Mart Lintsi

Comparison of hand‐to‐hand bioimpedance and anthropometry equations versus dual‐energy X‐ray absorptiometry for the assessment of body fat percentage in 17–18‐year‐old conscripts

In the present study, hand‐to‐hand bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA), skinfold (SKF) thickness and height–weight (body mass index, BMI)‐based equations and dual‐energy X‐ray absorptiometry (DEXA), as a criterion method, were compared with each other in the assessment of body fat percentage (BF%) in 17–18‐year‐old Estonian conscripts (n = 32). The Omron®BF body fat monitor estimated that BF% was lower than that of the criterion method DEXA. The difference between DEXA and Omron®BF 300 (III) was higher (1·1 ± 3·0%; P = 0·04) and that between DEXA and Omron®BF 306 lower (0·2 ± 3·0%; P>0·05). Omron®BF 300 (I) and (II) (series 8) had intermediate difference (0·9 ± 3·0 and 0·9 ± 3·0; P>0·05) when compared with DEXA. Three anthropometric equations estimated a higher BF% than cthat of DEXA. The Durnin & Womersley SKF equation BF% (1·0 ± 2·4; P = 0·03) was higher than that of the DEXA. Deurenberg et al. and Gallagher et al. BMI‐based equations overestimation yielded 0·9 ± 3·7 and 0·6 ± 3·8 BF% (P>0·05). From the anthropometric equations, only the Deurenberg et al. SKF equation slightly underestimated 0·5 ± 3·4 BF% (P>0·05). DEXA‐assessed BF% had highest correlation with SKF equations (r = 0·93), less so with BIA (r = 0·88–0·89) and lowest with BMI equation‐assessed BF% (r = 0·81–0·84). All values were significant at P<0·001. We can conclude that the Omron®BF 306 body fat monitor and the anthropometric Deurenberg et al. SKF equation yielded results close to the DEXA BF%.