4O VOTE
December 15, 1964
Robert A. Conard, M.D.
Brookhaven National Laboratory
Upton, Long Island, New York
Dear Bob,
I apologize for the long delay in sending you the data
on the Marshall Iisiand subjects. To avoid further delay I
am enclosing rough drafts of a table and chart that summarize these data.
Total body water was determined with tritiated water
(HTO) given by mouth and assayed in urine samples collected
at intervals starting four hours after administration. Urine
samples were lyophilised and tritium in the water portion
counted in a Nuclear-Chicago liquid scintillation counter.
Quenching was corrected by useof an internal standard and
confirmed by the channel-ratio’: method.
Pat was estimated by the formula, £fat = 100 - (STBW/0.72),
in which # TBW is total body water (in kg) as percent of
gross weight. Lean body mass (LBM) was taken as the differ-
ence between gross weight and fat
(kg).
There is nothing unusual in these subjects relative to
total body water, fat, or lean bedy mass.
There is no “nor-
mal” range for these quantities, but taking the subjects as
@ group, their average values are not very different from
averages for Caucasian subjects from this area (San Francis-
co Bay region).
The red cell volumes, however, are decidedly smaller
than what we and other investigators would consider normal.
The aver
ml RCV per kg LBM for the Marshallese subjects
is only
20.3.
I would expect a value of about 35 al/cg
based on our studies.
In the enciosed chart, I have plotted bioed volume
(liters) and red cell volume (liters) against total body water (liters). You will note that all but one of the Marshallese subjects ilies well below the regression lines that both
*
-
90608264
Francis Moore and I have found for healthy Caucasian subjects.
My data have not yet been published. Moores data will be
found in The
W.B.
Sa
ers
06.,
Cell
Mass and Ite Su
ep,
s
‘
Environment
.
r
x