1. Validation of Methods of Estimating % Body Fat1

2. How do you validate these techniques?
There can be no direct validation
Measure subjects with technique to get % fat then kill them, blend them and dissolve out lipid
Validation of Indirect techniques is by comparison to other Indirect techniques
Which analysis indicates validity
Correlation
Test of Difference of means between tests
Linear regression – slope of unity
Standard Error of Estimate

3. Regression Equations to Predict % Body Fat
Y = mX + c
Y = % Body Fat
X = Anthropometric measure (Skinfolds etc)
Correlation Coefficient (r)
Standard Error of Estimate (SEE)

4. Predicting % Fat from Density
ASSUMPTIONS
Body can be divided into two components:
Fat & Non-Fat (Fat Free) Masses
Each has different, known and constant densities 6

5. SIRI EQUATION % Fat = (4.95/Density)-4.5) x 100 Assumptions: Equation:
Density of FAT MASS gm/ml
Density of NON-FAT MASS gm/ml
Equation:
% Fat = (4.95/Density)-4.5) x 100

6. BROZEK EQUATION % Fat = (4.57/Density)-4.142) x 100 Assumptions:
Density of FAT MASS gm/ml
Density of LEAN BODY MASS gm/ml
(some essential lipids in Lean Body Mass)
Equation:
% Fat = (4.57/Density)-4.142) x 100

7. Siri Equation: % Fat = (4.95/Density)-4.5) x 100

8. Error in Prediction of % Fat
Standard Error of Estimate
for % Fat from Densitometry
S.E.E. = 2.77% Body Fat
due to variation in density of fat free mass
Example:
predicted value = 15% Body Fat
95% confidence in true value = 15 ± 1.96 x S.E.E.
= 15 ± (1.96 x 2.77) = 9.57% % 10

9. Obvious Errors
In 9 of 29 measured, the density of FFM was clearly not 1.1 gm/ml 9

10. Variability of Constants
The existence of this table infers that we should know the precise density of FFM.
However, using arbitrary cut-offs between age groups merely highlights the problem

11. DEXA vs. Hydro-Densitometry

12. Beware of the illusion of Validity
Units of measurement are density not % Body Fat
Residual Plot
Residual is difference between

13. Beware of the illusion of Validity
S.E.E
- 1 SEE
+ 1 SEE
- 2 SEE
+ 2 SEE
Density
gm/ml
gm/ml
1.035
1.045
1.030
1.050
% Fat
% Fat
2.29 % Fat
28.3
23.7
30.6
21.4
68.26% Confidence
95% Confidence

14. BODPOD vs U W Weighing – Influence of clothing Fields et al. 2000
RESULTS: In 67 females UWW Db (1.030±0.020 g/cm3) was higher (P<0.01) than BOD POD Db (1.028±0.020 g/cm3). This is a difference of 1.0% fat.
The R2 was 0.94, SEE was g/cm3 and the regression between Db by UWW and BOD POB did not significantly deviate from the line of identity.
CONCLUSION: This study supports the use of the BOD POD as a substitute for UWW. However, caution should be made in using the BOD POD if subjects are clothed in anything other than a tight fitting swimsuit.

15. Review of BODPOD vs U W Weighing Fields et al. 2002

16. Review of BODPOD vs U W Weighing Fields et al. 2002
the SEEs reported in 4 of the 12 studies ranged from 1.8% to 2.3% BF. These SEEs are in the excellent to ideal range (≤2.5 %BF) according to Lohman (1992).
SEE = 2.3% BF gives
95% confidence of ± 1.96 x 2.3 %BF
95% confidence of ± 4.5%BF

17. Review of BODPOD vs DEXA Fields et al. 2002
Note the SEE values (2.4 – 4.1 % Body Fat)

18. BODPOD vs DEXA Fields et al. 2002
“SEEs ranged from 2.4% to 3.5% BF”?
“which were distributed among the good, very good, and excellent categories, as subjectively assessed by Lohman (1992)”
SEE = 4.1% BF gives
95% confidence of ± 1.96 x 4.1%BF
95% confidence of ± 8%BF !!!!!!

19. “Which is better UW Weighing or Skinfold predictions?”
Based upon densitometry
% fat from skinfolds is predicted using equations developed from UW Weighing of subjects.
UW Weighing: S.E.E. = 2.77% Fat Skinfolds: S.E.E. = 3.7% Fat

20. Typical SEE’s for Doubly Indirect Methods

21. The New York Obesity Research Center
The assumed density of 1.1 g/cm3 is based on observations made in a limited number of human cadavers suggesting relatively stable proportions of water, protein, glycogen and minerals. To the extent that these proportions change in any individual subject will introduce corresponding errors in the assumed density of fat-free mass.
A number of studies suggest that the density of fat-free mass is relatively stable across age and sex groups, although some variation is recognized at the extremes of age and in patients who have underlying medical and surgical conditions. NOT TRUE!!!
Additionally, there may exist race differences in the density of fat-free mass as well as variation among special groups such as body builders or other types of athletic participants. Thus, while underwater weighing and the two-compartment model served as a reference technique for several decades, newer approaches without these various assumptions are now replacing hydrodensitometry as the clinical reference method. MISLEADING!!!

22. Beware of Garbage
BIA (Bioelectrical Impedance) - The only method that is based on measuring something, not estimating anything, is Bio-Impedance measurement. Bio-Impedance is a means of measuring electrical signals as they pass through the fat, lean mass, and water in the body. Through laboratory research we know the actual impedance or conductivity of various tissues in the body, and we know that by measuring current between two electrodes and applying this information to complex proven scientific formulas accurate body composition can be determined. The fact that the measurement is based on a reading of lean mass and not an estimate of fat mass, lends to a much more comprehensive testing method and results.

23. SIZE vs COMPOSITION
NIR
Triceps
Forearm
Front Thigh
Medial Calf
Iliac Crest
Supraspinale
Abdominal
Right Breast Above
0.22
0.15
0.23
0.69
0.59
0.77
0.70
Breast Size (cm)*
0.16
0.76
0.65
0.55
0.74
0.78
Skinfolds (mm)
0.81
0.86
0.42
0.53
0.33
0.90
0.49
Breast Size = Maximum Chest Girth (cm) – Chest Girth Below Breasts (cm)
Correlation Coefficients in shaded celss significant (P < 0.05)
The Limb skinfold thicknesses, particularly Triceps and Medial Calf Sites, are well related to breast size. However the lower trunk site NIRs have the highest relationships with breast NIR and size measurements. In conclusion breast size appears to relate best to limb skinfold thickness and breast composition relates best to lower trunk site fat/water ratio as indicated by the NIR measurements.