Evaluation of the BOD POD and Leg-to-Leg Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis for Estimating Percent Body Fat in National Collegiate Athletic Association Division III Collegiate Wrestlers
The purpose of this study was to compare percent body fat (%BF) estimated by air displacement plethysmography (ADP) and leg-to-leg bioelectrical impedance analysis (LBIA) with hydrostatic weighing (HW) in a group (n = 25) of NCAA Division III collegiate wrestlers. Body composition was assessed durin...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of strength and conditioning research 2005-02, Vol.19 (1), p.85-91 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 91 |
---|---|
container_issue | 1 |
container_start_page | 85 |
container_title | Journal of strength and conditioning research |
container_volume | 19 |
creator | Dixon, Curt B Deitrick, Ronald W Pierce, Joseph R Cutrufello, Paul T Drapeau, Linda L |
description | The purpose of this study was to compare percent body fat (%BF) estimated by air displacement plethysmography (ADP) and leg-to-leg bioelectrical impedance analysis (LBIA) with hydrostatic weighing (HW) in a group (n = 25) of NCAA Division III collegiate wrestlers. Body composition was assessed during the preseason wrestling weight certification program (WCP) using the NCAA approved methods (HW, 3-site skinfold [SF], and ADP) and LBIA, which is currently an unaccepted method of assessment. A urine specific gravity less than 1.020, measured by refractometry, was required before all testing. Each subject had all of the assessments performed on the same day. LBIA measurements (Athletic mode) were determined using a Tanita body fat analyzer (model TBF-300A). Hydrostatic weighing, corrected for residual lung volume, was used as the criterion measurement. The %BF data (mean +/- SD) were LBIA (12.3 +/- 4.6), ADP (13.8 +/- 6.3), SF (14.2 +/- 5.3), and HW (14.5 +/- 6.0). %BF estimated by LBIA was significantly (p < 0.01) smaller than HW and SF. There were no significant differences in body density or %BF estimated by ADP, SF, and HW. All methods showed significant correlations (r = 0.80-0.96; p < 0.01) with HW. The standard errors of estimate (SEE) for %BF were 1.68, 1.87, and 3.60%; pure errors (PE) were 1.88, 1.94, and 4.16% (ADP, SF, and LBIA, respectively). Bland-Atman plots for %BF demonstrated no systematic bias for ADP, SF, and LBIA when compared with HW. These preliminary findings support the use of ADP and SF for estimating %BF during the NCAA WCP in Division III wrestlers. LBIA, which consistently underestimated %BF, is not supported by these data as a valid assessment method for this athletic group. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1519/14053.1 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_17582295</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>850433941</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c198t-f859c5b0437be3e09b98697a677c86e622ab8ac7151629fcb4df00d25266345b3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpdkbtOwzAUhiMEElAQr2AxwBTwJU7ssS0FIlWUAcQYOc5JMXLjYrtIfTJeD0MZEMPRf4bvP9csOyP4inAir0mBObsie9kR4YzlBRXVfspxWeQCE3KYHYfwhjHlnLOj7HP2oexGReMG5HoUXwFNFjfoMYUaOjSHZR5dngRNjAMLOnqjlUX1ag2dGjSg8aDsNpiAeufRLESzStWGJXoEr2GIaOK6LbpVEZkBPfw0SvapsxaWRsXkj68WotFoHILTZjfKjfkw4Tup6_ov_OIhRAs-nGQHvbIBTn91lD3fzp6m9_l8cVdPx_NcEyli3gsuNW9xwaoWGGDZSlHKSpVVpUUJJaWqFUpX6XIllb1ui67HuKOcliUreMtG2cWu7tq7901q3qxM0GCtGsBtQkMqLiiVPIHn_8A3t_Fp19BQwgjBWMgEXe4g7V0IHvpm7dO9_LYhuPn-XvPzvYawL1UCjJU</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>213110089</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Evaluation of the BOD POD and Leg-to-Leg Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis for Estimating Percent Body Fat in National Collegiate Athletic Association Division III Collegiate Wrestlers</title><source>Journals@Ovid Complete</source><creator>Dixon, Curt B ; Deitrick, Ronald W ; Pierce, Joseph R ; Cutrufello, Paul T ; Drapeau, Linda L</creator><creatorcontrib>Dixon, Curt B ; Deitrick, Ronald W ; Pierce, Joseph R ; Cutrufello, Paul T ; Drapeau, Linda L</creatorcontrib><description>The purpose of this study was to compare percent body fat (%BF) estimated by air displacement plethysmography (ADP) and leg-to-leg bioelectrical impedance analysis (LBIA) with hydrostatic weighing (HW) in a group (n = 25) of NCAA Division III collegiate wrestlers. Body composition was assessed during the preseason wrestling weight certification program (WCP) using the NCAA approved methods (HW, 3-site skinfold [SF], and ADP) and LBIA, which is currently an unaccepted method of assessment. A urine specific gravity less than 1.020, measured by refractometry, was required before all testing. Each subject had all of the assessments performed on the same day. LBIA measurements (Athletic mode) were determined using a Tanita body fat analyzer (model TBF-300A). Hydrostatic weighing, corrected for residual lung volume, was used as the criterion measurement. The %BF data (mean +/- SD) were LBIA (12.3 +/- 4.6), ADP (13.8 +/- 6.3), SF (14.2 +/- 5.3), and HW (14.5 +/- 6.0). %BF estimated by LBIA was significantly (p < 0.01) smaller than HW and SF. There were no significant differences in body density or %BF estimated by ADP, SF, and HW. All methods showed significant correlations (r = 0.80-0.96; p < 0.01) with HW. The standard errors of estimate (SEE) for %BF were 1.68, 1.87, and 3.60%; pure errors (PE) were 1.88, 1.94, and 4.16% (ADP, SF, and LBIA, respectively). Bland-Atman plots for %BF demonstrated no systematic bias for ADP, SF, and LBIA when compared with HW. These preliminary findings support the use of ADP and SF for estimating %BF during the NCAA WCP in Division III wrestlers. LBIA, which consistently underestimated %BF, is not supported by these data as a valid assessment method for this athletic group.