Brett S. Nickerson

Validity of the body adiposity index in adults with Down syndrome

The purpose of this investigation was to determine the agreement between the body adiposity index (BAI) and dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) for measuring BF% in adults with Down syndrome (DS). Twenty adults (male: n=10; female: n=10) with Down syndrome volunteered to participate in this study. Criterion BF% was determined by DXA and predicted BF% was estimated by the BAI method. There was a significant mean difference (p<0.001) between DXA BF% (39.94±10.80%) and the BAI BF% (42.60±8.19%). The correlation between the two BF% variables was large and significant (r=0.73, p<0.001). However, the standard error of the estimate and total error was 7.79% and 7.86%, respectively. Additionally, the 95% limits of agreement ranged from 12.21% below to 17.52% above the constant error of 2.65%. Our findings suggest that on average, the BAI significantly overestimated BF% when compared to DXA values. Though there was a strong correlation between both methods, the wide limits of agreement suggest there is large amount of individual error when estimating BF% via the BAI. Therefore, the use of the BAI for individuals with DS does not appear to be accurate for estimating BF%.

Validity of Selected Bioimpedance Equations for Estimating Body Composition in Men and Women: A Four-compartment Model Comparison

Abstract Nickerson, BS, Esco, MR, Bishop, PA, Schumacker, RE, Richardson, MT, Fedewa, MV, Wingo, JE, and Welborn, BA. Validity of selected bioimpedance equations for estimating body composition in men and women: a four-compartment model comparison. J Strength Cond Res 31(7): 1963–1972, 2017—The purpose of this study was to compare body fat percentage (BF%) and fat-free mass (FFM) values from bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) equations to values determined from a 4-compartment (4C) model. Eighty-two adults (42 men and 40 women) volunteered to participate (age = 23 ± 5 years). Body fat percentage and FFM were estimated from previously developed BIA equations by Chumlea et al. (BIACH), Deurenberg et al. (BIADE), Kyle et al. (BIAKYLE), and Sun et al. (BIASUN). Four-compartment model body composition was derived from underwater weighing for body density, dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry for bone mineral content, and bioimpedance spectroscopy for total body water. The standard error of estimate (SEE) for group BF% and FFM ranged from 3.0 to 3.8% and 2.1 to 2.7 kg, respectively. The constant error (CE) was significantly higher and lower for BF% and FFM (p < 0.001), respectively, for 3 BIA equations (BIACH, CE = 3.1% and −2.2 kg; BIADE, CE = 3.7% and −2.9 kg; BIAKYLE, CE = 2.3% and −1.9 kg), but was not significant for BF% (p = 0.702) and FFM (p = 0.677) for BIASUN (CE = −0.1% and 0.1 kg). The 95% limits of agreement were narrowest for BIACH (±5.9%; ±4.2 kg) and largest for BIADE (±7.4%; ±6.2 kg). The significant CE yielded by BIACH, BIADE, and BIAKYLE indicates these equations tend to overpredict group BF% and underestimate group FFM. However, all BIA equations produced low SEEs and fairly narrow limits of agreement. When the use of a 4C model is not available, practitioners might consider using one of the selected BIA equations, but should consider the associated CE.

Validity of Four-Compartment Model Body Fat In Physically Active Men And Women When Using DXA For Body Volume

The purpose of this study was twofold: 1) compare body volume (BV) estimated from dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) to BV from a criterion underwater weighing (UWW) with simultaneous residual lung volume (RLV), and 2) compare four-compartment (4C) model body fat percentage (BF%) values when deriving BV via DXA (4CDXA) and UWW (4CUWW) in physically active men and women. One hundred twenty-two adults (62 men and 60 women) who self-reported physical activity levels of at least 1,000 MET·min·wk-1 volunteered to participate (age = 22 ± 5 years). DXA BV was determined with the recent equation from Smith-Ryan et al. while criterion BV was determined from UWW with simultaneous RLV. The mean BV values for DXA were not significant compared with UWW in women (p = .80; constant error [CE] = 0.0L), but were significantly higher in the entire sample and men (both p < .05; CE = 0.3 and 0.7L, respectively). The mean BF% values for 4CDXA were not significant for women (p = .56; CE = -0.3%), but were significantly higher in the entire sample and men (both p < .05; CE = 0.9 and 2.0%, respectively). The standard error of estimate (SEE) ranged from 0.6-1.2L and 3.9-4.2% for BV and BF%, respectively, while the 95% limits of agreement (LOA) ranged from ±1.8-2.5L for BV and ±7.9-8.2% for BF%. 4CDXA can be used for determining group mean BF% in physically active men and women. However, due to the SEEs and 95% LOAs, the current study recommends using UWW with simultaneous RLV for BV in a criterion 4C model when high individual accuracy is desired.

