Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise

Issue: Volume 31(9), September 1999, pp 1350-1356

Copyright: (C) 1999 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc.
Publication Type: [Special Communications: Technical Note]
ISSN: 0195-9131
Accession: 00005768-199909000-00019
Keywords: AIR DISPLACEMENT PLETHYSMOGRAPHY, %FAT, DXA, BODY COMPOSITION,
THREE-COMPONENT MODEL
[Special Communications: Technical Note]
Evaluation of the BOD POD(R) for assessing body fat in collegiate football
players
COLLINS, MITCHELL A.; MILLARD-STAFFORD, MELINDA L.; SPARLING, PHILLIP B.; SNOW,
TERESA K.; ROSSKOPF, LINDA B.; WEBB, STEPHANIE A.; OMER, JAY
Author Information
Exercise Research Laboratory, Department of Health and Performance Sciences,
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332-0110; Department of Health,
Physical Education, and Sport Science, Kennesaw State University, Kennesaw, GA
30144-5591
Submitted for publication May 1998.
Accepted for publication February 1999.
Address for correspondence: Dr. Mitchell A. Collins, Department of HPS, Kennesaw
State University, 1000 Chastain Road, Kennesaw, Georgia 30144-5591. E-mail:
mcollins@kennesaw.edu.
---------------------------------------------Outline
ABSTRACT
METHODS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
ABSTRACT
Evaluation of the BOD POD(R) for assessing body fat in collegiate football
players. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc., Vol. 31, No. 9, pp. 1350-1356, 1999.
Purpose: The purpose of this investigation was to evaluate the accuracy of a new
air displacement plethysmograph, BOD POD(R) Body Composition System, for
determining %fat in collegiate football players.
Body fatness was estimated from body density (Db), which was measured on the
same day using the BOD POD and hydrostatic weighing (HW) in 69 Division IA
football players. In addition, 20 subjects were whole body scanned using

dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry, DXA (Lunar DPX-L) to assess total body mineral
content and %fat. Mineral content and HW determined Db were used to compute %fat
from a three-component model (3C; fat, mineral, and residual).
Test-retest reliability for assessing %fat using the BOD POD (N = 15) was 0.994
with a technical error of measurement of 0.448%. Mean (+/- SEM) Db measured with
the BOD POD (1.064 +/- 0.002 g[middle dot]cc-1) was significantly greater (P
-1), thus resulting in a lower %fat for the BOD POD (15.1 +/- 0.8%) compared
with HW (17.0 +/- 0.8%). Similar results (N = 20) were found for DXA (12.9 +/1.2%) and the 3C (12.7 +/- 0.8%) where %fat scores were significantly higher (P
Conclusions: Db measured with the BOD POD was higher than the criterion HW, thus
yielding lower %fat scores for the BOD POD. In addition, BOD POD determined %fat
was lower than DXA and 3C determined values in a subgroup of subjects.
Assessment of %fat using the BOD POD is reliable and requires minimal technical
expertise; however, in this study of collegiate football players, %fat values
were underpredicted when compared to HW, DXA, and the 3C model.
---------------------------------------------Increased body fatness (excess weight) has been negatively associated with
physical performance, particularly when the activity involves weight-bearing
exercise (4,25). In sports where athletes are highly mesomorphic and of variable
body size (e.g., American football), the measurement of body fat is extremely
valuable when making body weight recommendations to players. For this reason,
numerous studies have documented the %fat levels of football players (3,13,19,22
,26,27)
and have attempted to develop time and cost-effective methods other than
hydrostatic weighing (HW) to estimate body fatness. Therefore, a method that
could provide a quick and accurate assessment of %fat would be beneficial for
monitoring large groups of athletes. Several studies have examined the accuracy
of skinfolds (3,13,19,22,26,27), anthropometry (22,26,27), bioelectrical
impedance (19), and near-infrared spectrophotometry (13) for conveniently
assessing %fat in football players; however, these methods have greater
prediction errors compared with laboratory assessments such as HW or dual energy
x-ray absorptiometry (DXA).
A new air displacement plethysmograph, BOD POD Body Composition System (Life
Measurement Instruments, Concord, CA), was developed for assessing %fat using a
fast and relatively simply procedure (5). Although the use of air plethysmograph
y
for assessing body composition is not a new procedure, earlier methodologies
yielded results that were not acceptable in terms of accuracy (6,8,24). From
these earlier works, it became apparent that one had to account for changes in
temperature, gas composition, and the impact of isothermal versus adiabatic
conditions in the test chamber for valid results. Gundlach and Visscher (11)
described a system that attempted to control for these conditions. Although
their results had less error than previous methods, the meticulous nature of the
procedure proved impractical for most applications. The BOD POD is the first
commercial application of air plethysmography for densitometric analysis of body
composition.
Air displacement plethysmography is a densitometric method that estimates the
fat and fat-free mass via a two-component model. Historically, the criterion
method for determining body fatness using a two-component model has been HW (9).
Similar to HW that measures body volume by water displacement, this plethysmogra
phic
method measures body volume via air displacement. Once body volume is determined
,
body density (Db) is derived from the mass/volume ratio. The BOD POD requires

