Agreement between ultrasound protocols for the estimation of body fat percentage: Comparison to a four‐compartment model

The purpose of this study was to examine the agreement between body fat percentage (%Fat) estimates derived from a standardized ultrasound protocol (%FatIASMS), a commonly used skinfold (SKF)‐site‐based ultrasound protocol (%FatJP), and a criterion four‐compartment (4C) model (%Fat4C). For the ultra...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Clinical physiology and functional imaging 2023-09, Vol.43 (5), p.373-381
Hauptverfasser: Sullivan, Katherine, Metoyer, Casey J., Winchester, Lee J., Esco, Michael R., Fedewa, Michael V.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:The purpose of this study was to examine the agreement between body fat percentage (%Fat) estimates derived from a standardized ultrasound protocol (%FatIASMS), a commonly used skinfold (SKF)‐site‐based ultrasound protocol (%FatJP), and a criterion four‐compartment (4C) model (%Fat4C). For the ultrasound protocols, all measurement sites were marked, measured and analyzed by the same evaluator. Subcutaneous adipose tissue (SAT) thickness was measured manually at the region where the muscle fascia was parallel to the skin and the average value per measurement site was used to calculate body density and subsequently %Fat. A repeated‐measures analysis of variance with a priori planned contrasts was used to compare %Fat values between the 4C criterion and both ultrasound methods. Small nonsignificant mean differences were observed between %FatIASMS (18.82 ± 14.21%Fat, effect size [ES] = 0.25, p = 0.178), %FatJP (18.23 ± 13.32%Fat, ES = 0.32, p = 0.050) and the %Fat4C criterion (21.70 ± 7.57%Fat); however, %FatIASMS did not yield a smaller mean difference than the %FatJP (p = 0.287). Additionally, %FatIASMS (r = 0.90, p 
ISSN:1475-0961
1475-097X
DOI:10.1111/cpf.12835