Correction to Levitt DG, Heymsfield SB, Pierson Jr RN, Shapses SA, Kral JG: Physiological models of body composition and human obesity. Nutrition & Metabolism 2007, 4:1

Heymsfield, Steven B

Kral, John G

Levitt, David G

Pierson, Richard N

Shapses, Sue A

English

PubMed

David G Levitt

Steven B Heymsfield

Richard N Pierson

Sue A Shapses

John G Kral

Springer - Publisher Connector

Physiological models of body composition and human obesity

BioMed CentralNutrition & Metabolism
ssOpen AcceCorrection
Physiological models of body composition and human obesity
David G Levitt*1, Steven B Heymsfield2, Richard N Pierson Jr3, 
Sue A Shapses4 and John G Kral5
Address: 1Department of Integrative Biology and Physiology, University of Minnesota, 321 Church Street SE, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA, 
2Merck & Co, 126 E. Lincoln Avenue, PO Box 2000, RY34-A238, Rahway, NJ 07065-0900, USA, 3St. Luke's-Roosevelt Hospital, Columbia 
University College of Physicians and Surgeons, NY Body Composition Unit, 114th street and Amsterdam Avenue, NY, NY 10025, USA, 
4Department of Nutritional Sciences, Rutgers University, 96 Lipman Drive, New Brunswick, NJ 08901, USA and 5Department of Surgery, SUNY 
Downstate Medical Center, Box 40, 450 Clarkson Avenue, Brooklyn, NY 11203, USA
Email: David G Levitt* - levit001@umn.edu; Steven B Heymsfield - Steven_Heymsfield@Merck.Com; 
Richard N Pierson - RNP1@Columbia.edu; Sue A Shapses - shapses@aesop.rutgers.edu; John G Kral - jkral@downstate.edu
* Corresponding author    
Abstract
Correction to Levitt DG, Heymsfield SB, Pierson Jr RN, Shapses SA, Kral JG: Physiological models
of body composition and human obesity. Nutrition & Metabolism 2007, 4:19
Published: 16 February 2009
Nutrition & Metabolism 2009, 6:7 doi:10.1186/1743-7075-6-7
Received: 13 February 2009
Accepted: 16 February 2009
This article is available from: http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/6/1/7
© 2009 Levitt et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), 
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.Page 1 of 6
(page number not for citation purposes)
Nutrition & Metabolism 2009, 6:7 http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/6/1/7Table 3: Caucasian males: Dependence of fat fraction on age for two BMI ranges.
BMI Range Ave age (SD) Age range Ave BMI Ave Fat Fraction N
18 – 24 21.86 (2.44) 18 – 25 22.19 (1.08) 0.1193 (.046) 29
29.94 (2.36) 26 – 33 22.12 (1.34) 0.134 (.048) (NS) 32
52.83 (19.42) 34 – 84 22.39 (1.31) 0.173 (.057) (p < .01) 30
24 – 44 25.94 (2.66) 21 – 30 27.64 (4.00) 0.188 (.084) 47
38.17 (5.07) 31 – 48 27.42 (3.96) 0.211 (.072) (NS) 48
66.25 (10.69) 49 – 97 27.93 (3.41) 0.284 (.075) (p < .01) 47
The p values are for comparisons to the closest younger age group.
Table 4: Caucasian females: Dependence of fat fraction on age for three BMI ranges.
BMI Range Ave age (SD) Age range Ave BMI Ave Fat Fraction N
17 – 22 24.95 (3.41) 18 – 30 20.00 (1.38) 0.219 (.045) 42
38.04 (5.87) 30 – 49 20.60 (1.07) 0.241 (.056) (p < .05) 42
63.32 (11.18) 49 – 89 20.55 (1.01) 0.298 (.053) (p < .01) 40
22 – 25.9 26.14 (4.72) 18 – 33 23.30 (1.03) 0.26 (.049) 43
39.12 (4.91) 33 – 51 23.45 (1.05) 0.30 (.055) (p < .01) 41
68.12 (10.47) 52 – 88 24.12 (1.15) 0.36 (.059) (p < .01) 39
26 – 56 34.94 (6.198) 21 – 45 31.19 (6.12) 0.408 (.074) 36
54.0 (4.69) 46 – 61 31.72 (5.89) .428 (.056) (NS) 35
