Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and Muscle
© Springer-Verlag 2012
10.1007/s13539-012-0076-4

Letter to the Editor

When a reference value makes all the difference

Wolfram DoehnerContact Information

(1)  Center for Stroke Research Berlin, CSB, Charité, Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353 Berlin, Germany

Contact Information Wolfram Doehner
Email: wolfram.doehner@charite.de

Received: 11 May 2012  Accepted: 14 May 2012  Published online: 30 May 2012


Without Abstract

Dear Editor,

I read with great interest the article by Webber and Barr on the age- and gender-dependent values of skeletal muscle mass in healthy children and adolescents [1]. The authors open a field of scientific dispute that is often underrepresented if not totally neglected. The validity of any method of measurement depends not only on the appropriate choice of a certain method according to the question to be studied. In fact, the interpretation of the results depends just as much on the existence of adequate standards and reference values to which our measurements can be compared.

Age and gender are fundamental factors influencing probably all biological measurements and should be taken into account for correct interpretation of clinical data. Webber and Barr provide reference values for normal ranges of skeletal muscle tissue mass in children and adolescents separately for females and males. Moreover, they confirm the high reproducibility of dual X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) to detect differences in muscle tissue mass as low as a few hundred grams. For this rather sophisticated method of assessing body composition, interpretation according to age and gender seems well appreciated. By contrast, it is surprising that the most global measure of body composition, namely body mass index (BMI), is commonly applied to patients and populations irrespective of age.

There is increasing evidence that in older populations the association of body composition with mortality is substantially shifted as compared to middle-aged populations [24]. According to the World Health Organisation, the “optimum BMI” ranges from 18.5 to 25 kg/m2. It may be another point of discussion what the “optimum” refers to and whether these margins are still applicable, as the nadir of the mortality curves in recent epidemiological observations is around or even above 25 kg/m2 [4]. The discussion on the accuracy of BMI as a predictor of disease and/or mortality is ongoing [5]. Clearly, the simplicity of the method may be weighed against the limitations of the data obtained. A first step would be to address different age groups for reference values of BMI, just as presented by Webber and Barr for DXA.

Acknowledgments  The author of this manuscript certifies that he complied with the ethical guidelines for authorship and publishing in the Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and Muscle [6].


References

1. Webber CE, Barr RD. Age- and gender-dependent values of skeletal muscle mass in healthy children and adolescents. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle. 2012;3:25–9.
PubMed SpringerLink
 
2. Waaler H. Height, weight and mortality. The Norwegian experience. Acta Med Scand Suppl. 1984;679:1–56.
PubMed ChemPort
 
3. Flegal KM, Graubard BI, Williamson DF, Gail MH. Excess deaths associated with underweight, overweight, and obesity. JAMA. 2005;293:1861–7.
PubMed CrossRef ChemPort
 
4. Adams KF, Schatzkin A, Harris TB, Kipnis V, Mouw T, Ballard-Barbash R, Hollenbeck A, Leitzmann MF. Overweight, obesity, and mortality in a large prospective cohort of persons 50 to 71 years old. N Engl J Med. 2006;355:763–78.
PubMed CrossRef ChemPort
 
5. Romero-Corral A, Somers VK, Sierra-Johnson J, Thomas RJ, Collazo-Clavell ML, Korinek J, Allison TG, Batsis JA, Sert-Kuniyoshi FH, Lopez-Jimenez F. Accuracy of body mass index in diagnosing obesity in the adult general population. Int J Obes (Lond). 2008;32:959–66.
CrossRef ChemPort
 
6. von Haehling S, Morley JE, Coats AJ, Anker SD. Ethical guidelines for authorship and publishing in the Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and Muscle. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle. 2010;1:7–8.
SpringerLink