Percent body fat estimations in college women using field and laboratory methods: a three-compartment model approach

Jordan R Moon; Holly R Hull; Sarah E Tobkin; Masaru Teramoto; Murat Karabulut; Michael D Roberts; Eric D Ryan; So Jung Kim; Vincent J Dalbo; Ashley A Walter; Abbie T Smith; Joel T Cramer; Jeffrey R Stout

doi:10.1186/1550-2783-4-16

Percent body fat estimations in college women using field and laboratory methods: a three-compartment model approach

J Int Soc Sports Nutr. 2007 Nov 7:4:16. doi: 10.1186/1550-2783-4-16.

Authors

Jordan R Moon¹, Holly R Hull, Sarah E Tobkin, Masaru Teramoto, Murat Karabulut, Michael D Roberts, Eric D Ryan, So Jung Kim, Vincent J Dalbo, Ashley A Walter, Abbie T Smith, Joel T Cramer, Jeffrey R Stout

Affiliation

¹ Department of Health and Exercise Science, University of Oklahoma, Norman, USA. jrstout@ou.edu.

Abstract

Background: Methods used to estimate percent body fat can be classified as a laboratory or field technique. However, the validity of these methods compared to multiple-compartment models has not been fully established. This investigation sought to determine the validity of field and laboratory methods for estimating percent fat (%fat) in healthy college-age women compared to the Siri three-compartment model (3C).

Methods: Thirty Caucasian women (21.1 +/- 1.5 yrs; 164.8 +/- 4.7 cm; 61.2 +/- 6.8 kg) had their %fat estimated by BIA using the BodyGramtrade mark computer program (BIA-AK) and population-specific equation (BIA-Lohman), NIR (Futrex(R) 6100/XL), a quadratic (SF3JPW) and linear (SF3WB) skinfold equation, air-displacement plethysmography (BP), and hydrostatic weighing (HW).

Results: All methods produced acceptable total error (TE) values compared to the 3C model. Both laboratory methods produced similar TE values (HW, TE = 2.4%fat; BP, TE = 2.3%fat) when compared to the 3C model, though a significant constant error (CE) was detected for HW (1.5%fat, p </= 0.006). The field methods produced acceptable TE values ranging from 1.8 - 3.8 %fat. BIA-AK (TE = 1.8%fat) yielded the lowest TE among the field methods, while BIA-Lohman (TE = 2.1%fat) and NIR (TE = 2.7%fat) produced lower TE values than both skinfold equations (TE > 2.7%fat) compared to the 3C model. Additionally, the SF3JPW %fat estimation equation resulted in a significant CE (2.6%fat, p </= 0.007).

Conclusion: Data suggest that the BP and HW are valid laboratory methods when compared to the 3C model to estimate %fat in college-age Caucasian women. When the use of a laboratory method is not feasible, NIR, BIA-AK, BIA-Lohman, SF3JPW, and SF3WB are acceptable field methods to estimate %fat in this population.