less technical expertise than HW and the use of air instead of water as the
fluid medium provides a more comfortable environment for most subjects. There
are little data on the validity and reliability of the BOD POD. In one study of
a heterogeneous group of 68 subjects, it was reported that the BOD POD was both
reliable and valid in comparison to HW (16). However, Heyward (12) has recently
stated that more research is warranted in diverse subgroups of the population to
determine the validity of the BOD POD before it can replace HW. Because
collegiate and professional sports teams (e.g., Buffalo Bills) are using the BOD
POD, we felt it was important to investigate the validity of the device in
athletic populations.
In muscular athletes such as football players, the density of the fat-free mass
may be different than the underlying assumption of a two-component model where
the density is assumed to be 1.1 g[middle dot]cc-1 (18,21). This constant is
derived from assumed fractional components and respective densities comprising
the fat-free mass (i.e., water, mineral, and residual) (2). Prior et al. (20)
found that both athletes and nonathletes had a density and composition of the
fat-free mass than differed from the assumed values used to estimate %fat from
Db. Body composition assessment utilizing a three-component model (i.e., fat,
mineral, and residual) would thus reduce the number of assumptions used when
estimating %fat, resulting in a more accurate estimation compared to a
two-component model (15). However, no study to date has compared the BOD POD
with a multicomponent model of body composition. Therefore, the primary purpose
of this study was to determine the accuracy of the BOD POD Body Composition
System for determining Db and %fat in collegiate football players when compared
with the criterion measure, HW. A secondary purpose was to compare body
composition estimates from the BOD POD with those from DXA and a three-component
model.
METHODS
Subjects. Sixty-nine Division IA collegiate football players participated in the
study. The physical characteristics of the subjects are presented in Table 1
according to player position. Thirty-two of the subjects were Caucasian and 37
were African-American. All testing for this project was completed in conjunction
with the routine battery of assessments that are performed annually for all
football players (with the exception of DXA). A small group of subjects (N = 20)
volunteered to participate in the DXA testing. Because DXA testing involves
exposure to radiation, this aspect of the study was reviewed and approved by the
Institutional Review Board. These subjects gave written consent in accordance
with the policies established by the American College of Sports Medicine for the
use of human subjects.
Procedures. All testing was completed during a single session with subjects
reporting to the laboratory in a 3-h post prandial, postexercise, and normally
hydrated state. Each subject completed the BOD POD test immediately followed by
HW. Because of the impact of hair and clothing on the BOD POD assessments, all
subjects wore a Lycra swim cap and Lycra shorts during the testing session. It
should be noted that the Lycra shorts were a slight deviation from the
manufacturer's recommendation of wearing a Lycra competition swimsuit. All DXA
testing was conducted on the same day for those subjects who participated.
BOD POD. The BOD POD assesses %fat by measuring body volume using air displaceme
nt
plethysmography. This system uses a single fiberglass structure that has two
chambers separated via a fiberglass seat. The front chamber is the test chamber
and the rear chamber is the reference chamber. There is a volume-perturbing
element (diaphragm) mounted between the two chambers. As the diaphragm
oscillates because of computer control, complementary volume perturbations occur
in the two chambers. Using the application of basic gas laws within the chamber,
pressure fluctuations that occur as a result of the volume changes are used to