70.49 (6.87) 62 – 90 29.36 (2.68) 0.414 (.053) (NS) 35
The p values are for comparisons to the closest younger age group
Correction
Since publication of our first article [1] we have noticed
that the following corrections needed to be made. There is
an error in the calculation of the body fat in the original
version of this article. The tritium distribution space was
not properly corrected for non-aqueous hydrogen
exchange and water density resulting in estimates of per-
c
ent body fat that are about 2% less then the correct per-
cent. This produces small errors in the regression relations
for the prediction of body fat from BMI or body density
described originally in Tables 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9. The
corrected tables (calculated using TBW = 3H2O × 0.96 ×
0.994) are provided.Page 2 of 6
(page number not for citation purposes)
Nutrition & Metabolism 2009, 6:7 http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/6/1/7
Page 3 of 6
(page number not for citation purposes)
Table 5: Ethnic dependence of BMI versus fat fraction for males.
N Age range (ave) BMI range (ave) Ave Fat Fract. (SD)
Caucasian 129 20 – 57 (37.4) 22 – 34 (25.42) 0.321 (0.071)
Black 95 20 – 52 (37.8) 20 – 34 (26.57) 0.328 (0.074) (NS)
Hispanic 37 20 – 60 (36.1) 20 – 34 (25.40) 0.311 (0.09) (NS)
Puerto Rican 41 20 – 52 (35.7) 20 – 30 (26.18) 0.348 (0.058) (p < .05)
Caucasian 153 23 – 53 (35.41) 17 – 25 (21.72) 0.257 (.061)
Asian 35 23 – 53 (36.7) 17 – 28 (21.25) 0.282 (.066) (p = 0.07)
The age range of the Caucasians was adjusted to match the age range of the comparison group. The p values are for comparisons between the 
ethnic group and Caucasians.
Table 6: Ethnic dependence of BMI versus fat fraction for females.
N Age range (ave) BMI range (ave) Ave Fat Fract. (SD)
Caucasian 129 20 – 57 (37.4) 22 – 34 (25.42) 0.321 (0.071)
Black 95 20 – 52 (37.8) 20 – 34 (26.57) 0.328 (0.074) (NS)
Hispanic 37 20 – 60 (36.1) 20 – 34 (25.40) 0.311 (0.09) (NS)
Puerto Rican 41 20 – 52 (35.7) 20 – 30 (26.18) 0.348 (0.058) (p < .05)
Caucasian 153 23 – 53 (35.41) 17 – 25 (21.72) 0.257 (.061)
Asian 35 23 – 53 (36.7) 17 – 28 (21.25) 0.282 (.066) (p = 0.07)
The age range of the Caucasians was adjusted to match the age range of the comparison group. The p values are for comparisons between the 
ethnic group and Caucasians.
Nutrition & Metabolism 2009, 6:7 http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/6/1/7
Page 4 of 6
(page number not for citation purposes)
Table 7: Comparison of linear (eq. (16)) and non-linear (eq. (9)) regression expressions for predicting body fat fraction from BMI and 
age.
Subjects ± Age Linear Non-linear Model I
a b c MSR BMI0 f1 c MSR
Male Caucasians No -.166 .0141 ---- 0.00404 17.20 .624 ---- .00409
Yes -.218 .0129 .00207 0.00263 19.15 .500 .00194 .00287
Male Caucasian +Hispanic+Black No -.145 .0134 ----- .00380 16.71 .594 ---- .00385
Yes -.206 .0127 .00182 0.00270 18.73 .496 .00172 .00288
Male Asian Yes -.156 .0126 .00169 0.00201 15.72 .438 .00169 .00212
Male Puerto Rican Yes -.155 .0119 .00163 0.00189 17.84 .536 .00150 .00188
Female Caucasian No 0.0409 .0113 ----- 0.00391 13.50 .739 ----- .00314
Yes -.0240 .0104 .00186 0.00281 14.39 .635 .00151 .00244
Female Caucasian +Hispanic+Black No 0.0494 .0109 ------ .00351 13.50 .728 ----- .00276
Yes -.0160 .0104 .00169 0.00260 14.37 .642 .00132 .00222
