Validity of bioelectrical impedance equations for estimating percent fat in males

Joan Eckerson, Jeffrey R. Stout, Terry J. Housh, Glen O. Johnson

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

15 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The present study examined the validity of selected bioelectrical impedance (BIA) equations for estimating percent fat (% fat) in males and compared their validity with that of commonly used skinfold equation (Sum3). One-hundred twenty-two Caucasian males (X̄ ± SD = 12.5 ± 5.8% fat, as determined by underwater weighing) served as subject. Selection of the BIA equations was dependent upon meeting at least one of three criteria: 1) developed from a previous interlaboratory investigation, 2) derived on a large sample size (>200), or 3) previously been shown to accurately estimate body composition when cross-validated against a criterion method. Cross- validation analyses included examination of the constant error, standard error or estimate (SEE), r, and total error (TE). The Sum3 equation which resulted in the lowest SEE and TE values (2.6% fat and 3.4% fat, respectively) and the highest validity coefficient (r = 0.90, P <0.001), most accurately estimated % fat and, therefore, was recommended over RIA equations for estimating body composition in Caucasian males with lean to average body fatness. The fat-specific interlaboratory BIA equation of Segal et al. (26) for males ≤20% fat (N = 107) which resulted in a TE value of 3.6% fat and the generalized equation of Guo et al. (10) (TE = 4.1% fat) may, however, be considered as acceptable alternatives.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)523-530
Number of pages8
JournalMedicine and Science in Sports and Exercise
Volume28
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - 1996

Fingerprint

Electric Impedance
Fats
Body Composition
Sample Size

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
  • Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation
  • Orthopedics and Sports Medicine

Cite this

Validity of bioelectrical impedance equations for estimating percent fat in males. / Eckerson, Joan; Stout, Jeffrey R.; Housh, Terry J.; Johnson, Glen O.

In: Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, Vol. 28, No. 4, 1996, p. 523-530.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Eckerson, Joan ; Stout, Jeffrey R. ; Housh, Terry J. ; Johnson, Glen O. / Validity of bioelectrical impedance equations for estimating percent fat in males. In: Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise. 1996 ; Vol. 28, No. 4. pp. 523-530.
@article{8f4d04490bd7429e89f515de432bb674,
title = "Validity of bioelectrical impedance equations for estimating percent fat in males",
abstract = "The present study examined the validity of selected bioelectrical impedance (BIA) equations for estimating percent fat ({\%} fat) in males and compared their validity with that of commonly used skinfold equation (Sum3). One-hundred twenty-two Caucasian males (X̄ ± SD = 12.5 ± 5.8{\%} fat, as determined by underwater weighing) served as subject. Selection of the BIA equations was dependent upon meeting at least one of three criteria: 1) developed from a previous interlaboratory investigation, 2) derived on a large sample size (>200), or 3) previously been shown to accurately estimate body composition when cross-validated against a criterion method. Cross- validation analyses included examination of the constant error, standard error or estimate (SEE), r, and total error (TE). The Sum3 equation which resulted in the lowest SEE and TE values (2.6{\%} fat and 3.4{\%} fat, respectively) and the highest validity coefficient (r = 0.90, P <0.001), most accurately estimated {\%} fat and, therefore, was recommended over RIA equations for estimating body composition in Caucasian males with lean to average body fatness. The fat-specific interlaboratory BIA equation of Segal et al. (26) for males ≤20{\%} fat (N = 107) which resulted in a TE value of 3.6{\%} fat and the generalized equation of Guo et al. (10) (TE = 4.1{\%} fat) may, however, be considered as acceptable alternatives.",
author = "Joan Eckerson and Stout, {Jeffrey R.} and Housh, {Terry J.} and Johnson, {Glen O.}",
year = "1996",
doi = "10.1097/00005768-199604000-00019",
language = "English",
volume = "28",
pages = "523--530",
journal = "Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise",
issn = "0195-9131",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Validity of bioelectrical impedance equations for estimating percent fat in males

AU - Eckerson, Joan

AU - Stout, Jeffrey R.

AU - Housh, Terry J.

AU - Johnson, Glen O.

PY - 1996

Y1 - 1996

N2 - The present study examined the validity of selected bioelectrical impedance (BIA) equations for estimating percent fat (% fat) in males and compared their validity with that of commonly used skinfold equation (Sum3). One-hundred twenty-two Caucasian males (X̄ ± SD = 12.5 ± 5.8% fat, as determined by underwater weighing) served as subject. Selection of the BIA equations was dependent upon meeting at least one of three criteria: 1) developed from a previous interlaboratory investigation, 2) derived on a large sample size (>200), or 3) previously been shown to accurately estimate body composition when cross-validated against a criterion method. Cross- validation analyses included examination of the constant error, standard error or estimate (SEE), r, and total error (TE). The Sum3 equation which resulted in the lowest SEE and TE values (2.6% fat and 3.4% fat, respectively) and the highest validity coefficient (r = 0.90, P <0.001), most accurately estimated % fat and, therefore, was recommended over RIA equations for estimating body composition in Caucasian males with lean to average body fatness. The fat-specific interlaboratory BIA equation of Segal et al. (26) for males ≤20% fat (N = 107) which resulted in a TE value of 3.6% fat and the generalized equation of Guo et al. (10) (TE = 4.1% fat) may, however, be considered as acceptable alternatives.

AB - The present study examined the validity of selected bioelectrical impedance (BIA) equations for estimating percent fat (% fat) in males and compared their validity with that of commonly used skinfold equation (Sum3). One-hundred twenty-two Caucasian males (X̄ ± SD = 12.5 ± 5.8% fat, as determined by underwater weighing) served as subject. Selection of the BIA equations was dependent upon meeting at least one of three criteria: 1) developed from a previous interlaboratory investigation, 2) derived on a large sample size (>200), or 3) previously been shown to accurately estimate body composition when cross-validated against a criterion method. Cross- validation analyses included examination of the constant error, standard error or estimate (SEE), r, and total error (TE). The Sum3 equation which resulted in the lowest SEE and TE values (2.6% fat and 3.4% fat, respectively) and the highest validity coefficient (r = 0.90, P <0.001), most accurately estimated % fat and, therefore, was recommended over RIA equations for estimating body composition in Caucasian males with lean to average body fatness. The fat-specific interlaboratory BIA equation of Segal et al. (26) for males ≤20% fat (N = 107) which resulted in a TE value of 3.6% fat and the generalized equation of Guo et al. (10) (TE = 4.1% fat) may, however, be considered as acceptable alternatives.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0029921642&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0029921642&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/00005768-199604000-00019

DO - 10.1097/00005768-199604000-00019

M3 - Article

C2 - 8778560

AN - SCOPUS:0029921642

VL - 28

SP - 523

EP - 530

JO - Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise

JF - Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise

SN - 0195-9131

IS - 4

ER -