determine the chamber air volume. Chamber air volume is determined both with and
without the subject seated in the test chamber. Thus, body volume is the
difference between the two measures. The BOD POD was calibrated before each test
using a two-point calibration method with volumes of 0 and 50 L (manufacturer's
calibration cylinder).
An important consideration for the application of air displacement plethysmograp
hy
is the recognition of how air behaves when compressed under isothermal versus
adiabatic conditions. Therefore, during testing it is important to account for
the impact that clothing, hair, skin surface area, and thoracic gas volume (VTG)
all make on the measurement of the test chamber volume. Subjects are tested
wearing minimal clothing and a swim cap to compress the hair. A correction is
made for surface area artifact that is computed-based on height and mass of the
subject (5). VTG is measured during the test or can be estimated based on the
subject's height and age. VTG is the average volume of air in the lungs and
thorax during normal tidal breathing. Measurement of VTG employs basically the
same plethysmographic technique used for measuring body volume. To assess
compliance with the VTG measurement procedure, a figure of merit is computed.
Merit is a mathematical figure based on the relationship between the airway
pressure curve and the chamber pressure curve (5). A merit less than 1.0 served
as the criterion measure for validity. In addition, airway pressure is measured
that reflects the maximum airway pressure generated during the "puffing"
technique of the VTG measurement procedure. When the merit (>=1.0) or airway
score (>35 mm Hg) is too high, the VTG measurements must be repeated. A more
comprehensive description of the basis for the technology, system design, and
the operating principles of the BOD POD has been previously published (5).
Db was computed using BOD POD determined body volume and mass. Db was used to
predict %fat using the equation of Siri (21). To assess the reliability of the
BOD POD, 15 subjects volunteered to repeat the BOD POD test. The second test was
performed during the same session with approximately 5 min separating the tests.
Hydrostatic weighing. HW was performed using a custom built, stainless steel
tank to measure body volume based on Archimedes' principle. Body mass in air was
measured using a calibrated Chatillon electronic platform scale to the nearest
0.01 kg. Weight under water was measured at residual volume using a Chatillon
autopsy scale to the nearest 0.025 kg. Residual volume was measured simultaneous
ly
using the standard oxygen-rebreathing nitrogen-dilution technique modified from
Goldman and Buskirk (10). Nitrogen was measured using a Med Science 505
nitralizer. (St. Louis, MO). Db was computed using mass and volume with
corrections for water density, residual lung volume, and gastrointestinal tract
gas volume (0.1 L). Db was converted to %fat using the equation of Siri (21).
Our previously published test-retest reliability of HW (N = 16) for assessing
%fat was 0.998 with a technical error of measurement of 0.144% (23).
Dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry. In a subgroup of 20 subjects (mean +/- SD age
= 19.6 +/- 1.1 yr; height = 182.6 +/- 5.4 cm; mass = 90.8 +/- 13.0 kg), total
body mineral content and %fat were determined from whole body scans using a
Lunar DPX-L DXA (Madison, WI; software version 1.3Z; medium mode, 3000 [mu]A).
It was not feasible to scan all subjects because of the limited dimensions of
the scanning bed in relation to the size of most subjects and the constraints of
time in the athletes' schedules. To ensure quality control, the DXA unit was
calibrated on a daily basis using the standard calibration block provided by the
manufacturer. The calibration block was made of a thermoplastic acrylic resin
that contained three bone-equivalent chambers filled with hydroxyapatite. Our
test-retest reliability of the DXA (N = 7) for assessing %fat was 0.995 with a
technical error of measurement of 0.402%.

In addition to DXA determined values, %fat was computed based on a three-compone

nt
model (3C; fat, mineral, and residual) from Lohman (15) and modified by Modlesky
et al. (18): (Equation) where m is the mineral fraction of the body mass and Db
is the density of the body from HW. This equation is based on the assumption
that the water-to-protein ratio (73.8/19.4%) is constant. Because DXA was
assumed to measure bone mineral ash, total body mineral was estimated by
multiplying the ash by 1.2741 (2).
Statistical analysis. Statistical analyses were done with SAS for Windows
version 6.12 (SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC). The reliability data for the BOD
POD were analyzed using a paired t-test. Linear regression analysis and Pearson
correlation coefficients were computed. In addition, technical error of
measurement was computed, which reflects the standard deviation of the
within-subject variance.
For %fat comparisons between HW and the BOD POD, the data were analyzed using a
paired t-test. Linear regression analysis and Pearson correlation coefficients
were computed. Agreement between the two methods for %fat estimations was
determined using a Bland-Altman plot (1).
For the subgroup of subjects, the data were analyzed using a single factor ANOVA
with repeated measures and Tukey post hoc tests. Linear regression analysis and
Pearson correlation coefficients were computed. An alpha level of 0.05 was used
for all significance testing.
RESULTS
A scatter plot
Mean (+/- SEM)
different than
two trials was

of the reliability data for the BOD POD is presented in Figure 1.