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1064-8011</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1533-4287</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1519/14053.1</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Champaign: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins Ovid Technologies</publisher><subject>Body fat</subject><ispartof>Journal of strength and conditioning research, 2005-02, Vol.19 (1), p.85-91</ispartof><rights>Copyright Allen Press, Inc. Feb 2005</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c198t-f859c5b0437be3e09b98697a677c86e622ab8ac7151629fcb4df00d25266345b3</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27903,27904</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Dixon, Curt B</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Deitrick, Ronald W</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pierce, Joseph R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cutrufello, Paul T</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Drapeau, Linda L</creatorcontrib><title>Evaluation of the BOD POD and Leg-to-Leg Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis for Estimating Percent Body Fat in National Collegiate Athletic Association Division III Collegiate Wrestlers</title><title>Journal of strength and conditioning research</title><description>The purpose of this study was to compare percent body fat (%BF) estimated by air displacement plethysmography (ADP) and leg-to-leg bioelectrical impedance analysis (LBIA) with hydrostatic weighing (HW) in a group (n = 25) of NCAA Division III collegiate wrestlers. Body composition was assessed during the preseason wrestling weight certification program (WCP) using the NCAA approved methods (HW, 3-site skinfold [SF], and ADP) and LBIA, which is currently an unaccepted method of assessment. A urine specific gravity less than 1.020, measured by refractometry, was required before all testing. Each subject had all of the assessments performed on the same day. LBIA measurements (Athletic mode) were determined using a Tanita body fat analyzer (model TBF-300A). Hydrostatic weighing, corrected for residual lung volume, was used as the criterion measurement. The %BF data (mean +/- SD) were LBIA (12.3 +/- 4.6), ADP (13.8 +/- 6.3), SF (14.2 +/- 5.3), and HW (14.5 +/- 6.0). %BF estimated by LBIA was significantly (p < 0.01) smaller than HW and SF. There were no significant differences in body density or %BF estimated by ADP, SF, and HW. All methods showed significant correlations (r = 0.80-0.96; p < 0.01) with HW. The standard errors of estimate (SEE) for %BF were 1.68, 1.87, and 3.60%; pure errors (PE) were 1.88, 1.94, and 4.16% (ADP, SF, and LBIA, respectively). Bland-Atman plots for %BF demonstrated no systematic bias for ADP, SF, and LBIA when compared with HW. These preliminary findings support the use of ADP and SF for estimating %BF during the NCAA WCP in Division III wrestlers. LBIA, which consistently underestimated %BF, is not supported by these data as a valid assessment method for this athletic group.</description><subject>Body fat</subject><issn>1064-8011</issn><issn>1533-4287</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2005</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNpdkbtOwzAUhiMEElAQr2AxwBTwJU7ssS0FIlWUAcQYOc5JMXLjYrtIfTJeD0MZEMPRf4bvP9csOyP4inAir0mBObsie9kR4YzlBRXVfspxWeQCE3KYHYfwhjHlnLOj7HP2oexGReMG5HoUXwFNFjfoMYUaOjSHZR5dngRNjAMLOnqjlUX1ag2dGjSg8aDsNpiAeufRLESzStWGJXoEr2GIaOK6LbpVEZkBPfw0SvapsxaWRsXkj68WotFoHILTZjfKjfkw4Tup6_ov_OIhRAs-nGQHvbIBTn91lD3fzp6m9_l8cVdPx_NcEyli3gsuNW9xwaoWGGDZSlHKSpVVpUUJJaWqFUpX6XIllb1ui67HuKOcliUreMtG2cWu7tq7901q3qxM0GCtGsBtQkMqLiiVPIHn_8A3t_Fp19BQwgjBWMgEXe4g7V0IHvpm7dO9_LYhuPn-XvPzvYawL1UCjJU</recordid><startdate>200502</startdate><enddate>200502</enddate><creator>Dixon, Curt B</creator><creator>Deitrick, Ronald W</creator><creator>Pierce, Joseph R</creator><creator>Cutrufello, Paul T</creator><creator>Drapeau, Linda L</creator><general>Lippincott Williams & Wilkins Ovid Technologies</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7TS</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9-</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0R</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope></search><sort><creationdate>200502</creationdate><title>Evaluation of