Published in

MDPI, Applied Sciences, 24(12), p. 13043, 2022

DOI: 10.3390/app122413043

Links

Tools

Export citation

Search in Google Scholar

Agreement and Differences between Fat Estimation Formulas Using Kinanthropometry in a Physically Active Population

This paper is made freely available by the publisher.
This paper is made freely available by the publisher.

Full text: Download

Green circle
Preprint: archiving allowed
Green circle
Postprint: archiving allowed
Green circle
Published version: archiving allowed
Data provided by SHERPA/RoMEO

Abstract

The importance of fat mass estimation in multiple areas related to health and sports has led to the emergence of a large number of methods and formulas for its estimation. The aim of the present study was to compare the agreement and differences between different formulas for estimating fat mass by anthropometry. Eighty-seven subjects underwent an anthropometric assessment following the protocol from the International Society for the Advancement of Kinanthropometry (ISAK). The fat percentage was calculated with 14 different formulas for men and with 12 different formulas for women. In the case of men, they were proposed by Durnin-Womersley, Yuhasz, Faulkner, Carter, Peterson, Katch-McArdle, Sloan, Wilmore, Evans, Lean, Reilly, Civar, Hastuti, and Kerr. In the case of women, the equations used were those proposed by Durnin-Womersley, Yuhasz, Faulkner, Carter, Peterson, Katch-McArdle, Sloan, Wilmore, Evans, Lean, Thorland, and Kerr. Significant differences were found between the formulas in both men (8.90 ± 2.17% to 17.91 ± 2.84%; p < 0.001–0.016) and women (15.33 ± 2.94% to 28.79 ± 3.30%; p < 0.001–0.004). It was observed that in the case of men, the Carter and Yuhasz formulas and the Civar and Faulkner formulas showed moderate agreement with each other (CCC = 0.910–0.915). In the case of women, it was observed that the Carter and Yuhasz formulas showed moderate agreement with each other (CCC = 0.974). In conclusion, the formulas used for the estimation of lipid mass in anthropometry reported significantly different results between them and were therefore not comparable.