%fat for trial 1 (13.5 +/- 1.5%) was not significantly (P > 0.05)
Trial 2 (13.4 +/- 1.4%). The correlation coefficient between the
0.994 with a technical error of measurement of 0.448%.

To assess compliance with the procedure for measuring VTG, a figure of merit and
an airway score were determined. Mean (+/-SEM) figure of merit (N = 69) was 0.36
+/- 0.16, and the airway score was 19.5 +/- 0.8. After repeated trials (>=5
trials), four subjects failed to achieve a figure of merit less than 1.0.
Because these subjects failed to achieve the criterion for compliance, estimated
VTG was used to determine the Db for these subjects for the purpose of comparing
the BOD POD with HW. Their data were excluded from all analyses comparing
measured and estimated VTG.
Relationship between %fat using estimated versus measured VTG is illustrated in
Figure 2. There was a strong correlation (r = 0.986) between BOD POD determined
%fat using estimated VTG and measured VTG. The slope of the regression equation
was significantly (P N = 65) using measured VTG (15.1 +/- 0.9%) was significantl
y
(P TG (15.6 +/- 0.9%). The correlation between estimated and measured VTG was
0.207 (P = 0.10) with a SEE of 0.65 L. The mean measured VTG of 3.998 L (range =
2.897-6.304 L), was significantly (P
The BOD POD and HW are both based on a two-component model where %fat is
estimated from Db. In this study, mean (+/- SEM) Db measured with the BOD POD
(1.064 +/- 0.002 g[middle dot]cc-1) was significantly greater (P -1). Because
comparisons among body composition techniques are typically made based on %fat,
we elected to report our findings as %fat. However, any similarities or
differences between the BOD POD and HW are due to the ability of each technique
to accurately measure Db. A scatter plot illustrating the agreement between %fat
assessed using HW and BOD POD is presented in Figure 3. Mean (+/- SEM) %fat
determined using the BOD POD (15.1 +/- 0.8%) was significantly less (P P TG is
presented in Figure 4. Mean (+/- SEM) %fat from the BOD POD (15.6 +/- 0.9%)

based on estimated VTG was significantly lower (P

To evaluate the individual agreement between HW and BOD POD determined %fat, a
Bland-Altman plot is presented in Figure 5. There was no relationship (P > 0.05)
between mean %fat and the difference between HW and the BOD POD. Therefore, the
accuracy of the BOD POD to assess %fat does not appear to be influenced by the
relative body fatness of the subject.
To further test the accuracy of the BOD POD, %fat was assessed using DXA and a
3C model (fat, mineral, and residual) in a subgroup of subjects (N = 20).
Scatter plots illustrating the agreement between %fat determined from the BOD
POD and %fat from DXA and the 3C model are presented in Figure 6. To facilitate
comparison, data are also presented for HW for the same subjects. Mean (+/-SEM)
%fat from the BOD POD (10.9 +/- 1.0%) was significantly (P
DISCUSSION
Body composition can be estimated from a two-component model based on Db. Use of
this model to estimate %fat is dependent on accurate measures of Db. For
densitometric methods, HW has historically been the standard for comparison (9).
Because air displacement plethysmography (BOD POD) is a densitometric method, it
would seem prudent to validate this method using HW. Because both methods
measure Db, differences in %fat would reflect Db variations. In this study, we
used %fat from HW as a criterion measure to validate %fat values in a group of
69 collegiate football players. In addition, a subgroup of 20 subjects were
studied to validate %fat values from the BOD POD against DXA and 3C determined
%fat values based on three-component models.
In a group of 15 subjects, test-retest BOD POD determinations of %fat were made
to assess reliability. There was excellent agreement between the duplicate
measures. These data agree with the reliability data previously reported for the
BOD POD (16). They reported a between-trial SD of 0.4%fat, which is the same as
found in the present study. In comparison with other measures of %fat, we found
a strong correlation coefficient between trials for the BOD POD that was
comparable to our data for HW and DXA. In addition, the technical error of
measurement for the BOD POD was low with a value of 0.402% that was consistent
with our data and those reported for HW (0.42%) and skinfolds (0.61%) (28).
Based upon the findings of this study, the test-retest reliability for %fat
assessment using the BOD POD was very good.
The VTG must be considered for the measurement of Db. The BOD POD is designed to
allow for measurement of VTG or estimation based on subject height and age;
therefore, it was of interest to compare measured versus estimated VTG and to
determine the impact of VTG on %fat values. For the majority of the subjects,
compliance with the VTG measurement procedure was achieved within three trials.
After five repeated trials, four subjects were unable to comply with the
procedures for VTG measurement and were excluded from this portion of the data
analyses. Noncompliance in these subjects was probably related to an inability
to perform the "puffing" technique without simultaneously executing a Valsalva
maneuver. Surprisingly, there was considerable variability between measured and
estimated VTG. On the average, measured VTG values were lower than the predicted
values. In addition, the relation between measured and estimated VTG was weak (r
= 0.207) with a large SEE of 0.65 L. The impact of VTG on Db values was less
than 0.002 g[middle dot]cc-1, which corresponded to 0.5%fat with estimated VTG
yielding higher values compared with measured VTG. McCrory and colleagues (17)
compared estimated and measured VTG in a heterogeneous population and found no
significant difference between the methods, with a mean difference of 54 mL,
which resulted in a %fat difference of only 0.2%. Although we found a significan
t
difference between %fat using measured and predicted VTG, unlike McCrory et al.
(17), the effect was still in the direction observed by these investigators

