Cargando…

A comparison of skinfolds and leg-to-leg bioelectrical impedance for the assessment of body composition in children

BACKGROUND: This field-based investigation examined the congruence between skinfolds and bioelectrical impedance in assessing body composition in children. METHODS: Subjects were 162 female and 160 male children 10–15 years of age. Skinfold measures obtained at the triceps and medial calf and a leg-...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Goss, Fredric, Robertson, Robert, Williams, Allison, Sward, Kathy, Abt, Kristi, Ladewig, Melissa, Timmer, Jeffrey, Dixon, Curt
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2003
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC201015/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14498990
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1476-5918-2-5
_version_ 1782120946529730560
author Goss, Fredric
Robertson, Robert
Williams, Allison
Sward, Kathy
Abt, Kristi
Ladewig, Melissa
Timmer, Jeffrey
Dixon, Curt
author_facet Goss, Fredric
Robertson, Robert
Williams, Allison
Sward, Kathy
Abt, Kristi
Ladewig, Melissa
Timmer, Jeffrey
Dixon, Curt
author_sort Goss, Fredric
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: This field-based investigation examined the congruence between skinfolds and bioelectrical impedance in assessing body composition in children. METHODS: Subjects were 162 female and 160 male children 10–15 years of age. Skinfold measures obtained at the triceps and medial calf and a leg-to-leg bioelectrical impedance system were used to determine percent fat using child-specific equations. Pearson product moment correlations were performed on the percent fat values obtained using skinfolds and bioelectric impedance for the entire data set. Separate correlations were also conducted on gender and age/gender subsets. Dependent t tests were used to compare the two techniques. RESULTS: Percent fat did not differ between skinfolds and bioelectrical impedance for the total subject pool. Bioelectrical impedance overestimated percent fat in girls by 2.6% and underestimated percent fat in boys by 1.7% (p < 0.01). Correlations between skinfolds and bioelectrical impedance ranged from r = 0.51 to r = 0.90. CONCLUSIONS: Leg-to-leg bioelectrical impedance may be a viable alternative field assessment technique that is comparable to skinfolds. The small differences in percent fat between the two techniques may have limited practical significance in school-based health-fitness settings.
format Text
id pubmed-201015
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2003
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-2010152003-09-30 A comparison of skinfolds and leg-to-leg bioelectrical impedance for the assessment of body composition in children Goss, Fredric Robertson, Robert Williams, Allison Sward, Kathy Abt, Kristi Ladewig, Melissa Timmer, Jeffrey Dixon, Curt Dyn Med Research BACKGROUND: This field-based investigation examined the congruence between skinfolds and bioelectrical impedance in assessing body composition in children. METHODS: Subjects were 162 female and 160 male children 10–15 years of age. Skinfold measures obtained at the triceps and medial calf and a leg-to-leg bioelectrical impedance system were used to determine percent fat using child-specific equations. Pearson product moment correlations were performed on the percent fat values obtained using skinfolds and bioelectric impedance for the entire data set. Separate correlations were also conducted on gender and age/gender subsets. Dependent t tests were used to compare the two techniques. RESULTS: Percent fat did not differ between skinfolds and bioelectrical impedance for the total subject pool. Bioelectrical impedance overestimated percent fat in girls by 2.6% and underestimated percent fat in boys by 1.7% (p < 0.01). Correlations between skinfolds and bioelectrical impedance ranged from r = 0.51 to r = 0.90. CONCLUSIONS: Leg-to-leg bioelectrical impedance may be a viable alternative field assessment technique that is comparable to skinfolds. The small differences in percent fat between the two techniques may have limited practical significance in school-based health-fitness settings. BioMed Central 2003-08-26 /pmc/articles/PMC201015/ /pubmed/14498990 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1476-5918-2-5 Text en Copyright © 2003 Goss et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article: verbatim copying and redistribution of this article are permitted in all media for any purpose, provided this notice is preserved along with the article's original URL.
spellingShingle Research
Goss, Fredric
Robertson, Robert
Williams, Allison
Sward, Kathy
Abt, Kristi
Ladewig, Melissa
Timmer, Jeffrey
Dixon, Curt
A comparison of skinfolds and leg-to-leg bioelectrical impedance for the assessment of body composition in children
title A comparison of skinfolds and leg-to-leg bioelectrical impedance for the assessment of body composition in children
title_full A comparison of skinfolds and leg-to-leg bioelectrical impedance for the assessment of body composition in children
title_fullStr A comparison of skinfolds and leg-to-leg bioelectrical impedance for the assessment of body composition in children
title_full_unstemmed A comparison of skinfolds and leg-to-leg bioelectrical impedance for the assessment of body composition in children
title_short A comparison of skinfolds and leg-to-leg bioelectrical impedance for the assessment of body composition in children
title_sort comparison of skinfolds and leg-to-leg bioelectrical impedance for the assessment of body composition in children
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC201015/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14498990
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1476-5918-2-5
work_keys_str_mv AT gossfredric acomparisonofskinfoldsandlegtolegbioelectricalimpedancefortheassessmentofbodycompositioninchildren
AT robertsonrobert acomparisonofskinfoldsandlegtolegbioelectricalimpedancefortheassessmentofbodycompositioninchildren
AT williamsallison acomparisonofskinfoldsandlegtolegbioelectricalimpedancefortheassessmentofbodycompositioninchildren
AT swardkathy acomparisonofskinfoldsandlegtolegbioelectricalimpedancefortheassessmentofbodycompositioninchildren
AT abtkristi acomparisonofskinfoldsandlegtolegbioelectricalimpedancefortheassessmentofbodycompositioninchildren
AT ladewigmelissa acomparisonofskinfoldsandlegtolegbioelectricalimpedancefortheassessmentofbodycompositioninchildren
AT timmerjeffrey acomparisonofskinfoldsandlegtolegbioelectricalimpedancefortheassessmentofbodycompositioninchildren
AT dixoncurt acomparisonofskinfoldsandlegtolegbioelectricalimpedancefortheassessmentofbodycompositioninchildren
AT gossfredric comparisonofskinfoldsandlegtolegbioelectricalimpedancefortheassessmentofbodycompositioninchildren
AT robertsonrobert comparisonofskinfoldsandlegtolegbioelectricalimpedancefortheassessmentofbodycompositioninchildren
AT williamsallison comparisonofskinfoldsandlegtolegbioelectricalimpedancefortheassessmentofbodycompositioninchildren
AT swardkathy comparisonofskinfoldsandlegtolegbioelectricalimpedancefortheassessmentofbodycompositioninchildren
AT abtkristi comparisonofskinfoldsandlegtolegbioelectricalimpedancefortheassessmentofbodycompositioninchildren
AT ladewigmelissa comparisonofskinfoldsandlegtolegbioelectricalimpedancefortheassessmentofbodycompositioninchildren
AT timmerjeffrey comparisonofskinfoldsandlegtolegbioelectricalimpedancefortheassessmentofbodycompositioninchildren
AT dixoncurt comparisonofskinfoldsandlegtolegbioelectricalimpedancefortheassessmentofbodycompositioninchildren