for estimating REE based on LBM is the Katch-McArdle formula:
REE (kcal/day)≈370+(21.6×LBM in kg)\text{REE (kcal/day)} \approx 370 + (21.6 \times \text{LBM in kg})
This equation, derived from empirical data on lean tissue metabolism, applies uniformly to males and females and underscores LBM's role in basal energy needs without gender-specific adjustments. Beyond energy expenditure, LBM plays essential physiological roles in supporting basal metabolism, thermogenesis, and metabolic regulation. It facilitates basal metabolism by sustaining vital processes like organ function and cellular repair, which account for 60-70% of total daily use. LBM also contributes to , including non-shivering mechanisms in that generate heat to maintain core temperature during environmental stress. Furthermore, higher LBM enhances insulin sensitivity, promoting efficient and reducing the risk of metabolic disorders, as muscle tissue acts as a key site for insulin-mediated glucose disposal. Specific components of LBM fulfill targeted physiological functions. Skeletal muscle, comprising the largest portion of LBM, drives and amino acid metabolism, serving as the body's primary reservoir for amino acids and regulating whole-body protein balance through synthesis and breakdown processes. Bones, another critical LBM element, maintain by storing over 99% of the body's calcium and , releasing or absorbing these ions as needed to stabilize blood levels and support neuromuscular and enzymatic activities. Research highlights the protective effects of LBM against mortality. Meta-analyses from the 2010s, including those examining (low LBM), consistently link higher LBM to reduced all-cause mortality risk, with low lean mass associated with a 20-30% increased hazard compared to higher levels, independent of age and comorbidities.

Factors Affecting Lean Body Mass

Lean body mass (LBM) is influenced by a variety of intrinsic and extrinsic factors that vary across the lifespan, affecting its accumulation, maintenance, and decline. These factors include demographic characteristics, choices, pathological conditions, and environmental exposures, each contributing to differences in LBM quantity and quality. Understanding these influences is essential for appreciating variations in among individuals and populations.

Demographic Factors

Sex differences play a significant role in LBM, with men typically exhibiting 10-15% higher LBM than women on average, primarily due to the influence of testosterone, which promotes muscle protein synthesis and . Testosterone levels in men are substantially higher, driving greater lean tissue development during and adulthood, whereas in women favors fat deposition over muscle accrual. Age also profoundly impacts LBM, which generally peaks between 25 and 30 years of age before beginning a gradual decline. After age 40, LBM decreases by approximately 3-8% per decade, a process accelerated by , characterized by loss of muscle fibers and reduced muscle quality due to hormonal changes, reduced , and impaired . This age-related decline is more pronounced in men earlier in life but can equalize or exceed that in women post-menopause.

Lifestyle Influences

Regular exercise, particularly resistance training, is a key modifiable factor that enhances LBM. Programs involving can increase LBM by 1-2 kg over 12 weeks in untrained individuals, through mechanisms like muscle fiber recruitment and cell activation. , especially adequate protein intake, supports LBM preservation and growth; intakes exceeding 1.6 g/kg body weight per day optimize muscle protein synthesis rates, particularly when combined with exercise, helping to counteract catabolic processes during deficits or aging. Insufficient protein can lead to negative balance, exacerbating LBM loss, while higher thresholds benefit older adults or those in recovery.

Pathological Factors

Chronic diseases often contribute to LBM depletion through , metabolic dysregulation, and immobility. For instance, in (COPD), patients experience 20-30% reductions in mass, including quadriceps size decreased by 20-25%, due to hypoxia-induced and cytokine-mediated . Hormonal imbalances further impair LBM; reduces muscle protein synthesis and turnover by disrupting thyroid hormone signaling, which is critical for mitochondrial function and contractile protein expression in . This leads to proximal and , with LBM recovery possible upon hormone replacement but persistent deficits if untreated.

Environmental Aspects

Extreme environments can rapidly alter LBM through physiological stress. At high altitudes, hypoxic conditions promote , resulting in LBM losses comprising up to one-third of total weight reduction during prolonged exposure, driven by increased activity and reduced anabolic signaling. In microgravity, as experienced by astronauts, LBM declines by 1-2% per week without countermeasures, with up to 20% total muscle mass loss over one month due to unloading of muscles, fluid shifts, and suppressed protein synthesis. These effects highlight the role of mechanical loading and oxygenation in maintaining LBM .