(i.e., when VTG is over predicted, %fat is overestimated). It is unclear what

accounts for the differences between the two studies, especially because our
subjects met the manufacturer's criteria for compliance with the VTG procedure.
In the present study, it is apparent that using estimated VTG slightly enhanced
the agreement between the BOD POD and our other measures of %fat. This is not
meant to imply that estimated VTG is more accurate than measured VTG, but only
to recognize that the impact on %fat values is quite small. When compared with
HW, the use of an estimated VTG contributes less potential error (less than
one-half the effect) on measurement of %fat via BOD POD than observed for the
same error using an estimated residual volume for HW (17). Because estimated VTG
tended to enhance the agreement and there is an additional cost for the
disposable breathing tube along with more time required for the procedure, we
recommend the use of predicted VTG when using the BOD POD to track body
composition in athletic populations.
To validate the accuracy of the BOD POD to estimate %fat, comparisons were made
with HW. There was a strong relationship (r2 = 0.89) between the BOD POD and HW
determined %fat, but the BOD POD systematically yielded lower %fat values.
McCrory et al. (16) also reported a strong agreement between the BOD POD and HW
determined %fat in a heterogeneous group of subjects. The r2 was 0.93 with an
intercept and slope that were not significantly different from 0 and 1,
respectively. Although our r2 and slope were quite similar to those reported by
McCrory et al. (16), our intercept (3.33 vs 1.86) was slightly larger. To our
knowledge, the only differences between the studies were the type of subjects
used and the timing of residual lung volume measurement during HW. In the
present study, the subjects had a more similar somatotype (football players);
consequently, they were all male, younger, heavier, and slightly taller than
subjects from the McCrory et al. study (16). The manufacturer designed the
system to accommodate large individuals up to 165 kg of mass and 218 cm of
height. We found no relation (r = -0.16, P = 0.2) between body mass and the
agreement between methods, suggesting that body size alone does not explain the
divergent findings. During the present study, residual lung volume was measured
simultaneously during HW, whereas in the McCrory et al. (16) study residual
volume was measured in a separate procedure on land. We cannot determine which
of these variables might be more influential with regard to the differences
found between the studies. A difference in clothing from the manufacturer's
suggestion may also be involved. However, it was not practical to expect
subjects to wear a tight-fitting Lycra competition swim suit for all tests. It
is unclear in the McCrory et al. (16) study whether the male subjects complied
with this clothing specification.
To further assess the validity of the BOD POD to assess %fat, the SEE was
computed. Lohman (14) suggested that a SEE less than 3% indicates good accuracy
of a new method. McCrory et al. (16) reported a SEE of 1.81%, which is slightly
less than the 2.2% found in our study. Our SEE was quite low in comparison with
other field methods of estimating %fat in football players, such as skinfolds
(2.3-3.5%), bioelectrical impedance (3.9-6.0%), and near-infrared spectrophotome
try
(4.1%) (3,13,19).
The agreement between %fatHW and %fatBOD POD was determined by examining the
differences among individual scores. The standard deviation of the differences
was 2.2% with a range of -5.4 to 7.5%. McCrory et al. (16) reported that 75% of
their subjects had %fat values that were within +/- 2% of the mean difference
(0.3%) between methods. Our mean difference was much larger (2.0%), and
approximately 61% of our subjects fell within +/- 2%. Based on the Bland-Altman
plot, there was no systematic difference in the agreement between the two
methods across a range of body fatness. These findings are consistent with those
reported by McCrory and colleagues (16).

