Prediction of body composition in premenopausal females from dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry

1993 ◽  
Vol 75 (4) ◽  
pp. 1637-1641 ◽  
Author(s):  
N. J. Hansen ◽  
T. G. Lohman ◽  
S. B. Going ◽  
M. C. Hall ◽  
R. W. Pamenter ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Body Mass Index ◽  
Body Composition ◽  
Body Mass ◽  
Bioelectrical Impedance ◽  
Dual Energy ◽  
Body Density ◽  
X Ray ◽  
Density Values ◽  
Free Body ◽  
Individual Body

Four methods for predicting body composition were compared in premenopausal females (n = 100), 28#x2013;39 yr old, by using underwater weighing (UWW) as the criterion method. The four methods were dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA), skinfolds, bioelectrical impedance, and body mass index. The sample had a mean percent fat (%fat) of 29.7 +/- 6.8% (SD) by DEXA and 29.9 +/- 5.8% measured by UWW. DEXA yielded a standard error of estimate (SE) of 2.4% (r = 0.91) for the prediction of %fat from UWW. When %fat was estimated from other methods, larger SEs were obtained: 3.0% for skin-folds, 3.3% for body mass index, and 2.9% for bioelectrical impedance (height2/resistance) plus weight. Individual body density values derived from UWW were corrected for bone mineral variation. DEXA predicted the corrected body density with a lower SE (0.0040 vs. 0.0053 g/ml) than the original density values. We conclude that DEXA was a precise method and correlated highly with fat-free body weight and %fat from UWW in this homogeneous female sample.

scholarly journals Which is the best cutoff of body mass index to identify obesity in female patients with rheumatoid arthritis? A study using dual energy X -ray absorptiometry body composition

2017 ◽  
Vol 57 (4) ◽  
pp. 279-285 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Fernanda B. Resende Guimarães ◽  
Maria Raquel da Costa Pinto ◽  
Renata G. Santos Couto Raid ◽  
Marcus Vinícius Melo de Andrade ◽  
Adriana Maria Kakehasi
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Body Mass Index ◽  
Body Composition ◽  
Body Mass ◽  
Dual Energy ◽  
X Ray ◽  
Female Patients

Limitations of body mass index for counseling individuals with unilateral lower extremity amputation

2016 ◽  
Vol 41 (2) ◽  
pp. 186-193 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexandra P Frost ◽  
Tracy Norman Giest ◽  
Allison A Ruta ◽  
Teresa K Snow ◽  
Mindy Millard-Stafford
Keyword(s):  
Body Mass Index ◽  
Lower Extremity ◽  
Health Risk ◽  
Body Mass ◽  
Body Fat ◽  
Lower Limb ◽  
Dual Energy ◽  
Limb Loss ◽  
Percent Body Fat ◽  
X Ray

Background: Body composition is important for health screening, but appropriate methods for unilateral lower extremity amputees have not been validated. Objectives: To compare body mass index adjusted using Amputee Coalition equations (body mass index–Amputee Coalition) to dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry in unilateral lower limb amputees. Study design: Cross-sectional, experimental. Methods: Thirty-eight men and women with lower limb amputations (transfemoral, transtibial, hip disarticulation, Symes) participated. Body mass index (mass/height2) was compared to body mass index corrected for limb loss (body mass index–Amputee Coalition). Accuracy of classification and extrapolation of percent body fat with body mass index was compared to dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. Results: Body mass index–Amputee Coalition increased body mass index (by ~ 1.1 kg/m2) but underestimated and mis-classified 60% of obese and overestimated 100% of lean individuals according to dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. Estimated mean percent body fat (95% confidence interval) from body mass index–Amputee Coalition (28.3% (24.9%, 31.7%)) was similar to dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry percent body fat (29.5% (25.2%, 33.7%)) but both were significantly higher ( p < 0.05) than percent body fat estimated from uncorrected body mass index (23.6% (20.4%, 26.8%)). However, total errors for body mass index and body mass index–Amputee Coalition converted to percent body fat were unacceptably large (standard error of the estimate = 6.8%, 6.2% body fat) and the discrepancy between both methods and dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry was inversely related ( r = −0.59 and r = −0.66, p < 0.05) to the individual’s level of body fatness. Conclusions: Body mass index (despite correction) underestimates health risk for obese patients and overestimates lean, muscular individuals with lower limb amputation. Clinical relevance Clinical recommendations for an ideal body mass based on body mass index–Amputee Coalition should not be relied upon in lower extremity amputees. This is of particular concern for obese lower extremity amputees whose health risk might be significantly underestimated based on body mass index despite a “correction” formula for limb loss.

Techniques For Assessment Of Body Composition In Health

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carla M Prado ◽  
Camila LP Oliveira ◽  
M Cristina Gonzalez ◽  
Steven B Heymsfield
Keyword(s):  
Body Composition ◽  
Nutritional Status ◽  
Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis ◽  
Bioelectrical Impedance ◽  
Impedance Analysis ◽  
Dual Energy ◽  
Composition Analysis ◽  
Body Composition Assessment ◽  
Air Displacement Plethysmography ◽  
X Ray

Body composition assessment is an important tool in both clinical and research settings able to characterize the nutritional status of individuals in various physiologic and pathologic conditions. Health care professionals can use the information acquired by body composition analysis for the prevention and treatment of diseases, ultimately improving health status. Here we describe commonly used techniques to assess body composition in healthy individuals, including dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry, bioelectrical impedance analysis, air displacement plethysmography, and ultrasonography. Understanding the key underlying concept(s) of each assessment method, as well as its advantages and limitations, facilitates selection of the method of choice and the method of the compartment of interest. This review contains 5 figures, 3 tables and 52 references Key words: air displacement plethysmography, bioelectrical impedance analysis, body composition, disease, dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry, health, muscle mass, nutritional status, obesity, sarcopenia, ultrasound fat mass

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document