School of Health and Caring Sciences, University of West Attica, Egaleo, Greece.
Exercise Physiology Laboratory, Nikaia, Greece.
Biomed Res Int. 2021 Sep 29;2021:3717562. doi: 10.1155/2021/3717562. eCollection 2021.
The aim of the present study was to examine (a) the relationship of body fat (BF) assessed by bioimpedance analysis (BIA) and skinfold thickness (SKF) and (b) the variation of BF by age depending on the assessment method. Participants were 32 women and 134 men recreational marathon runners, who were tested for BF using both assessment methods (BIA and SKF). Rc between BIA and SKF assessment methods was 0.803 (95% CI; 0.640, 0.897) in women and 0.568 (95% CI; 0.481, 0.644) in men. A large main effect of the assessment method on BF was observed ( < 0.001, = 0.156) with SKF presenting higher BF than BIA by 2.9%. The difference between SKF and BIA was 3.9 ± 2.7% (95% confidence intervals, CI; 3.4; 4.3, < 0.001) in men, whereas no difference was found in women (-0.9 ± 2.9%; 95% CI; -1.9; -0.2, = 0.101). BF correlated with age with small magnitude (BIA, = 0.18, = 0.036; SKF, = 0.23, = 0.007) in men, i.e., the older the age, the higher the BF. A similar trend of moderate magnitude was observed in women for BIA ( = 0.45, = 0.011), but not for SKF ( = 0.33, = 0.067). In conclusion, practitioners involved in the training of recreational runners would be advised to consider that BIA elicits a lower BF value than the SKF method in men.
（a）通过生物阻抗分析（BIA）和皮褶厚度（SKF）评估的体脂肪（BF）之间的关系；（b）根据评估方法，BF 随年龄的变化。研究对象为 32 名女性和 134 名男性业余马拉松跑者，他们使用两种评估方法（BIA 和 SKF）测试 BF。女性的 BIA 和 SKF 评估方法之间的相关性为 0.803（95%置信区间；0.640，0.897），男性为 0.568（95%置信区间；0.481，0.644）。BF 的评估方法对 BF 有较大的主要影响（ < 0.001， = 0.156），SKF 比 BIA 高 2.9%。SKF 和 BIA 之间的差异为 3.9 ± 2.7%（95%置信区间，CI；3.4；4.3， < 0.001），男性存在差异，而女性则无差异（-0.9 ± 2.9%；95% CI；-1.9；-0.2， = 0.101）。BF 与年龄相关，相关性较小（BIA， = 0.18， = 0.036；SKF， = 0.23， = 0.007），即年龄越大，BF 越高。女性的 BIA 呈中度相关（ = 0.45， = 0.011），但 SKF 则不然（ = 0.33， = 0.067）。综上所述，对于训练业余马拉松跑者的从业者，建议他们考虑 BIA 比 SKF 方法得出的 BF 值在男性中较低。
