Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow E-letters: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (6)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by BEMBEN, M. G.
Right arrow Articles by MISNER, J. E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by BEMBEN, M. G.
Right arrow Articles by MISNER, J. E.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© 1998 Oxford University Press

other

Age-related variability in body composition methods for assessment of percent fat and fat-free mass in men aged 20–74 years

MICHAEL G. BEMBEN, BENJAMIN H. MASSEY, DEBRA A. BEMBEN, RICHARD A. BOILEAU and JAMES E. MISNER

Physical Fitness Research Laboratory, Department of Kinesiology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign IL, USA

M. G. Bemben, Department of Health and Sport Sciences, Room 120, Huston Huffman Center, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK 73019, USA. Fax: (+ 1) 405 325 0594. e-mail: mgbemben{at}ou.edu

Introduction: assessing body composition is important because of the association between excess body fat or obesity and the increased risk for coronary artery disease, diabetes, hyperlipidaemia and hypertension. Methodological differences among indirect body composition techniques are a source of variability that can affect estimations of fat-free mass (FFM) or percent fat, especially for different age groups.

Purpose: this study examined the effect of age on the estimation of body composition by three methods based on the two-component model. One hundred and fifty-three men were placed into 5-year age groups from 20–24 to 70–74 years. Body composition was assessed by hydrodensitometry (underwater weighing; UWW), 40K spectroscopy (K40) and anthropometry.

Results: day-to-day reliability was excellent for each method. Correlation coefficients between methods, independent of age, ranged from r=0.71 (K40 and UWW) to r=0.83 (UWW and anthropometry) for % fat and from r=0.76 (K40 and anthropometry) to r=0.90 (UWW and anthropometry) for FFM. Correlations between techniques weakened and showed greater variability as age increased. UWW produced the highest % fat and lowest FFM for the different age groups, while K40 and anthropometry yielded similar body composition values. All three methods detected age-related differences in % fat; however, only UWW determined a significant age effect in FFM. The greatest discrepancies between the methods occurred for the oldest age groups (60–74 years), but noticeable differences began occurring after the age of 40.

Conclusions: each method produced reliable data. Care should be taken when choosing any method based on the two-component model, especially when different age groups are being examined, since estimating % fat and FFM is dependent on the age-related chemical composition of an individual and the limitations of each method.

Keywords: ageing body composition, skinfold thickness, underwater weighing whole-body potassium counting

Received February 19, 1997;
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
J. Appl. Physiol.Home page
J. L. Clasey, J. A. Kanaley, L. Wideman, S. B. Heymsfield, C. D. Teates, M. E. Gutgesell, M. O. Thorner, M. L. Hartman, and A. Weltman
Validity of methods of body composition assessment in young and older men and women
J Appl Physiol, May 1, 1999; 86(5): 1728 - 1738.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]



Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.