Exercise Physiology Laboratory, Department of Health, Exercise, and Sports Science, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA.
J Strength Cond Res. 2010 Dec;24(12):3448-56. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181bde1fe.
There is a need for cost-effective techniques that accurately predict percent body fat (%BF) and require little skill to administer. There are 2 commercially available skinfold calipers, 1 digital and the other self-administered, that claim to accurately predict %BF. The primary purpose of this study was to validate these calipers using dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) as a reference method in a sample of college-aged men and women. A secondary purpose of this study was to compare the validity of these calipers to the validity of arm-to-arm bioempedance analysis (BIA) (Omron, Shelton, Connecticut, U.S.A.), leg-to-leg BIA (Tanita, Arlington Heights, Illinois, U.S.A.), and 3-site skinfold equations (SUM3) using DXA as a reference method. Fifty college students (25 men and 25 women) from a kinesiology department who ranged in fitness levels volunteered to have %BF measured by the digital and self-administered skinfold calipers, Omron, Tanita, and SUM3. The digital and self-administered skinfold calipers had the poorest group predictive accuracy for the men and women (total error ranged from 7.9 to 10.9%BF) when compared to the other field methods. The digital skinfold caliper had good individual predictive accuracy in the men (95% limits of agreement [LOA] = ± 6.4%BF) and women (95% LOA = ± 4.9%BF) when compared to the other field methods. However, the self-administered skinfold caliper had poor individual predictive accuracy for the men (LOA = ± 8.6%BF) and the women (LOA = ± 7.5%BF) when compared to the other field methods. Compared to DXA, Tanita, Omron, and SUM3, we would not recommend using the digital or self-administered skinfold calipers for estimating %BF in college-aged men and women with similar body composition as the men and women in this study. We recommend using the SUM3 to estimate %BF.
需要经济有效的技术来准确预测体脂肪百分比（%BF），且这些技术的操作需要很少的技能。有两种商用的皮褶卡尺，一种是数字的，另一种是自我管理的，它们声称可以准确地预测%BF。本研究的主要目的是使用双能 X 射线吸收法（DXA）作为参考方法，在一组大学生男女样本中验证这些卡尺的准确性。本研究的次要目的是将这些卡尺的有效性与臂对臂生物电阻抗分析（BIA）（欧姆龙，美国康涅狄格州谢尔顿）、腿对腿 BIA（坦尼塔，美国伊利诺伊州阿灵顿高地）和 3 点皮褶方程（SUM3）的有效性进行比较，同样使用 DXA 作为参考方法。来自运动机能学部的 50 名大学生（25 名男性和 25 名女性），他们的健身水平各不相同，自愿通过数字和自我管理的皮褶卡尺、欧姆龙、坦尼塔和 SUM3 来测量%BF。与其他现场方法相比，数字和自我管理的皮褶卡尺对男性和女性的总体预测精度最差（总误差范围为 7.9%BF 至 10.9%BF）。与其他现场方法相比，数字皮褶卡尺在男性（95%置信区间[LOA]为±6.4%BF）和女性（95%LOA 为±4.9%BF）中具有良好的个体预测准确性。然而，与其他现场方法相比，自我管理的皮褶卡尺对男性（LOA = ± 8.6%BF）和女性（LOA = ± 7.5%BF）的个体预测精度较差。与 DXA、坦尼塔、欧姆龙和 SUM3 相比，我们不建议在身体成分与本研究中男女相似的大学生中使用数字或自我管理的皮褶卡尺来估计%BF。我们建议使用 SUM3 来估计%BF。