Applications in Health and Fitness

In clinical settings, lean body mass (LBM) serves as a critical scalar for drug dosing to enhance and , particularly in obese patients where total body weight can lead to inaccuracies. For , an intravenous , clearance and induction dosing are proportional to LBM rather than total body weight, as does not significantly contribute to its distribution or metabolism. Using LBM-based dosing reduces the risk of overdose and associated hemodynamic instability, such as , compared to total body weight dosing, which has been shown to result in excessive plasma concentrations in morbidly obese individuals. This approach aligns with LBM's metabolic role in elimination, ensuring more precise . Nutritional support in intensive care units (ICUs) also leverages LBM to target muscle preservation during critical illness, especially in obese patients prone to . Guidelines recommend protein intake of 1.2–2.0 g/kg of ideal body weight (a proxy for LBM) daily to mitigate muscle wasting, with higher doses up to 2.5 g/kg ideal body weight for those with BMI 30–50 kg/m² to support anabolic processes without excessive caloric load. High-protein regimens exceeding 1.2 g/kg have demonstrated improved muscle mass retention and reduced mortality in meta-analyses of ICU populations. In fitness and athletics, LBM is a key metric for optimizing and . Bodybuilders target LBM percentages of 80–90% (corresponding to body fat levels of 10–20% in men and 15–25% in women) during preparation phases to achieve symmetrical, defined physiques that emphasize muscle visibility and proportion. In strength sports such as and , power output scales positively with LBM, as greater muscle mass enables higher force production and velocity during explosive movements. For health monitoring, LBM assessment aids in diagnosing conditions like , where the European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People (EWGSOP2) criteria define low muscle quantity as appendicular mass divided by height squared below 7.0 kg/m² in men or 5.5 kg/m² in women, often confirmed via . In management, LBM-guided strategies prioritize muscle preservation through combined resistance training and high-protein intake (1.3–1.6 g/kg LBM daily), reducing lean tissue loss to 20–30% of total weight reduction and maintaining metabolic rate. Age-related LBM decline exacerbates these risks, underscoring the need for targeted interventions. Recent developments since 2020 have integrated into mobile applications for LBM tracking, enabling in fitness and health. Apps like MeThreeSixty and Spren use cameras and to estimate , including LBM, from 3D scans, providing real-time feedback for tailored nutrition and exercise plans. These tools facilitate ongoing monitoring in personalized regimens, such as adjusting caloric deficits to preserve LBM during .

Assessment Methods

Estimation Using Anthropometric Formulas

Anthropometric formulas provide a simple, cost-effective means to estimate lean body mass (LBM) using basic body measurements such as height and weight, and occasionally circumferences like arm girth. These equations are derived from regression analyses of anthropometric data against reference measures of , offering predictions with typical errors of ±3-5 kg in non-obese adults. They are particularly useful in clinical and field settings where advanced equipment is unavailable, though accuracy diminishes in populations with extreme body compositions, such as athletes or individuals with high adiposity. One widely used is the Boer , developed from a study of healthy adults to normalize volumes. For men, LBM (kg) = 0.407 × W + 0.267 × H - 19.2; for women, LBM (kg) = 0.252 × W + 0.473 × H - 48.3, where W is in kg and H is height in cm. This was derived using on and height data from 66 subjects, showing strong correlations without gender-specific offsets in normalized volumes. It has been validated for general adult populations and is noted for its applicability across sexes. The Hume formula, based on total measurements via antipyrine dilution in 56 adults, offers another established approach. For men, LBM (kg) = 0.32810 × W + 0.33929 × H - 29.5336; for women, LBM (kg) = 0.29569 × W + 0.41813 × H - 43.2933. Derived in 1966, it demonstrates high correlation (r = 0.96 for men, r = 0.83 for women) with standard errors of 2.3 kg and 5.4 kg, respectively, and performs better for taller individuals due to the weighted . The James formula, introduced in for broader population estimates, uses a nonlinear approach: for men, LBM (kg) = 1.10 × W - 128 × (W/H)^2; for women, LBM (kg) = 1.07 × W - 148 × (W/H)^2. It accounts for the disproportionate fat accumulation with increasing weight-to-height ratios and has been applied in diverse groups, though it tends to underestimate LBM by 5-10% in athletes with high muscle mass. For quick graphical estimates, the method combines height, weight, and arm girth (specifically, flexed circumference) on a three-scale . Developed from tritium dilution data in 198 U.S. personnel and validated against and (r ≈ 0.86-0.91), it facilitates rapid LBM prediction in men without computational tools.