Because the BOD POD measures Db, we chose to use HW as our criterion that
measures Db and is based on a two-component model. However, multi-component
models that measure mineral may improve on the accuracy of a two-component
model. Friedl et al. (7) reported that %fat from DXA (18.0%) and 3C (18.3%) was
slightly larger than values for HW (17.3%). To further assess the validity of
the BOD POD, comparisons were made with %fat values from DXA and 3C in a
subgroup of 20 subjects. Our %fat via HW was similar to DXA and slightly higher
than 3C, but the %fat via the BOD POD was lower than DXA and 3C. This is
consistent with the total subject population, where the %fat from BOD POD was
lower than HW. Based on the results from this subgroup, the BOD POD also yielded
lower estimates of %fat when compared with other measures of body composition
(DXA and 3C).
In conclusion, Db values measured using the BOD POD were systematically higher
than the criterion HW determined values, thus yielding lower %fat values for the
BOD POD. This trend was consistent in the subsample of athletes when comparing
%fat for the BOD POD to DXA and 3C determined values. Assessment of body
composition using the BOD POD is very reliable and has these advantages: easy
operation, relatively quick procedure, fast results, and comfortable for the
subject. However, some limitations include the rigid clothing specifications,
chamber size (i.e., the morbidly obese might not be accommodated), and potential
difficulty in obtaining VTG. In this study of collegiate football players, %fat
scores were observed to be slightly lower than values for HW, DXA, and 3C. Thus,
at this time, it is premature to recommend replacement of HW with air displaceme
nt
plethysmography when determining Db for research or clinical purposes. More
research is clearly needed to determine the validity of this device in
additional subgroups of the population.
REFERENCES
1. Bland, J. M., and D. G. Altman. Statistical methods for assessing agreement
between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1:307-310, 1986. External
Resolver
2. Brozek, J., F. Grande, J. T. Anderson, and A. Keys. Densitometric analysis of
body composition: revision of some quantitative assumptions. Ann. N. Y. Acad.
Sci. 110:113-140, 1963.
3. Clark, R. R., J. M. Kuta, and J. C. Sullivan. Cross-validation of methods to
predict body fat in African-American and Caucasian collegiate football players.
Res. Q. Exerc. Sport 65:21-30, 1994.
4. Cureton, K. J., P. B. Sparling, B. W. Evans, S. M. Johnson, U. D. Kong, and
J. W. Purvis. Effect of experimental alterations in excess weight on aerobic
capacity and distance running performance. Med. Sci. Sports 10:194-199, 1978.
External Resolver
5. Dempster P., and S. Aitkens. A new air displacement method for the determinat
ion
of human body composition. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 27:1692-1697, 1995.
6. Fomon, S. L., R. L. Jesson, and G. M. Owen. Determination of body volume from
infants by a method of helium displacement. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 110:80-90,
1963. External Resolver
7. Friedl, K. E. J. P. Deluca, L. J. Marchitelli, and J. A. Vogel. Reliability
of body-fat estimations from a four-compartment model using density, body water,
and bone mineral measurements. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 55:764-770, 1992. External
Resolver

