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.