Comparison Of Body Fat Percentage In Elite Male Basketball Players Using Multiple Assessment Tools

Abstract

Body composition, particularly percent body fat (%BF), has an important role in athletic performance. Many tools are available to measure body composition, but these tools produce widely disparate %BF values. These large discrepancies trigger frustration and mistrust in athletes, particularly elite male basketball players, regarding which %BF value is most accurate. PURPOSE: To evaluate potential disparities in %BF measures between dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scans versus air displacement plethysmography (ADP); bioelectrical impedance analyses (BIA); and skinfold measurements (SKF), amongst athletes, specifically elite male basketball athletes. METHODS: For DXA vs. ADP, 103 NCAA D1 collegiate athletes, including 16 male basketball players, participated in a DXA scan (Hologic Horizon A) and ADP (COSMED Bod Pod) within 30 minutes of each other. For DXA vs. BIA, 7 athletes, including 4 elite male basketball players were assessed using a BIA device (InBody 770) followed by a DXA scan, within 30 minutes. For DXA vs. SKF, 13 elite male basketball players participated in a DXA scan and completed a SKF measurement (ISAK) +/- 5 days of each other. Differences between %BF were calculated using paired-sample t-tests, and relationships analyzed using Pearson’s r. RESULTS: For DXA vs. ADP, in the total cohort (N = 103), BF% was higher in the DXA (22.0 ± 5.4 vs.17.7 ± 7.6%; p < 0.0001) with a significant correlation (r = 0.93; p < 0.001). For the subgroup of male basketball players (n = 16), BF% was higher in the DXA (16.1 ± 2.9 vs.7.9 ± 5.2%; p < 0.001) with a significant correlation (r = 0.90; p < 0.001). For DXA vs. BIA, in the total cohort (N = 7), BF% was higher in the DXA (18.7 ± 6.7 vs. 14.0 ± 9.4; p = 0.31) with a significant correlation (r = .99; p < 0.001). For the subgroup of elite male basketball players only (n = 4), BF% was higher in the DXA (14.8 ± 1.8 vs. 8.4 ± 3.5%; p = 0.02) with a non-significant correlation (r = .90; p = 0.1). For DXA vs. SKF, in the elite male basketball cohort (N = 13), BF% was higher in the DXA (19.5 ± 1.8 vs. 7.5 ± 2.1%; p < 0.001) with a significant correlation (r = 0.88; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: This study confirms large (6-12%) differences in %BF using different measurement tools, in elite male basketball players. Thus, when reporting %BF, it is important to compare measurements using the same device to maximize accuracy.