Female Asian Yes -.0903 .0153 .00122 0.00137 12.38 .573 .00122 .00140
Female Puerto Rican Yes 0.0718 .00919 .000947 .00159 12.82 .639 .000737 .00142
The regression parameters (either a, b and c; or BMI0, f1 and c) and the mean square residual error (MSR) for the different ethnic groups are listed.
Nutrition & Metabolism 2009, 6:7 http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/6/1/7
Page 5 of 6
(page number not for citation purposes)
Table 8: Prediction of fat fraction from BMI for Caucasian + Black + Hispanic subjects.
Subjects Linear Model I Model II
a b MSR f1 BMI0 MSR f1 f0 BMI0 MSR
Male: 18 – 89 -.145 .0134 .0038 .594 16.71 0.00385 .647 .129 22.00 0.00377
Male: 18 – 31 -.201 .0134 .00273 .543 19.39 0.00315 .706 .118 23.78 0.00261
Male: 32 – 50 -.133 .0119 .00303 .505 16.54 0.00312 .619 .153 23.54 0.00281
Male: 51 – 89 -.126 .0136 .00310 .628 16.28 .00299 .661 .167 21.43 0.00283
Female: 18 – 90 +.0494 .0109 .00351 .728 13.50 .00276 .745 .220 19.65 0.00272
Female: 18 – 31 -.00685 .0116 .00237 .695 13.99 .00225 .774 .214 21.30 0.00181
Female: 32 – 50 +0.0700 .00963 .00306 .723 13.86 .00212 .737 .208 19.71 0.00209
Female: 51 – 90 +0.106 .0101 .00225 .681 11.57 .00210 .682 .249 18.28 0.00210
Model parameters and mean square residual error (MSR) for Model I, Model II and Linear fit are listed.
Table 9: Prediction of fat fraction from body density for Caucasian + Black + Hispanic subjects.
Subjects a b f0 f1 d0 d1 MSRls MSRsiri1 MSRsiri2 MSRbro
Male: 18 – 89 4.63 4.208 0.129 0.647 1.0678 0.954 .000481 .000693 .000711 0.000553
Male: 18 – 31 4.912 4.475 0.118 0.706 1.0695 0.948 .000402 .000536 .000597 0.000532
Male: 32 – 50 4.559 4.141 0.153 0.619 1.061 0.958 .000457 .000723 .000614 .000562
Male: 51 – 89 4.231 3.821 0.167 0.661 1.0612 0.944 .000516 .000853 .000957 .000568
Female: 18 – 90 4.673 4.239 0.220 0.745 1.048 0.9376 .000640 .000813 .00202 .000662
Female: 18 – 31 4.779 4.339 0.214 0.774 1.050 .935 .000616 .00066 .00178 .000661
Female: 32 – 50 4.785 4.347 0.208 0.737 1.050 .941 .000538 .000653 .00191 .000576
Female: 51 – 90 4.606 4.175 0.249 0.682 1.041 .948 .000722 .00102 .00223 .000732
The parameters a and b are the optimal least square values (fat fraction = a/density – b), and f0 and f1 are the fat fractions used for the 
determination of d0 and d1 from the values of a and b. The mean square residual error for the least square fit (MSRls), the Siri Model I (MSRsiri1, 
eq. (13)) and Model II (MSRsiri2, eq. (14)) and the Brozek model (MSRbro, eq. (10)) are also listed.
Nutrition & Metabolism 2009, 6:7 http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/6/1/7Publish with BioMed Central   and  every 
scientist can read your work free of charge
"BioMed Central will be the most significant development for 
disseminating the results of biomedical research in our lifetime."
Sir Paul Nurse, Cancer Research UK
Your research papers will be:
available free of charge to the entire biomedical community
peer reviewed and published immediately upon acceptance
cited in PubMed and archived on PubMed Central 
yours — you keep the copyright
Submit your manuscript here:
http://www.biomedcentral.com/info/publishing_adv.asp
BioMedcentral
References
1. Levitt DG, Heymsfield SB, Pierson RN Jr, Shapses SA, Kral JG: Phys-
iological models of body composition and human obesity.
Nutrition & Metabolism 2007, 4:19.Page 6 of 6
(page number not for citation purposes)


