Percent body fat estimations in college men using field and laboratory methods: a three-compartment model approach.

Jordan R Moon, Sarah E Tobkin, Abbie E Smith, Michael D Roberts, Eric D Ryan, Vincent J Dalbo, Chris M Lockwood, Ashley A Walter, Joel T Cramer, Travis W Beck, Jeffrey R Stout
{"title":"Percent body fat estimations in college men using field and laboratory methods: a three-compartment model approach.","authors":"Jordan R Moon, Sarah E Tobkin, Abbie E Smith, Michael D Roberts, Eric D Ryan, Vincent J Dalbo, Chris M Lockwood, Ashley A Walter, Joel T Cramer, Travis W Beck, Jeffrey R Stout","doi":"10.1186/1476-5918-7-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Methods used to estimate percent body fat can be classified as a laboratory or field technique. However, the validity of these methods compared to multiple-compartment models has not been fully established. The purpose of this study was to determine the validity of field and laboratory methods for estimating percent fat (%fat) in healthy college-age men compared to the Siri three-compartment model (3C).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Thirty-one Caucasian men (22.5 +/- 2.7 yrs; 175.6 +/- 6.3 cm; 76.4 +/- 10.3 kg) had their %fat estimated by bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) using the BodyGram computer program (BIA-AK) and population-specific equation (BIA-Lohman), near-infrared interactance (NIR) (Futrex(R) 6100/XL), four circumference-based military equations [Marine Corps (MC), Navy and Air Force (NAF), Army (A), and Friedl], air-displacement plethysmography (BP), and hydrostatic weighing (HW).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>All circumference-based military equations (MC = 4.7% fat, NAF = 5.2% fat, A = 4.7% fat, Friedl = 4.7% fat) along with NIR (NIR = 5.1% fat) produced an unacceptable total error (TE). Both laboratory methods produced acceptable TE values (HW = 2.5% fat; BP = 2.7% fat). The BIA-AK, and BIA-Lohman field methods produced acceptable TE values (2.1% fat). A significant difference was observed for the MC and NAF equations compared to both the 3C model and HW (p < 0.006).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Results indicate that the BP and HW are valid laboratory methods when compared to the 3C model to estimate %fat in college-age Caucasian men. When the use of a laboratory method is not feasible, BIA-AK, and BIA-Lohman are acceptable field methods to estimate %fat in this population.</p>","PeriodicalId":84611,"journal":{"name":"Dynamic medicine : DM","volume":"7 ","pages":"7"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2008-04-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2365941/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Dynamic medicine : DM","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/1476-5918-7-7","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Methods used to estimate percent body fat can be classified as a laboratory or field technique. However, the validity of these methods compared to multiple-compartment models has not been fully established. The purpose of this study was to determine the validity of field and laboratory methods for estimating percent fat (%fat) in healthy college-age men compared to the Siri three-compartment model (3C).

Methods: Thirty-one Caucasian men (22.5 +/- 2.7 yrs; 175.6 +/- 6.3 cm; 76.4 +/- 10.3 kg) had their %fat estimated by bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) using the BodyGram computer program (BIA-AK) and population-specific equation (BIA-Lohman), near-infrared interactance (NIR) (Futrex(R) 6100/XL), four circumference-based military equations [Marine Corps (MC), Navy and Air Force (NAF), Army (A), and Friedl], air-displacement plethysmography (BP), and hydrostatic weighing (HW).

Results: All circumference-based military equations (MC = 4.7% fat, NAF = 5.2% fat, A = 4.7% fat, Friedl = 4.7% fat) along with NIR (NIR = 5.1% fat) produced an unacceptable total error (TE). Both laboratory methods produced acceptable TE values (HW = 2.5% fat; BP = 2.7% fat). The BIA-AK, and BIA-Lohman field methods produced acceptable TE values (2.1% fat). A significant difference was observed for the MC and NAF equations compared to both the 3C model and HW (p < 0.006).

Conclusion: Results indicate that the BP and HW are valid laboratory methods when compared to the 3C model to estimate %fat in college-age Caucasian men. When the use of a laboratory method is not feasible, BIA-AK, and BIA-Lohman are acceptable field methods to estimate %fat in this population.

使用野外和实验室方法估算大学生的体脂百分比:一种三室模型方法。
背景:用于估算体脂百分比的方法可分为实验室技术和现场技术。然而,与多室模型相比,这些方法的有效性尚未完全确定。本研究的目的是确定野外和实验室估算健康大学生男性脂肪百分比(%fat)的方法与 Siri 三室模型(3C)相比的有效性:方法:31 名高加索男性(22.5 +/- 2.7 岁;175.6 +/- 6.3 厘米;76.4 +/- 10.31名高加索男性(22.5 +/- 2.7 岁;175.6 +/- 6.3 厘米;76.4 +/- 10.3 千克)通过使用BodyGram计算机程序(BIA-AK)和特定人群方程(BIA-Lohman)的生物电阻抗分析(BIA)、近红外相互作用(NIR)(Futrex(R) 6100/XL)、四种基于周长的军用方程[海军陆战队(MC)、海军和空军(NAF)、陆军(A)和Friedl]、空气位移血气分析(BP)和静水压称重(HW)估算了他们的脂肪百分比:所有基于周长的军用公式(MC = 4.7% 脂肪、NAF = 5.2% 脂肪、A = 4.7% 脂肪、Friedl = 4.7% 脂肪)和近红外(NIR = 5.1% 脂肪)都产生了不可接受的总误差(TE)。两种实验室方法都产生了可接受的 TE 值(HW = 2.5% 脂肪;BP = 2.7% 脂肪)。BIA-AK 和 BIA-Lohman 现场方法产生了可接受的 TE 值(2.1% 脂肪)。与 3C 模型和 HW 相比,MC 和 NAF 方程存在明显差异(p < 0.006):结果表明,与 3C 模型相比,BP 和 HW 是估算大学高加索男性脂肪率的有效实验室方法。在无法使用实验室方法的情况下,BIA-AK 和 BIA-Lohman 是可接受的实地方法,可用于估算该人群的脂肪率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书