新型多部位生物电阻抗设备与水下称重法和皮褶厚度法测量体脂的比较
New Multisite Bioelectrical Impedance Device Compared to Hydrostatic Weighing and Skinfold Body Fat Methods.
作者信息
Wells Andrew D, Bellovary Bryanne N, Houck Jonathan M, Ducharme Jeremy B, Masoud Abdulaziz A, Gibson Ann L, Mermier Christine M
机构信息
University of New Mexico, Department of Health Exercise and Sport Sciences, Albuquerque, NM, USA.
出版信息
Int J Exerc Sci. 2020 Dec 1;13(4):1718-1728. doi: 10.70252/DXJN8781. eCollection 2020.
The purpose of this study was to compare the Skulpt Chisel™ to seven-site skinfold (SKF) and hydrostatic weighing (HW) body fat percentage (%BF) estimates. Twenty-six participants (aged 24 ± 4 years; BMI 23.1 ± 3.5 kg·m) were assessed. Significant differences in %BF estimates were found for all methodological pairings; < 0.05. The SKF method underestimated %BF compared to HW (-2.52 ± 3.42 %BF). The Skulpt Chisel™ overestimated %BF compared to both HW (3.38 ± 6.10 %BF) and SKF (5.90 ± 5.26 %BF). Limits of agreement comparing HW to Skulpt Chisel™ indicated a difference between 95% confidence interval bounds (Upper bound: 5.84 %BF, Lower bound 0.92 %BF) and for HW to SKF (Upper bound: -1.14 %BF, Lower bound: -3.91 %BF). Regression analysis showed no significant bias for any methodological pairing; ( > 0.05). In conclusion, the Skulpt Chisel™ method should be used with caution when evaluating %BF of adults with similar demographics reported in this study.
本研究的目的是比较Skulpt Chisel™与七点皮褶厚度（SKF）法和水下称重（HW）法对体脂百分比（%BF）的估计。对26名参与者（年龄24±4岁；体重指数23.1±3.5kg·m²）进行了评估。所有方法配对在%BF估计值上均存在显著差异；P<0.05。与HW法相比，SKF法低估了%BF（-2.52±3.42%BF）。与HW法（3.38±6.10%BF）和SKF法（5.90±5.26%BF）相比，Skulpt Chisel™高估了%BF。HW法与Skulpt Chisel™法比较的一致性界限表明，95%置信区间边界存在差异（上限：5.84%BF，下限：0.92%BF），HW法与SKF法比较的一致性界限（上限：-1.14%BF，下限：-3.91%BF）。回归分析表明，任何方法配对均无显著偏差；P>0.05。总之，在评估本研究中报告的具有相似人口统计学特征的成年人的%BF时，应谨慎使用Skulpt Chisel™法。
Zotero 插件