Wells Andrew D, Bellovary Bryanne N, Houck Jonathan M, Ducharme Jeremy B, Masoud Abdulaziz A, Gibson Ann L, Mermier Christine M
University of New Mexico, Department of Health Exercise and Sport Sciences, Albuquerque, NM, USA.
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。
