Comparison of DEXA, Hydrostatic and Anthropometrical Body Composition Methods in College-age Men and Women

Abstract

Accurate and repeatable body composition measurements can aid individuals in tracking and modifying diet and exercise programs for health and performance and further scientific understanding of body composition related health risks. PURPOSE: To compare three methods for estimating body composition in men and women: dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA), hydrodensitometry, and anthropometry. METHODS: Individuals' body composition was measured via all three methods twice on the same day and then compared to determine relative accuracy and precision of each method. DEXA measurements of the total body were made by using a Prodigy Advance fan-beam densitometer. For the hydrodensitometry measurement, the Siri equation was used to compute body fat percentage. Using circumference of the neck, waist, (men and women)? and hip (women only), body fat was estimated using anthropometrical regression equations. Subjects were 35 male and 35 female cadets with an average age of 20 years. RESULTS: Body fat percentages for women were significantly lower (p < 0.05) using the hyrodensitometry (20.8 ± 5.75%) method vs. the DEXA (25.0 ± 6.56%) and the anthropometrical (24.7 ± 4.69%) methods. However, there were no significant difference between body composition method estimates in males: DEXA (13.9 ± 5.87%), hydrodensitometry (13.6 ± 5.28%), and anthropometrical (13.3 ± 4.56%). Test-retest reliability was evaluated using a Pearson R correlation. The DEXA (R = 0.998) method was slightly more repeatable than the hydrodensitometry method (R = 0.980). Only one series of measurements was conducted for the anthropometrical method, so test-retest reliability was not calculated. CONCLUSIONS: DEXA, hydrostatic, and anthropometric body fat estimation methods were similar for college-age men, while the hydrodensitometry method resulted in a significantly lower body fat estimate for women compared to DEXA and anthropometric methods. Further research is necessary to investigate this gender-related disparity. Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not reflect the official policy or position of the United States Air Force, the Department of Defense, or the US Government.