Prediction of total body water and fatness from anthropometry: Importance of skinfold measurements

Abstract

Prediction equations €or total body water (TBW) generally use weight and height as predictors, but their ability may be limited because they implicitly assume a constancy of TBW among individuals of similar body size. The objective of this study was to evaluate the relative importance of anthropometric dimensions in predicting TBW and body composition. TBW determined by doubly labeled water (DLW) dilution techniques was used as the frame of reference in 23 healthy Aymara subjects, P 6 5 years, in a rural community of the Bolivian Andes. Predictive performances of anthropometric variables for TBW were examined with multiple regression analyses. The generated equations were tested for cross-validity, using published data for U.S. adults. The resulting errors were compared with those of the published prediction equations of Mellits and Cheek (M&C) and Durnin and Womersley (D&W). The simplified prediction equation using weight and the triceps skinfold (Eq-A1: R2 = 0.989, SEE = 1.041 L) and that using weight and the triceps and subscapular skinfolds (Eq-A2: R2 = 0.990, SEE = 1.020 L) had better R2and smaller SEE than those using any combination of variables, weight, height, age, and sex. In the cross-validation sample, Eq-A1 and Eq-A2 demonstrated higher precision than the D&W and M&C equations. Evaluated by the method of Bland and Altman (mean difference t 2SD), prediction errors for fat mass and fat percent were 0.2 -t 2.8 kg and 0.4 2 5.2% in Eq-AS, 1.1 ? 3.5 kg, and 1.8-C 6.1% in Eq-A1, -2.4 2 3.6 kg and -3.4 2 5.1%) in D&W, and -2.3 ? 7.6 kg and -2.6 ? 10.3% in M&C. Significant underestimation of fat mass and sex differences in the biases were observed with D&W and M&C (P < 0.051, but not with Eq-A2. By including skinfold measurements, a single prediction equation for TBW was valid for males and females across different population samples.

Body size, composition, and blood pressure of high‐altitude Quechua from the Peruvian Central Andes (Huancavelica, 3,680 m)

“…Mean weight is also comparable to other Quechua populations (Table 3), although lower values are reported for the rural Bolivian Aymara (Kashiwazaki et al, 1996), Peruvian Quechua (Frisancho and Baker, 1970), and Andeans studied by Picon- Reategui et al (1961a). Higher weights are reported for Mestizos (Tuffs et al, 1985) and Quechua of "large size" (Frisancho et al, 1975).…”

“…Higher weights are reported for Mestizos (Tuffs et al, 1985) and Quechua of "large size" (Frisancho et al, 1975). The BMI (Table 4) is similar to that of rural Ecuadorean highlanders (Leonard et al, 1995), higher than that of Bolivians (Frisancho et al, 1995), and slightly lower than that in rural Bolivian Aymara (Kashiwazaki et al, 1996). Sitting height is also comparable to that reported for native Andean populations by Frisancho and Baker (1970) and Leatherman et al (1995).…”

“…Comparisons of limited skinfold data reported in literature were also undertaken, although the type of caliper used in the studies is often different. Triceps and subscapular skinfolds in the present sample (Table 5) are slightly higher than those of other native Andean samples (Leatherman et al, 1984(Leatherman et al, , 1995Frisancho and Baker, 1970;Kashiwazaki et al, 1996). Mestizos (Tuffs et al, 1985) only show remarkably higher values.…”

“…Mean height (Table 3) is comparable to other Andean Quechua populations (Frisancho and Baker, 1970;Frisancho et al, 1975Frisancho et al, , 1995Leatherman et al, 1984Leatherman et al, , 1995Leonard et al, 1995;Picon-Reategui et al, 1960a) and to Bolivian Aymara (Mueller et al, 1980). Mestizos (Tufts et al, 1985), rural Bolivian Aymara (Kashiwazaki et al, 1996), and Chilean Aymara (Mueller et al, 1980) are slightly taller, while the difference is obviously greater with the Quechua of "large size" and with urban Bolivians studied by Frisancho et al (1975Frisancho et al ( , 1995.…”

Percent of oxygen saturation of arterial hemoglobin among Bolivian Aymara at 3,900-4,000 m

“…Relative chest depth was calculated as anteroposterior chest depth in centimeters divided by height in centimeters. Fat free mass in kilograms was calculated from weight, triceps skinfold, and subscapular skinfold with an equation developed for highaltitude Aymara that used the doubly labeled water dilution technique for validation (Kashiwazaki et al, 1996). Fat mass was calculated as weight minus fat free mass.…”