Comparison of air displacement plethysmography with dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry and 3 field methods for estimating body composition in middle-aged men

Abstract

This study was designed to compare air displacement plethysmography with dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) and 3 other field methods for estimation of body composition. Subjects were 62 healthy, white men aged 37.6+/-2.9 y (weight: 81.8+/-11.3 kg; height: 171.5+/-4.9 cm). Body composition was also assessed by using body mass index, single-frequency bioelectrical impedance analysis, multi-frequency bioelectrical impedance spectroscopy, and the skinfold-thickness equations of Jackson and Pollock and Durnin and Womersley. Percentage body fat (%BF) with the plethysmograph was 23.4+/-7.0 and with DXA was 26.0+/-7.4. The 2.6% mean difference was significant (P< 0.05). Total error was 3.7%BF. As assessed by multiple regression analysis, %BF with the plethysmograph, age, weight, and height yielded a DXA-adjusted R2 value of 89.5% fat and an SEE of 2.4% fat. All other models had higher SEEs and lower adjusted R2 values: 4.3% and 66.5% for body mass index, 3.3% and 79.8% for bioelectrical impedance analysis, 3.6% and 76.2% for bioelectrical impedance spectroscopy, 3.7% and 74.55% for the equations of Jackson and Pollock, and 3.9% and 71.6% for the equations of Durnin and Womersley, respectively. The plethysmograph also predicted fat mass and fat-free mass more accurately than all other models, with a lower SEE and higher adjusted R2 value. In conclusion, although %BF was systematically underestimated, body composition was closely estimated with air displacement plethysmography in middle-aged men.

Within- and between-laboratory precision in the measurement of body volume using air displacement plethysmography and its effect on body composition assessment

“…4,6,11,18,19,25 These values are also probably dependent to some extent on prevailing ambient conditions and variations in the performance of individual instruments, although the latter should be minimized as each instrument is of a standard manufactured by a single company. Accordingly, a variable level of precision (although even the worst case was still very good) has been observed in a number of different subjects undergoing repeated measurements in other studies ( JCK Wells and JE Williams, unpublished).…”

“…Various studies have assessed the accuracy of body composition estimates obtained with ADP against established techniques, such as HW, in both adults [3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12] and children. 5,6,10,13,14 However, although reported estimates of mean differences (biases) between HW and ADP are generally relatively small, there are inconsistencies in the observed direction of these biases and wide variation for individuals, as shown by a large range for the limits of agreement between methods (for review, see Fields 15 ).…”

Involvement of leptin in the association between percentage of body fat and cardiovascular risk factors

“…This method has been reported to agree closely with the traditional gold standard hydrodensitometry (underwater weighing). Furthermore, the Bod-Pod ® has been shown to predict fat mass and fat-free mass more accurately than dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry and bioelectrical impedance [15][16][17].…”

Changes in thoracic gas volume with air-displacement plethysmography after a weight loss program in overweight and obese women

“…BOD POD; Life Measurement Incorporated, Concord, CA, USA), in part because of its wide applicability to many diverse populations and its relative ease both on the subject and tester as compared with more traditional techniques. This equipment has been widely validated against reference methods in healthy children, adolescents, adults and elderly (Sardinha et al, 1998;Collins et al, 1999;Levenhagen et al, 1999;Miyatake et al, 1999;Nunez et al, 1999;Wagner et al, 2000;Fields et al, 2001;Millard-Stafford et al, 2001;Bosy-Westphal et al, 2003;Silva et al, 2006). Furthermore, test-retest reliability, between-day variability, within-subject variability and between-instrument variability appear to be good to excellent (Fields et al, 2002;Ball, 2005;Going, 2005).…”