the BOD POD and Leg-to-Leg Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis for Estimating Percent Body Fat in National Collegiate Athletic Association Division III Collegiate Wrestlers</title><author>Dixon, Curt B ; Deitrick, Ronald W ; Pierce, Joseph R ; Cutrufello, Paul T ; Drapeau, Linda L</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c198t-f859c5b0437be3e09b98697a677c86e622ab8ac7151629fcb4df00d25266345b3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2005</creationdate><topic>Body fat</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Dixon, Curt B</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Deitrick, Ronald W</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pierce, Joseph R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cutrufello, Paul T</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Drapeau, Linda L</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Physical Education Index</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>Consumer Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Consumer Health Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><jtitle>Journal of strength and conditioning research</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Dixon, Curt B</au><au>Deitrick, Ronald W</au><au>Pierce, Joseph R</au><au>Cutrufello, Paul T</au><au>Drapeau, Linda L</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Evaluation of the BOD POD and Leg-to-Leg Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis for Estimating Percent Body Fat in National Collegiate Athletic Association Division III Collegiate Wrestlers</atitle><jtitle>Journal of strength and conditioning research</jtitle><date>2005-02</date><risdate>2005</risdate><volume>19</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>85</spage><epage>91</epage><pages>85-91</pages><issn>1064-8011</issn><eissn>1533-4287</eissn><abstract>The purpose of this study was to compare percent body fat (%BF) estimated by air displacement plethysmography (ADP) and leg-to-leg bioelectrical impedance analysis (LBIA) with hydrostatic weighing (HW) in a group (n = 25) of NCAA Division III collegiate wrestlers. Body composition was assessed during the preseason wrestling weight certification program (WCP) using the NCAA approved methods (HW, 3-site skinfold [SF], and ADP) and LBIA, which is currently an unaccepted method of assessment. A urine specific gravity less than 1.020, measured by refractometry, was required before all testing. Each subject had all of the assessments performed on the same day. LBIA measurements (Athletic mode) were determined using a Tanita body fat analyzer (model TBF-300A). Hydrostatic weighing, corrected for residual lung volume, was used as the criterion measurement. The %BF data (mean +/- SD) were LBIA (12.3 +/- 4.6), ADP (13.8 +/- 6.3), SF (14.2 +/- 5.3), and HW (14.5 +/- 6.0). %BF estimated by LBIA was significantly (p < 0.01) smaller than HW and SF. There were no significant differences in body density or %BF estimated by ADP, SF, and HW. All methods showed significant correlations (r = 0.80-0.96; p < 0.01) with HW. The standard errors of estimate (SEE) for %BF were 1.68, 1.87, and 3.60%; pure errors (PE) were 1.88, 1.94, and 4.16% (ADP, SF, and LBIA, respectively). Bland-Atman plots for %BF demonstrated no systematic bias for ADP, SF, and LBIA when compared with HW. These preliminary findings support the use of ADP and SF for estimating %BF during the NCAA WCP in Division III wrestlers. LBIA, which consistently underestimated %BF, is not supported by these data as a valid assessment method for this athletic group.</abstract><cop>Champaign</cop><pub>Lippincott Williams & Wilkins Ovid Technologies</pub><doi>10.1519/14053.1</doi><tpages>7</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1064-8011 |
ispartof | Journal of strength and conditioning research, 2005-02, Vol.19 (1), p.85-91 |
issn | 1064-8011 1533-4287 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_17582295 |
source | Journals@Ovid Complete |
subjects | Body fat |
title | Evaluation of the BOD POD and Leg-to-Leg Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis for Estimating Percent Body Fat in National Collegiate Athletic Association Division III Collegiate Wrestlers |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-22T13%3A24%3A11IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Evaluation%20of%20the%20BOD%20POD%20and%20Leg-to-Leg%20Bioelectrical%20Impedance%20Analysis%20for%20Estimating%20Percent%20Body%20Fat%20in%20National%20Collegiate%20Athletic%20Association%20Division%20III%20Collegiate%20Wrestlers&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20strength%20and%20conditioning%20research&rft.au=Dixon,%20Curt%20B&rft.date=2005-02&rft.volume=19&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=85&rft.epage=91&rft.pages=85-91&rft.issn=1064-8011&rft.eissn=1533-4287&rft_id=info:doi/10.1519/14053.1&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E850433941%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=213110089&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |