Cargando…

A comparison of body composition assessment methods in climbers: Which is better?

OBJECTIVE: To compare body composition estimations of field estimation methods: Durnin & Womersley anthropometry (DW-ANT), bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) and Deborah-Kerr anthropometry (DK-ANT) against dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) in a male Chilean sport climbing sample. METHOD...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Arias Téllez, María José, Carrasco, Fernando, España Romero, Vanesa, Inostroza, Jorge, Bustamante, Alejandro, Solar Altamirano, Ignacio
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6867696/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31747391
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0224291
_version_ 1783472120616976384
author Arias Téllez, María José
Carrasco, Fernando
España Romero, Vanesa
Inostroza, Jorge
Bustamante, Alejandro
Solar Altamirano, Ignacio
author_facet Arias Téllez, María José
Carrasco, Fernando
España Romero, Vanesa
Inostroza, Jorge
Bustamante, Alejandro
Solar Altamirano, Ignacio
author_sort Arias Téllez, María José
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To compare body composition estimations of field estimation methods: Durnin & Womersley anthropometry (DW-ANT), bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) and Deborah-Kerr anthropometry (DK-ANT) against dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) in a male Chilean sport climbing sample. METHODS: 30 adult male climbers of different performance levels participated in the study. A DXA scan (Lunar Prodigy(®)) was used to determine fat mass, lean mass and total bone mineral content (BMC). Total muscle mass (MM, kg) was estimated through a validated prediction model. DW-ANT and BIA (“non-athletes” and “athletes” equations) were used to determinate fat mass percentage (FM %), while DK-ANT was utilized to estimate MM and BMC. RESULTS: A significant (p<0.01) inter-method difference was observed for all methods analyzed. When compared to DXA, DW-ANT and BIA underestimated FM% and DK-ANT overestimated MM and BMC (All p<0.01). The inter-method differences was lower for DW-ANT. DISCUSSION: We found that body composition estimation in climbers is highly method dependent. If DXA is not available, DW-ANT for FM% has a lower bias of estimation than BIA in young male Chilean climbers. For MM and BMC, further studies are needed to compare and estimate the DK-ANT bias level. For both methods, correction equations for specific climbing population should be considered.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6867696
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-68676962019-12-07 A comparison of body composition assessment methods in climbers: Which is better? Arias Téllez, María José Carrasco, Fernando España Romero, Vanesa Inostroza, Jorge Bustamante, Alejandro Solar Altamirano, Ignacio PLoS One Research Article OBJECTIVE: To compare body composition estimations of field estimation methods: Durnin & Womersley anthropometry (DW-ANT), bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) and Deborah-Kerr anthropometry (DK-ANT) against dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) in a male Chilean sport climbing sample. METHODS: 30 adult male climbers of different performance levels participated in the study. A DXA scan (Lunar Prodigy(®)) was used to determine fat mass, lean mass and total bone mineral content (BMC). Total muscle mass (MM, kg) was estimated through a validated prediction model. DW-ANT and BIA (“non-athletes” and “athletes” equations) were used to determinate fat mass percentage (FM %), while DK-ANT was utilized to estimate MM and BMC. RESULTS: A significant (p<0.01) inter-method difference was observed for all methods analyzed. When compared to DXA, DW-ANT and BIA underestimated FM% and DK-ANT overestimated MM and BMC (All p<0.01). The inter-method differences was lower for DW-ANT. DISCUSSION: We found that body composition estimation in climbers is highly method dependent. If DXA is not available, DW-ANT for FM% has a lower bias of estimation than BIA in young male Chilean climbers. For MM and BMC, further studies are needed to compare and estimate the DK-ANT bias level. For both methods, correction equations for specific climbing population should be considered. Public Library of Science 2019-11-20 /pmc/articles/PMC6867696/ /pubmed/31747391 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0224291 Text en © 2019 Arias Téllez et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Arias Téllez, María José
Carrasco, Fernando
España Romero, Vanesa
Inostroza, Jorge
Bustamante, Alejandro
Solar Altamirano, Ignacio
A comparison of body composition assessment methods in climbers: Which is better?
title A comparison of body composition assessment methods in climbers: Which is better?
title_full A comparison of body composition assessment methods in climbers: Which is better?
title_fullStr A comparison of body composition assessment methods in climbers: Which is better?
title_full_unstemmed A comparison of body composition assessment methods in climbers: Which is better?
title_short A comparison of body composition assessment methods in climbers: Which is better?
title_sort comparison of body composition assessment methods in climbers: which is better?
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6867696/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31747391
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0224291
work_keys_str_mv AT ariastellezmariajose acomparisonofbodycompositionassessmentmethodsinclimberswhichisbetter
AT carrascofernando acomparisonofbodycompositionassessmentmethodsinclimberswhichisbetter
AT espanaromerovanesa acomparisonofbodycompositionassessmentmethodsinclimberswhichisbetter
AT inostrozajorge acomparisonofbodycompositionassessmentmethodsinclimberswhichisbetter
AT bustamantealejandro acomparisonofbodycompositionassessmentmethodsinclimberswhichisbetter
AT solaraltamiranoignacio acomparisonofbodycompositionassessmentmethodsinclimberswhichisbetter
AT ariastellezmariajose comparisonofbodycompositionassessmentmethodsinclimberswhichisbetter
AT carrascofernando comparisonofbodycompositionassessmentmethodsinclimberswhichisbetter
AT espanaromerovanesa comparisonofbodycompositionassessmentmethodsinclimberswhichisbetter
AT inostrozajorge comparisonofbodycompositionassessmentmethodsinclimberswhichisbetter
AT bustamantealejandro comparisonofbodycompositionassessmentmethodsinclimberswhichisbetter
AT solaraltamiranoignacio comparisonofbodycompositionassessmentmethodsinclimberswhichisbetter