Impact of Measured vs. Predicted Residual Lung Volume on Body Fat Percentage Using Underwater Weighing and 4-Compartment Model

Abstract Nickerson, BS, Esco, MR, Bishop, PA, Schumacker, RE, Richardson, MT, Fedewa, MV, Wingo, JE, and Welborn, BA. Impact of measured vs. predicted residual lung volume on body fat percentage using underwater weighing and 4-compartment model. J Strength Cond Res 31(9): 2519–2527, 2017—The purpose of this study was to compare underwater weighing (UWW) and 4-compartment (4C) model body fat percentage (BF%) for predicted vs. simultaneously measured residual lung volume (RLV). Forty-seven women and 33 men (age = 22 ± 5 years) had UWW and 4C model BF% determined using Boren et al. (RLVBOREN), Goldman and Becklake (RLVGB), and Miller et al. (RLVMILLER) RLV prediction equations. Criterion UWW BF% included body density (BD) values with simultaneous RLV. Criterion 4C model BF% included BD through UWW with simultaneous RLV, total body water through bioimpedance spectroscopy, and bone mineral content through dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry. The standard error of estimate (SEE) for UWW and 4C model BF% determined through RLV prediction equations varied from 2.0 to 2.6% and from 1.3 to 1.5%, respectively. The constant error (CE) was significantly different for UWW BF% when using RLVBOREN, RLVGB, and RLVMILLER (all p < 0.016; CE = 0.7, −2.0, 1.0%, respectively). However, the CEs for RLVBOREN and RLVMILLER were not significant in the 4C model (p = 0.73 and 0.11; CE = 0.1 and 0.2%, respectively), whereas RLVGB remained significantly different (p < 0.001; CE = −1.5%). The 95% limits of agreement were less than ±5.2% for UWW BF% and less than ±3.1% for the 4C model when using the 3 RLV equations. When used in a 4C model, the RLV equations yielded a smaller CE, SEE, and 95% limits of agreement than UWW BF% results. However, because of the range of individual error shown in the current study, caution should be employed when using the 4C model as a criterion method with predicted RLV.

Agreement of BMI-Based Equations and DXA in Determining Body-Fat Percentage in Adults With Down Syndrome.

The purpose of this investigation was to evaluate measurements of body-fat percentage (BF%) in 4 body-mass-index- (BMI) -based equations and dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) in individuals with Down syndrome (DS). Ten male and 10 female adults with DS volunteered for this study. Four regression equations for estimating BF% based on BMI previously developed by Deurenberg et al. (DE(BMI-BF%)), Gallagher et al. (GA(BMI-BF%)), Womersley & Durnin (WO(BMI-BF%)), and Jackson et al. (JA(BMI-BF%)) were compared with DXA. There was no significant difference (p = .659) in mean BF% values between JA(BMI-BF%) (BF% = 40.80% ± 6.3%) and DXA (39.90% ± 11.1%), while DE(BMI-BF%) (34.40% ± 9.0%), WO(BMI-BF%) (35.10% ± 9.4%), and GA(BMI-BF%) (35.10% ± 9.4%) were significantly (p < .001) lower. The limits of agreement (1.96 SD of the constant error) varied from 9.80% to 16.20%. Therefore, BMI-based BF% equations should not be used in individuals with DS.

Validity of BMI-Based Body Fat Equations in Men and Women: A 4-Compartment Model Comparison