Levitt, David

Heymsfield, Steven B.

Pierson, Richard

Shapses, Sue

Kral, John

Columbia University Academic Commons

BioMed CentralNutrition & MetabolismssOpen AcceCorrectionPhysiological models of body composition and human obesityDavid G Levitt*1, Steven B Heymsfield2, Richard N Pierson Jr3, Sue A Shapses4 and John G Kral5Address: 1Department of Integrative Biology and Physiology, University of Minnesota, 321 Church Street SE, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA, 2Merck & Co, 126 E. Lincoln Avenue, PO Box 2000, RY34-A238, Rahway, NJ 07065-0900, USA, 3St. Luke's-Roosevelt Hospital, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, NY Body Composition Unit, 114th street and Amsterdam Avenue, NY, NY 10025, USA, 4Department of Nutritional Sciences, Rutgers University, 96 Lipman Drive, New Brunswick, NJ 08901, USA and 5Department of Surgery, SUNY Downstate Medical Center, Box 40, 450 Clarkson Avenue, Brooklyn, NY 11203, USAEmail: David G Levitt* - levit001@umn.edu; Steven B Heymsfield - Steven_Heymsfield@Merck.Com; Richard N Pierson - RNP1@Columbia.edu; Sue A Shapses - shapses@aesop.rutgers.edu; John G Kral - jkral@downstate.edu* Corresponding author    AbstractCorrection to Levitt DG, Heymsfield SB, Pierson Jr RN, Shapses SA, Kral JG: Physiological modelsof body composition and human obesity. Nutrition & Metabolism 2007, 4:19Published: 16 February 2009Nutrition & Metabolism 2009, 6:7 doi:10.1186/1743-7075-6-7Received: 13 February 2009Accepted: 16 February 2009This article is available from: http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/6/1/7© 2009 Levitt et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.Page 1 of 6(page number not for citation purposes)Nutrition & Metabolism 2009, 6:7 http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/6/1/7Table 3: Caucasian males: Dependence of fat fraction on age for two BMI ranges.BMI Range Ave age (SD) Age range Ave BMI Ave Fat Fraction N18 – 24 21.86 (2.44) 18 – 25 22.19 (1.08) 0.1193 (.046) 2929.94 (2.36) 26 – 33 22.12 (1.34) 0.134 (.048) (NS) 3252.83 (19.42) 34 – 84 22.39 (1.31) 0.173 (.057) (p < .01) 3024 – 44 25.94 (2.66) 21 – 30 27.64 (4.00) 0.188 (.084) 4738.17 (5.07) 31 – 48 27.42 (3.96) 0.211 (.072) (NS) 4866.25 (10.69) 49 – 97 27.93 (3.41) 0.284 (.075) (p < .01) 47The p values are for comparisons to the closest younger age group.Table 4: Caucasian females: Dependence of fat fraction on age for three BMI ranges.BMI Range Ave age (SD) Age range Ave BMI Ave Fat Fraction N17 – 22 24.95 (3.41) 18 – 30 20.00 (1.38) 0.219 (.045) 4238.04 (5.87) 30 – 49 20.60 (1.07) 0.241 (.056) (p < .05) 4263.32 (11.18) 49 – 89 20.55 (1.01) 0.298 (.053) (p < .01) 4022 – 25.9 26.14 (4.72) 18 – 33 23.30 (1.03) 0.26 (.049) 4339.12 (4.91) 33 – 51 23.45 (1.05) 0.30 (.055) (p < .01) 4168.12 (10.47) 52 – 88 24.12 (1.15) 0.36 (.059) (p < .01) 3926 – 56 34.94 (6.198) 21 – 45 31.19 (6.12) 0.408 (.074) 3654.0 (4.69) 46 – 61 31.72 (5.89) .428 (.056) (NS) 3570.49 (6.87) 62 – 90 29.36 (2.68) 0.414 (.053) (NS) 35The p values are for comparisons to the closest younger age groupCorrectionSince publication of our first article [1] we have noticedthat the following corrections needed to be made. There isan error in the calculation of the body fat in the originalversion of this article. The tritium distribution space wasnot properly