Dynamic Medicine Volume 7
|
Viewing options:Associated material:Related literature:- Articles citing this article
- Other articles by authors
- Related articles/pages
Tools:Post to:
|
 ResearchPercent body fat estimations in college men using field and laboratory methods: A three-compartment model approachJordan 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 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. |