Which method to use for a fast assessment of body fat percentage?

Body position affects body water distribution and in turn the accuracy of bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA), which may consequently distort conclusions about an individual's body composition.We compared body fat percentage (BFP) obtained with leg-to-leg-BIA (LL) and hand-to-leg-BIA (HL) with the reference values.The BFPs of 97 individuals were determined with an LL- (Tanita TBF 215GS, Japan) and HL- (Akern, STA/BIA, Italy) BIA-analyser and with reference skinfold thickness (SF) measurements. Each subject was measured upright with the LL-analyser, and upright and supine with the HL-analyser, both before and after 20 min of supine rest. The one-way ANOVA for repeated measures (HL-BIA), Student's t-test (LL-BIA), intraclass correlation coefficients, and Bland-Altman's plots were used for statistical analysis.BFPs determined with HL/LL BIA in upright/supine positions differ significantly. Compared to the SF method, HL-BIA mostly overestimates, while LL-BIA mostly underestimates BFP. Agreement between anthropometrically determined BFP and HL/LL-BIA determined BFP is better with HL for both sexes, and generally better in females than males.HL-BIA-determined estimates of BFP are more similar to reference values than LL-BIA. However, for both BIA methods, BIA-determined estimates of BFP are significantly affected by body position. Consequently, different BIA methods will classify approximately one fifth of subjects into the erroneous body-fat-content category, which calls for urgent standardization.