Journal of Applied Physiology Fuel your research with LabChart
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

J Appl Physiol 88: 1175-1180, 2000;
8750-7587/00 $5.00
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Free
Right arrow Full Text (PDF) Free
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (9)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by van der Ploeg, G. E.
Right arrow Articles by Crockett, A. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by van der Ploeg, G. E.
Right arrow Articles by Crockett, A. J.
Vol. 88, Issue 4, 1175-1180, April 2000

Comparison of two hydrodensitometric methods for estimating percent body fat

Grant E. van der Ploeg1, Simon M. Gunn1, Robert T. Withers1, Andrew C. Modra1, and Alan J. Crockett2

1 Exercise Physiology Laboratory, School of Education, The Flinders University of South Australia, Adelaide 5001; and 2 Respiratory Function Unit, Flinders Medical Centre, Bedford Park, South Australia 5042, Australia

This study compared the two following hydrodensitometric methods for estimating percent body fat (%BF): 1) estimation of residual volume (RV) by helium dilution before and after measurement of immersed mass at RV, and 2) determination of immersed mass at a comfortable level of expiration (approximately functional residual capacity) with measurement of the associated gas volume by oxygen dilution. Twelve men [27.9 ± 7.5 (SD) yr; 79.32 ± 12.79 kg; 180.5 ± 9.9 cm] were tested for %BF via both methods on each of two separate visits within 3 days by using a counterbalanced design. The two helium dilution measurements yielded a technical error of measurement of 0.2% BF and an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.999. Corresponding values for the oxygen dilution method were 0.4% BF and 0.999, respectively. There was no difference (P = 0.80) between the helium dilution (16.9 ± 9.3% BF) and oxygen dilution (16.9 ± 9.4% BF) methods, and the individual differences ranged from -0.7 to 0.6% BF. The interclass correlation coefficient between the two methods was 0.999 with a SE of estimate of 0.4% BF. Whereas both methods were precise and reliable and yielded similar results, the oxygen dilution technique was more expedient and was preferred by the subjects because they were not required to exhale to RV.

helium dilution; oxygen dilution; residual volume; body density


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Br. J. Sports. Med.Home page
G J Slater, G M Duthie, D B Pyne, and W G Hopkins
Validation of a skinfold based index for tracking proportional changes in lean mass.
Br. J. Sports Med., March 1, 2006; 40(3): 208 - 213.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Appl. Physiol.Home page
G. E. van der Ploeg, R. T. Withers, and J. Laforgia
Percent body fat via DEXA: comparison with a four-compartment model
J Appl Physiol, February 1, 2003; 94(2): 499 - 506.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Clin. Nutr.Home page
D. A Fields, M. I Goran, and M. A McCrory
Body-composition assessment via air-displacement plethysmography in adults and children: a review
Am. J. Clinical Nutrition, March 1, 2002; 75(3): 453 - 467.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Visit Other APS Journals Online