Running Head Body Fat Measurement 1 And 7

Running Head Body Fat Measurement1body Fat Measurement7body Fat

BODY FAT MEASUREMENT. 7 BODY FAT MEASUREMENT Students Name Institutional Affiliation Introduction Body fat content is a major determinant of the general health status of an individual. The normal amount of fat is liked to good health and longevity while excess fat predisposes one to cardiovascular-related diseases. The amount of body fat can be estimated using either the standard skinfold measuring method or Bioelectrical Impendence Analysis (BIA) method (Esco, et. al, 2018). Standard method involves estimating the body fat content by taking measurements of skinfolds (two layers of the skin plus the underlying adipose tissue but without muscle) on at least eight different anatomical sites.

The measurements are done in duplicate or triplicate to avoid errors. BIA is a method that indirectly measures the amount of body fat through assessing body composition in relation to lean body mass. The two electrodes, one placed on the right hand and the other one below the right foot, generates a low imperceptible current and detects its flow through the body. This article focuses on the measurement of body fat using BIA and the standard method as well as a comparison of the two (Alicandro, et. al , 2015). Method Standard method: The client’s weight and height were measured using a body weight scale and Stadiometer respectively. The appropriate skinfold measuring sites were identified and marked with X using the surgical mark pen. Starting from the chest site, the skin was pinched and held between the forefinger and the thumb so as to raise the double layer of the skin plus the underlying adipose tissue. The skinfold calipers were then applied one centimeter below and perpendicular to the pinch, then a reading in millimeters taken after 3 seconds and recorded. The readings were taken in duplicate for each anatomical site. The same procedure was repeated for Triceps, Subscapular, Midaxillary, Suprailiac, Abdominal, Thigh and Calf. BIA method: The BIA analyzer was calibrated using the client’s weight, height and gender. Its electrodes were then placed on the right hand and below the right foot with the red electrode proximal to the black electrode. The current is then set and the reading of the analyzer taken and recorded. Results Demographics Age: 27 years Gender: male Body weight: 58 kg Body height: 172 cm Results of standard skinfold measurement method. Skinfold site Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 (if needed) Mean Chest Triceps Subscapular Midaxillary Suprailiac Abdominal Thigh Calf Skinfold equation 39 Db 1.088 g.cc^-1 % BF 4.96% Classification- the category of body fat for the participant falls under the athlete’s stage.

Results from the BIA method. Bioimpendence measure Trial 1 Trial 2 Mean Resistance Resistance BIA equation FFM= % BF= Classification Manufacturer’s equation FFM= % BF= Discussion 1. Limitations of BIA: since this method measures the resistance of the low current passed through the body, the validity of the results can be affected by a number of factors. First, the hydration of the body before the test increases the current conductance and leads to underestimation of FFM (muscle and bone tissue). Again, research has shown that food and drinks intake can affect the results and hence the test is accurate when done in the morning. In addition, the method gives unreliable results in obese and overweight people (Kaye, et. al, . The population-specific BIA equation was different from manufacturer’s equation in that it could be adjusted so as to address the issues of the obesity and overweight. Researches have shown that manufacturer’s derived equations significantly underestimates FFM and overestimates %BF which is in agreement with this experiment. 3. Advantages of BIA over skinfold: The validity and reliability of results from skinfold measurement are entirely dependent on the personnel’s experience and skills as well as the quality of the calipers. Concern has been raised regarding the standard thickness of the skinfold and difficulties associated with measuring the skinfold in a lot of fat (best in average to low body fat individuals). Again since age influences the body fat percentage result, factors such as exercise or living a normal life (affects the normal skinfold) may not be catered for in the equation. It doesn’t intrude the client’s privacy and it doesn’t require high degree skills (Javed, et. al , 2015). 5. Sources of errors when using skinfold method: the sources of error could be a failure to calibrate the calipers, improper location of the skinfold site, and the depth of the skinfold can also affect the measurement and taking the readings immediately after pinching. 6. The easiest skinfold measuring site is the thigh since the vertical fold is made over a large skin site. The most difficult one was the abdominal site because of the challenges of grabbing part of the navel including the subcutaneous tissue while taking a measurement. 7. The % BF differed with 0.9% when using population-specific formula and Jackson estimation formula. 8. Problems encountered when taking skinfold measurements: one of the common problems is the inappropriate location of the skinfold site and the dynamics involved in the manner of measuring the skinfold at each site. For instance, in the subscapular, the upper jaw must be placed exactly on the X mark while in Triceps it should be placed on either side of the X mark. Conclusion Although both skinfold and BIA methods produce results that are reliable and valid under specific conditions, the skinfold method is most preferred in measuring the %BF of athletes as it uses equations that factor in the exercise. It also shows gender-specific variability during the assessment of patients. BIA is accurate where errors associated with skinfold methods has to be overcome. References Esco, M. R., Nickerson, B. S., Fedewa, M. V., Moon, J. R., & Snarr, R. L. (2018). A novel method of utilizing skinfolds and bioimpedance for determining body fat percentage via a field-based three-compartment model. European journal of clinical nutrition , 1. Kaye, M., Riddell, M. A., Evans, R. G., Arabshahi, S., Srikanth, V. K., Kalyanram, K., ... & Thrift, A. G. (2016). Ps 11-29 Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis (bia) Is A Simple And Accurate Way To Determine Percentage Of Body Fat In Studies Of Adults In Rural India. Journal of Hypertension , 34 , e341. Javed, A., Jumean, M., Murad, M. H., Okorodudu, D., Kumar, S., Somers, V. K., ... & Lopezâ€Jimenez, F. (2015). Diagnostic performance of body mass index to identify obesity as defined by body adiposity in children and adolescents: a systematic review and metaâ€analysis. Pediatric obesity , 10 (3), . Alicandro, G., Battezzati, A., Bianchi, M. L., Loi, S., Speziali, C., Bisogno, A., & Colombo, C. (2015). Estimating body composition from skinfold thicknesses and bioelectrical impedance analysis in cystic fibrosis patients. Journal of Cystic Fibrosis , 14 (6), .

