Content uploaded by Ramananda Ningthoujam
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Ramananda Ningthoujam on Apr 04, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
UNDERLYING PRINCIPLES AND THEORIES OF COMMON BODY COMPOSITION
TECHNIQUES: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
*,1Ramananda Ningthoujam, 2
Takhellambam Inaobi Singh
1
Senior Research Fellow, Department of Physical Education and Sports Science, Manipur University
2
Associate Professor, Department of Physical Education and Sports Science, Manipur Univers
3
Assistant Professor, Degree College of Physical Education, Amravati
ARTICLE INFO
ABSTRACT
Context:
considered to be an important factor in physical development especially in sports, where there is an
advantage of being tall (e.g. basketball) or small (Libero, we
Put) or light (gymnastics), etc.
Objective:
understanding of the technique used.
Study Design
Evidence Acquisition:
MEDLINE, Google Scholar, Pub Med and SPORTDiscus
composition, human
body composition analyser, bioelectrical impedance analysis, DEXA etc. Also, the body composition
and body composition analyser websites were utilized.
Study Selection:
Five common
of the technique, advantages and disadvantages of the technique.
Data Extraction
Results:
Multi-
Compartmental Model results and should not be compared to other technologies using the
principles of densitometry such as Underwater Weighing and BOD POD.
Conclusion:
may reduce the likelihood of misdiagnosis of Body Composition.
Copyright © 2016 Ramananda Ningthoujam et al.
This
unrestricted
use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
INTRODUCTION
Body composition is the amount of fat compared to lean body
mass of our body and may be primarily referred to the
distribution of muscle and fat in the body. A certain amount of
body fat is necessary to be considered healthy for using it as an
energy sourc
e during hard exercise. Being overweight is
usually not a problem, but being over-
fat typically has negative
impact on the athletic performance. It is considered to be an
important factor in
physical development especially in sports,
where there is an adva
ntage of being tall (e.g. basketball) or
small (Libero, weightlifting),
heavy (sumo wrestling, Shot Put)
*Corresponding author: Ramananda Ningthoujam,
Senior Research Fellow, Department of Physical Education and
Sports Science, Manipur University
ISSN: 0975-833X
Article History:
Received xxxxxxxxxx, 2015
Received in revised form
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, 2015
Accepted xxxxxxxxxx, 2015
Published online xxxxxxx, 2016
Citation: Ramananda Ningthoujam, Takhellambam Inaobi Singh and Bidhyapati Nongthombam, 2016.
common body composition techniques: A systematic review”,
Article History:
Received 20th December, 2015
Received in revised form
15th January, 2016
Accepted 08th February, 2016
Published online 16th March, 2016
Key words:
Body Composition,
Lean Body Mass,
Body Fat,
Multi-compartmental.
RESEARCH ARTICLE
UNDERLYING PRINCIPLES AND THEORIES OF COMMON BODY COMPOSITION
TECHNIQUES: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
Takhellambam Inaobi Singh
and 3
Bidhyapati Nongthombam
Senior Research Fellow, Department of Physical Education and Sports Science, Manipur University
Associate Professor, Department of Physical Education and Sports Science, Manipur Univers
Assistant Professor, Degree College of Physical Education, Amravati
ABSTRACT
Context:
The measurement of body composition helps in assessing nutritional status indirectly. It is
considered to be an important factor in physical development especially in sports, where there is an
advantage of being tall (e.g. basketball) or small (Libero, weightlifting), heavy (sumo wrestling, Shot
Put) or light (gymnastics), etc.
Objective:
To discuss the common methods of assessing human body composition for better
understanding of the technique used.
Study Design
: Systematic review
Evidence Acquisition:
Relevant articles published from 1942 to 2012 obtained through searching
MEDLINE, Google Scholar, Pub Med and SPORTDiscus
TM
composition, human
body composition, skinfold caliper, hydrostatic weighing, BOD POD, Tanita
body composition analyser, bioelectrical impedance analysis, DEXA etc. Also, the body composition
and body composition analyser websites were utilized.