corrected for non-aqueous hydrogenexchange and water density resulting in estimates of per-cent body fat that are about 2% less then the correct per-cent. This produces small errors in the regression relationsfor the prediction of body fat from BMI or body densitydescribed originally in Tables 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9. Thecorrected tables (calculated using TBW = 3H2O × 0.96 ×0.994) are provided.Page 2 of 6(page number not for citation purposes)Nutrition & Metabolism 2009, 6:7 http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/6/1/7Page 3 of 6(page number not for citation purposes)Table 5: Ethnic dependence of BMI versus fat fraction for males.N Age range (ave) BMI range (ave) Ave Fat Fract. (SD)Caucasian 129 20 – 57 (37.4) 22 – 34 (25.42) 0.321 (0.071)Black 95 20 – 52 (37.8) 20 – 34 (26.57) 0.328 (0.074) (NS)Hispanic 37 20 – 60 (36.1) 20 – 34 (25.40) 0.311 (0.09) (NS)Puerto Rican 41 20 – 52 (35.7) 20 – 30 (26.18) 0.348 (0.058) (p < .05)Caucasian 153 23 – 53 (35.41) 17 – 25 (21.72) 0.257 (.061)Asian 35 23 – 53 (36.7) 17 – 28 (21.25) 0.282 (.066) (p = 0.07)The age range of the Caucasians was adjusted to match the age range of the comparison group. The p values are for comparisons between the ethnic group and Caucasians.Table 6: Ethnic dependence of BMI versus fat fraction for females.N Age range (ave) BMI range (ave) Ave Fat Fract. (SD)Caucasian 129 20 – 57 (37.4) 22 – 34 (25.42) 0.321 (0.071)Black 95 20 – 52 (37.8) 20 – 34 (26.57) 0.328 (0.074) (NS)Hispanic 37 20 – 60 (36.1) 20 – 34 (25.40) 0.311 (0.09) (NS)Puerto Rican 41 20 – 52 (35.7) 20 – 30 (26.18) 0.348 (0.058) (p < .05)Caucasian 153 23 – 53 (35.41) 17 – 25 (21.72) 0.257 (.061)Asian 35 23 – 53 (36.7) 17 – 28 (21.25) 0.282 (.066) (p = 0.07)The age range of the Caucasians was adjusted to match the age range of the comparison group. The p values are for comparisons between the ethnic group and Caucasians.Nutrition & Metabolism 2009, 6:7 http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/6/1/7Page 4 of 6(page number not for citation purposes)Table 7: Comparison of linear (eq. (16)) and non-linear (eq. (9)) regression expressions for predicting body fat fraction from BMI and age.Subjects ± Age Linear Non-linear Model Ia b c MSR BMI0 f1 c MSRMale Caucasians No -.166 .0141 ---- 0.00404 17.20 .624 ---- .00409Yes -.218 .0129 .00207 0.00263 19.15 .500 .00194 .00287Male Caucasian +Hispanic+Black No -.145 .0134 ----- .00380 16.71 .594 ---- .00385Yes -.206 .0127 .00182 0.00270 18.73 .496 .00172 .00288Male Asian Yes -.156 .0126 .00169 0.00201 15.72 .438 .00169 .00212Male Puerto Rican Yes -.155 .0119 .00163 0.00189 17.84 .536 .00150 .00188Female Caucasian No 0.0409 .0113 ----- 0.00391 13.50 .739 ----- .00314Yes -.0240 .0104 .00186 0.00281 14.39 .635 .00151 .00244Female Caucasian +Hispanic+Black No 0.0494 .0109 ------ .00351 13.50 .728 ----- .00276Yes -.0160 .0104 .00169 0.00260 14.37 .642 .00132 .00222Female Asian Yes -.0903 .0153 .00122 0.00137 12.38 .573 .00122 .00140Female Puerto Rican Yes 0.0718 .00919 .000947 .00159 12.82 .639 .000737 .00142The regression parameters (either a, b and c; or BMI0, f1 and c) and the mean square residual error (MSR) for the different ethnic groups are listed.Nutrition & Metabolism 2009, 6:7 http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/6/1/7Page 5 of 