Abstract Nickerson, BS, Esco, MR, Bishop, PA, Fedewa, MV, Snarr, RL, Kliszczewicz, BM, and Park, K-S. Validity of BMI-based body fat equations in men and women: a 4-compartment model comparison. J Strength Cond Res 32(1): 121–129, 2018—The purpose of this study was to compare body mass index (BMI)–based body fat percentage (BF%) equations and skinfolds with a 4-compartment (4C) model in men and women. One hundred thirty adults (63 women and 67 men) volunteered to participate (age = 23 ± 5 years). BMI was calculated as weight (kg) divided by height squared (m2). BF% was predicted with the BMI-based equations of Jackson et al. (BMIJA), Deurenberg et al. (BMIDE), Gallagher et al. (BMIGA), Zanovec et al. (BMIZA), Womersley and Durnin (BMIWO), and from 7-site skinfolds using the generalized skinfold equation of Jackson et al. (SF7JP). The 4C model BF% was the criterion and derived from underwater weighing for body volume, dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry for bone mineral content, and bioimpedance spectroscopy for total body water. The constant error (CE) was not significantly different for BMIZA compared with the 4C model (p = 0.74, CE = −0.2%). However, BMIJA, BMIDE, BMIGA, and BMIWO produced significantly higher mean values than the 4C model (all p < 0.001, CEs = 1.8–3.2%), whereas SF7JP was significantly lower (p < 0.001, CE = −4.8%). The standard error of estimate ranged from 3.4 (SF7JP) to 6.4% (BMIJA) while the total error varied from 6.0 (SF7JP) to 7.3% (BMIJA). The 95% limits of agreement were the smallest for SF7JP (±7.2%) and widest for BMIJA (±13.5%). Although the BMI-based equations produced similar group mean values as the 4C model, SF7JP produced the smallest individual errors. Therefore, SF7JP is recommended over the BMI-based equations, but practitioners should consider the associated CE.

Agreement between single-frequency bioimpedance analysis and dual energy x-ray absorptiometry varies based on sex and segmental mass

Bioimpedance analysis (BIA) and dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) are commonly utilized for total and segmental body composition assessment, but the agreement between these methods varies. Group (i.e., constant error [CE]) and individual error (i.e., standard error of estimate [SEE] and 95% limits of agreement [LOAs]) of single-frequency BIA were determined in apparently healthy men and women (n = 28 and 45, respectively) when using DXA as a reference method. It was hypothesized that single-frequency BIA would provide lower error for the estimation of total and segmental FFM than FM and BF%. The CE for many of the total and segmental body composition comparisons revealed statistically significant (all P < .05) mean differences (FMTOTAL, FMLEGS, FFMTOTAL, FFMARMS, FFMLEGS, FFMTRUNK, BF%TOTAL and BF%ARMS for both sexes as well as FMTRUNK and BF%TRUNK for women and FMARMS and FMLEGS for men). Although there were significant CEs for many comparisons, the individual error (i.e., SEEs and 95% LOAs) for total and segmental FFM were small whereas FM and BF% were large. Furthermore, the individual error tended to be larger for men than women when estimating FM and BF%, which is likely attributed to the larger segmental mass of men. This finding indicates the agreement between single-frequency BIA and DXA varies based on sex and segmental mass. Consequently, single-frequency BIA can be used for total and segmental FFM, but is not recommended for FM and BF%.

Relative accuracy of body adiposity index and relative fat mass in participants with and without down syndrome

Background/ObjectivesThe body adiposity index (BAI) and relative fat mass (RFM) are anthropometric measures developed to estimate body composition (%Fat). There is limited research validating these methods of body composition assessment in adults with Down syndrome (DS). The aim of this study was to examine the accuracy of the BAI and RFM in a sample of adults with- and without DS. We hypothesize that the RFM would provide greater accuracy than the BAI when estimating %Fat.Subjects/MethodsBAI and RFM were assessed in a sample of adults (n = 235, 50.2% female, 20.0% DS, 23.1 ± 6.7 years). %Fat assessed using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry served as the criterion method of body composition. Between-group differences were assessed using a two-way (SEX × DS) analysis of variance.ResultsBAI overestimated %Fat in men without DS, but underestimated %Fat in women without DS (4.1 ± 4.5%Fat vs. −3.5 ± 4.6%Fat, respectively, p < 0.001). BAI overestimated %Fat in men and women with DS (4.7 ± 7.8%Fat vs. 0.8 ± 7.5%Fat, respectively, p = 0.090). RFM slightly overestimated %Fat in male and female participants without DS, and did not vary by sex (0.9 ± 4.0%Fat vs. 0.2 ± 4.2%Fat, respectively, p = 0.248). RFM underestimated %Fat in men and women with DS, with no differences observed between sexes (−2.1 ± 5.3%Fat vs. −2.2 ± 6.9%Fat, respectively, p = 0.953).ConclusionsThe BAI and RFM can be used to estimate body composition in individuals with- and without DS, however, the RFM yields greater accuracy and is recommended when more advanced methods of body composition assessment are unavailable or create unwanted participant burden.