Study Selection:
Five common
methods for assessment of body composition were included for analysing the principles
of the technique, advantages and disadvantages of the technique.
Data Extraction
: Multi-
Compartmental Model and densitometry technique were studied.
Results:
DXA, Skinfolds, and Bio-
impedance results have shown to be statistically different than
Compartmental Model results and should not be compared to other technologies using the
principles of densitometry such as Underwater Weighing and BOD POD.
Conclusion:
Every
technique has its advantages and disadvantages. A combination of these methods
may reduce the likelihood of misdiagnosis of Body Composition.
This
is an open access article distributed under the Creative
Commons Att
use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Body composition is the amount of fat compared to lean body
mass of our body and may be primarily referred to the
distribution of muscle and fat in the body. A certain amount of
body fat is necessary to be considered healthy for using it as an
e during hard exercise. Being overweight is
fat typically has negative
impact on the athletic performance. It is considered to be an
physical development especially in sports,
ntage of being tall (e.g. basketball) or
heavy (sumo wrestling, Shot Put)
*Corresponding author: Ramananda Ningthoujam,
Senior Research Fellow, Department of Physical Education and
or
light (gymnastics), etc. Winter (1990), in his book on
“Biomechanics and Human Movements” expressed that “Tall
Runner’s Longer Limbs will enable Longer Step Length”. For
a perfect physique, it is important to have a healthy amount of
body fat: not too muc
h and not too little. Body composition
percentage varies considerably with gender, age, athletes and
non-
athletes. A study on world class sprinter by Niels Uth
(2005), found that Height, Body Mass and BMI seems to be
important anthropometric parameters for
measurement of body composition helps in assessing
nutritional status indirectly. The choice of body composition
technique often depends on the intended purpose (for which
data are to be used) and the available technology. In regard to
high-
performance sport, the assessment of body composition
may define a performance or selection criterion, be used to
assess the effectiveness of an exercise or dietary intervention,
Available online at http://www.journalcra.com
International Journal of Current Research
Vol. 8, Issue, 03, pp.27939-27945, March, 2016
INTERNATIONAL
Citation: Ramananda Ningthoujam, Takhellambam Inaobi Singh and Bidhyapati Nongthombam, 2016. “Underl
common body composition techniques: A systematic review”,
International Journal of Current Research, 8, (03),
27939
z
UNDERLYING PRINCIPLES AND THEORIES OF COMMON BODY COMPOSITION
Bidhyapati Nongthombam
Senior Research Fellow, Department of Physical Education and Sports Science, Manipur University
Associate Professor, Department of Physical Education and Sports Science, Manipur Univers
ity
Assistant Professor, Degree College of Physical Education, Amravati
The measurement of body composition helps in assessing nutritional status indirectly. It is
considered to be an important factor in physical development especially in sports, where there is an
ightlifting), heavy (sumo wrestling, Shot
To discuss the common methods of assessing human body composition for better
Relevant articles published from 1942 to 2012 obtained through searching
and OVID with keywords body
body composition, skinfold caliper, hydrostatic weighing, BOD POD, Tanita
body composition analyser, bioelectrical impedance analysis, DEXA etc. Also, the body composition
methods for assessment of body composition were included for analysing the principles
Compartmental Model and densitometry technique were studied.
impedance results have shown to be statistically different than
Compartmental Model results and should not be compared to other technologies using the
principles of densitometry such as Underwater Weighing and BOD POD.
technique has its advantages and disadvantages. A combination of these methods
Commons Att
ribution License, which permits
light (gymnastics), etc. Winter (1990), in his book on
“Biomechanics and Human Movements” expressed that “Tall
Runner’s Longer Limbs will enable Longer Step Length”. For
a perfect physique, it is important to have a healthy amount of
h and not too little. Body composition
percentage varies considerably with gender, age, athletes and
athletes. A study on world class sprinter by Niels Uth
(2005), found that Height, Body Mass and BMI seems to be
important anthropometric parameters for
sprinters. The
measurement of body composition helps in assessing
nutritional status indirectly. The choice of body composition
technique often depends on the intended purpose (for which
data are to be used) and the available technology. In regard to
performance sport, the assessment of body composition
may define a performance or selection criterion, be used to
assess the effectiveness of an exercise or dietary intervention,
INTERNATIONAL
JOURNAL
OF CURRENT RESEARCH
“Underl
ying principles and theories of
27939
-27945.
