Kimberly P Truesdale1, Amy Roberts1, Jianwen Cai2, Jerica M Berge3, June Stevens1,4. 1. 1 Department of Nutrition, School of Public Health, University of North Carolina , Chapel Hill, NC. 2. 3 Department of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, University of North Carolina , Chapel Hill, NC. 3. 4 Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, University of Minnesota , Minneapolis, MN. 4. 2 Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of North Carolina , Chapel Hill, NC.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Skinfolds are often used in equations to predict percent body fat (PBF) in youth. Although there are numerous such equations published, there is limited information to help researchers determine which equation to use for their sample. METHODS: Using data from the 1999-2006 National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES), we compared eight published equations for prediction of PBF. These published equations all included triceps and/or subscapular skinfold measurements. We examined the PBF equations in a nationally representative sample of American youth that was matched by age, sex, and race/ethnicity to the original equation development population and a full sample of 8- to 18-year-olds. We compared the equation-predicted PBF to the dual-emission X-ray absorptiometry (DXA)-measured PBF. The adjusted R(2), root mean square error (RMSE), and mean signed difference (MSD) were compared. The MSDs were used to examine accuracy and differential bias by age, sex, and race/ethnicity. RESULTS: When applied to the full range of 8- 18-year-old youth, the R(2) values ranged from 0.495 to 0.738. The MSD between predicted and DXA-measured PBF indicated high average accuracy (MSD between -1.0 and 1.0) for only three equations (Bray subscapular equation and Dezenberg equations [with and without race/ethnicity]). The majority of the equations showed differential bias by sex, race/ethnicity, weight status, or age. CONCLUSIONS: These findings indicate that investigators should use caution in the selection of an equation to predict PBF in youth given that results may vary systematically in important subgroups.
BACKGROUND: Skinfolds are often used in equations to predict percent body fat (PBF) in youth. Although there are numerous such equations published, there is limited information to help researchers determine which equation to use for their sample. METHODS: Using data from the 1999-2006 National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES), we compared eight published equations for prediction of PBF. These published equations all included triceps and/or subscapular skinfold measurements. We examined the PBF equations in a nationally representative sample of American youth that was matched by age, sex, and race/ethnicity to the original equation development population and a full sample of 8- to 18-year-olds. We compared the equation-predicted PBF to the dual-emission X-ray absorptiometry (DXA)-measured PBF. The adjusted R(2), root mean square error (RMSE), and mean signed difference (MSD) were compared. The MSDs were used to examine accuracy and differential bias by age, sex, and race/ethnicity. RESULTS: When applied to the full range of 8- 18-year-old youth, the R(2) values ranged from 0.495 to 0.738. The MSD between predicted and DXA-measured PBF indicated high average accuracy (MSD between -1.0 and 1.0) for only three equations (Bray subscapular equation and Dezenberg equations [with and without race/ethnicity]). The majority of the equations showed differential bias by sex, race/ethnicity, weight status, or age. CONCLUSIONS: These findings indicate that investigators should use caution in the selection of an equation to predict PBF in youth given that results may vary systematically in important subgroups.
Authors: June Stevens; Chirayath Suchindran; Kim Ring; Christopher D Baggett; Jared B Jobe; Mary Story; Janice Thompson; Scott B Going; Benjamin Caballero Journal: Obes Res Date: 2004-12
Authors: S Stomfai; W Ahrens; K Bammann; E Kovács; S Mårild; N Michels; L A Moreno; H Pohlabeln; A Siani; M Tornaritis; T Veidebaum; D Molnár Journal: Int J Obes (Lond) Date: 2011-04 Impact factor: 5.095
Authors: Dale A Schoeller; Frances A Tylavsky; David J Baer; William C Chumlea; Carrie P Earthman; Thomas Fuerst; Tamara B Harris; Steven B Heymsfield; Mary Horlick; Timothy G Lohman; Henry C Lukaski; John Shepherd; Roger M Siervogel; Lori G Borrud Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2005-05 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: Adam M Karpati; Carol H Rubin; Stephanie M Kieszak; Michele Marcus; Richard P Troiano Journal: J Adolesc Health Date: 2002-03 Impact factor: 5.012
Authors: June Stevens; David M Murray; Chris D Baggett; John P Elder; Timothy G Lohman; Leslie A Lytle; Russell R Pate; Charlotte A Pratt; Margarita S Treuth; Larry S Webber; Deborah R Young Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2007-09-12 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: David S Freedman; Jack Wang; Cynthia L Ogden; John C Thornton; Zuguo Mei; Richard N Pierson; William H Dietz; Mary Horlick Journal: Ann Hum Biol Date: 2007 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 1.533
Authors: Mohammed T Hudda; Mary S Fewtrell; Dalia Haroun; Sooky Lum; Jane E Williams; Jonathan C K Wells; Richard D Riley; Christopher G Owen; Derek G Cook; Alicja R Rudnicka; Peter H Whincup; Claire M Nightingale Journal: BMJ Date: 2019-07-24
Authors: Mohammed T Hudda; Jonathan C K Wells; Linda S Adair; Jose R A Alvero-Cruz; Maxine N Ashby-Thompson; Martha N Ballesteros-Vásquez; Jesus Barrera-Exposito; Benjamin Caballero; Elvis A Carnero; Geoff J Cleghorn; Peter S W Davies; Malgorzata Desmond; Delan Devakumar; Dympna Gallagher; Elvia V Guerrero-Alcocer; Ferdinand Haschke; Mary Horlick; Houda Ben Jemaa; Ashraful I Khan; Amani Mankai; Makama A Monyeki; Hilde L Nashandi; Luis Ortiz-Hernandez; Guy Plasqui; Felipe F Reichert; Alma E Robles-Sardin; Elaine Rush; Roman J Shypailo; Jakub G Sobiecki; Gill A Ten Hoor; Jesús Valdés; V Pujitha Wickramasinghe; William W Wong; Richard D Riley; Christopher G Owen; Peter H Whincup; Claire M Nightingale Journal: BMJ Date: 2022-09-21