Background & aims: In dietary practice, it is common to estimate protein requirements on actual bodyweight, but corrected bodyweight (in cases with BMI <20 kg/m2 and BMI ≥30 kg/m2) and fat free mass (FFM) are also used. Large differences on individual level are noticed in protein requirements using these different approaches. To continue this discussion, the answer is sought in a large population to the following question: Will choosing actual bodyweight, corrected bodyweight or FFM to calculate protein requirements result in clinically relevant differences? Methods: This retrospective database study, used data from healthy persons ≥55 years of age and in- and outpatients ≥18 years of age. FFM was measured by air displacement plethysmography technology or bioelectrical impedance analysis. Protein requirements were calculated as 1) 1.2 g (g) per kilogram (kg) actual bodyweight or 2) corrected bodyweight or 3) 1.5 g per kg FFM. To compare these three approaches, the approach in which protein requirement is based on FFM, was used as reference method. Bland–Altman plots with limits of agreement were used to determine differences, analyses were performed for both populations separately and stratified by BMI category and gender. Results: In total 2291 subjects were included. In the population with relatively healthy persons (n = 506, ≥55 years of age) mean weight is 86.5 ± 18.2 kg, FFM is 51 ± 12 kg and in the population with adult in- and outpatients (n = 1785, ≥18 years of age) mean weight is 72.5 ± 18.4 kg, FFM is 51 ± 11 kg. Clinically relevant differences were found in protein requirement between actual bodyweight and FFM in most of the participants with overweight, obesity or severe obesity (78–100%). Using corrected bodyweight, an overestimation in 48–92% of the participants with underweight, healthy weight and overweight is found. Only in the Amsterdam UMC population, protein requirement is underestimated when using the approach of corrected bodyweight in participants with severe obesity. Conclusion: The three approaches in estimation of protein requirement show large differences. In the majority of the population protein requirement based on FFM is lower compared to actual or corrected bodyweight. Correction of bodyweight reduces the differences, but remain unacceptably large. It is yet unknown which method is the best for estimation of protein requirement. Since differences vary by gender due to differences in body composition, it seems more accurate to estimate protein requirement based on FFM. Therefore, we would like to advocate for more frequent measurement of FFM to determine protein requirements, especially when a deviating body composition is to be expected, for instance in elderly and persons with overweight, obesity or severe obesity.
Human activity is omnipresent in our landscapes. Animals can perceive risk from humans similar to predation risk, which could affect their fitness. We assessed the influence of the relative intensity of recreational activities on the bodyweight and pregnancy rates of red deer (Cervus elaphus) between 1985 and 2015. We hypothesized that stress, as a result of recreational activities, affects the pregnancy rates of red deer directly and indirectly via a reduction in bodyweight. Furthermore, we expected non-motorized recreational activities to have a larger negative effect on both bodyweight and fecundity, compared to motorized recreational activities. The intensity of recreational activities was recorded through visual observations. We obtained pregnancy data from female red deer that were shot during the regular hunting season. Additionally, age and bodyweight were determined through a post-mortem examination. We used two Generalized-Linear-Mixed Models (GLMM) to test the effect of different types of recreation on (1) pregnancy rates and (2) bodyweight of red deer. Recreation had a direct negative correlation with the fecundity of red deer, with bodyweight, as a mediator as expected. Besides, we found a negative effect of non-motorized recreation on fecundity and bodyweight and no significant effect of motorized recreation. Our results support the concept of humans as an important stressor affecting wild animal populations at a population level and plead to regulate recreational activities in protected areas that are sensitive. The fear humans induce in large-bodied herbivores and its consequences for fitness may have strong implications for animal populations.Projectnummer: SVB/RAAK.PRO 02.048
LINK
PurposeEarly mobilization of critically ill patients improves functional recovery, but is often hampered by tubes, drains, monitoring devices and muscular weakness. A mobile treadmill with bodyweight support facilitates early mobilization and may shorten recovery time to independent ambulation as compared to usual care physiotherapy alone.Materials and methodsSingle center RCT, comparing daily bodyweight supported treadmill training (BWSTT) with usual care physiotherapy, in patients who had been or were mechanically ventilated (≥48 h) with ≥MRC grade 2 quadriceps muscle strength. BWSTT consisted of daily treadmill training in addition to usual care physiotherapy (PT). Primary outcome was time to independent ambulation measured in days, using the Functional Ambulation Categories (FAC-score: 3). Secondary outcomes included hospital length of stay and serious adverse events.ResultsThe median (IQR) time to independent ambulation was 6 (3 to 9) days in the BWSTT group (n = 19) compared to 11 (7 to 23) days in the usual care group (n = 21, p = 0.063). Hospital length of stay was significantly different in favour of the BWSTT group (p = 0.037). No serious adverse events occurred.InterpretationBWSTT seems a promising intervention to enhance recovery of ambulation and shorten hospital length of stay of ICU patients, justifying a sufficiently powered multicenter RCT.Trial registration number: Dutch Trial Register ID: NTR6943.