or be used to monitor the health status of an athlete. Individual
body composition goals should be identified by trained
healthcare personnel (e.g. athletic trainer, physiologist,
nutritionist or physician) and body composition data should be
treated in the same manner as other personal and confidential
medical information (Ackland et al., 2012). It is important to
recognize that there is no single measurement method that
allows for the measurement of all tissues and organs and no
method is error free (Lee and Gallagher, 2008).
Common methods of assessing body composition
There are two techniques of measuring body composition i.e.
Direct and Indirect measurement. A direct measurement of
body composition is the most accurate method, it is not an
option, as it requires dissection of the body. Direct technique
of measuring body composition is also known cadaver
analysis. It is a method of measuring body composition by
dissecting a fresh, dead human body, and determining the
percentage fat in each body part. On the other hand, indirect
measurement used to determine body fat from body density
which has been measured directly in previous cadaver analysis.
Indirect method is also commonly said to be the best
“reference” technique. Indirect methods such as BOD POD
and Underwater Weighing have a small individual error. These
methods are considered indirect because the equations used to
determine body fat from body density are only one step from
the direct method. Others indirect methods such as DXA,
Skinfold Calipers, and Bio-impedance predict body fat by
predicting density.
Multi-compartmental model
The most accurate assessment of our ideal weight takes into
account the composition of our body i.e. defining how much of
our weight is lean body mass (muscle and bone) and how
much is body fat. The closest researchers can get to a direct
measurement of body composition as far as accuracy goes is
by using the Multi–Compartment Model technique. The Multi-
Compartment Model used to measure body composition
requires a combination of measurement methods. It can
determine Total Body Water, Body mass, Body Volume by air
displacement (BOD POD) or Underwater Weighing (UWW),
Bone Mineral Content by Dual-Energy X-Ray Absorptiometry
(DXA) and nutritional-importance information.
DXA (Dual Energy X-ray Absorptiometry)
Principles
DXA (previously DEXA) was developed by Mazess et al.
(1990) for bone mineral content and density measurement. The
DXA (Figure 1) technique involves a small amount of
radiation, and is usually administered by a department
qualified to use radiation for medical imaging. Two x-ray
beams with differing energy levels are aimed at the patient’s
bones. When soft tissue absorption is subtracted out, the BMD
can be determined from the absorption of each beam by bone.
Advantages
Today, this method is considered a gold standard method in
children, (Goran et al.,1996) young man and women (Mezess
et al., 1993) because of its reliability, precision, and the fact
that it is based on three body components (fat, muscle, bone)
rather than two (fat and muscle) as in most other methods
including hydrostatic weighing.
Figure 1. Dual Energy X-ray Absorptiometry
DXA is most widely used modality for the clinical
measurement of bone mineral content (Compston et al, 1995).
Lukaski (1993) reported 99% accuracy in measurement of
bone mineral content and density with only 1% error. The
major advantages of this technique is, it takes short time (<10
mins) for measurement, precision is quite good (1-2 %
variance), and dose of radiation is minimal (< 0.01 mSv, whole
body) (Goran et al., 1996; Mazess et al., 1990). It allows fat
distribution throughout the entire body to be read in a single
scan. Literature suggests that DEXA can be used to detect
small changes in bone mineral content at multiple anatomical
sites, with little exposure to radiation, short examinations time,
high resolution images (Mazess et al.,1993), and excellent
precision (0.5 -> 2%) and accuracy (3->5%) (Sorenson et al.,
1998). DXA is not effected by ethnicity, athletic status or
musculoskeletal development (Aloia et al., 1999; Prior et al.,
1997).