Indirect Measurement Techniques

Indirect measurement techniques for lean body mass (LBM) rely on non-invasive assessments of physiological properties, such as electrical conductivity, subcutaneous tissue thickness, and body density, to estimate LBM by subtracting estimated fat mass from total body weight or modeling content. These methods are widely used in clinical, athletic, and population studies due to their portability, cost-effectiveness, and minimal participant burden, though they often require standardized conditions like euhydration for reliability. Bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) is a common indirect technique that measures the body's resistance to a low-level alternating electrical current passed through electrodes on the hands and feet. Lean tissues, which are primarily water and electrolytes, conduct electricity better than fat, allowing BIA devices to estimate total body water (TBW), from which LBM is derived using regression equations, such as LBM ≈ TBW / 0.73, reflecting the typical hydration constant of fat-free mass. In hydrated individuals, single-frequency BIA achieves accuracy within ±2-4% compared to reference methods like dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA). Advancements in the 2020s, including multi-frequency BIA (MF-BIA) devices that apply currents across multiple frequencies (e.g., 5-1000 kHz), have improved estimates of LBM in populations with obesity by better accounting for extracellular and intracellular water distribution, reducing errors in lean mass prediction by up to 1-2% relative to DXA. Skinfold calipers provide another indirect approach by measuring the thickness of subcutaneous fat at multiple sites (typically 7-9, such as , , and ) using calibrated calipers, with sums inputted into equations to estimate . The Jackson-Pollock equations, for instance, derive fat mass from these measurements and age/sex-specific constants, enabling LBM calculation as total body weight minus fat mass. This method is highly portable and requires minimal equipment, making it suitable for field settings, but it is operator-dependent, with inter-observer variability leading to errors of ±3-5% in body fat estimates compared to or DXA. Accuracy improves with trained technicians, though it primarily captures peripheral fat and may underestimate visceral adiposity. Air displacement plethysmography (ADP), exemplified by the Bod Pod system, indirectly assesses LBM by measuring body volume and within a sealed chamber, where changes from displaced air during tidal breathing yield via Siri's equation (body fat ≈ (495 / body ) - 450). LBM is then computed as body weight minus fat mass, offering 2-3% accuracy against DXA in adults and children, with particular utility for athletes and pediatric populations due to its non-invasive nature and accommodation of various body sizes. The technique assumes constant body temperature and minimal clothing, and studies confirm its reliability within 1% body fat agreement with across diverse groups. All indirect techniques assume euhydration, as alters TBW and , leading to overestimation of LBM by 1-2 kg in methods like BIA and ADP; for example, a 2% body mass loss from fluid depletion can inflate fat-free mass estimates by 1.5-2.0 kg in BIA assessments. Consistent pre-measurement protocols, such as and avoiding exercise, mitigate these effects to ensure valid LBM inferences.

Direct Measurement Techniques

Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) is a widely used imaging technique that employs low-dose X-rays at two energy levels to differentiate between bone mineral content, fat mass, and lean body mass (LBM) in a three-compartment model. This method provides precise measurements of total and regional LBM, such as appendicular lean mass (ALM), which excludes the trunk and is considered a gold standard for assessing skeletal muscle mass due to its high accuracy and ability to perform regional analysis (e.g., limbs versus trunk). DEXA scans involve minimal radiation exposure (typically less than 0.01 mSv) and have a precision error of 1-2% for LBM measurements, making it suitable for clinical and research applications in monitoring body composition changes. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) offers a non-ionizing alternative for direct quantification of LBM by capturing high-resolution images of soft tissues, allowing for voxel-based segmentation to measure muscle volume and derive LBM estimates without . This technique excels in assessing and fat infiltration within muscles, providing whole-body or regional LBM data with high precision, typically achieving coefficients of variation of 0.8-1.9% for muscle volume measurements. However, MRI is more time-consuming (20-60 minutes per scan) and costly than DEXA, limiting its routine use to specialized settings where detailed muscle quality analysis is required. Computed tomography (CT) utilizes cross-sectional imaging to directly measure muscle and organ masses, often focusing on a single slice at the third (L3) level, which correlates strongly with whole-body LBM (r > 0.9). In and studies, L3 CT slices quantify area and density, enabling precise LBM assessment with errors under 2% when validated against multi-slice protocols, though it involves higher doses (5-10 mSv for abdominal scans). This method is particularly valuable for identifying low muscle attenuation indicative of poor muscle quality in clinical populations. Cadaver-based validation remains the historical for verifying imaging techniques, involving chemical analysis of dissected tissues to measure fat-free mass components like muscle and organs. Modern studies using cadavers have confirmed the accuracy of DEXA, MRI, and CT for LBM quantification, with correlations exceeding 0.95 between imaging-derived and direct dissection results, establishing these methods as reliable proxies for assessments. As of 2025, emerging technologies like combined with (AI) are advancing direct LBM measurement by analyzing muscle echogenicity and thickness for quality and quantity metrics, offering portable, radiation-free alternatives with automated segmentation accuracy comparable to CT (intra-class correlation > 0.9). These AI-integrated tools enable rapid bedside evaluation of LBM in diverse settings, correlating moderately with gold-standard imaging for muscle mass indices.

