TY - JOUR
T1 - Five-Component Model Validation of Reference, Laboratory, and Field Methods of Body Composition Assessment
AU - Tinsley, Grant M.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Nutrition Society.
Copyright:
Copyright 2020 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.
PY - 2020
Y1 - 2020
N2 - This study reports the validity of body fat percentage (BF%) estimates from several commonly employed techniques as compared to a 5-component (5C) model criterion. Healthy adults (n=170) were assessed by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), air displacement plethysmography (ADP), multiple bioimpedance techniques, and optical scanning. Output was also used to produce a criterion 5C model, multiple variants of 3- A nd 4-component models (3C; 4C), and anthropometry-based BF% estimates. Linear regression, Bland-Altman analysis, and equivalence testing were performed alongside evaluation of the constant error (CE), total error (TE), standard error of the estimate (SEE), and coefficient of determination (R2). The major findings were: 1) Differences between 5C, 4C, and 3C models utilizing the same body volume (BV) and total body water (TBW) estimates are negligible (CE≤0.2%; SEE<0.5%; TE≤0.5%; R2=1.00; 95% limits of agreement [LOA]≤0.9%); 2) Moderate errors from alternate TBW or BV estimates in multi-component models were observed (CE≤1.3%; SEE≤2.1%; TE≤2.2%; R2≥0.95; 95% LOA≤4.2%); 3) Small differences between alternate DXA (i.e., tissue vs. region) and ADP (i.e., Siri vs. Brozek equations) estimates were observed, and both techniques generally performed well (CE<3.0%; SEE≤2.3%; TE≤3.6%; R2≥0.88; 95% LOA≤4.8%); 4) Bioimpedance technologies performed well but exhibited larger individual-level errors (CE<1.0%; SEE≤3.1%; TE≤3.3%; R2≥0.94; 95% LOA≤6.2%); and 5) Anthropometric equations generally performed poorly (CE:0.6 to 5.7%; SEE≤5.1%; TE≤7.4%; R2≥0.67; 95% LOA≤10.6%). Collectively, the data presented in this manuscript can aid researchers and clinicians in selecting an appropriate body composition assessment method and understanding the associated errors when compared to a reference multi-component model.
AB - This study reports the validity of body fat percentage (BF%) estimates from several commonly employed techniques as compared to a 5-component (5C) model criterion. Healthy adults (n=170) were assessed by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), air displacement plethysmography (ADP), multiple bioimpedance techniques, and optical scanning. Output was also used to produce a criterion 5C model, multiple variants of 3- A nd 4-component models (3C; 4C), and anthropometry-based BF% estimates. Linear regression, Bland-Altman analysis, and equivalence testing were performed alongside evaluation of the constant error (CE), total error (TE), standard error of the estimate (SEE), and coefficient of determination (R2). The major findings were: 1) Differences between 5C, 4C, and 3C models utilizing the same body volume (BV) and total body water (TBW) estimates are negligible (CE≤0.2%; SEE<0.5%; TE≤0.5%; R2=1.00; 95% limits of agreement [LOA]≤0.9%); 2) Moderate errors from alternate TBW or BV estimates in multi-component models were observed (CE≤1.3%; SEE≤2.1%; TE≤2.2%; R2≥0.95; 95% LOA≤4.2%); 3) Small differences between alternate DXA (i.e., tissue vs. region) and ADP (i.e., Siri vs. Brozek equations) estimates were observed, and both techniques generally performed well (CE<3.0%; SEE≤2.3%; TE≤3.6%; R2≥0.88; 95% LOA≤4.8%); 4) Bioimpedance technologies performed well but exhibited larger individual-level errors (CE<1.0%; SEE≤3.1%; TE≤3.3%; R2≥0.94; 95% LOA≤6.2%); and 5) Anthropometric equations generally performed poorly (CE:0.6 to 5.7%; SEE≤5.1%; TE≤7.4%; R2≥0.67; 95% LOA≤10.6%). Collectively, the data presented in this manuscript can aid researchers and clinicians in selecting an appropriate body composition assessment method and understanding the associated errors when compared to a reference multi-component model.
KW - adiposity
KW - air displacement plethysmography
KW - anthropometry
KW - bioelectrical impedance analysis
KW - body fat
KW - dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry
KW - fat-free mass
KW - lean mass
KW - multi-compartment model
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85091866658&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1017/S0007114520003578
DO - 10.1017/S0007114520003578
M3 - Article
C2 - 32921319
AN - SCOPUS:85091866658
JO - British Journal of Nutrition
JF - British Journal of Nutrition
SN - 0007-1145
ER -