Disadvantages
The equipment used is very expensive and a person must lie
perfectly still for 10-20 minutes while the scan is taken. Any
movement during DXA whole body scan will lead to invalid
test results. In a recent study (William et al., 2006) the
accuracy of DXA (Lunar Prodigy) was compared with 4-CM
and found that the inconsistent bias of DXA varies according
to sex, size, fatness and disease status, indicating that DXA is
unreliable for patient case-control studies and for
nutrition/health longitudinal studies. Lunar DXA was found
significantly underestimated %BF by ~ 4 %fat respect to other
three different methods (UWW, TBW AND TBK) in a sample
of 12 endurance athletes (Withers RT et al., 1992). Some
literature suggested that DXA is of limited use in people with a
spinal deformity or those who have had previous spinal
surgery.
Underwater Weighing
Principles
Underwater weighing (UWW) measurement is based on
Archimedes’ Principle that states “when a body is immersed in
27940 Ramananda Ningthoujam et al. Underlying principles and theories of common body composition techniques: A systematic review
a fluid, body volume is equal to the loss of weight in the
water” (Figure 2). This technique typically requires the subject
to be completely submerged underwater while exhaling
maximally to minimize the effect of buoyancy from lung air.
Figure 2. Underwater Weighing
It estimates body composition from body density (D =
Mass/Volume). The mass is measured on a scale on land. The
subject must exhale all air as head is lowered under water.
Residual Volume (RV) must be measured to obtain most
accurate results. Computing Db to %BF - Established
equations are used that incorporate measured densities of fat
and fat-free mass, such as:
Density of fat = 0.9007 g * cm-3 …..… (1)
Density of fat-free = 1.100 g * cm-3 ……..(2)
Denser the body is, the lower is the percentage of body fat and
the less denser a body is, the higher is the body fat. The most
accurate method for measuring RV is to obtain the
measurement at the same time the subject is submerged in the
tank, while their body volume is being measured, as opposed
to measuring RV when the subject is outside the tank. Residual
Volume (RV) is then subtracted from the Total Body Volume
measurement. Hydro-densitometry is considered to be the gold
standard of the densitometric methods.
Advantages
Based on considerations of expense and the precision and
accuracy of measurement, the underwater weighing technique
continues to be the most widespread and useful method for
estimating body volume leading to the assessment of body
composition (Going, 1994). Hydrodensiometry is an
established reference method for measuring body density
(Fuller, 1992).
Disadvantages
The limitations associated with this method include time, labor
intensity, subject discomfort and inaccessibility for many
special populations such as the elderly, disabled, and
chronically ill (Biaggi et al.,1999; Jebb and Elia, 1993;
Behnke et al.,1942).Willmore (1969) hydrostatic weighting,
using predicted residual lung volume had no effect on the
estimation of %BF for the group. However, individual
estimates deviated quite substantially from that calculated by
using measured residual lung volume, with over 50% of the
subjects having deviations in density values ranging from
±0.003 to greater than ±0.0099 g/ml (%BF deviations ranging
from 1 to 4%). Ball SD. (2005) there is a wide range of
equipment and protocols commonly used in laboratories
measuring underwater weight (autopsy scale vs. load cells),
subject position, calibration, and method for determining
residual lung volume (simultaneous vs. separate, underwater
vs. land, helium vs. oxygen dilution). Of these, differences in
residual volume determination and trial selection criteria have
been reported to contribute the largest sources of variation.
