Home > Journals > The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness > Past Issues > The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness 2000 June;40(2) > The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness 2000 June;40(2):178-83

CURRENT ISSUE
 

JOURNAL TOOLS

eTOC
To subscribe PROMO
Submit an article
Recommend to your librarian
 

ARTICLE TOOLS

Reprints
Permissions

 

Original articles   

The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness 2000 June;40(2):178-83

Copyright © 2002 EDIZIONI MINERVA MEDICA

language: English

Body composition measurement in highly trained male athletes. A comparison of three methods

De Lorenzo A. 1, 2, Bertini I. 1, Iacopino L. 1, 2, Pagliato E. 3, Testolin C. 3, Testolin G. 3

From the 1 Human Physiology University of Rome “Tor Vergata” 2 Scientific Institute “S. Lucia”, Rome 3 International Center for the Assessment of Body Composition University of Milan, Italy


PDF


Background. The pur­pose of the ­present ­study was to eval­u­ate the dif­fer­enc­es in the ­body com­po­si­tion esti­mate of high­ly ­trained ­male ath­letes by ­three dif­fer­ent meth­ods: ­dual-ener­gy X-ray absorp­tiom­e­try (DXA), bio­electri­cal impe­dance anal­y­sis (BIA) and skin­fold thick­ness meas­ure­ment (SFT).
Methods. The ­study ­occurred dur­ing a non-inten­sive train­ing peri­od. The meas­ure­ments ­were per­formed at the Human Physiology labor­a­to­ry. Participants: forty-­three ­male ath­letes (19 water­po­lo, 9 ­judo, 15 ­karate) who exer­cised reg­u­lar­ly at ­least ­three ­hours per day, six ­days per ­week. Measurements: DXA, BIA and SFT meas­ure­ments of per­cent­age fat ­mass (%FM) and the ­amount of fat-­free ­mass (FFM) ­were per­formed. Statistical anal­y­ses: the dif­fer­ent %FM esti­mates by the ­three meth­ods ­were com­pared ­using a one-way ANO­VA, ­with ­posthoc Bonferroni ­test ­when val­ues ­were sig­nif­i­cant­ly dif­fer­ent. The ­same ­test was ­used to com­pare FFM val­ues. The coef­fi­cient of vari­a­tion (CV%=100×SD/­mean) was cal­cu­lat­ed for ­each meth­ods. Methodological dif­fer­enc­es ­among the var­i­ous meth­ods ­were ana­lysed ­with the meth­od of Bland-Altman.
Results. ANO­VA ­test ­showed sig­nif­i­cant dif­fer­enc­es ­among the ­three meth­ods. In par­tic­u­lar, DXA sig­nif­i­cant­ly (p<0.001) over­es­ti­mat­ed %FM (12.4±4.1%) and under­es­ti­mate FFM (67.0±6.9 kg) ­respect to SFT (7.8±0.9% and 71.0±8.2 kg) and BIA (9.9±1.4% and 69.4±7.9 kg). Also Bland-Altman com­par­i­son ­among the esti­mates indi­cat­ed ­wide dif­fer­enc­es ­between meth­ods.
Conclusions. DXA pro­vides dif­fer­ent ­body com­po­si­tion esti­mates ­than ­those ­derived ­from skin­fold thick­ness meas­ure­ment and BIA, so ­that the meth­ods ­should not be ­used inter­change­ably.

top of page