Direct Comparison of (Anthropometric) Methods for the Assessment of Body Composition

Abstract

Objective: Several methods for the assessment of body composition exist, yet they yield different results. The present study aimed to assess the extent of these differences on a sample of young, healthy subjects. We hypothesised that differences in body composition results obtained with different methods will vary to the extent that a subject can be misclassified into different nutritional categories. Research Methods and Procedures: Underwater weighing (UWW), bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA), anthropometry (ANT), and dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) were used to assess body composition. An extensive list of ANT regression equations (or sets of equations) was analysed in terms of accuracy and precision relative to DXA. Results: When DXA-determined body fat (BF) values were taken as a reference, UWW overestimated BF in both genders. In contrast, BIA (measured with a given bioimpedance analyser) underestimated BF in females, although BIA-determined BF did not differ from DXA in males. A huge difference in BF estimates (8-29% for females and 6-29% for males, for DXA-determined BF of 25.5% and 13.9% for females in males, respectively) was observed across a number of ANT regression equations; yet, ANT proved not to be inferior to DXA, provided that regression equations with the highest combinations of accuracy and precision were chosen. Conclusions: The study proved grounds for comparison of body composition results of young, healthy subjects, obtained with different methods and across a wide range of ANT regression equations. It also revealed a list of the most appropriate ANT regression equations for the selected sample and reported their accuracy and precision.

High-Protein Energy-Restriction: Effects on Body Composition, Contractile Properties, Mood, and Sleep in Active Young College Students

“…If the values deviated by more than 3 units digit, a third measurement was conducted and the mean values were calculated. In the context of tracking body composition changes, MFBIA is considered as a reliable tool (Moon, 2013 ; Bosquet et al, 2017 ) during hypercaloric (Schoenfeld et al, 2020b ) and hypocaloric conditions (Antonio et al, 2019a ) in an athletic population, producing similar values as Dual Energy X-ray Absorptiometry (DXA) in males (Golja et al, 2020 ). Moreover, MFBIA appears to be valid in detecting total body water changes (Utter et al, 2012 ).…”

Body Fat of Basketball Players: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

“…Given these differences, it is recommended to compare BF values only to reference values derived with the same measurement method (see Table 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 ). Additionally, results can also be affected by measurement preparation as well as the type of measurement equipment and the computational procedures used for the estimation of BF content [ 17 , 102 ]. As an example, Golja et al [ 102 ] observed that BF estimates of young, healthy subjects ranged from 6 to 29% across several skinfold regression equations.…”

“…Additionally, results can also be affected by measurement preparation as well as the type of measurement equipment and the computational procedures used for the estimation of BF content [ 17 , 102 ]. As an example, Golja et al [ 102 ] observed that BF estimates of young, healthy subjects ranged from 6 to 29% across several skinfold regression equations. Similarly, large variability between measurement devices and equations have been found for BIA and DXA derived values of body composition [ 17 , 103 ].…”

Body fat of competitive volleyball players: a systematic review with meta-analysis

“…This was especially true for most applied BIA and skinfold measurements. This is important since evidence suggests that BF estimates derived by BIA and skinfolds are greatly influenced by the device and computational procedures used [ 82–85 ]. In a large study of 2458 active adult participants, for example, Vaquero-Christobal et al [ 85 ] found significant differences between BF values calculated using from the same skinfold measurements but using various equations, with results ranging from 10.7 ± 2.5 to 28.4 ± 6.0%.…”