Sports Medicine

, Volume 22, Issue 3, pp 146–156 | Cite as

Evaluation of Body Composition

Current Issues
Leading Article

Abstract

In the selection of body composition field methods and prediction equations, exercise and health practitioners must consider their clients’ demographics. Factors, such as age, gender, level of adiposity, physical activity and ethnicity influence the choice of method and equation. Also, it is important to evaluate the relative worth of prediction equations in terms of the criterion method used to derive reference measures of body composition for equation development. Given that hydrodensitometry, hydrometry and dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry are subject to measurement error and violation of basic assumptions underlying their use, none of these should be considered as a ‘gold standard’ method for in vivo body composition assessment.

Reference methods, based on whole-body, 2-component body composition models, are limited, particularly for individuals whose fat-free body (FFB) density and hydration differ from values assumed for 2-component models. Use of field method prediction equations developed from 2-component model (Siri equation) reference measures of body composition will systematically underestimate relative body fatness of American Indian women, Black men and women, and Hispanic women because the average FFB density of these ethnic groups exceeds the assumed value (1.1 g/ml). Thus, some researchers have developed prediction equations based on multicomponent model estimates of body composition that take into account interindividual variability in the water, mineral, and protein content of the FFB. One multicomponent model approach adjusts body density (measured via hydrodensitometry) for total body water (measured by hydrometry) and/or total body mineral estimated from bone mineral (measured via dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry).

Skinfold (SKF), bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA), and near-infrared interactance (NIR) are 3 body composition methods used in clinical settings. Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of field method prediction equations have been developed and cross-validated for White populations and are based on 2-component model reference measures. Because ethnicity may affect the composition of the FFB and regional fat distribution, race-specific prediction equations may need to be developed for some ethnic groups. To date, race-specific SKF (American Indian women, Black men, and Asian adults), BIA (American Indian women and Asian adults), and NIR (American Indian women and White women) equations have been developed. However, these equations need to be cross-validated on additional samples from these ethnic groups.

In summary, research strongly suggests that multicomponent models need to be used in order to quantify differences in FFB composition due to ethnicity so that accurate SKF, BIA, and NIR prediction equations can be developed. Assessment of body composition in vivo may be enhanced by using advanced technologies such as dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry and hydrometry to refine hydrodensitometry. Practitioners should carefully select and use only those prediction equations that have been developed and cross-validated for specific ethnic groups. Additional research is needed to test the accuracy and applicability of previously published prediction equations for the American Indian, Asian, Black, and Hispanic populations.

