Laboratory of Integrative Human Physiology, School of Kinesiology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, 55455, USA.
Kinesiology and Health Sciences, College of Education and Science, Concordia University - St. Paul, St. Paul, MN, 55104, USA.
Eur J Clin Nutr. 2018 Aug;72(8):1191-1194. doi: 10.1038/s41430-017-0046-1. Epub 2017 Dec 29.
The accuracy of an infrared three-dimensional (3D) body scanner in determining body composition was compared against hydrostatic weighing (HW), bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA), and anthropometry. A total of 265 adults (119 males; age = 22.1 ± 2.5 years; body mass index = 24.5 ± 3.9 kg/m) had their body fat percent (BF%) estimated from 3D scanning, HW, BIA, skinfolds, and girths. A repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) indicated significant differences among methods (p < 0.001). Multivariate ANOVA indicated a significant main effect of sex and method (p < 0.001), with a non-significant interaction (p = 0.101). Bonferroni post-hoc comparisons identified that BF% from 3D scanning (18.1 ± 7.8%) was significantly less than HW (22.8 ± 8.5%, p < 0.001), BIA (20.1 ± 9.1%, p < 0.001), skinfolds (19.7 ± 9.7%, p < 0.001), and girths (21.2 ± 10.4%, p < 0.001). The 3D scanner decreased in precision with increasing adiposity, potentially resulting from inconsistences in the 3D scanner's analysis algorithm. A correction factor within the algorithm is required before infrared 3D scanning can be considered valid in measuring BF%.
将红外三维(3D)人体扫描仪测定身体成分的准确性与静水称重(HW)、生物电阻抗分析(BIA)和人体测量法进行了比较。共有 265 名成年人(男性 119 名;年龄=22.1±2.5 岁;BMI=24.5±3.9kg/m)通过 3D 扫描、HW、BIA、皮褶厚度和周长来估计体脂肪百分比(BF%)。重复测量方差分析(ANOVA)表明方法之间存在显著差异(p<0.001)。多变量方差分析表明性别和方法有显著的主效应(p<0.001),但交互作用不显著(p=0.101)。Bonferroni 事后比较表明,3D 扫描的 BF%(18.1±7.8%)明显低于 HW(22.8±8.5%,p<0.001)、BIA(20.1±9.1%,p<0.001)、皮褶厚度(19.7±9.7%,p<0.001)和周长(21.2±10.4%,p<0.001)。3D 扫描仪的精度随着肥胖程度的增加而降低,这可能是由于 3D 扫描仪分析算法的不一致性造成的。在将红外 3D 扫描视为测量 BF%的有效方法之前,需要在算法中加入一个修正因子。