Percent body fat estimations in college men using field and laboratory methods: A three-compartment model approach

Jordan R Moon¹ , Sarah E Tobkin¹ , Abbie E Smith¹ , Michael D Roberts³ , Eric D Ryan² , Vincent J Dalbo³ , Chris M Lockwood¹ , Ashley A Walter² , Joel T Cramer² , Travis W Beck² and Jeffrey R Stout¹

¹Department of Health and Exercise Science, Metabolic and body composition laboratories, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA

²Department of Health and Exercise Science, Biophysics laboratory, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA

³Department of Health and Exercise Science, Applied biochemistry and molecular physiology laboratory, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA

author email corresponding author email

Dynamic Medicine 2008, 7:7doi:10.1186/1476-5918-7-7


Published:	21 April 2008

Abstract

Background

Methods used to estimate percent body fat can be classified as a laboratory or field technique. However, the validity of these methods compared to multiple-compartment models has not been fully established. The purpose of this study was to determine the validity of field and laboratory methods for estimating percent fat (%fat) in healthy college-age men compared to the Siri three-compartment model (3C).

Methods

Thirty-one Caucasian men (22.5 ± 2.7 yrs; 175.6 ± 6.3 cm; 76.4 ± 10.3 kg) had their %fat estimated by bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) using the BodyGram™ computer program (BIA-AK) and population-specific equation (BIA-Lohman), near-infrared interactance (NIR) (Futrex^®6100/XL), four circumference-based military equations [Marine Corps (MC), Navy and Air Force (NAF), Army (A), and Friedl], air-displacement plethysmography (BP), and hydrostatic weighing (HW).

Results

All circumference-based military equations (MC = 4.7% fat, NAF = 5.2% fat, A = 4.7% fat, Friedl = 4.7% fat) along with NIR (NIR = 5.1% fat) produced an unacceptable total error (TE). Both laboratory methods produced acceptable TE values (HW = 2.5% fat; BP = 2.7% fat). The BIA-AK, and BIA-Lohman field methods produced acceptable TE values (2.1% fat). A significant difference was observed for the MC and NAF equations compared to both the 3C model and HW (p < 0.006).

Conclusion

Results indicate that the BP and HW are valid laboratory methods when compared to the 3C model to estimate %fat in college-age Caucasian men. When the use of a laboratory method is not feasible, BIA-AK, and BIA-Lohman are acceptable field methods to estimate %fat in this population.