Keywords

Body Composition Total Body Water Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis Multicomponent Model American Indian Woman 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Wilmore JH. The use of actual, predicted, and constant residual volumes in the assessment of body composition by underwater weighing. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1969; 1: (87–90)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Katch FI, Katch VL. Measurement and prediction errors in body composition assessment and the search for the perfect equation. Res Q Exerc Sport 1980; 51: (249–60)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Pollock ML, Wilmore JH. Exercise in health and disease: evaluation and prescription for prevention and rehabilitation. 2nd rev. ed. Philadelphia: WB Saunders, 1990Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Siri WE. Body composition from fluid spaces and density: analysis of methods. In: Brozek J, Henschel A, editors. Techniques for measuring body composition. Washington DC: National Academy of Sciences, 1961: 223–44Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brozek J, Grande F, Anderson JT, et al. Densitometric analysis of body composition: revision of some quantitative assumptions. Ann NY Acad Sci 1963; 110: (113–40)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Baumgartner RN, Heymsfield SB, Lichtman S, et al. Body composition in elderly people: effect of criterion estimates on predictive equations. Am J Clin Nutr 1991; 53: (1–9)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lohman TG. Advances in body composition assessment. In: Current issues in exercise science series Vol. 3. Champaign (IL): Human Kinetics, 1992Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wang J, Heymsfield SB, Aulet M, et al. Body fat from body density: underwater weighing vs dual-photon absorptiometry. Am J Physiol 1989; 256: E829–34PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Williams DP, Going SB, Massett MP, et al. Aqueous and mineral fractions of the fat-free body and their relation to body fat estimates in men and women aged 49–82 years. In: Ellis KJ, Eastman JD, editors. Human body composition: in vivo methods, models and assessment. New York: Plenum, 1993: 109–13Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cote DK, Adams WC. Effect of bone density on body composition estimates in young black and white women. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1993; 25: (290–6)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ortiz O, Russell M, Daley TL, et al. Differences in skeletal muscle and bone mineral mass between black and white females and their relevance to estimates of body composition. Am J Clin Nutr 1992; 55: (8–13)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schutte JE, Townsend EJ, Hugg J, et al. Density of lean body mass is greater in blacks than in whites. J Appl Physiol 1984; 56: (1647–9)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schoeller DA, Kushner RF, Taylor P, et al. Measurement of total body water: isotope dilution techniques. Report of the Sixth Ross Conference on Medical Research. Columbus (OH): Ross Laboratories, 1985: 24–9Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lukaski HC. Methods for the assessment of body composition: traditional and new. Am J Clin Nutr 1987; 46: (537–56)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pace N, Rathbun EN. Studies in body composition III. The body water and chemically combined nitrogen content in relation to fat content. J Biol Chem 1945; 158: (685–91)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mazess RB, Barden HS, Bisek JP, et al. Dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry for total-body and regional bone-mineral and soft-tissue composition. Am J Clin Nutr 1990; 51: (1106–12)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Going SB, Massett MP, Hall MC, et al. Detection of small changes in body composition by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry. Am J Clin Nutr 1993; 57: (845–50)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hicks VL, Heyward VH, Baumgartner RN, et al. Body composition of native american women estimated by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry. In: Ellis KJ, Eastman JD, editors. Human body composition: in vivo methods, models and assessment. New York: Plenum, 1993: 89–92Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Van Loan MD, Mayclin PL. Body composition assessment: dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) compared to reference methods. Eur J Clin Nutr 1992; 46: (125–30)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kohrt WM. Body composition by DXA: tried and true? Med Sci Sports Exerc 1995; 27: 1349–53PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lohman TG. Dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry. In: Roche AF, Heymsfield SB, Lohman TG, editors. Human body composition. Champaign (IL): Human Kinetics, 1996: 63–78Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hart PD, Wilkie ME, Edwards A, et al. Dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry versus skinfold measurements in the assessment of total body fat in renal transplant recipients. Eur J Clin Nutr 1993; 47: (347–52)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wang J, Thornton JC, Russell M, et al. Asians have lower body mass index (BMI) but higher percent body fat than do whites: comparison of anthropometric measurements. Am J Clin Nutr 1994; 60: (23–8)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wang J, Thorton JC, Burastero S, et al. Bioimpedance analysis for estimation of total body potassium, total body water, and fat-free mass in white, black, and asian adults. Am J Hum Biol 1995; 7: (33–40)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Roubenoff R, Kehayias JJ, Dawson-Hughes B, et al. Use of dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry in body-composition studies: not yet a ‘gold standard’. Am