# Table 5 The influence of body composition on physical performance among patients with COPD

Measure of body composition Standing balance score Walking speed score Chair stand score Summary performance score
MEN (n = 143)
Lean/fat ratio 0.007 (-0.034 to 0.049) 0.020 (-0.021 to 0.060) 0.038 (-0.05 to 0.13) 0.65 (-0.070 to 0.20)
SAD -0.015 (-0.035 to 0.006) -0.019 (-0.039 to 0.0015)* -0.033 (-0.076 to 0.011) -0.067 (-0.13 to 0.00)
BMI
Normal weight Referent Referent Referent Referent
Overweight 0.060 (-0.22 to 0.34) -0.081 (-0.36 to 0.20) 0.45 (-0.14 to 1.04) 0.43 (-0.48 to 1.35)
Obese -0.13 (-0.38 to 0.11) -0.14 (-0.38 to 0.11) -0.008 (-0.053 to 0.51) -0.28 (-1.08 to 0.52)
WOMEN (n = 212)
Lean/fat ratio 0.070 (-0.023 to 0.16) 0.10 (-0.007 to 0.43)* 0.35 (0.17 to 1.05) 0.52 (0.24 to 0.80)
SAD -0.011(-0.028 to 0.006) -0.033 (-0.052 to -0.14) -0.053 (-0.085 to -0.021) -0.097 (-0.015 to -0.047)
BMI
Normal weight Referent Referent Referent Referent
Overweight -0.003 (-0.25 to 0.24) -0.016 (-0.30 to 0.27) -0.082 (-0.55 to 0.39) -0.10 (-0.84 to 0.64)
Obese -0.029 (-0.23 to 0.17) -0.38 (-0.61 to -0.15) -0.60 (-0.98 to -0.22) -1.00 (-1.61 to -0.40)
1. All results are mean score (95% CI) from multivariate linear regression controlling for age, height, FEV1/FVC, race, education, and smoking history.
2. Results are from separate multivariate linear regression of each score regressed on body composition measures plus covariates.
3. Boldface when p < 0.05 *p = 0.07
4. Each Short Physical Performance subscale score ranges from 0–4, with higher scores reflecting more favorable performance. Summary performance score is sum of each subscale score and ranges from 0–12.
5. Lean/fat ratio = derived from bioelectrical impedance. Results are expressed per 0.50 increment in the ratio.
6. SAD = sagittal abdominal diameter, an estimate of visceral fat. Results are expressed per 1 cm increment.
7. BMI = body mass index, an estimate of adiposity; normal weight (18.5 to 24.9 kg/m2) overweight = 25.0 to 29.9 kg/m2, obese = 30.0 kg/m2 or greater; only 9/355 (2.5%) of subjects were in underweight category (< 18.5 kg/m2) so these were included in the normal weight group 