References

  1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK218181/
  2. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3833312/
  3. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11625996/
  4. https://www.anagahealth.com/blank-8
  5. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/nutrition/articles/10.3389/fnut.2024.1445892/full
  6. https://www.bmj.com/content/362/bmj.k2575
  7. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10552824/
  8. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5771660/
  9. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39510253/
  10. https://www.calculator.net/lean-body-mass-calculator.html
  11. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5421125/
  12. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2161831324001698
  13. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/253782
  14. https://inbodyusa.com/blogs/inbodyblog/lean-body-mass-and-muscle-mass-whats-the-difference/
  15. https://www.impedimed.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/PM-117-OUS-Body-Composition-Reference-Ranges-Rev-E.pdf
  16. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/lean-body-mass
  17. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK235943/
  18. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/420154/
  19. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/lean-body-weight
  20. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6019055/
  21. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11450469/
  22. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2804956/
  23. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK235244/
  24. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/british-journal-of-nutrition/article/grade-of-adiposity-affects-the-impact-of-fat-mass-on-resting-energy-expenditure-in-women/BB1B5694F95941242E580D1BAD72B15F
  25. https://journals.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/ajpendo.2000.279.3.E539
  26. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9246861/
  27. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK591031/
  28. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29037389/
  29. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-21168-5
  30. https://www.nature.com/articles/s42255-020-0251-4
  31. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/mineral-homeostasis
  32. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/medicine/articles/10.3389/fmed.2025.1589888/full
  33. https://karger.com/ger/article/68/4/361/828411/Sarcopenia-Is-Associated-with-Mortality-in-Adults
  34. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3667256/
  35. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6391653/
  36. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2933725/
  37. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22777332/
  38. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5852756/
  39. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6879776/
  40. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5179410/
  41. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4037849/
  42. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6403129/
  43. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9370116/
  44. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8302614/
  45. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2696527/
  46. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12630-017-0854-8
  47. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28243855/
  48. https://ccforum.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13054-020-03040-z
  49. https://nutritioncare.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Feeding-Patient-with-Obesity-Critical-Care-Setting.pdf
  50. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37862825/
  51. https://www.builtlean.com/body-fat-percentage-men-women/
  52. https://www.nsca.com/education/articles/kinetic-select/sport-performance-and-body-composition/
  53. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6322506/
  54. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6315740/
  55. https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/17/12/2000
  56. https://apps.apple.com/us/app/methreesixty-3d-body-scanner/id1472541261
  57. https://www.spren.com/
  58. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/5929341/
  59. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/6496691/
  60. https://dicom.nema.org/medical/dicom/Final/cp1612_ft_120or128forSUVformula.pdf
  61. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37815928/
  62. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/637039/
  63. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002916523174193
  64. https://espen.org/documents/BIA1.pdf
  65. https://journals.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/jappl.2000.89.2.465
  66. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3337041/
  67. https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/15/22/4792
  68. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/nutrition/articles/10.3389/fnut.2024.1491931/full
  69. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40957934/
  70. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002916523057623
  71. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4396823/
  72. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/sports-and-active-living/articles/10.3389/fspor.2023.1240252/full
  73. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002916523061427
  74. https://www.measurement-toolkit.org/anthropometry/objective-methods/plethysmography
  75. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3972070/
  76. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313238504_The_Effect_of_Dehydration_on_Body_Composition
  77. https://openprairie.sdstate.edu/etd2/1220/
  78. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7144212/
  79. https://www.e-jcpp.org/journal/view.php?doi=10.36011/cpp.2024.6.e13
  80. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6104103/
  81. https://www.dexafit.com/services/dexa-scan
  82. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7378099/
  83. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0192495
  84. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/physiology/articles/10.3389/fphys.2024.1288657/full
  85. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0720048X21003600
  86. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6260391/
  87. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/jcsm.13331
  88. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9655763/
  89. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022316622094846
  90. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/nutrition/articles/10.3389/fnut.2025.1678989/full
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
Contribute something
User Avatar
No comments yet.