Comparisons of two-, three-, and four-compartment models of body composition analysis in men and women

Author:

Withers R. T.1,LaForgia J.1,Pillans R. K.1,Shipp N. J.1,Chatterton B. E.2,Schultz C. G.2,Leaney F.3

Affiliation:

1. Exercise Physiology Laboratory, School of Education, The Flinders University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia 5001;

2. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, South Australia 5000; and

3. Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, Division of Water Resources, Glen Osmond, South Australia 5064, Australia

Abstract

This study compared the traditional two-compartment (fat mass or FM; fat free mass or FFM) hydrodensitometric method of body composition measurement, which is based on body density, with three (FM, total body water or TBW, fat free dry mass)- and four (FM, TBW, bone mineral mass or BMM, residual)-compartment models in highly trained men ( n = 12), sedentary men ( n = 12), highly trained women ( n = 12), and sedentary women ( n = 12). The means and variances for the relative body fat (%BF) differences between the two- and three-compartment models [2.2 ± 1.6 (SD) % BF; n = 48] were significantly greater ( P ≤ 0.02) than those between the three- and four-compartment models (0.2 ± 0.3% BF; n = 48) for all four groups. The three-compartment model is more valid than the two-compartment hydrodensitometric model because it controls for biological variability in TBW, but additional control for interindividual variability in BMM via the four-compartment model achieves little extra accuracy. The combined group ( n = 48) exhibited greater ( P < 0.001) FFM densities (1.1075 ± 0.0049 g/cm3) than the hydrodensitometric assumption of 1.1000 g/cm3, which is based on analyses of three male cadavers aged 25, 35, and 46 yr. This was primarily because their FFM hydration (72.4 ± 1.1%; n = 48) was lower ( P ≤ 0.001) than the hydrodensitometric assumption of 73.72%.

Publisher

American Physiological Society

Subject

Physiology (medical),Physiology

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3