Paper For Above instruction

Assessing body fat percentage is a vital aspect of evaluating overall health, fitness levels, and disease risk profiles. Accurate measurement techniques are essential for clinicians, researchers, and fitness professionals to develop targeted approaches for health interventions. Among various methods available, skinfold measurements and bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) are two of the most commonly used techniques, each with unique advantages and limitations. This paper explores these methods, comparing their procedures, benefits, limitations, and suitability for different populations, with an emphasis on their application in athletic and clinical settings.

Introduction

Body fat percentage is a key indicator of health, influencing factors such as metabolic health, cardiovascular risk, and physical fitness. Excessive body fat, especially visceral fat, is associated with increased risks of conditions like Type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and heart disease. Conversely, very low levels of body fat can also be detrimental, leading to hormonal imbalances and decreased immune function. Measuring body fat accurately is therefore crucial for health assessment and intervention planning. The two prevalent methods—skinfold measurements and BIA—provide practical means of estimating body fat but differ considerably in technique, accuracy, and ease of use.

Methods Overview

The skinfold measurement method involves using calipers to quantify subcutaneous fat at multiple anatomical sites. This technique requires skill and experience for precise site identification and measurement, as well as consistent calibration of tools. The procedure involves pinching the skin and underlying fat, then measuring the thickness of the fold in millimeters. These measurements are then applied to specific equations to estimate overall body fat percentage. In contrast, BIA measures the resistance to a small electrical current that passes through the body, which varies depending on the amount of water and fat tissue. BIA devices typically provide immediate estimates of body composition, making it a rapid and non-invasive method.

Procedure and Implementation

In skinfold measurements, multiple sites such as the triceps, subscapular, iliac crest, thigh, and calf are selected based on standardized protocols (Jackson & Pollock, 1978). The practitioner pinches the skinfold and uses calipers to obtain the thickness, ensuring consistent technique to minimize errors. The readings are then entered into specific equations, which may be population-specific or general, to estimate body fat. This method is highly dependent on the technician's skill and experience, and the quality of equipment (Javed et al., 2015). The BIA approach involves calibrating the device with anthropometric data, placing electrodes on the hand and foot, and measuring the resistance. The device then computes estimates of fat-free mass and body fat percentage via proprietary algorithms (Kaye et al., 2016).

Advantages and Disadvantages

Skinfold measurement offers a cost-effective and accessible means of estimating body fat, especially suitable for field settings and athletes. When performed correctly, it provides accurate results that are sensitive to changes over time (Esco et al., 2018). However, its reliability depends heavily on the skill of the practitioner. Proper site identification, caliper calibration, and consistent measurement techniques are crucial, and errors can significantly influence the results (Javed et al., 2015). Additionally, in individuals with high adiposity, certain skinfold sites become more challenging to measure accurately.

BIA, on the other hand, boasts rapid and user-friendly operation, with some devices integrating easily into clinical or gym environments. It is less dependent on technician skill and does not require extensive training. Nevertheless, BIA's accuracy can be affected by hydration status, recent food or fluid intake, and specific physiological conditions such as obesity or dehydration (Kaye et al., 2016). These factors can lead to underestimation or overestimation of fat mass, affecting clinical and research assessments.

Limitations and Sources of Error

One significant limitation of the skinfold technique is the potential for systematic or random measurement errors. Improper site identification, inconsistent caliper pressure, or variations in skinfold depth can result in inaccurate estimations (Javed et al., 2015). Additionally, it necessitates considerable expertise to ensure reliability. Assessing obese individuals can be particularly challenging, as thick skinfolds may fall outside the calipers’ measurement range, and fat distribution patterns vary among populations (Jackson & Pollock, 1978).

BIA's limitations largely stem from physiological factors rather than procedural errors. Hydration level, recent physical activity, food intake, and skin temperature impact resistance readings, producing variable results (Kaye et al., 2016). For instance, dehydration can falsely elevate fat estimates, while high hydration levels may underestimate fat mass. Moreover, the algorithms used by BIA devices are often developed for specific populations, limiting their generalizability across diverse groups (Esco et al., 2018).

Comparative Analysis and Application Suitability

Choosing between skinfold measurements and BIA depends on the context, population, and available resources. Skinfold techniques, when performed by trained professionals, offer high accuracy and sensitivity to physiological changes, making them ideal for athletic populations, research studies, and settings where cost is a constraint. They also allow for detailed regional fat distribution assessment, which is relevant for understanding health risks related to fat localization (Jackson & Pollock, 1978).

BIA presents a practical alternative for clinical environments, fitness centers, and large-scale studies where ease of use and rapid results are prioritized. Its minimal invasiveness and non-reliance on skillful application make it suitable for mass assessments. However, clinicians should be mindful of its limitations and interpret results within the context of physiological factors affecting resistance (Kaye et al., 2016).

Conclusion

In summary, both skinfold measurement and BIA are valuable tools for estimating body fat percentage. Skinfold measurements provide a more detailed assessment when performed by experienced practitioners and are particularly advantageous in athletic populations. BIA offers quick, non-invasive estimates suitable for broader clinical and research applications. Nevertheless, each method has inherent limitations, and the choice should be guided by the specific requirements of the assessment, population characteristics, and available resources. Incorporating multiple methods or cross-validating results can enhance accuracy and reliability in body composition assessments.

References

• Esco, M. R., Nickerson, B. S., Fedewa, M. V., Moon, J. R., & Snarr, R. L. (2018). A novel method of utilizing skinfolds and bioimpedance for determining body fat percentage via a field-based three-compartment model. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 1.
• Jackson, A. S., & Pollock, M. L. (1978). Practical assessment of body composition. Physician and Sportsmedicine, 6(3), 76–90.
• Kaye, M., Riddell, M. A., Evans, R. G., Arabshahi, S., Srikanth, V. K., Kalyanram, K., & Thrift, A. G. (2016). Bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) is a simple and accurate way to determine percentage of body fat in studies of adults in rural India. Journal of Hypertension, 34, e341.
• Javed, A., Jumean, M., Murad, M. H., Okorodudu, D., Kumar, S., Somers, V. K., & Lopez-Jimenez, F. (2015). Diagnostic performance of body mass index to identify obesity as defined by body adiposity in children and adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Pediatric Obesity, 10(3), 234–244.
• Alicandro, G., Battezzati, A., Bianchi, M. L., Loi, S., Speziali, C., Bisogno, A., & Colombo, C. (2015). Estimating body composition from skinfold thicknesses and bioelectrical impedance analysis in cystic fibrosis patients. Journal of Cystic Fibrosis, 14(6), 872–878.
• Rosenbaum, M., & Leibel, R. L. (2010). Obesity. In Williams Textbook of Endocrinology (12th ed., pp. 179–219). Saunders.
• Heyward, V. H., & Stolarczyk, L. M. (2016). Applied Body Composition Assessment. Human Kinetics.
• Gleeson, M., & Bishop, N. (2013). Elite athlete preparation: physiological considerations. Sports Science Exchange, 26(2), 1–6.
• Wickramasinghe, S. & Schofield, G. (2018). Advances in bioelectrical impedance analysis for body composition. Nutrition & Dietetics, 75(3), 218–224.