Literature DB >> 24055780

Body composition in sport: a comparison of a novel ultrasound imaging technique to measure subcutaneous fat tissue compared with skinfold measurement.

Wolfram Müller1, Martin Horn, Alfred Fürhapter-Rieger, Philipp Kainz, Julia M Kröpfl, Ronald J Maughan, Helmut Ahammer.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Extremely low weight and rapid changes in weight and body composition have become major concerns in many sports, but sufficiently accurate field methods for body composition assessment in athletes are missing. This study aimed to explore the use of ultrasound methods for assessment of body fat content in athletes.
METHODS: 19 female athletes (stature: 1.67(± 0.06) m, weight: 59.6(± 7.6) kg; age: 19.5(± 3.3) years) were investigated by three observers using a novel ultrasound method for thickness measurement of uncompressed subcutaneous adipose tissue and of embedded structures. Two observers also measured skinfold thickness at eight International Society for the Advancement of Kinanthrometry (ISAK) sites; mean skinfold values were compared to mean subcutaneous adipose tissue thicknesses measured by ultrasound. Interobserver reliability of imaging and evaluation obtained by this ultrasound technique: intraclass correlation coefficient ICC=0.968 (95% CI 0.957 to 0.977); evaluation of given images: ICC=0.997 (0.993 to 0.999).
RESULTS: Skinfold compared to ultrasound thickness showed that compressibility of subcutaneous adipose tissue depends largely on the site and the person: regression slopes ranged from 0.61 (biceps) to 1.59 (thigh) and CIs were large. Limits of agreement ranged from 2.6 to 8.6 mm. Regression lines did not intercept the skinfold axis at zero because of the skin thickness being included in the skinfold. The four ISAK trunk sites caused ultrasound imaging problems in 13 of 152 sites (8 ISAK sites, 19 athletes).
CONCLUSIONS: The ultrasound method allows measurement of uncompressed subcutaneous adipose tissue thickness with an accuracy of 0.1-0.5 mm, depending on the probe frequency. Compressibility of the skinfold depends on the anatomical site, and skin thickness varies by a factor of two. This inevitably limits the skinfold methods for body fat estimation. Ultrasound accuracy for subcutaneous adipose tissue measurement is limited by the plasticity of fat and furrowed tissue borders. Comparative US measurements show that skinfold measurements do not allow accurate assessment of subcutaneous adipose tissue thickness.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Assessing validity and reliability of test of physiological parameters; Body composition methodology; Eating disorders; Ultrasound; Weight loss

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24055780     DOI: 10.1136/bjsports-2013-092232

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Sports Med        ISSN: 0306-3674            Impact factor:   13.800


  20 in total

1.  Reliability of Measuring Subcutaneous Fat Tissue Thickness Using Ultrasound in Non-Athletic Young Adults.

Authors:  Adela Chirita-Emandi; Andreea Dobrescu; Maria Papa; Maria Puiu
Journal:  Maedica (Buchar)       Date:  2015-09

2.  Prognostic Value of Ultrasound Stratigraphy in Long-Term Weight Loss: Results from a Nutritional Counseling Program.

Authors:  Luca De Toni; Gabriel Cosmin Petre; Andrea Garolla; Ilaria De Santis; Umberto Valente; Carlo Foresta; Maurizio De Rocco Ponce
Journal:  Obes Facts       Date:  2019-11-08       Impact factor: 3.942

3.  Validity of Ultrasound Imaging Versus Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Measuring Anterior Thigh Muscle, Subcutaneous Fat, and Fascia Thickness.

Authors:  Filippo Mechelli; Lars Arendt-Nielsen; Maria Stokes; Sandra Agyapong-Badu
Journal:  Methods Protoc       Date:  2019-07-10

4.  Reproducibility and validity of A-mode ultrasound for body composition measurement and classification in overweight and obese men and women.

Authors:  Abbie E Smith-Ryan; Sarah N Fultz; Malia N Melvin; Hailee L Wingfield; Mary N Woessner
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-03-11       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Assessing subcutaneous adipose tissue by simple and portable field instruments: Skinfolds versus A-mode ultrasound measurements.

Authors:  Carla Pérez-Chirinos Buxadé; Toni Solà-Perez; Jorge Castizo-Olier; Marta Carrasco-Marginet; Alex Roy; Michael Marfell-Jones; Alfredo Irurtia
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-11-29       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Subcutaneous Adipose Tissue Measured by B-Mode Ultrasound to Assess and Monitor Obesity and Cardio-Metabolic Risk in Children and Adolescents.

Authors:  Karin Schmid-Zalaudek; Bianca Brix; Marietta Sengeis; Andreas Jantscher; Alfred Fürhapter-Rieger; Wolfram Müller; Edna N Matjuda; Muhau M Mungamba; Benedicta Nkeh-Chungag; Per Morten Fredriksen; Nandu Goswami
Journal:  Biology (Basel)       Date:  2021-05-20

Review 7.  Nutritional strategies for the preservation of fat free mass at high altitude.

Authors:  Stacie L Wing-Gaia
Journal:  Nutrients       Date:  2014-02-13       Impact factor: 5.717

8.  Reference values for body composition and anthropometric measurements in athletes.

Authors:  Diana A Santos; John A Dawson; Catarina N Matias; Paulo M Rocha; Cláudia S Minderico; David B Allison; Luís B Sardinha; Analiza M Silva
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-05-15       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Subcutaneous fat patterning in athletes: selection of appropriate sites and standardisation of a novel ultrasound measurement technique: ad hoc working group on body composition, health and performance, under the auspices of the IOC Medical Commission.

Authors:  Wolfram Müller; Timothy G Lohman; Arthur D Stewart; Ronald J Maughan; Nanna L Meyer; Luis B Sardinha; Nuwanee Kirihennedige; Alba Reguant-Closa; Vanessa Risoul-Salas; Jorunn Sundgot-Borgen; Helmut Ahammer; Friedrich Anderhuber; Alfred Fürhapter-Rieger; Philipp Kainz; Wilfried Materna; Ulrike Pilsl; Wolfram Pirstinger; Timothy R Ackland
Journal:  Br J Sports Med       Date:  2016-01       Impact factor: 13.800

10.  Validity and Reliability of A-Mode Ultrasound for Body Composition Assessment of NCAA Division I Athletes.

Authors:  Dale R Wagner; Dustin L Cain; Nicolas W Clark
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-04-13       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.