Abstract

Cross-sectional. To compare relative body fatness (%Fat) estimates from field methods (skinfold thickness measurement (SKF) and bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA)) with measures by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA). University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, IL, USA. Field methods used both three- and seven-site SKF prediction equations and BIA generalized, spinal cord injury (SCI)-specific and athlete-specific equations. DXA was used as the reference method. College-aged varsity athletes with SCI (women=8, men=8; time since injury 16.2+/-5.7 years; injury level range T5-L5) were recruited. Mean BMI was 20.8+/-2.6 and 22.5+/-2.1 kg m(-2), and mean DXA %Fat was 31.9+/-3.8 and 20.6+/-8.4%, for women and men, respectively. All field methods under-predicted the %Fat when compared with DXA (ranges in mean differences: SKF women 2.9-8.2%, SKF men 6.9-12.4%; BIA women 0.5-3.9%, BIA men 0.3-7.0%). None of the field methods accurately predicted the %Fat compared with DXA (total error (TE): SKF women 7.4-12.1%, SKF men 8.4-15.2%; BIA women 5.1-9.3%, BIA men 6.7-10.7%). Of the SKF and BIA prediction equations, Evans et al.'s three-site SKF (r=0.95, P<0.001, standard error of the estimate (SEE)=2.8 %Fat) prediction equation provided the best fit for this population. Further studies with larger samples are necessary to develop appropriate prediction equations for field methods in the athletic SCI population.

Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.