Accuracy of Anthropometric Equations to Estimate DXA-Derived Skeletal Muscle Mass in Professional Male Soccer Players

Abstract

Background Several anthropometric equations that estimate skeletal muscle mass (SMM) have been published, but their applicability and accuracy among athletes are still uncertain. Purpose To assess the accuracy of different anthropometric equations that estimate SMM in professional male soccer players, as compared to dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) as the reference method. Methods In this cross-sectional study, we evaluated 179 professional male soccer players aged between 18 and 37 years. Anthropometric measurements (height, body weight, skinfold thicknesses, and girths) and a DXA whole body scan were performed the same day for each participant, and SMM was estimated with nine anthropometric equations (Heymsfield, Martin, Doupe, Kerr, Drinkwater, Lee, De Rose, and two equations published by Kuriyan). To determine differences between SMM estimated with anthropometric equations and SMM evaluated with DXA, a Kruskal-Wallis test was performed using Dunn's test as post hoc. The significance level was set at p < 0.05. We calculated the mean difference and 95% limits of agreement for the analyzed equations (Equation – DXA). Results Only Heymsfield's and Lee's equations showed no significant differences with DXA. Heymsfield's equation had the smallest mean difference (-0.17 kg), but wider limits of agreement with DXA (-6.61 to 6.94 kg). Lee's equation had a small mean difference (1.10 kg) but narrower limits of agreement with DXA (-1.83 to 4.03 kg). Conclusions In this study, the prediction equation published by Lee et al. showed the best agreement with DXA and is able to estimate SMM accurately in professional male soccer players.

Maximal Oxygen Uptake Adjusted for Skeletal Muscle Mass in Competitive Speed-Power and Endurance Male Athletes: Changes in a One-Year Training Cycle

“…Skeletal muscle mass (SMM) is the largest component of the adipose tissue-free body mass in humans [ 5 ], essential for athletic performance. Despite many differences in training and competition specificity, available research indicates that SMM content in athletes ranges from 40% to 48% of total body mass [ 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 ].…”

Simple anthropometry-based calculations to monitor body composition in athletes: Scoping review and reference values

“…Generally, the most commonly used equations are (a) Durnin and Womersley (1974) for sedentary population; (b) Jackson and Pollock (1978), Jackson et al (1980), Harbin et al (2017) for physically active men and women; and (c) Yuhasz (1962) or Faulkner (1968) for sub-elite and elite athletes. However, anthropometrists should be aware of the recent validation studies (compared to DXA), which have revealed new equations for different populations, such as Caucasian young male and female football players (Lozano-Berges et al, 2019), international soccer players of the Italian Serie-A (Nunez et al, 2019), professional Mexican male soccer players (Gonzalez-Mendoza et al, 2019), Spanish elite youth male soccer players (Munguía-Izquierdo et al, 2018), Japanese male athletes (Takai et al, 2018), Colombian adult women (Aristizabal et al, 2018), physically active women and men (Lahav et al, 2018), southern Brazilian adolescents (Ripka et al, 2017), Italian female handball players (Cavedon et al, 2018), and young Iranian wrestlers (Riyahi-Alam et al, 2017). In “fitness” and bodybuilding, the success and achievement of goals can be accounted for in large part by easily obtained physical variables, as Fry and colleagues (Fry et al, 1991) demonstrated after they analyzed anthropometric features as discriminators of success in North American bodybuilders.…”

Body Mass Index, Fat Mass, Muscle Mass, and Somatotype of Young Adult Male Non-Elite Judokas According to Body Weight Categories in Merida, Mexico

“…Body fat (%) was estimated using standard equation (Siri 1956); formula was used to calculate density (Durnin and Womersley 1974). Skeletal muscle mass (kg and %) was estimated based on standard formula (Lee et al 2000) that has been validated by a previous study in Mexico and showed best agreement with the results obtained using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) (González-Mendoza et al 2019). Somatotype rating was done using standard references (Carter and Heath 1990).…”