Moreover, the test is somewhat subjective because it relies
upon the subject's ability to expel all oxygen from their lungs
while submerged in a water tank. Oxygen remaining in the
lungs will skew the results. In clinical settings, this procedure
is repeated a number of times, and an average is taken. The
"tank" is expensive and the inconvenience to the user is
considerable. Because of the cost, lengthy testing process, and
physical burden to the subject, this method is more suitable for
research studies
Figure 3. Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis
27941 International Journal of Current Research, Vol. 08, Issue, 03, pp.27939-27945, March, 2016
Bioelectrical impedance analysis
Principle
Bio-impedance devices (Figure 3) that pass a small, alternating
electric current (I) 800 μA, Frequency; 50 kHz through the
body, and the resistance (Body fat, cell membranes) to that
current indicates the amount of water in the body. The current
passes between two electrodes, often called the source and sink
(or detector), and generates voltages between different points
in the body volume according to Ohm’s law. Larger the fat–
free mass, lesser is the resistance to current and larger fat mass,
more resistance to current. The currentflows through all
conducting materials present in the body in the path between
the source and sink electrodes. Because living tissue
constitutes a volume conductor, the physical carriers of the
current are predominantly charged ions, such as sodium (Na++)
or potassium (K+) ions, which are able to move within the
volume. Conductivity within materials such as blood and urine
is high, that of muscle is intermediate, and that of bone, fat, or
air is low. The actual parameter measured with Bio-impedance
Analysis (BIA) is the voltage (V) that is produced between two
electrodes located most often at sites near to, but different
from, the sites where current is introduced. The measurement
normally is expressed as a ratio, V/I, and is also called
impedance (Z). The measuring instrument is therefore called a
bioelectrical impedance analyzer.
Advantages
The equipment is not expensive, making a professionally-
accepted method that can be adapted easily for home use.
There is no physical imposition to the user; no need for a
trained technician to operate the equipment; and the entire
procedure takes less than one minute. Lukaski et al.(1985)
reported in their study that bio-impedance analysis method is a
valid and reliable approach for the estimation of human body
composition. They found a reliability coefficient of 0.99 over 5
days.
Disadvantages
Although BIA is an attractive assessment tool and easy to use,
it should be recommended as an alternate to the skin-fold
method only when trained skin-fold technician are not
available (Utter C. Allan 2005). Body position, posture, serum
electrolytes, blood flow, skin temperature, fluid distribution,
and vascular perfusion all can significantly change the
observed resistance (Pinilla et al., 1992; Caton et al., 1988;
Kushner et al., 1996)
Skinfold Calipers
Principle
Skinfold Caliper (Figure 4) is to determine the subcutaneous
fat whether it is increasing or decreasing, but not for predicting
total body fat. A small, hand-held device called Skinfold
Caliper is used to measure the thickness of fat immediately
below the skin’s surface, which is also called subcutaneous fat.
Usually 3 to 12 locations are chosen to measure. The most
common sites are: suprailiac, anterior thigh, triceps, and
subscapular. Once fat-folds are measured they are put into one
of hundreds of different population-specific or generalized
equations to determine BF%.
Figure 4. Skinfold caliper
Jackson and Pollock (1978) formulate an equation that has
been validated for various age groups and both athletic and
non-athletic populations from the three sites of skinfold
measurement. These equations are:
Men: D=1.1125025-0.0013125(x) + 0.0000055(x2) –
0.000244(y) ………………..(3)
Women: D=1.089733-0.0009245(x) + 0.0000025(x2) –
0.0000979(y) ………………..(4)
Where x=sum of triceps, chest, and subscapular skinfolds (in
mm) for men, and the sum of triceps, suprailiac, and
abdominal skinfolds for women, and y =age in years.
Advantages
Skin-fold measurements taken by calipers are easy to use,
inexpensive, and the method is portable. However, results can
be very subjective depending on the skill of the technician and
the site(s) measured. Inexpensive models sold for home use are
usually less accurate than those used by an accredited
technician. Many people find calipers to be uncomfortable and
invasive but it is most commonly used in the field of sports for
testing body fat.
Disadvantages
These 3 to 12 local fat measurements are used to predict the
overall fat content of the entire body, however, significant
errors can result from this approach, because people deposit fat
in different areas, and about half of the fat content of the body
is internal, which skinfold caliper cannot measure. Because of
this, the accuracy of skinfolds on an individual basis is not
very high, with research studies indicating errors of up to ±8%
(Scherf et al., 1986). Example: If someone is really 20% fat,
Skinfold Calipers could measure the person between 12 and
28% fat.
