Assessing the consistency between the anthropometric method and bioelectrical impedance analysis when calculating the Heath-Carter somatotype in people without obesity: a cross-sectional study Cover

.blurhash-client-img { display: none !important; }

Assessing the consistency between the anthropometric method and bioelectrical impedance analysis when calculating the Heath-Carter somatotype in people without obesity: a cross-sectional study

Journal of Electrical Bioimpedance

Volume 16 (2025): Issue 1 (January 2025)

By: Kyialbek Sakibaev, Alexander Meshtel, Tatyana Grichanova, Kylychbek Suiunov, Abdyrakhman Eshiev, Sagynbek Dzholdubaev, Nazgul Tashmatova, Mirlan Nuruev, Aiperi Alimbekova, Akmaral Argynbaeva, Uulkan Manas Kyzy, Bekbolot Keneshbaev and Kulpunai Karimova

Open Access

|Aug 2025

Figures & Tables

Diagram of the location of measuring (potential) and current electrodes on the patient's hand and foot.

Comparative analysis of endomorphy scores in female. A – assessment of bias using the Bland-Altman method, the Y-axis shows the “BIA-Anthro” difference in endomorphy scores, B – scatter plot between two methods for assessing somatotype. BIA – bioelectrical impedance analysis, SD (standard deviation), r – Pearson correlation coefficient, pc – Lin correlation concordance coefficient.

Comparative analysis of mesomorphy scores in females. A– assessment of bias using the Bland-Altman method, the Y-axis shows the “BIA-Anthro” difference in mesomorphy scores, B – scatter plot between two methods for assessing somatotype. BIA – bioelectrical impedance analysis, SD (standard deviation), r – Pearson correlation coefficient, pc – Lin correlation concordance coefficient.

Comparative analysis of ectomorphy scores in females. A – assessment of bias using the Bland-Altman method, the Y-axis shows the “BIA-Anthro” difference in ectomorphy scores, B – scatter plot between two methods for assessing somatotype. BIA – bioelectrical impedance analysis, SD (standard deviation), r – Pearson correlation coefficient, pc – Lin correlation concordance coefficient.

Comparison of female somatotyping results by the Heath-Carter method using BIA and anthropometry. BIA – bioelectrical impedance analysis.

Comparative analysis of endomorphy scores in young men. A – assessment of bias using the Bland-Altman method, the Y-axis shows the “BIA-Anthro” difference in endomorphy scores, B – scatter plot between two methods for assessing somatotype. BIA – bioelectrical impedance analysis, SD (standard deviation), r – Pearson correlation coefficient, pc – Lin correlation concordance coefficient.

Comparative analysis of mesomorphy scores in male. A – assessment of bias using the Bland-Altman method, the Y-axis shows the “BIA-Anthro” difference in mesomorphy scores, B – scatter plot between two methods for assessing somatotype. BIA – bioelectrical impedance analysis, SD (standard deviation), r – Pearson correlation coefficient, pc – Lin correlation concordance coefficient.

Comparative analysis of ectomorphy scores in male. A – assessment of bias using the Bland-Altman method, the Y-axis shows the “BIA-Anthro” difference in ectomorphy scores, B – scatter plot between two methods for assessing somatotype. BIA – bioelectrical impedance analysis, SD (standard deviation), r – Pearson correlation coefficient, pc – Lin correlation concordance coefficient.

Comparison of somatotyping results of male by Heath-Carter method using BIA and anthropometry.

Results of a comparative analysis of somatotype assessment using anthropometric measurements and bioelectrical impedance analysis_

Female

Somatotype	BIA	Anthropometry	p	p_c	r
Somatotype	M ± SD	M ± SD	p	p_c	r

Endo	4.2±1.1	4.6±1,3	0.028^*	0.84 (0.62; 0.94)	0.89
Meso	4.9±1.0	4.1±0.3	0.001^*	0.31 (0.12; 0.48)	0.81
Ekto	2.3±1.2	2.3±1.4	0.886	0.96 (0.90; 0.99)	0.97

Male

Somatotype	BIA	Anthropometry	p	p_c	r
Somatotype	M ± SD	M ± SD	p	p_c	r

Endo	2.1±1.3	3.1±1.1	0.432	0.21 (−0.40; 0.69)	0.23
Meso	5.6±1.6	3.8±1.4	0.001^*	0.42 (0.10; 0.66)	0.84
Ecto	2.4±1.3	2.4±1.2	0.167	0.98 (0.94; 0.99)	0.99

Study participant data_

Parameters	M M ± SD	F M ± SD
Height, cm	182 ± 12	164 ± 6
Body mass, kg	61.4 ± 11.7	78.9 ± 15.5
BMI, kg/m²	22.3 ± 2.8	24.2 ± 3.9
Age, years	18.1 ± 1.3	18.4 ± 0.9
Shoulder girth, cm	27.3 ± 3.26	34.6 ± 3.7
Calf circumference, cm	34.8 ± 2.3	36.6 ± 3.3
Hip circumference, cm	69.7 ± 8.5	78.6 ± 7.9
Diameter of the distal epiphysis of the humerus, cm	5.3 ± 0.5	6.7 ± 0.6
Diameter of the distal femoral epiphysis, cm	8.1 ± 1.0	9.4 ± 0.8
Subscapular, mm	16.3 ± 7.0	14.3 ± 8.8
Triceps, mm	16.0 ± 5.6	9.9 ± 4.6
Iliac crest, mm	16.1 ± 8.0	13.8 ± 10.3
Medial calf, mm	19.5 ± 8.3	11.9 ± 5.4

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/joeb-2025-0013 | Journal eISSN: 1891-5469

Journal RSS Feed

Language: English

Page range: 99 - 106

Submitted on: Jan 15, 2025

|

Published on: Aug 4, 2025

Published by: University of Oslo

In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services

Publication frequency: 1 issue per year

Keywords:

bioelectrical impedance analysis,

Heath-Carter somatotype,

Related subjects:

Bioengineering and biomedical engineering,

Biomedical electronics,

Biomedical engineering,

Spectroscopy and metrology

© 2025 Kyialbek Sakibaev, Alexander Meshtel, Tatyana Grichanova, Kylychbek Suiunov, Abdyrakhman Eshiev, Sagynbek Dzholdubaev, Nazgul Tashmatova, Mirlan Nuruev, Aiperi Alimbekova, Akmaral Argynbaeva, Uulkan Manas Kyzy, Bekbolot Keneshbaev, Kulpunai Karimova, published by University of Oslo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Previous article Volume 16 (2025): Issue 1 (January 2025)Next article