Validity of methods of body composition assessment in young and older men and women

Citation
Jl. Clasey et al., Validity of methods of body composition assessment in young and older men and women, J APP PHYSL, 86(5), 1999, pp. 1728-1738
Citations number
43
Categorie Soggetti
Physiology
Journal title
JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHYSIOLOGY
ISSN journal
87507587 → ACNP
Volume
86
Issue
5
Year of publication
1999
Pages
1728 - 1738
Database
ISI
SICI code
8750-7587(199905)86:5<1728:VOMOBC>2.0.ZU;2-B
Abstract
We examined the validity of percent body fat (%Fat) estimation by two-compa rtment (2-Comp) hydrostatic weighing (Siri 2-Comp), S-Comp dual-energy X-ra y absorptiometry (DEXA S-Comp), 3-Comp hydrostatic weighing corrected for t he total body water (Siri 3-Comp), and anthropometric methods in young and older individuals (n = 78). A 4-Comp model of body composition served as th e criterion measure of %Fat (Heymsfield 4-Comp; S. B. Heymsfield, S. Lichtm an, R. N. Baumgartner, J. Wang, Y. Kamen, A. Aliprantis, and R. N. Pierson Jr., Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 52: 52-58, 1990.). Comparison of the Siri S-Comp wi th the Heymsfield 4-Comp model revealed mean differences of less than or eq ual to 0.4 %Fat, r values greater than or equal to r = 0.997, total error v alues less than or equal to 0.85 %Fat, and 95% confidence intervals (Bland- Altman analysis) of less than or equal to 1.7 %Fat. Comparison of Siri 2-Co mp, DEXA, and anthropometric models with the Heymsfield 4-Comp revealed tha t total error scores ranged from +/-4.0 to +/-10.7 %Fat, and 95% confidence intervals associated with the Bland-Altman analysis ranged from +/-5.1 to +/-15.0 %Fat. We conclude that the Siri S-Comp model provides valid and acc urate body composition data when compared with a 4-Comp criterion model. Ho wever, the individual variability associated with the Siri 2-Comp, DEXA 3-C omp, and anthropometric models may limit their use in research settings. Th e use of anthropometric estimation methods resulted in large mean differenc es and a considerable amount of interindividual variability. These data sug gest that the use of these techniques should be viewed with caution.