Percent body fat estimations in college women using field and laboratory methods: a three-compartment model approach.

Jordan R Moon,Abbie T Smith,Sarah E Tobkin,Murat Karabulut,Jeffrey R Stout,Michael D Roberts,Ashley A Walter,Vincent J Dalbo,Joel T Cramer,Masaru Teramoto,Eric D Ryan,Holly R Hull,So Jung Kim

doi:10.1186/1550-2783-4-16

Abstract

BackgroundMethods 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. This investigation sought to determine the validity of field and laboratory methods for estimating percent fat (%fat) in healthy college-age women compared to the Siri three-compartment model (3C).MethodsThirty Caucasian women (21.1 ± 1.5 yrs; 164.8 ± 4.7 cm; 61.2 ± 6.8 kg) had their %fat estimated by BIA using the BodyGram™ computer program (BIA-AK) and population-specific equation (BIA-Lohman), NIR (Futrex® 6100/XL), a quadratic (SF3JPW) and linear (SF3WB) skinfold equation, air-displacement plethysmography (BP), and hydrostatic weighing (HW).ResultsAll methods produced acceptable total error (TE) values compared to the 3C model. Both laboratory methods produced similar TE values (HW, TE = 2.4%fat; BP, TE = 2.3%fat) when compared to the 3C model, though a significant constant error (CE) was detected for HW (1.5%fat, p ≤ 0.006). The field methods produced acceptable TE values ranging from 1.8 – 3.8 %fat. BIA-AK (TE = 1.8%fat) yielded the lowest TE among the field methods, while BIA-Lohman (TE = 2.1%fat) and NIR (TE = 2.7%fat) produced lower TE values than both skinfold equations (TE > 2.7%fat) compared to the 3C model. Additionally, the SF3JPW %fat estimation equation resulted in a significant CE (2.6%fat, p ≤ 0.007).ConclusionData suggest that the BP and HW are valid laboratory methods when compared to the 3C model to estimate %fat in college-age Caucasian women. When the use of a laboratory method is not feasible, NIR, BIA-AK, BIA-Lohman, SF3JPW, and SF3WB are acceptable field methods to estimate %fat in this population.

Highlights

Methods used to estimate percent body fat can be classified as a laboratory or field technique
The results of the current study suggest that the BOD POD® (BP) and hydrostatic weighing (HW) are valid laboratory methods when compared to the 3C model to estimate %fat in this population
Caution should be used when relying on SF equations as a method to identify %fat in small groups or individuals. Both two-compartment laboratory methods (BP, HW) produced acceptable total error (TE) values when compared to the 3C model of Siri [5]

Summary

Introduction

Methods used to estimate percent body fat can be classified as a laboratory or field technique. The validity of these methods compared to multiple-compartment models has not been fully established This investigation sought to determine the validity of field and laboratory methods for estimating percent fat (%fat) in healthy college-age women compared to the Siri threecompartment model (3C). Sports nutrition experts can utilize body composition values to develop specific dietary interventions. Validated laboratory methods, such as hydrostatic weighing (HW), and multiple compartment models, such as the three-compartment (3C) model, are impractical to use in large population studies. Research is not in total agreement when comparing HW to the multiple-compartment model in adult women [4,8] Both multiplecompartment models and HW entail greater facility requirements and are more costly compared to more convenient field methods, such as skinfolds, near-infrared interactance (NIR), and bioelectrical impedance (BIA). The validity of the BP compared to the 3C model has not been investigated

Objectives

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion