Direct Comparison of (Anthropometric) Methods for the Assessment of Body Composition

Adult obesity diagnostic tool: A narrative review

Obesity is a complex chronic metabolic disorder characterized by abnormalities in lipid metabolism. Obesity is not only associated with various chronic diseases but also has negative effects on physiological functions such as the cardiovascular, endocrine and immune systems. As a global health problem, the incidence and prevalence of obesity have increased significantly in recent years. Therefore, understanding assessment methods and measurement indicators for obesity is critical for early screening and effective disease control. Current methods for measuring obesity in adult include density calculation, anthropometric measurements, bioelectrical impedance analysis, dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry, computerized imaging, etc. Measurement indicators mainly include weight, hip circumference, waist circumference, neck circumference, skinfold thickness, etc. This paper provides a comprehensive review of the literature to date, summarizes and analyzes various assessment methods and measurement indicators for adult obesity, and provides insights and guidance for the innovation of obesity assessment indicators.

Body fat of competitive volleyball players: a systematic review with meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Reference values of body fat for competitive volleyball players are lacking, making it difficult to interpret measurement results. This review systematically summarized published data on the relative body fat of volleyball players and calculated potential differences between sex, measurement method, and competitive level.

METHODS

The protocol followed the Preferred Reported Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. The literature search was conducted using five electronic databases to retrieve all relevant publications from January 1, 2010, to July 1, 2021. The 63 studies including 2607 players that met the inclusion criteria were analyzed using random-effects models. Data were reported as pooled mean body fat with 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

Body fat for males and females was 12.8% (11.9-13.8%) and 22.8% (21.9-23.7%), respectively. Body fat was 18.3% (16.3-20.4%) measured via skinfolds, 18.4% (15.6-21.2%) via bioelectrical impedance analysis, 24.2% (20.4-28.0%) via dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry and 21.6% (17.4-25.8%) via densitometry. Regional, national, and international-level players had body fat values of 19.5% (17.8-21.2%), 20.3% (18.6-22.0%), and 17.9% (15.7-20.4%), respectively. When the meta-regression was adjusted for the variables sex, measurement method, and competitive level, a significant difference between sex (p < 0.001), dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry and skinfolds (p = 0.02), and national and international-level players (p = 0.02) was found. However, sensitivity analysis revealed that findings regarding measurement method and competitive level were not robust and should, therefore, be interpreted with caution.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the limitations of published data, this meta-analysis provided pooled values for body fat of male and female volleyball players for different competitive levels and measurement methods.

Body Fat of Basketball Players: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

This study aimed to provide reference values for body fat (BF) of basketball players considering sex, measurement method, and competitive level.

Methods

A systematic literature research was conducted using five electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, SPORTDiscus, CINAHL, Scopus). BF values were extracted, with analyses conducted using random-effects models and data reported as percentages with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

Results

After screening, 80 articles representing 4335 basketball players were selected. Pooled mean BF was 13.1% (95% CI 12.4–13.8%) for male players and 20.7% (95% CI 19.9–21.5%) for female players. Pooled mean BF was 21.4% (95% CI 18.4–24.3%) measured by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), 15.2% (95% CI 12.8–17.6%) via bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA), 12.4% (95% CI 10.6–14.2%) via skinfolds and 20.0% (95% CI 13.4–26.6%) via air displacement plethysmography. Pooled mean BF across competitive levels were 13.5% (95% CI 11.6–15.3%) for international, 15.7% (95% CI 14.2–17.2%) for national and 15.1% (95% CI 13.5–16.7%) for regional-level players. As the meta-regression revealed significant effects of sex, measurement method and competitive level on BF, the meta-analysis was adjusted for these moderators. The final model revealed significant differences in BF between male and female players (p < 0.001). BF measured by DXA was significantly higher than that measured by BIA or skinfolds (p < 0.001). International-level players had significantly lower BF than national and regional-level players (p < 0.05).

Conclusions

Despite the limitations of published data, this meta-analysis provides reference values for BF of basketball players. Sex, measurement method and competitive level influence BF values, and therefore must be taken into account when interpreting results.

High-Protein Energy-Restriction: Effects on Body Composition, Contractile Properties, Mood, and Sleep in Active Young College Students

Background: It is often advised to ensure a high-protein intake during energy-restricted diets. However, it is unclear whether a high-protein intake is able to maintain muscle mass and contractility in the absence of resistance training. Materials and Methods: After 1 week of body mass maintenance (45 kcal/kg), 28 male college students not performing resistance training were randomized to either the energy-restricted (ER, 30 kcal/kg, n = 14) or the eucaloric control group (CG, 45 kcal/kg, n = 14) for 6 weeks. Both groups had their protein intake matched at 2.8 g/kg fat-free-mass and continued their habitual training throughout the study. Body composition was assessed weekly using multifrequency bioelectrical impedance analysis. Contractile properties of the m. rectus femoris were examined with Tensiomyography and MyotonPRO at weeks 1, 3, and 5 along with sleep (PSQI) and mood (POMS). Results: The ER group revealed greater reductions in body mass (Δ -3.22 kg vs. Δ 1.90 kg, p < 0.001, partial η ² = 0.360), lean body mass (Δ -1.49 kg vs. Δ 0.68 kg, p < 0.001, partial η ² = 0.152), body cell mass (Δ -0.85 kg vs. Δ 0.59 kg, p < 0.001, partial η ² = 0.181), intracellular water (Δ -0.58 l vs. Δ 0.55 l, p < 0.001, partial η ² = 0.445) and body fat percentage (Δ -1.74% vs. Δ 1.22%, p < 0.001, partial η ² = 433) compared to the CG. Contractile properties, sleep onset, sleep duration as well as depression, fatigue and hostility did not change (p > 0.05). The PSQI score (Δ -1.43 vs. Δ -0.64, p = 0.006, partial η ² = 0.176) and vigor (Δ -2.79 vs. Δ -4.71, p = 0.040, partial η ² = 0.116) decreased significantly in the ER group and the CG, respectively. Discussion: The present data show that a high-protein intake alone was not able to prevent lean mass loss associated with a 6-week moderate energy restriction in college students. Notably, it is unknown whether protein intake at 2.8 g/kg fat-free-mass prevented larger decreases in lean body mass. Muscle contractility was not negatively altered by this form of energy restriction. Sleep quality improved in both groups. Whether these advantages are due to the high-protein intake cannot be clarified and warrants further study. Although vigor was negatively affected in both groups, other mood parameters did not change.