D R Wagner1, V H Heyward, A L Gibson. 1. Exercise and Sports Science Department, Vanguard University of Southern California, Costa Mesa, 92626 USA. DWagner@vanguard.edu
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to verify the validity of an air displacement plethysmography device (Bod Pod) for estimating body density (Db). METHODS: The Db from the Bod Pod (DbBP) was compared with the Db from hydrostatic weighing (DbHW) at residual lung volume in a heterogeneous sample of 30 black men who varied in age (32.0 +/- 7.7 yr), height (180.3 +/- 7.5 cm), body mass (84.2 +/- 15.0 kg), body fatness (16.1 +/- 7.5%), and self-reported physical activity level and socioeconomic status. The Db for each method was converted to relative body fat (%BF) using race-specific conversion formulas and subsequently compared with %BF obtained from dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (%BFDXA). RESULTS: Linear regression, using DbHW as the dependent variable and DbBP as the predictor, produced an R2 = 0.84 and SEE = 0.00721 g x cc(-1). However, the mean difference between the two methods (0.00450 +/- 0.00718 g x cc(-1) was significant (P < 0.01). The Bod Pod underestimated the Db of 73% of the sample. The %BF estimates from the Bod Pod, HW, and DXA differed significantly (P < 0.01). The average %BFBP (17.7 +/- 7.4%) was significantly greater than %BFHW (15.8 +/- 7.5%) and %BFDXA (16.1 +/- 7.5%); however, there was no significant difference between %BFHW and %BFDXA. CONCLUSION: The Bod Pod significantly and systematically underestimated Db, resulting in an overestimation of %BF. More cross-validation research is needed before recommending the Bod Pod as a reference method.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to verify the validity of an air displacement plethysmography device (Bod Pod) for estimating body density (Db). METHODS: The Db from the Bod Pod (DbBP) was compared with the Db from hydrostatic weighing (DbHW) at residual lung volume in a heterogeneous sample of 30 black men who varied in age (32.0 +/- 7.7 yr), height (180.3 +/- 7.5 cm), body mass (84.2 +/- 15.0 kg), body fatness (16.1 +/- 7.5%), and self-reported physical activity level and socioeconomic status. The Db for each method was converted to relative body fat (%BF) using race-specific conversion formulas and subsequently compared with %BF obtained from dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (%BFDXA). RESULTS: Linear regression, using DbHW as the dependent variable and DbBP as the predictor, produced an R2 = 0.84 and SEE = 0.00721 g x cc(-1). However, the mean difference between the two methods (0.00450 +/- 0.00718 g x cc(-1) was significant (P < 0.01). The Bod Pod underestimated the Db of 73% of the sample. The %BF estimates from the Bod Pod, HW, and DXA differed significantly (P < 0.01). The average %BFBP (17.7 +/- 7.4%) was significantly greater than %BFHW (15.8 +/- 7.5%) and %BFDXA (16.1 +/- 7.5%); however, there was no significant difference between %BFHW and %BFDXA. CONCLUSION: The Bod Pod significantly and systematically underestimated Db, resulting in an overestimation of %BF. More cross-validation research is needed before recommending the Bod Pod as a reference method.
Authors: Paulina Cruz; Bruce D Johnson; Susan C Karpinski; Katherine A Limoges; Beth A Warren; Kerry D Olsen; Virend K Somers; Michael D Jensen; Matthew M Clark; Francisco Lopez-Jimenez Journal: Obesity (Silver Spring) Date: 2011-05-12 Impact factor: 5.002
Authors: Lee W Jones; Marina Mourtzakis; Katherine B Peters; Allan H Friedman; Miranda J West; Stephanie K Mabe; William E Kraus; Henry S Friedman; David A Reardon Journal: Oncologist Date: 2010-05-18
Authors: Kazanna C Hames; Steven J Anthony; John C Thornton; Dympna Gallagher; Bret H Goodpaster Journal: Obesity (Silver Spring) Date: 2013-12-06 Impact factor: 5.002
Authors: Andreas M Kasper; Carl Langan-Evans; James F Hudson; Thomas E Brownlee; Liam D Harper; Robert J Naughton; James P Morton; Graeme L Close Journal: Nutrients Date: 2021-03-25 Impact factor: 5.717