Comparison of field body composition techniques in elite female heptathletes

Linda K Houtkooper, J. Ricketts, Scott B Going, N. Ayan, T. Robertson

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Criterion methods of measuring body composition are often limited to a laboratory setting. An alternative to criterion methods are the more mobile field methods, which are simple techniques for measuring body composition. Cross-validation of prediction equations for specific athletic populations can be used to determine prediction accuracy for estimates of percent body fat (%BF). This study compares two field methods [skinfolds (SKF), bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA)] to two criterion methods [dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) and a multi-component model (MULTI-Lohman, 1986)]. Prediction equations used for both field methods were developed for young athletic women. The subjects were 18 elite female heptathletes participating in a USA Track and Field Development Project. Standard protocols and tetrapolar placement for whole body BIA were used and the prediction equations include: A) Lohman, 1992, B) Lohman, active women 1992, and C) Valhalla, model 1990b. Standard procedures were used for skinfold measurement and the prediction equations include: A) Jackson & Pollock, 1985 (3 site), and B) Jackson & Pollock, 1985 (4 site). Correlation analysis between criterion methods and field methods were significant (p<0.001) for DXA vs SKF-A (r O 70) and SKF-B (r 0.72); MULTI vs SKF-A (r 0.78) and SKF-B (r 0.75), (p<0.000); and MULTI vs BIA-C (r 0.48), (p<0.04). These data suggest that the use of skinfold measurement for the estimation of %BF using prediction equations A and B will more accurately estimate %BF relative to the criterion methods DXA and MULTI within this population than estimates of %BF from BIA equations.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalFASEB Journal
Volume12
Issue number5
StatePublished - Mar 20 1998

Fingerprint

Body Composition
body composition
Acoustic impedance
Chemical analysis
bioelectrical impedance
Electric Impedance
prediction
X rays
pollock
methodology
X-radiation
X-Rays
sports
Sports
energy
Track and Field
Fats
development projects
Population
body fat

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Agricultural and Biological Sciences (miscellaneous)
  • Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology(all)
  • Biochemistry
  • Cell Biology

Cite this

Comparison of field body composition techniques in elite female heptathletes. / Houtkooper, Linda K; Ricketts, J.; Going, Scott B; Ayan, N.; Robertson, T.

In: FASEB Journal, Vol. 12, No. 5, 20.03.1998.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{da1f3bb83c154479adfbf23667511d67,
title = "Comparison of field body composition techniques in elite female heptathletes",
abstract = "Criterion methods of measuring body composition are often limited to a laboratory setting. An alternative to criterion methods are the more mobile field methods, which are simple techniques for measuring body composition. Cross-validation of prediction equations for specific athletic populations can be used to determine prediction accuracy for estimates of percent body fat ({\%}BF). This study compares two field methods [skinfolds (SKF), bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA)] to two criterion methods [dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) and a multi-component model (MULTI-Lohman, 1986)]. Prediction equations used for both field methods were developed for young athletic women. The subjects were 18 elite female heptathletes participating in a USA Track and Field Development Project. Standard protocols and tetrapolar placement for whole body BIA were used and the prediction equations include: A) Lohman, 1992, B) Lohman, active women 1992, and C) Valhalla, model 1990b. Standard procedures were used for skinfold measurement and the prediction equations include: A) Jackson & Pollock, 1985 (3 site), and B) Jackson & Pollock, 1985 (4 site). Correlation analysis between criterion methods and field methods were significant (p<0.001) for DXA vs SKF-A (r O 70) and SKF-B (r 0.72); MULTI vs SKF-A (r 0.78) and SKF-B (r 0.75), (p<0.000); and MULTI vs BIA-C (r 0.48), (p<0.04). These data suggest that the use of skinfold measurement for the estimation of {\%}BF using prediction equations A and B will more accurately estimate {\%}BF relative to the criterion methods DXA and MULTI within this population than estimates of {\%}BF from BIA equations.",
author = "Houtkooper, {Linda K} and J. Ricketts and Going, {Scott B} and N. Ayan and T. Robertson",
year = "1998",
month = "3",
day = "20",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "12",
journal = "FASEB Journal",
issn = "0892-6638",
publisher = "FASEB",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of field body composition techniques in elite female heptathletes

AU - Houtkooper, Linda K

AU - Ricketts, J.

AU - Going, Scott B

AU - Ayan, N.

AU - Robertson, T.

PY - 1998/3/20

Y1 - 1998/3/20

N2 - Criterion methods of measuring body composition are often limited to a laboratory setting. An alternative to criterion methods are the more mobile field methods, which are simple techniques for measuring body composition. Cross-validation of prediction equations for specific athletic populations can be used to determine prediction accuracy for estimates of percent body fat (%BF). This study compares two field methods [skinfolds (SKF), bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA)] to two criterion methods [dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) and a multi-component model (MULTI-Lohman, 1986)]. Prediction equations used for both field methods were developed for young athletic women. The subjects were 18 elite female heptathletes participating in a USA Track and Field Development Project. Standard protocols and tetrapolar placement for whole body BIA were used and the prediction equations include: A) Lohman, 1992, B) Lohman, active women 1992, and C) Valhalla, model 1990b. Standard procedures were used for skinfold measurement and the prediction equations include: A) Jackson & Pollock, 1985 (3 site), and B) Jackson & Pollock, 1985 (4 site). Correlation analysis between criterion methods and field methods were significant (p<0.001) for DXA vs SKF-A (r O 70) and SKF-B (r 0.72); MULTI vs SKF-A (r 0.78) and SKF-B (r 0.75), (p<0.000); and MULTI vs BIA-C (r 0.48), (p<0.04). These data suggest that the use of skinfold measurement for the estimation of %BF using prediction equations A and B will more accurately estimate %BF relative to the criterion methods DXA and MULTI within this population than estimates of %BF from BIA equations.

AB - Criterion methods of measuring body composition are often limited to a laboratory setting. An alternative to criterion methods are the more mobile field methods, which are simple techniques for measuring body composition. Cross-validation of prediction equations for specific athletic populations can be used to determine prediction accuracy for estimates of percent body fat (%BF). This study compares two field methods [skinfolds (SKF), bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA)] to two criterion methods [dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) and a multi-component model (MULTI-Lohman, 1986)]. Prediction equations used for both field methods were developed for young athletic women. The subjects were 18 elite female heptathletes participating in a USA Track and Field Development Project. Standard protocols and tetrapolar placement for whole body BIA were used and the prediction equations include: A) Lohman, 1992, B) Lohman, active women 1992, and C) Valhalla, model 1990b. Standard procedures were used for skinfold measurement and the prediction equations include: A) Jackson & Pollock, 1985 (3 site), and B) Jackson & Pollock, 1985 (4 site). Correlation analysis between criterion methods and field methods were significant (p<0.001) for DXA vs SKF-A (r O 70) and SKF-B (r 0.72); MULTI vs SKF-A (r 0.78) and SKF-B (r 0.75), (p<0.000); and MULTI vs BIA-C (r 0.48), (p<0.04). These data suggest that the use of skinfold measurement for the estimation of %BF using prediction equations A and B will more accurately estimate %BF relative to the criterion methods DXA and MULTI within this population than estimates of %BF from BIA equations.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33749365570&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33749365570&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 12

JO - FASEB Journal

JF - FASEB Journal

SN - 0892-6638

IS - 5

ER -