27942 Ramananda Ningthoujam et al. Underlying principles and theories of common body composition techniques: A systematic review
The error in body fat estimates from Skinfold ranges from ±
3% to ± 11 %, and is influenced by sex, ethnicity, age and
measurement sites (Wang et al., 2000). There is little research
comparing Skinfold percent fat measurements and Multi-
Compartmental Model measurements because the principles
and assumptions are completely different. For this reason,
Skinfold measurement should also not be compared to methods
such as Underwater Weighing and BOD POD.
The BOD POD
Principle
The BOD POD (Figure 5) is an Air Displacement
Plethysmograph (ADP) that uses whole-body densitometry to
determine body composition (fat vs. lean). It is similar in
principle to the underwater weighing; body density measured
with the BOD POD was higher than the criterion Hydrostatic
Weighing, thus yielding lower %fat scores for the BOD POD.
Thoracic Gas Volume (TGV) is accounted for instead of RV.
In addition, BOD POD determined %fat was lower than DXA
and 3C determined values. The BOD POD measures body
mass (weight) using a very precise scale, and volume by sitting
inside the BOD POD. Body density can then be calculated:
Density = Mass/Volume …………(5)
If the body density is known, it is possible to convert this to a
body fat % using the following equation, which was derived by
Siri:
% fat= (495/body density)-450 ………….(6)
The BOD POD body composition system uses the relationship
between pressure and volume to derive the body volume of a
subject seated inside a fibre-glass chamber. Derivation of body
volume, together with measurement of body mass, permits
calculation of body density and subsequent estimation of
percent fat and fat-free mass. The density of the whole body
(mass per unit volume) may be used to estimate human body
composition. Once the overall density of the body is known,
the relative percentages of fat and fat-free mass may be
determined by an equation such as the one derived by Siri`s
equation as shown in equation (6) above. The more denser a
body is, the lower is the percentage of body fat; the less denser
a body is, the higher is the body fat.
Advantages
Assessment of fat% using the BOD POD is reliable and
requires minimal technical expertise (Collins et al., 1999).
BOD POD is the only technique that can estimate fat mass
accurately, precisely, and without any bias in 9 to 14 yr-old
children (Fields et al., 2000). The average of the study means
indicates that the BOD POD and underwater weighing agree
within 1%BF for adults and children (Field et al., 2002).
Disadvantages
BOD POD is very expensive and its accuracy reduces if used
in diseased states. BOD POD test protocol will also insure the
accuracy and precision of the measurement, so it is important
to be relaxed, still, and avoid talking or coughing during the
test. The device lacks portability, requiring a small space in the
room.
Figure 5. The BOD POD
Table 1. Advantages and disadvantages body composition techniques
Method Primary measurement Advantages Disadvantage
DXA TBF, LM, bone mineral Measure entire body fat Needs expert to operate, takes10-20 minutes
Skinfold Visceral fat Easy to use, inexpensive, portable Needs an expert to measure accurately
Underwater Weighing Body density Gold standard method in fat % measurement Subject discomfort, limited to ill person
BIA TBW, fat mass, fat % Inexpensive, portable, simple, easy to use Accuracy affected by exercise, diuretics, etc
BOP POD Body volume, body weight Reliable and requires minimal expertise Expensive, accuracy reduces to sick person
DXA, dual energy X-ray absorptiometry; TBF, total body fat; LM, lean mass; TBW, total body water
27943 International Journal of Current Research, Vol. 08, Issue, 03, pp.27939-27945, March, 2016
Others Technique
There are other techniques that are not cover in this articles
i.e., nitrogen, oxygen, or helium dilution or nitrogen washout
technique, isotope dilution, near-infraredinteractance (NIR)
deuterium or 180 labeled water dilution, Three-dimensional
photonic scanner. Hence, they are also used in different fields
for analyzing human body composition.
Summary
Every technique has there advantages and disadvantages
(Table 1). A combination of these methods may reduce the
likelihood of misdiagnosis of Body Composition. DXA,
Skinfolds, and Bio-impedance results have shown to be
statistically different than Multi-Compartmental Model results
and should not be compared to other technologies using the
principles of densitometry such as Underwater Weighing and
BOD POD because the principles and assumptions are
completely different.
