| Literature DB >> 26640442 |
Annika Willems1, Thomas A W Paulson1, Mhairi Keil2, Katherine Brooke-Wavell3, Victoria L Goosey-Tolfrey1.
Abstract
Field-based assessments provide a cost-effective and accessible alternative to dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) for practitioners determining body composition in athletic populations. It remains unclear how the range of physical impairments classifiable in wheelchair sports may affect the utility of field-based body composition techniques. The present study assessed body composition using DXA in 14 wheelchair games players who were either wheelchair dependent (non-walkers; n = 7) or relied on a wheelchair for sports participation only (walkers; n = 7). Anthropometric measurements were used to predict body fat percentage with existing regression equations established for able-bodied persons by Sloan and Weir, Durnin and Womersley, Lean et al, Gallagher et al, and Pongchaiyakul et al. In addition, linear regression analysis was performed to calculate the association between body fat percentage and BMI, waist circumference, sum of 6 skinfold thickness and sum of 8 skinfold thickness. Results showed that non-walkers had significantly lower total lean tissue mass (46.2 ± 6.6 kg vs. 59.4 ± 8.2 kg, P = 0.006) and total body mass (65.8 ± 4.2 kg vs. 79.4 ± 14.9 kg; P = 0.05) than walkers. Body fat percentage calculated from most existing regression equations was significantly lower than that from DXA, by 2 to 9% in walkers and 8 to 14% in non-walkers. Of the anthropometric measurements, the sum of 8 skinfold thickness had the lowest standard error of estimation in predicting body fat content. In conclusion, existing anthropometric equations developed in able-bodied populations substantially underestimated body fat content in wheelchair athletes, particularly non-walkers. Impairment specific equations may be needed in wheelchair athletes.Entities:
Keywords: basketball; paralympic; rugby; spinal cord injury; total body mass
Year: 2015 PMID: 26640442 PMCID: PMC4661231 DOI: 10.3389/fphys.2015.00356
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Physiol ISSN: 1664-042X Impact factor: 4.566
Participant characteristics, DXA-derived body composition, BMI, waist circumference, and sums of 6 and 8 skinfold thickness.
| Age (years) | 26 ± 8 | 32 ± 7 | 0.15 (0.8) |
| Time since injury (years) | 19 ± 10 | 12 ± 7 | 0.16 (0.8) |
| Sport | WCB | WCR | n/a |
| Physical impairment | Amputee ( | SCI ( | n/a |
| Body mass (kg) | 79.4 ± 14.9 | 65.8 ± 4.2 | 0.05 |
| Fat mass (kg) | 16.9 ± 7.6 | 16.3 ± 5.3 | 0.88 (0.8) |
| Fat percentage (%) | 21.4 ± 5.9 | 26.2 ± 8.9 | 0.25 (0.6) |
| Lean tissue mass (kg) | 59.4 ± 8.2 | 46.2 ± 6.6 | 0.01 |
| Lean tissue percentage (%) | 75.6 ± 5.5 | 70.2 ± 9.0 | 0.21 (0.7) |
| BMI | 23 ± 4 | 21 ± 2 | 0.10 (0.9) |
| Waist circumference (cm) | 85.5 ± 8.6 | 77.9 ± 7.8 | 0.11 (0.9) |
| Sum of 6 skinfold thicknesses (mm) | 77.2 ± 18.6 | 85.0 ± 39.9 | 0.65 (0.3) |
| Sum of 8 skinfold thicknesses (mm) | 102.2 ± 26.6 | 114.0 ± 47.0 | 0.57 (0.3) |
All date are mean ± standard deviation. ES, Effect size; WCB, Wheelchair Basketball; WCR, Wheelchair Rugby; SCI, Spinal Cord Injury; BMI, Body Mass Index; Significant differences are indicated with
at a significant level of P < 0.05.
Figure 1Comparison of (A) segmental (trunks, arms, legs) lean tissue mass and (B) fat mass for walkers and non-walkers. * Significant difference between groups (P < 0.04).
Figure 2Body fat percentage derived by DXA scan and the fat percentages calculated by the anthropometric prediction equations for walkers and non-walkers. * Both groups significantly lower than DXA (P < 0.05), ^ Non-walkers significantly lower than DXA (P < 0.05).
Agreement between DXA-determined percent body fat and values given by anthropometric equations for walkers (.
| Walkers | Sloan and Weir, | −9.0±2.6% | < 0.01 | −14.0 | −4.0 | 10.0 |
| Durnin and Womersley, | −4.2±3.8% | 0.03 | −11.6 | +3.3 | 14.9 | |
| Lean et al., | −2.1±3.9% | 0.21 | −9.7 | +5.5 | 15.3 | |
| Gallagher et al., | −5.1±5.3% | 0.04 | −15.5 | +5.3 | 20.8 | |
| Pongchaiyakul et al., | −7.7±5.0% | < 0.01 | −17.5 | +2.1 | 19.6 | |
| Non-walkers | Sloan and Weir, | −10.6±4.5% | < 0.01 | −19.4 | −1.78 | 17.6 |
| Durnin and Womersley, | −8.3±4.8% | < 0.01 | −17.7 | +1.1 | 18.8 | |
| Lean et al., | −10.6±7.4% | < 0.01 | −25.1 | +3.9 | 29.0 | |
| Gallagher et al., | −13.7±7.5% | < 0.01 | −28.4 | +1.0 | 29.4 | |
| Pongchaiyakul et al., | −13.6±6.5% | < 0.01 | −26.3 | −0.9 | 25.5 | |
Eq., Equations; SD, Standard Deviation. Significant differences are indicated with
at a significant level of P < 0.05.
Linear regression analysis of anthropometric measures and DXA-derived percentage body fat.
| WC | 0.79 | 0.62 | 4.00 | 7.61 | −24.7 | −29.37 | 0.54 (0.05 to 1.21) | 0.71 (−0.32 to 1.74) |
| BMI | 0.49 | 0.59 | 5.65 | 7.83 | 2.5 | −21.35 | 0.81 (−0.84 to 2.46) | 2.32 (−1.2 to 5.93) |
| Sum of 6 | 0.84 | 0.87 | 3.54 | 4.78 | 0.81 | 9.75 | 0.27 (0.07 to 0.47) | 0.19 (0.07 to 0.32) |
| Sum of 8 | 0.98 | 0.88 | 1.16 | 4.65 | −0.95 | 7.32 | 0.22 (0.17 to 0.26) | 0.17 (0.06 to 0.27) |
WC, waist circumference; BMI, body mass index; SEE, standard error of the estimate. Significant correlations are indicated with
at a significant level of P < 0.05.