J Clin Nutr 1993; 58: (589–91)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Heymsfield SB, Waki M. Body composition in humans: advances in the development of multicompartment chemical models. Nutr Rev 1991; 49: (97–108)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Heymsfield SB, Litchman S, Baumgartner RN, et al. Body composition of humans: comparison of two improved four-compartment models that differ in expense, technical complexity, and radiation exposure. Am J Clin Nutr 1990; 52: (52–8)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Friedl KE, DeLuca JP, Marchitelli LJ, et al. Reliability of body-fat estimations from a four-compartment model by using density, body water, and bone mineral measurements. Am J Clin Nutr 1992; 55: (764–70)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lohman TG. Skinfolds and body density and their relation to body fatness: a review. Hum Biol 1981; 53: (181–225)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Fuller NJ, Jebb SA, Laskey MA, et al. Four-component model for the assessment of body composition in humans: comparison with alternative methods, and evaluation of the density and hydration of fat-free mass. Clin Sci 1992; 82: (687–93)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Clark RR, Kuta JM, Sullivan JC. Prediction of percent body fat in adult males using dual energy x-ray absorptiometry, skinfolds, and hydrostatic weighing. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1993; 25: (528–35)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Heymsfield SB, Wang J, Lichtman S, et al. Body composition in elderly subjects: a critical appraisal of clinical methodology. Am J Clin Nutr 1989; 50: (1167–75)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Stolarczyk LM, Heyward VH, Goodman JA, et al. Predictive acccuracy of bioelectrical impedance in estimating fat-free mass of hispanic women. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1995; 27: (1450–6)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Hicks VL. Validation of near-infrared interactance and skinfold methods for estimating body composition of Amerian Indian women [dissertation]. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico, 1992Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Boileau RA, Lohman TG, Slaughter MH. Exercise and body composition of children and youth. Scand J Sports Sci 1985; 7: (17–27)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Horswill CA, Lohman TG, Slaughter MH, et al. Estimation of minimal weight of adolescent males using multicomponent models. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1990; 22: (528–32)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Lohman TG, Boileau RA, Slaughter MH. Body composition in children and youth. In: Boileau RA, editor. Advances in pe-diatric sport sciences. Champaign (IL): Human Kinetics, 1984: 29–57Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Slaughter MH, Lohman TG, Boileau RA, et al. Skinfold equations for estimation of body fatness in children and youth. Hum Biol 1988; 60: (709–23)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Stolarczyk LM, Heyward VH, Hicks VL, et al. Predictive accuracy of bioelectrical impedance in estimating body composition of native American women. Am J Clin Nutr 1994; 59: (964–70)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Lohman TG. Applicability of body composition techniques and constants for children and youth. In: Pandolf KB, editor. Exercise and sport sciences reviews. New York: Macmillan, 1986: 325–57Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Heyward VH, Stolarczyk LM. Applied body composition assessment. Champaign (IL): Human Kinetics, 1996Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Zillikens MC, Conway JM. Anthropometry in blacks: applicability of generalized skinfold equations and differences in fat patterning between blacks and whites. Am J Clin Nutr 1990; 52: (45–51)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Vickery MC, Cureton KJ, Collins MA. Prediction of body density from skinfolds in black and white young men. Hum Biol 1988; 60: (135–49)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Jackson AS, Pollock ML. Generalized equations for predicting body density in men. Br J Nutr 1978; 40: (497–504)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Jackson AS, Pollock ML, Ward A. Generalized equations for predicting body density of women. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1980; 12: (175–82)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    McLean KP, Skinner JS. Validity of Futrex-5000 for body composition determination. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1992; 24: (253–8)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Paijmans IJM, Wilmore KM, Wilmore JH. Use of skinfolds and bioelectrical impedance for body composition assessment after weight reduction. J Am Coll Nutr 1992; 11: (145–51)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Hortobagyi T, Israel RG, Houmard JA, et al. Comparison of body composition assessment by hydrodensitometry, skinfolds, and multiple site near-infrared spectrophotometry. Eur J Clin Nutr 1992; 46: (205–11)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Israel RG, Houmard JA, O’Brien KF, et al. Validity of near-infrared spectrophotometry device for estimating human body composition. Res Q Exerc Sport 1989; 60: (379–83)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Jackson AS, Pollock ML, Graves JE, et al. Reliability and validity of bioelectrical impedance in determining body composition. J Appl Physiol 1988; 64: (529–34)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Eaton AW, Israel RG, O’Brien KF, et al. Comparison of four methods to assess body composition in women. Eur J Clin Nutr 1993; 47: (353–60)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Heyward VH, Cook KL, Hicks VL, et al. Predictive accuracy of three field methods for estimating body fatness of non-obese and obese women. Int