8. Gnaedinger, R. H., E. P. Reinike, A. M. Pearson, W. D. Van Huss, J. A.

Wessel, and H. J. Montoye. Determination of body density by air displacement,
helium dilution, and underwater weighing. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 110:96-108,
1963. External Resolver
9. Going, S. Densitometry. In: Human Body Composition, A. F. Roche, S. B.
Heymsfield, and T. G. Lohman (Eds.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 1996,
pp.3-23.
10. Goldman, R. F., and E. R. Buskirk. Body volume measurement by underwater
weighing: description of a method. In: Techniques for Measuring Body Composition
,
J. Brozek and A. Henschel (Eds.). Washington, DC: National Academy of Science,
1961, pp. 77-89.
11. Gundlach, B. L., and G. J. W. Visscher. The plethysmometric measurement of
total body volume. Hum. Biol. 58:783-799, 1986.
12. Heyward, V. H. Practical body composition assessment for children, adults,
and older adults. Int. J. Sports Nutr. 8:285-307, 1998.
13. Houmard, J. A., R. G. Israel, M. R. McCammon, K. F. O'Brien, J. Omer, and B.
S. Zamora. Validity of a near-infrared device for estimating body composition in
a college football team. J. Appl. Sport Sci. Res. 5:53-59, 1991.
14. Lohman, T. G. Dual energy X-ray absorptiometry. In: Human Body Composition,
A. F. Roche, S. B. Heymsfield, and T. G. Lohman (Eds.). Champaign, IL: Human
Kinetics, 1996, pp. 63-78.
15. Lohman, T. G. Applicability of body composition techniques and constants for
children and youths. In: Exercise and Sport Sciences Reviews, K. Pandolf (Ed.).
New York: Macmillan, 1986, pp. 325-357.
16. McCrory, M. A., T. D. Gomez, E. M. Bernauer, and P. A. Mole. Evaluation of a
new air displacement plethysmograph for measuring human body composition. Med.
Sci. Sports Exerc. 27:1686-1691, 1995.
17. McCrory, M. A., P. A. Mole, T. D. Gomez, K. G. Dewey, and E. M. Bernauer.
Body composition by air-displacement plethysmography by using predicted and
measured thoracic gas volumes. J. Appl. Physiol. 84:1475-1479, 1998. External
Resolver
18. Modlesky, C. M., K. J. Cureton, R. D. Lewis, B. M. Prior, M. A. Sloniger,
and D. A. Rowe. Density of the fat-free mass and estimates of body composition
in male weight trainers. J. Appl. Physiol. 80:2085-2096, 1996.
19. Oppliger, R. A., D. H. Nielsen, A. C. Shetler, E. T. Crowley, and J. P.
Albright. Body composition of collegiate football players: bioelectrical
impedance and skinfolds compared to hydrostatic weighing. J. Sports Phys. Ther.
15:187-192, 1992.
20. Prior, B. M., E. M. Evans, C. M. Modlesky, M. A. Sloniger, R. D. Lewis, and
K. J. Cureton. Density and composition of the fat-free mass in athletes. Med.
Sci. Sport Exerc. 29:S54, 1997. Request Permissions External Resolver
21. Siri, W. E. Body composition from fluid spaces and density: analysis of
methods. In: Techniques for Measuring Body Composition, J. Brozek and A.
Henschel (Eds.). Washington, DC: National Academy of Science, 1961, pp. 223-244.

22. Smith, J. F., and E. R. Mansfield. Body composition prediction in university

football players. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 16:398-405, 1984.
23. Sparling, P. B., M. Millard-Stafford, L. B. Rosskopf, L. J. Dicarlo, and B.
T. Hinson. Body composition by bioelectrical impedence and densitometry in black
women. Am. J. Hum. Biol. 5:111-117, 1993. External Resolver
24. Taylor, A., Y. Aksoy, J. W. Scopes, G. Du Mont, and B. A. Taylor. Developmen
t
of an air displacement method for whole body volume measurement in infants. J.
Biomed. Engl. 7:9-17, 1985.
25. Vanderburgh, P. M., and T. Edmonds. The effect of experimental alterations
in excess mass on pull-up performance in fit young men. J. Strength Cond. Res.
11:230-233, 1997.
26. White, J., J. L. Mayhew, and F. C. Piper. Prediction of body composition in
college football players. J. Sports Med. 20:317-324, 1980. External Resolver
27. Wickkiser, J. D., and J. M. Kelly. The body composition of a college
football team. Med. Sci. Sports 7:199-202, 1975. Buy Now External Resolver
28. Wilmore, K. M., P. J. McBride, and J. H. Wilmore. Comparison of bioelectrica
l
impedance and near-infrared interactance for body composition assessment in a
population of self-perceived over-weight adults. Int. J. Obes. 18:375-381, 1994.
Key Words: AIR DISPLACEMENT PLETHYSMOGRAPHY; %FAT; DXA; BODY COMPOSITION;
THREE-COMPONENT MODEL
----------------------------------------------