How body composition techniques measure up for reliability across the age-span

Author:

Rose Grace L1,Farley Morgan J1,Slater Gary J2,Ward Leigh C3,Skinner Tina L1,Keating Shelley E1,Schaumberg Mia A124

Affiliation:

1. School of Human Movement and Nutrition Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia

2. School of Health and Behavioral Sciences, University of the Sunshine Coast, Sippy Downs, Australia

3. School of Chemistry and Molecular Biosciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia

4. Sunshine Coast Health Institute, Birtinya, Australia

Abstract

ABSTRACT Background Reliability of body composition measurement techniques is essential to the accurate reporting of intervention outcomes. However, the between-day precision error of commonly used techniques, as well as the reference multi-compartment model, in a population-representative sample are currently unknown. Objectives To quantify technical and biological precision error of body composition techniques in comparison to the referent 4-compartment (4C) model. Methods Men and women (1:1 ratio; 18–85 years old; n = 90) completed 2 consecutive-day body composition testing sessions, including individual components of the referent 4C model. Testing was undertaken in accordance with best practice guidance for each technique, including standardized presentation and a consistent time of day. Repeat measurements were conducted on day 1 for technical precision, and between-day measurements were conducted for biological precision quantification. Results On average, all measurements met acceptable error limits and presented typically low technical and biological error [<2% fat-free mass (FFM) and < 3% fat mass (FM) precision error]. For technical precision of FFM, all techniques met a priori cut points (80%; CV = 0.45–0.81%). For FM, all techniques were equivalent to the best-rating method on average (CV = 0.78–1.35%), except air displacement plethysmography (CV = 2.13%). For biological precision, only 3-compartment (3C) and 4C equations sufficiently met the a priori determined cut point for estimates for FFM (CV = 0.77–0.79%), and only DXA met the 80% cut point (CV = 1.17%) for FM. Conclusions The primary purpose of a study design is imperative when deciding on body composition assessment techniques used for longitudinal measurements. If reliable longitudinal assessments of FFM are central, a 3C or 4C model may be indicated. If FM is a primary outcome, DXA may be preferable. However, considering the low error rates presented within the current study across a broad age span of healthy adults with implementation of best-practice guidelines, any technique assessed here may be used, provided that strict protocols are adhered to.

Funder

University of Queensland

Publisher

Oxford University Press (OUP)

Subject

Nutrition and Dietetics,Medicine (miscellaneous)

Cited by 7 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

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