Abbie E Smith-Ryan1, Meredith G Mock2, Eric D Ryan3, Gena R Gerstner4, Eric T Trexler4, Katie R Hirsch2. 1. Department of Exercise and Sport Science, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA; Human Movement Science Curriculum, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA; Department of Allied Health Science, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. Electronic address: abbsmith@email.unc.edu. 2. Department of Exercise and Sport Science, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. 3. Department of Exercise and Sport Science, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA; Human Movement Science Curriculum, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA; Department of Allied Health Science, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. 4. Department of Exercise and Sport Science, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA; Human Movement Science Curriculum, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Body volume (BV), one component of a four-compartment (4C) body composition model, is commonly assessed using air displacement plethysmography (BodPod). However, dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) has been proposed as an alternative method for calculating BV. AIMS: This investigation evaluated the validity and reliability of DEXA-derived BV measurement and a DEXA-derived 4C model (DEXA-4C) for percent body fat (%BF), fat mass (FM), and lean mass (LM). METHODS: A total sample of 127 men and women (Mean ± SD; Age: 35.8 ± 9.4 years; Body Mass: 98.1 ± 20.9 kg; Height: 176.3 ± 9.2 cm) completed a traditional 4C body composition reference assessment. A DEXA-4C model was created by linearly regressing BodPod BV with DEXA FM, LM, and bone mineral content as independent factors. The DEXA-4C model was validated in a random sub-sample of 27 subjects. Reliability was evaluated in a sample of 40 subjects that underwent a second session of identical testing. RESULTS: When BV derived from DEXA was applied to a 4C model, there were no significant differences in %BF (p = 0.404), FM (p = 0.295), or LM (p = 0.295) when compared to the traditional 4C model. The approach was also reliable; BV was not different between trials (p = 0.170). For BV, %BF, FM, and LM relative consistency values ranged from 0.995 to 0.998. Standard error of measurement for BV was 0.62 L, ranging from 0.831 to 0.960 kg. There were no significant differences between visits for %BF (p = 0.075), FM (p = 0.275), or LM (p = 0.542). CONCLUSION: The DEXA-4C model appears to be a valid and reliable method of estimating %BF, FM, and LM. The prediction of BV from DEXA simplifies the acquisition of 4C body composition by eliminating the need for an additional BV assessment.
BACKGROUND: Body volume (BV), one component of a four-compartment (4C) body composition model, is commonly assessed using air displacement plethysmography (BodPod). However, dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) has been proposed as an alternative method for calculating BV. AIMS: This investigation evaluated the validity and reliability of DEXA-derived BV measurement and a DEXA-derived 4C model (DEXA-4C) for percent body fat (%BF), fat mass (FM), and lean mass (LM). METHODS: A total sample of 127 men and women (Mean ± SD; Age: 35.8 ± 9.4 years; Body Mass: 98.1 ± 20.9 kg; Height: 176.3 ± 9.2 cm) completed a traditional 4C body composition reference assessment. A DEXA-4C model was created by linearly regressing BodPod BV with DEXA FM, LM, and bone mineral content as independent factors. The DEXA-4C model was validated in a random sub-sample of 27 subjects. Reliability was evaluated in a sample of 40 subjects that underwent a second session of identical testing. RESULTS: When BV derived from DEXA was applied to a 4C model, there were no significant differences in %BF (p = 0.404), FM (p = 0.295), or LM (p = 0.295) when compared to the traditional 4C model. The approach was also reliable; BV was not different between trials (p = 0.170). For BV, %BF, FM, and LM relative consistency values ranged from 0.995 to 0.998. Standard error of measurement for BV was 0.62 L, ranging from 0.831 to 0.960 kg. There were no significant differences between visits for %BF (p = 0.075), FM (p = 0.275), or LM (p = 0.542). CONCLUSION: The DEXA-4C model appears to be a valid and reliable method of estimating %BF, FM, and LM. The prediction of BV from DEXA simplifies the acquisition of 4C body composition by eliminating the need for an additional BV assessment.
Authors: S B Heymsfield; S Lichtman; R N Baumgartner; J Wang; Y Kamen; A Aliprantis; R N Pierson Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 1990-07 Impact factor: 7.045
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: Cláudia S Minderico; Analiza M Silva; Kathleen Keller; Teresa L Branco; Sandra S Martins; António L Palmeira; José T Barata; Elvis A Carnero; Paulo M Rocha; Pedro J Teixeira; Luís B Sardinha Journal: Br J Nutr Date: 2007-09-26 Impact factor: 3.718
Authors: Bennett K Ng; Yong E Liu; Wei Wang; Thomas L Kelly; Kevin E Wilson; Dale A Schoeller; Steven B Heymsfield; John A Shepherd Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2018-10-01 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: Grant M Tinsley; M Lane Moore; Jacob R Dellinger; Brian T Adamson; Marqui L Benavides Journal: Eur J Clin Nutr Date: 2019-11-04 Impact factor: 4.016
Authors: Matheus S Cerqueira; Paulo R S Amorim; Irismar G A Encarnação; Leonardo M T Rezende; Paulo H R F Almeida; Analiza M Silva; Manuel Sillero-Quintana; Diego A S Silva; Fernanda K Santos; João C B Marins Journal: Eat Weight Disord Date: 2022-06-14 Impact factor: 3.008
Authors: Jonathan P Bennett; Yong En Liu; Brandon K Quon; Nisa N Kelly; Michael C Wong; Samantha F Kennedy; Dominic C Chow; Andrea K Garber; Ethan J Weiss; Steven B Heymsfield; John A Shepherd Journal: Clin Nutr Date: 2021-12-07 Impact factor: 7.643
Authors: Eline Vermeiren; Marijke Ysebaert; Kim Van Hoorenbeeck; Luc Bruyndonckx; Kristof Van Dessel; Maria Van Helvoirt; Ann De Guchtenaere; Benedicte De Winter; Stijn Verhulst; Annelies Van Eyck Journal: Eur J Clin Nutr Date: 2020-09-11 Impact factor: 4.016
Authors: Annelies Van Eyck; Sofie Eerens; Dominique Trouet; Eline Lauwers; Kristien Wouters; Benedicte Y De Winter; Johanna H van der Lee; Koen Van Hoeck; Kristien J Ledeganck Journal: Eur J Pediatr Date: 2021-01-22 Impact factor: 3.183
Authors: Katie R Hirsch; Casey E Greenwalt; Hannah E Cabre; Lacey M Gould; Gabrielle J Brewer; Malia N M Blue; Arny A Ferrando; Kim M Huffman; Elizabeth J Mayer-Davis; Eric D Ryan; Abbie E Smith-Ryan Journal: Eur J Appl Physiol Date: 2021-08-24 Impact factor: 3.078