Selected anthropometric methods and equations developed for assessing body fat in different male athlete populations_
| Author(s)/method | Anthropometric equation |
|---|---|
| Yuhasz (25) | Equation using 6 skinfolds. |
| Faulkner (26) | Equation using 4 skinfolds, today considered a modified Yuhasz method (27). |
| Forsyth & Sinning 1 (11) | Equation using 2 skinfolds (equation no. 2a). |
| Forsyth & Sinning 2 (11) | Equation using 4 skinfolds (equation no. 2b). |
| Forsyth & Sinning 3 (11) | Equation using 2 skinfolds and height (equation no. 3a). |
| Forsyth & Sinning 4 (11) | Equation using 4 skinfolds and height (equation no. 3b). |
| White et al. (12) | Equation using 2 skinfolds. |
| Thorland et al. 1 (19) | Equation using 7 skinfolds. |
| Thorland et al. 2 (19) | Equation using 3 skinfolds. |
| Withers et al. (28) | Equation using 7 skinfolds, not fully published in the original 1987 paper by Withers et al. (28), but can be found in Reilly et al. study (13) derived from Withers et al. data. |
| Evans et al. 1 (18) | Equation using 7 skinfolds, gender and race. |
| Evans et al. 2 (18) | Equation using 3 skinfolds, gender and race. |
| Oliver et al. (14) | Equation using 7 skinfolds (equation model number 3). |
| Reilly et al. (13) | Equation using 4 skinfolds. |
| Civar et al. (16) | Equation using 3 skinfolds and weight. |
| Stewart & Hannan (17) | Equation using 2 skinfolds and weight. This equation estimates body fat in grams, which are then converted into body fat percentage for BIA comparison. |
Correlation of different anthropometric methods and BIA method in assessing body fat percentage of professional male athletes_
| Method | N | rs | BCa CI 95% lower - upper | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yuhasz (25) | vs BIA | 85 | 0.769 *** | 0.649 – 0.840 |
| Faulkner (26) | vs BIA | 85 | 0.792*** | 0.712 – 0.849 |
| Forsyth & Sinning 1 (11) | vs BIA | 85 | 0.743 *** | 0.619 – 0.823 |
| Forsyth & Sinning 2 (11) | vs BIA | 85 | 0.738 *** | 0.627 – 0.019 |
| Forsyth & Sinning 3 (11) | vs BIA | 85 | 0.676 *** | 0.536 – 0.775 |
| Forsyth & Sinning 4 (11) | vs BIA | 85 | 0.685 *** | 0.545 – 0.786 |
| White et al. (12) | vs BIA | 85 | 0.761 *** | 0.665 – 0.837 |
| Thorland et al. 1 (19) | vs BIA | 85 | 0.760 *** | 0.650 – 0.848 |
| Thorland et al. 2 (19) | vs BIA | 85 | 0.736 *** | 0.613 – 0.830 |
| Whiters et al. (13) | vs BIA | 85 | 0.674 *** | 0.502 – 0.796 |
| Evans et al. 1 (18) | vs BIA | 85 | 0.761 *** | 0.642 – 0.845 |
| Evans et al. 2 (18) | vs BIA | 85 | 0.674 *** | 0.518 – 0.791 |
| Oliver et al. (14) | vs BIA | 85 | 0.761 *** | 0.614 – 0.843 |
| Reilly et al. (13) | vs BIA | 85 | 0.681 *** | 0.535 – 0.793 |
| Civar et al. (16) | vs BIA | 85 | 0.740 *** | 0.625 – 0.819 |
| Stewart & Hannan (17) | vs BIA | 85 | 0.681 *** | 0.543 – 0.787 |
Athlete characteristics
| Sport | Basketball (n=14) | Football (n=28) | Boxing (n=15) | Wrestling (n=28) | Total (n=85) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variables | X ± SD range | X ± SD range | X ± SD range | X ± SD range | X ± SD range |
| Age (years) | 25.4 ± 4.2 | 23.9 ± 4.2 | 23.687 ± 4.2 | 21.4 ± 6.4 | 23.7 ± 4.3 |
| 17.2 – 31 | 17.5 – 33 | 17.4 – 32.2 | 17.5 – 32.9 | 17.2 – 33 | |
| Height (cm) | 198.3 ± 10.8 | 181.9 ± 5.1 | 186.4 ± 7.2 | 176.7 ± 7.7 | 183.7 ± 10.4 |
| 171.2 – 211 | 169.0 – 190.5 | 175 – 198 | 155.0 – 191.5 | 155 – 211 | |
| Weight (kg) | 96.1 ± 19.2 | 77.2 ± 5.6 | 87.7 ± 17.5 | 80.6 ± 11.7 | 83.3 ± 14.4 |
| 43.7 – 120.6 | 67.3 – 86.5 | 59.8 – 123.4 | 59.5 – 105.2 | 43.7 – 123.4 | |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 24.1 ± 3 | 23.3 ± 1.1 | 25.1 ± 3.4 | 25.7 ± 2.5 | 24.6 ± 2.6 |
| 14.9 – 27.3 | 21.2 – 25.3 | 19.3 – 32.3 | 22.4 – 31.2 | 14.9 – 32.3 | |
| FFMI (kg/m2) | 21.7 ± 2.5 | 21.2 ± 0.9 | 21.9 ± 2.2 | 22.4 ± 1.7 | 21.8 ± 1.8 |
| 14 – 25.4 | 19.7 – 22.9 | 17.6 – 26.4 | 20.1 – 26.1 | 14 – 26.4 | |
| BIA-BF (%) | 10 ± 3.2 | 8.8 ± 2.1 | 12.2 ± 3.6 | 12.6 ± 2.8 | 10.8 ± 3.3 |
| 5.5 – 15.4 | 169.0 – 190.5 | 7 – 19.2 | 7.4 – 18.4 | 4.9 – 19.2 | |