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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |