Validation of skinfold equations and alternative methods for the determination of fat-free mass in young athletes
Andrew R. Jagim, Grant M. Tinsley, Brandon Merfeld, Abby Ambrosius, Chinguun Khurelbaatar, Christopher Dodge, Makenna Carpenter, Joel Luedke, Jacob L. Erickson, Jennifer B. Fields, Margaret T. Jones
Abstract
Intoduction: To cross-validate skinfold (SKF) equations, impedance devices, and air-displacement plethysmography (ADP) for the determination of fat-free mass (FFM). Methods: ; body fat: 19.59 ± 6.9%) using underwater weighing (UWW), ADP, and SKF assessments. A 3-compartment (3C) model (i.e., UWW and total body water) served as the criterion, and alternate body density (Db) estimates from ADP and multiple SKF equations were obtained. Validity metrics were examined to establish each method's performance. Bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA), bioimpedance spectroscopy (BIS), and the SKF equations of Devrim-Lanpir, Durnin and Womersley, Jackson and Pollock (7-site), Katch, Loftin, Lohman, Slaughter, and Thorland differed from criterion. Results: For females, Pearson's correlations between the 3C model and alternate methods ranged from 0.51 to 0.92, the Lin's concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) ranged from 0.41 to 0.89, with standard error of the estimate (SEE) ranges of 1.9-4.6 kg. For SKF, the Evans 7-site and J&P 3 Site equations performed best with CCC and SEE values of 0.82, 2.01 kg and 0.78, 2.21 kg, respectively. For males, Pearson's correlations between the 3C model and alternate methods ranged from 0.50 to 0.95, CCC ranges of 0.46-0.94, and SEE ranges of 3.3-7.6 kg. For SKF, the Evans 3-site equation performed best with a mean difference of 1.8 (3.56) kg and a CCC of 0.93. Discussion: The Evans 7-site and 3-site SKF equations performed best for female and male athletes, respectively. The field 3C model can provide an alternative measure of FFM when necessary.