6(page number not for citation purposes)Table 8: Prediction of fat fraction from BMI for Caucasian + Black + Hispanic subjects.Subjects Linear Model I Model IIa b MSR f1 BMI0 MSR f1 f0 BMI0 MSRMale: 18 – 89 -.145 .0134 .0038 .594 16.71 0.00385 .647 .129 22.00 0.00377Male: 18 – 31 -.201 .0134 .00273 .543 19.39 0.00315 .706 .118 23.78 0.00261Male: 32 – 50 -.133 .0119 .00303 .505 16.54 0.00312 .619 .153 23.54 0.00281Male: 51 – 89 -.126 .0136 .00310 .628 16.28 .00299 .661 .167 21.43 0.00283Female: 18 – 90 +.0494 .0109 .00351 .728 13.50 .00276 .745 .220 19.65 0.00272Female: 18 – 31 -.00685 .0116 .00237 .695 13.99 .00225 .774 .214 21.30 0.00181Female: 32 – 50 +0.0700 .00963 .00306 .723 13.86 .00212 .737 .208 19.71 0.00209Female: 51 – 90 +0.106 .0101 .00225 .681 11.57 .00210 .682 .249 18.28 0.00210Model parameters and mean square residual error (MSR) for Model I, Model II and Linear fit are listed.Table 9: Prediction of fat fraction from body density for Caucasian + Black + Hispanic subjects.Subjects a b f0 f1 d0 d1 MSRls MSRsiri1 MSRsiri2 MSRbroMale: 18 – 89 4.63 4.208 0.129 0.647 1.0678 0.954 .000481 .000693 .000711 0.000553Male: 18 – 31 4.912 4.475 0.118 0.706 1.0695 0.948 .000402 .000536 .000597 0.000532Male: 32 – 50 4.559 4.141 0.153 0.619 1.061 0.958 .000457 .000723 .000614 .000562Male: 51 – 89 4.231 3.821 0.167 0.661 1.0612 0.944 .000516 .000853 .000957 .000568Female: 18 – 90 4.673 4.239 0.220 0.745 1.048 0.9376 .000640 .000813 .00202 .000662Female: 18 – 31 4.779 4.339 0.214 0.774 1.050 .935 .000616 .00066 .00178 .000661Female: 32 – 50 4.785 4.347 0.208 0.737 1.050 .941 .000538 .000653 .00191 .000576Female: 51 – 90 4.606 4.175 0.249 0.682 1.041 .948 .000722 .00102 .00223 .000732The parameters a and b are the optimal least square values (fat fraction = a/density – b), and f0 and f1 are the fat fractions used for the determination of d0 and d1 from the values of a and b. The mean square residual error for the least square fit (MSRls), the Siri Model I (MSRsiri1, eq. (13)) and Model II (MSRsiri2, eq. (14)) and the Brozek model (MSRbro, eq. (10)) are also listed.Nutrition & Metabolism 2009, 6:7 http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/6/1/7Publish with BioMed Central   and  every scientist can read your work free of charge"BioMed Central will be the most significant development for disseminating the results of biomedical research in our lifetime."Sir Paul Nurse, Cancer Research UKYour research papers will be:available free of charge to the entire biomedical communitypeer reviewed and published immediately upon acceptancecited in PubMed and archived on PubMed Central yours — you keep the copyrightSubmit your manuscript here:http://www.biomedcentral.com/info/publishing_adv.aspBioMedcentralReferences1. Levitt DG, Heymsfield SB, Pierson RN Jr, Shapses SA, Kral JG: Phys-iological models of body composition and human obesity.Nutrition & Metabolism 2007, 4:19.Page 6 of 6(page number not for citation purposes)

Kral JG: Physiological models of body composition and human obesity. Nutrition & Metabolism

https://academiccommons.columbia.edu/doi/10.7916/D8S75STR/download

Physiological models of body composition and human obesity

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Springer - Publisher Connector

Springer - Publisher Connector

Columbia University Academic Commons