Literature DB >> 28033125

Validity of BMI-Based Body Fat Equations in Men and Women: A 4-Compartment Model Comparison.

Brett S Nickerson1,2, Michael R Esco2, Phillip A Bishop3, Michael V Fedewa2, Ronald L Snarr2, Brian M Kliszczewicz4, Kyung-Shin Park1.   

Abstract

Nickerson, BS, Esco, MR, Bishop, PA, Fedewa, MV, Snarr, RL, Kliszczewicz, BM, and Park, K-S. Validity of BMI-based body fat equations in men and women: a 4-compartment model comparison. J Strength Cond Res 32(1): 121-129, 2018-The purpose of this study was to compare body mass index (BMI)-based body fat percentage (BF%) equations and skinfolds with a 4-compartment (4C) model in men and women. One hundred thirty adults (63 women and 67 men) volunteered to participate (age = 23 ± 5 years). BMI was calculated as weight (kg) divided by height squared (m). BF% was predicted with the BMI-based equations of Jackson et al. (BMIJA), Deurenberg et al. (BMIDE), Gallagher et al. (BMIGA), Zanovec et al. (BMIZA), Womersley and Durnin (BMIWO), and from 7-site skinfolds using the generalized skinfold equation of Jackson et al. (SF7JP). The 4C model BF% was the criterion and derived from underwater weighing for body volume, dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry for bone mineral content, and bioimpedance spectroscopy for total body water. The constant error (CE) was not significantly different for BMIZA compared with the 4C model (p = 0.74, CE = -0.2%). However, BMIJA, BMIDE, BMIGA, and BMIWO produced significantly higher mean values than the 4C model (all p < 0.001, CEs = 1.8-3.2%), whereas SF7JP was significantly lower (p < 0.001, CE = -4.8%). The standard error of estimate ranged from 3.4 (SF7JP) to 6.4% (BMIJA) while the total error varied from 6.0 (SF7JP) to 7.3% (BMIJA). The 95% limits of agreement were the smallest for SF7JP (±7.2%) and widest for BMIJA (±13.5%). Although the BMI-based equations produced similar group mean values as the 4C model, SF7JP produced the smallest individual errors. Therefore, SF7JP is recommended over the BMI-based equations, but practitioners should consider the associated CE.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 28033125     DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000001774

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Strength Cond Res        ISSN: 1064-8011            Impact factor:   3.775


  4 in total

1.  Generalized Equations for Predicting Percent Body Fat from Anthropometric Measures Using a Criterion Five-Compartment Model.

Authors:  Zackary S Cicone; Brett S Nickerson; Youn-Jeng Choi; Clifton J Holmes; Bjoern Hornikel; Michael V Fedewa; Michael R Esco
Journal:  Med Sci Sports Exerc       Date:  2021-12-01       Impact factor: 5.411

2.  Validity of DXA body volume equations in a four-compartment model for adults with varying body mass index and waist circumference classifications.

Authors:  Cherilyn N McLester; Brett S Nickerson; Brian M Kliszczewicz; Courtenay S Hicks; Cassie M Williamson; Emily E Bechke; John R McLester
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-11-05       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 3.  Why primary obesity is a disease?

Authors:  Antonino De Lorenzo; Santo Gratteri; Paola Gualtieri; Andrea Cammarano; Pierfrancesco Bertucci; Laura Di Renzo
Journal:  J Transl Med       Date:  2019-05-22       Impact factor: 5.531

4.  A Comparison of Equation Córdoba for Estimation of Body Fat (ECORE-BF) with Other Prediction Equations.

Authors:  Rafael Molina-Luque; Aina M Yañez; Miquel Bennasar-Veny; Manuel Romero-Saldaña; Guillermo Molina-Recio; Ángel-Arturo López-González
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2020-10-29       Impact factor: 3.390

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.