BODY-COMPOSITION BY AIR-DISPLACEMENT PLETHYSMOGRAPHY BY USING PREDICTED AND MEASURED THORACIC GAS VOLUMES

Citation
Ma. Mccrory et al., BODY-COMPOSITION BY AIR-DISPLACEMENT PLETHYSMOGRAPHY BY USING PREDICTED AND MEASURED THORACIC GAS VOLUMES, Journal of applied physiology, 84(4), 1998, pp. 1475-1479
Citations number
22
Categorie Soggetti
Physiology,"Sport Sciences
ISSN journal
87507587
Volume
84
Issue
4
Year of publication
1998
Pages
1475 - 1479
Database
ISI
SICI code
8750-7587(1998)84:4<1475:BBAPBU>2.0.ZU;2-V
Abstract
The BOD POD, a new air-displacement plethysmograph for measuring human body composition, utilizes the inverse relationship between pressure and volume (Boyle's law) to measure body volume directly. The quantity of air in the lungs during tidal breathing, the average thoracic gas volume (Vtg), is also measured by the BOD POD by using a standard plet hysmographic technique. Alternatively, the BOD POD provides the use of a predicted Vtg (Vtg(pred)). The validity of using Vtg(pred) in place of measured Vtg (Vtg(meas)) to determine the percentage of body fat ( %BF) was evaluated in 50 subjects (36 women, 14 men; ages 18-56 yr). T here was no significant difference between Vtg(meas) and Vtg(pred) (me an difference +/- SE, 53.5 +/- 63.3 mi) nor in %BF by using Vtg(meas) vs. Vtg(pred) (0.2 +/- 0.2 %BF). On an individual basis, %BF measured by using Vtg(meas) vs. Vtg(pred) differed within +/-2.0% BF for 82% of the subjects; maximum differences were -2.9 to +3.0% BF. For comparis on, data from 24 subjects who had undergone hydrostatic weighing were evaluated for the validity of using predicted vs. measured residual lu ng volume (VRpred VS VRmeas, respectively). Differences between VRmeas and VRpred and in %BF calculated by using VRmeas vs. VRpred were sign ificant (187 +/- 46 mi and 1.4 +/- 0.3% BF, respectively; P < 0.001). On an individual basis, %BF determined by using VRmeas vs. VRpred diff ered within +/-2.0% BF for 46% of the subjects; maximum differences we re -2.9 to +3.8% BF. With respect to %BF measured by air displacement, our findings support the use of Vtg(pred) for group mean comparisons and for purposes such as screening in young to middle-aged individuals . This contrasts with the use of VRpred in hydrostatic weighing, which leads to significant errors in the estimation of %BF. Furthermore, al though the use of Vtg(pred) has some application, determining Vtg(meas ) is relatively simple in most cases. Therefore, we recommend that the use of Vtg(meas) remain as standard experimental and clinical practic e.