PURPOSE: The Bod Pod uses air-displacement plethysmography to estimate body fat percentage (BF%). This study was designed to assess the test-retest reliability of the Bod Pod. METHODOLOGY: The study included 283 women (M age = 41.0 yr., SD = 3.0). Each participant was tested at least twice in the Bod Pod. Results showed no significant mean difference between the test and the retest. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was .991. However, the absolute value of the initial trial differences (absolute mean difference) was .96 (SD = .90). A third assessment of BF% was taken when the initial trial difference was greater than 1 percentage point, and the two closest values were compared. RESULTS: This strategy resulted in a significant decrease in the absolute mean difference, from .96 to .55 percentage point, and ICC increased to .998. CONCLUSIONS: The Bod Pod appears to measure body fat percentage reliably; however, findings suggest that multiple trials may be necessary to detect small treatment effects. Reliability of air displacement plethysmography.

The BOD POD, a new air-displacement plethysmograph for measuring human body composition, utilizes the inverse relationship between pressure and volume (Boyle's law) to measure body volume directly. The quantity of air in the lungs during tidal breathing, the average thoracic gas volume (Vtg), is also measured by the BOD POD by using a standard plethysmographic technique. Alternatively, the BOD POD provides the use of a predicted Vtg (Vtgpred). The validity of using Vtgpred in place of measured Vtg (Vtgmeas) to determine the percentage of body fat (%BF) was evaluated in 50 subjects (36 women, 14 men; ages 18-56 yr). There was no significant difference between Vtgmeas and Vtgpred (mean difference +/- SE, 53.5 +/- 63.3 ml) nor in %BF by using Vtgmeas vs. Vtgpred (0.2 +/- 0.2 %BF). On an individual basis, %BF measured by using Vtgmeas vs. Vtgpred differed within +/-2.0% BF for 82% of the subjects; maximum differences were -2.9 to +3.0% BF. For comparison, data from 24 subjects who had undergone hydrostatic weighing were evaluated for the validity of using predicted vs. measured residual lung volume (VRpred vs. VRmeas, respectively). Differences between VRmeas and VRpred and in %BF calculated by using VRmeas vs. VRpred were significant (187 +/- 46 ml and 1.4 +/- 0.3% BF, respectively; P < 0.001). On an individual basis, %BF determined by using VRmeas vs. VRpred differed within +/-2.0% BF for 46% of the subjects; maximum differences were -2.9 to +3.8% BF. With respect to %BF measured by air displacement, our findings support the use of Vtgpred for group mean comparisons and for purposes such as screening in young to middle-aged individuals. This contrasts with the use of VRpred in hydrostatic weighing, which leads to significant errors in the estimation of %BF. Furthermore, although the use of Vtgpred has some application, determining Vtgmeas is relatively simple in most cases. Therefore, we recommend that the use of Vtgmeas remain as standard experimental and clinical practice.

Amounts of exercise consistent with the Institute of Medicine's recommendations reduce the time required to match fat oxidation to a change in the percentage of fat in the diet. Because short-term consumption of high-fat diets is thought to contribute to excess fat accumulation, regular exercise should be protective and should help maintain a healthy body composition.

No abstract