J Sports Nutr 1992; 2: (75–86)Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Sparling PB, Millard-Stafford ML, Rosskopf LB, et al. Body composition by bioelectric impedance and densitometry in black women. Am J Hum Biol 1993; 5: (111–7)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Hortobagyi T, Israel RG, Houmard JA, et al. Comparison of four methods to assess body composition in black and white athletes. Int J Sports Nutr 1992; 2: (60–74)Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Heyward VH, Stolarczyk LM, Goodman JA, et al. Predictive accuracy of skinfold (SKF) and near-infrared interactance (NIR) equations in estimating body density of hispanic women [abstract]. Sports Med Train Rehab 1995; 6: (238)Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Martorell R, Malina RM, Castillo RO, et al. Body proportions in three ethnic groups: children and youths 2–17 years in NHANES II and HHANES. Hum Biol 1988; 60: (205–22)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Hicks V, Heyward V, Flores A, et al. Validation of near-infrared interactance (NIR) and skinfold (SKF) methods for estimating body composition of American indian women [abstract]. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1993; 25: S152Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Segal KR, VanLoan M, Fitzgerald PI, et al. Lean body mass estimation by bioelectrical impedance analysis: a four-site cross-validation study. Am J Clin Nutr 1988; 47: (7–14)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Gray DS, Bray GA, Gemayel N, et al. Effect of obesity on bioelectrical impedance. Am J Clin Nutr 1989; 50: (255–60)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    VanLoan MD, Mayclin PL. Bioelectrical impedance analysis: is it a reliable estimator of lean body mass and total body water? Hum Biol 1987; 59: 299–309Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Stolarczyk LM, Heyward VH. An alternative to categorizing normal and obese subjects using the Segal fatness-specific bioimpedance equations [abstract]. Southwest Chapter 1995 Annual meeting, American College of Sports Medicine; 1995 Nov 11–12, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Heyward VH, Wilson WL, Stolarczyk LM. Predictive accuracy of BIA equations for estimating fat-free mass of American Indian, Black, and Hispanic men [abstract]. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1994; 26: S202Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Eckerson JM, Housh TJ, Johnson GO. Validity of bioelectrical impedance equations for estimating fat-free weight in lean males. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1992; 24: (1298–302)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Graves JE, Pollock ML, Colvin AB, et al. Comparison of different bioelectrical impedance analyzers in the prediction of body composition. Am J Hum Biol 1989; 1: (603–11)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Jenkins KA, Heyward VH, Cook KL, et al. Predictive accuracy of bioelectrical impedance equations for women. Am J Hum Biol 1994; 6: (293–303)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Heyward, VH, Stolarczyk LM, Goodman JA, et al. Comparison of two component and multi-component models in estimating body composition of Hispanic women [abstract]. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1995; 27: S118Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Zillikens MC, Conway JM. Estimation of total body water by bioelectrical impedance analysis in Blacks. Am J Hum Biol 1991; 3: (25–32)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Malina RM. Comparative studies of Blacks and Whites in the United States. In: Miller KS, Dreger RM, editors. Biological substrata. New York: Seminar Press, 1973: 53–123Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Futrex, Inc. Futrex-5000 research manual. Gaithersburg (MD): Futrex, Inc., 1988Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Quatrochi JA, Hicks VL, Heyward VH, et al. Relationship of optical density and skinfold measurements: effects of age and level of body fatness. Res Q Exerc Sport 1992; 63: (402–9)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Heyward VH, Jenkins KA, Cook KL, et al. Validity of single-site and multi-site models of estimating body composition of women using near-infrared interactance. Am J Hum Biol 1992; 4: (579–93)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Houmard JA, Israel RG, McCammon MR, et al. Validity of near-infrared device for estimating body composition in a college football team. J Appl Sport Sci Res 1991; 5: (53–9)Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Nielsen DH, Cassady SL, Wacker LM, et al. Validation of the Futrex-5000 near-infrared spectrophotometer analyzer for assessment of body composition. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 1992; 16: (281–7)Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Wilson WL, Heyward VH. Validation of near-infrared interactance method for Black, Hispanic, Native American and White men, 20 to 50 years. In: Ellis KJ, Eastman JD, editors. Human body composition: in vivo methods, models and assessment. New York: Plenum, 1993: 389–92Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Yee EM, Going SB, Milliken SD, et al. Cross-validation of prediction equations for measuring percent body fat and changes in percent body fat in obese women [abstract]. Southwest Chapter 1995 Annual meeting, American College of Sports Medicine; 1995 Nov 11–12, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Wilson WL, Heyward VH. Effects of skintone, skinfold, and mid-arm muscle area on optical density measurements at the biceps site [abstract]. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1993; 25: S60Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis International Limited 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Exercise and Applied Human Physiology, Johnson CenterUniversity of New MexicoAlbuquerqueUSA

Personalised recommendations