College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Texas A&M International University, Laredo, TX, USA.
Department of Kinesiology, The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL, USA.
Clin Nutr. 2020 Apr;39(4):1112-1116. doi: 10.1016/j.clnu.2019.04.018. Epub 2019 Apr 19.
Body composition estimates using skinfold thickness are common in field settings and can provide a reasonably accurate measure when more advanced technology is unavailable. However, the observed error between skinfolds and criterion body composition measures may be influenced by the methodology used to derive the criterion measure.
The aim of this study was to examine the relative accuracy of body composition estimates derived from measures of skinfold thickness when compared to four-compartment (4C) models that utilize underwater weighing (UWW) and dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA)-derived body volume (BV).
The sample consisted of adult males (n = 96) and females (n = 91) who were apparently healthy (age = 21.85 ± 4.82 years; BMI = 24.45 ± 4.62 kg/m). %Fat was assessed via skinfold using three common equations. BV assessed via UWW and DXA were used to estimate %Fat derived as part of a 4C model. Between group differences were assessed using a repeated measures analysis of variance.
%Fat ranged from 4.7 to 39.7 %Fat (21.9 ± 8.1 %Fat). Estimated %Fat using the SF7 Jackson, SF7 Evans, and SF4 Peterson were significantly lower than %Fat as measured via UWW (-4.8 ± 3.5 %Fat, -3.3 ± 3.9 %Fat,-3.1 ± 6.9 %Fat, respectively, all p < .001). The estimated %Fat error was lowest when compared to the %Fat that used the Smith-Ryan DXA-derived BV equation (-0.2 ± 7.3 to -1.9 ± 4.6 %Fat) and highest for the Wilson DXA-derived BV equation (-6.5 ± 7.1 to -8.3 ± 3.3 %Fat).
Skinfold prediction methods can provide reasonable accuracy when estimating %Fat in field settings when more advanced methods are unavailable or undesirable due to increased participant burden. In addition, clinicians and researchers should use caution when selecting a method of estimating body volume via DXA, as the methodology and equation used to derive body volume as part of the 4C model can introduce differences in error.
使用皮褶厚度进行人体成分估计在现场环境中很常见，当无法使用更先进的技术时，它可以提供相当准确的测量结果。然而，皮褶厚度与标准人体成分测量值之间的观察误差可能受到用于得出标准测量值的方法的影响。
本研究的目的是检查当与利用水下称重 (UWW) 和双能 X 射线吸收法 (DXA) 得出的体体积 (BV) 的四分量 (4C) 模型相比时，从皮褶厚度得出的人体成分估计的相对准确性。
该样本由明显健康的成年男性 (n=96) 和女性 (n=91) 组成(年龄=21.85±4.82 岁; BMI=24.45±4.62 kg/m2)。通过皮褶使用三个常用公式评估体脂肪百分比。使用 UWW 和 DXA 评估 BV，用于估计作为 4C 模型一部分的体脂肪百分比。使用重复测量方差分析评估组间差异。
体脂肪百分比范围为 4.7%至 39.7% (21.9±8.1%体脂肪)。使用 SF7 Jackson、SF7 Evans 和 SF4 Peterson 的估计体脂肪百分比明显低于 UWW 测量的体脂肪百分比(-4.8±3.5%体脂肪、-3.3±3.9%体脂肪、-3.1±6.9%体脂肪，均 p<.001)。与使用 Smith-Ryan DXA 得出的 BV 方程(-0.2±7.3%至-1.9±4.6%体脂肪)相比，估计的体脂肪百分比误差最低，而与 Wilson DXA 得出的 BV 方程(-6.5±7.1%至-8.3±3.3%体脂肪)相比，估计的体脂肪百分比误差最高。
当更先进的方法由于增加了参与者负担而不可用或不可取时，皮褶预测方法可以在现场环境中提供合理的体脂肪百分比估计值。此外，临床医生和研究人员在选择通过 DXA 估计体体积的方法时应谨慎，因为用于得出 4C 模型中体体积的方法和方程可能会导致误差的差异。
