Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine the accuracy and reliability of whole-body volume, body density, and percent body fat calculated from body volume without the head (V NH), as assessed by hydrostatic weighing without head submersion and predicted head volume (pV H) based on head parameters, as compared with standard hydrostatic weighing. Participants comprised 29 males and 27 females aged 17–26 years. Head volume was predicted from anthropometric head parameters using a prediction equation. Underwater weights with/without head submersion were measured five times. The reliability of underwater weighing without head submersion was very good (intraclass correlation coefficient: males=0.998, females=0.998) as was that for traditional head submersion. The relationship between the sum of V NH and pV H and the whole-body volume measured by hydrostatic weighing was very high (males=0.998, females=0.999), and their values were very similar with an error range of 300–400 ml. Although percent body fat assessed from the sum of V NH and pV H showed a slight scatter of 2–3% from the identity line of percent body fat assessed by hydrostatic weighing, the relationships for both sexes were very strong (males=0.918, females=0.957). The errors (2 standard deviations) as determined by Bland-Altman plots between the two methods were −3.2 to 2.6% in males and −2.3 to 2.8% in females. There was no significant bias in percent body fat estimated by the two methods (hydrostatic weighing with/without head submersion), and the sum of V NH and pV H could validly estimate body composition, regardless of physical size. It is suggested that hydrostatic weighing without head submersion is a valid and convenient alternative technique.
Published Version
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