Suppr超能文献

比较四种适用于临床环境的快速且可靠的身体脂肪评估方法,这些方法适用于年轻、中年和老年健康成年男性和女性。

Comparison of four quick and reliable methods of assessing body fat appropriate for clinical settings among young, middle-age, and older healthy male and female adults.

作者信息

Escamilla Rafael F, Yamashiro Kyle, Asuncion Robert, MacLean Daniel, Thompson Irwin Scott, McKeough Michael

机构信息

Department of Physical Therapy, California State University, Sacramento: 6000 J Street MS 6020 Sacramento CA 95819, USA.

MAC Performance Physical Therapy, USA.

出版信息

J Phys Ther Sci. 2024 Sep;36(9):518-525. doi: 10.1589/jpts.36.518. Epub 2024 Sep 5.

Abstract

[Purpose] Compare four quick (approximately 60 s), reliable methods of assessing %body-fat (%BF) among young (Y, 18-34 years), middle-age (M, 35-59 years), and older (O, 60-88 years) healthy-adults. [Participants and Methods] One-hundred-eighty healthy males-and-females were equally (n=30) divided into Y, M, and O age groups to assess %BF. The %BF methods were: 1) Bioelectrical-impedance-Inbody770 (IB)-criterion reference; 2) Body-mass-index (BMI); 3) Abdominal-and-hip circumferences (CIR); and 4) Skinfold (SF). [Results] %BF were significantly different among the four body-fat methods and among the three age-groups for both males-and-females. %BF among IB,BMI,CIR, and SF were, respectively, 15.7 ± 4.7%, 19.6 ± 3.2%, 17.3 ± 3.5%, and 12.1 ± 4.1% for Y-males; 18.3 ± 5.7%, 22.8 ± 3.6%, 19.6 ± 3.6%, and 15.6 ± 4.5% for M-males; 24.4 ± 6.5%, 25.8 ± 3.3%, 24.0 ± 4.5%, and 20.0 ± 4.1% for O-males; 24.9 ± 6.9%, 28.9 ± 4.1%, 29.4 ± 4.6%, and 22.4 ± 6.3% for Y-females; 25.1 ± 7.0%, 31.4 ± 4.7%, 33.0 ± 4.5%, and 25.0 ± 4.5% for M-females; 35.1 ± 6.3%, 35.5 ± 4.3%, 38.4 ± 4.8%, and 26.4 ± 3.7% for O-females. [Conclusion]The most accurate %BF-methods to use in clinical settings are CIR for Y-and-M-males, CIR and BMI for O-males, SF for Y-and M-females, and BMI for O-females. The least accurate %BF methods are BMI and SF for Y-males, BMI for M-males, SF for O-males, BMI and CIR for Y-and M-females, and SF for O-females. While all 4-methods of assessing %BF can easily and quickly be employed in clinical settings, some methods significantly underestimate or overestimate %BF and yield different results among varying age groups and sex. These findings help identify people at early health risk of cardiometabolic disease, with O-males and O-females at higher risk.

摘要

[目的] 比较四种快速(约60秒)、可靠的方法,用于评估年轻(Y组,18 - 34岁)、中年(M组,35 - 59岁)和老年(O组,60 - 88岁)健康成年人的体脂百分比(%BF)。[参与者与方法] 180名健康男女被平均(n = 30)分为Y、M和O三个年龄组以评估%BF。%BF评估方法有:1)生物电阻抗法Inbody770(IB)——标准参考方法;2)体重指数(BMI);3)腹围和臀围(CIR);4)皮褶厚度(SF)。[结果] 对于男性和女性,四种体脂评估方法之间以及三个年龄组之间的%BF均存在显著差异。Y组男性中,IB、BMI、CIR和SF的%BF分别为15.7 ± ​​4.7%、19.6 ± ​​3.2%、17.3 ± ​​3.5%和12.1 ± ​​4.1%;M组男性分别为18.3 ± ​​5.7%、22.8 ± ​​3.6%、19.6 ± ​​3.6%和15.6 ± ​​4.5%;O组男性分别为24.4 ± ​​6.5%、25.8 ± ​​3.3%、24.0 ± ​​4.5%和20.0 ± ​​4.1%;Y组女性分别为24.9 ± ​​6.9%、28.9 ± ​​4.1%、29.4 ± ​​4.6%和22.4 ± ​​6.3%;M组女性分别为25.1 ± ​​7.0%、31.4 ± ​​4.7%、33.0 ± ​​4.5%和25.0 ± ​​4.5%;O组女性分别为35.1 ± ​​6.3%、35.5 ± ​​4.3%、38.4 ± ​​4.8%和26.4 ± ​​3.7%。[结论] 在临床环境中,最准确的%BF评估方法是:Y组和M组男性用CIR,O组男性用CIR和BMI,Y组和M组女性用SF,O组女性用BMI。最不准确的%BF评估方法是:Y组男性用BMI和SF,M组男性用BMI,O组男性用SF,Y组和M组女性用BMI和CIR,O组女性用SF。虽然所有四种评估%BF的方法都可以在临床环境中轻松快速地应用,但有些方法会显著低估或高估%BF,并且在不同年龄组和性别中产生不同结果。这些发现有助于识别处于心血管代谢疾病早期健康风险的人群,其中O组男性和O组女性风险更高。

相似文献

本文引用的文献

10
Body Composition Methodology in Sports Medicine.运动医学中的身体成分测定方法
Phys Sportsmed. 1982 Dec;10(12):46-58. doi: 10.1080/00913847.1982.11947391.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验