Related Experiment Videos
Comparison of body composition methods: a literature analysis
M Fogelholm1, W van Marken Lichtenbelt
1UKK Institute, POB 30, FIN-33501, Tampere, Finland.
European Journal of Clinical Nutrition
|August 1, 1997
Summary
This meta-analysis compared body fat percentage (BF%) assessment methods against underwater weighing (UWW). Some methods systematically overestimate or underestimate BF%, highlighting the importance of method selection for accurate body composition analysis.
Area of Science:
- Exercise Physiology
- Body Composition Analysis
- Biomedical Engineering
Background:
- Accurate body fat percentage (BF%) assessment is crucial for health and performance.
- Underwater weighing (UWW) is a criterion method for BF% but is not always accessible.
- Various methods exist to estimate BF%, necessitating comparison for accuracy.
Purpose of the Study:
- To systematically compare the accuracy of different BF% assessment methods against UWW.
- To identify methods with systematic bias (overestimation or underestimation) in BF% measurement.
- To evaluate the comparability of diverse body composition techniques.
Main Methods:
- Meta-analysis of 54 studies published between 1985-1996.
- Inclusion of healthy, adult Caucasian participants.
- Comparison of UWW with methods including 3- or 4-component models, DXA, BIA, skinfolds, and NIR.
Main Results:
- The 4-component model showed a slight overestimation (+0.6 BF%).
- Several methods, including some BIA and DXA devices, demonstrated significant overestimation or underestimation.
- The Durnin & Womersley skinfold equation showed minimal bias (0.0 BF%) compared to UWW.
Conclusions:
- The accuracy of BF% methods varies, with some exhibiting systematic biases relative to UWW.
- Method-specific differences in BF% assessment are influenced by the specific technique and mathematical model used.
- Careful consideration of the chosen BF% assessment method is necessary for reliable body composition analysis.