Conflict of Interest: None
REFERENCES
Allan CU, David CN, Gregory JM, Richard T, Sean S, Tim M,
James RM. 2005. Evaluation of leg-to leg BIA in assessing
body composition of high school wrestler. Medicine &
Science in Sports & Exercise, d.o.i: 10.1249/01.mss.
0000174901.05353.f2.
Aloia JF, Vaswani A, Mikhail M, Flaster ER. 1999. Body
Composition by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry in black
compared with white females. Osteoporisis International,
10: 114-119.
Ball SD. 2005. Interdevice variability in percent fat estimates
using the BOD POD. Eur J Clin Nutr., 59:996-1001.
Behnke AR, Feen BG, Welham WC. 1942. Specific gravity of
healthy man. JAMA, 118:496-501.
Biaggi RR, Vollman MW, Nies MA. 1999. Comparison of air
displacement plethysmography with hydrostatic weighing
and bioelectrical impedance analysis for the assessment of
body composition in healthy adults. Am J Clin Nutr.,
69:898-903
Bioelectrical impedance analysis in body composition
measurement. National institute of health technology
assessment conference statement 1994; Dec 12 – 14.
Brodie, DA. 1988. Techniques of measurement of body
composition Part II. Sports Medicine, 5: 74-98.
Caton JR, Mole PA, Adams WC, Heustis DS. 1988. Body
composition analysis by bioelectrical impedance: effect of
skin temperature. Med Sci Sports Exerc, 20:489-491.
Collins MA, Millard-Stafford ML, Sparling PB, Snow TK,
Rosskopf LB, Webb SA, Omer J. 1999. Evaluation of the
BOD POD for assessing body fat in collegiate football
players. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise,
31(9):1350-1356. PMID:10487380. d.o.i: 10.1097/0000
5768-199909000-00019.
Edward LF, Richard WB, Merle LF. The Physiology basis of
physical education and athletics (4th Edition). pp 553- 572.
Fields DA, Goran MI, McCrory MA. 2002. Body-composition
assessment via air-displacement plethysmography in adults
and children: a review. Am J Clin Nutr., 75:453-467.
Fields DA, Goran MI. 2000. Body composition techniques and
the four-compartment model in children. J Appl Physiol.,
89:613-620.
Fuller NJ, Jebb SA, Laskey MA, Coward WA, Elia M. 1992.
Four-component model for the assessment of body
composition in humans: comparison with alternative
methods, and evaluation of the density and hydration of fat-
free mass. Clin Sci., 82: 687-693.
Going SB. Densitometry. In: Roche AF, Heymsfield SB,
Lohman TG, eds. 1996. Human Body Composition.
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 3-24.
Goran MI, Driscoll P, Johnson R, Nagy TR, Gary H. 1996.
Cross-calibration of body composition techniques against
dual-energy x- ray absorptiometry in young children.
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 63: 299-305.
http://www.biodyncorp.com/product/450/body_model_450.ht
ml.
http://www.bodpod.com/en/products/body-composition/adult-
children-bod-pod-gs/bod-pod.
http://www.brianmac.co.uk/fatcent.htm.
http://www.calculator.net/lean-body-mass-calculator.html.
http://www.tanita.com/en/body-composition-analyzer/.
http://www.topendsports.com/testing/bodycomp.htm/.
Ionescu EO, Gurău AI. The importance of body composition
measurement at athletes and non-athletes. Sport Medicine
Journal 2006; No.6.
Jackson AS. and Pollock ML. 1978. Generalized equations for
predicting body density of men.Br J Nutr. Nov; 40(3):497-
504.
Jebb S, Elia M. 1993. Techniques for the measurement of body
composition: a practical guide. Int J Obes Relat Metab
Disord., 12:57-65.
Kushner RF, Gudivaka R, Schoeller DA. 1996. Clinical
characteristics influencing bioelectrical impedance analysis
measurements. Am J Clin Nutr., 64:423S-427S.
Lukaski H.C. 1993. Soft tissue composition and bone mineral
status: Evaluation by dual energy x ray absorptiometry.
Symposium: Aging and body composition: Technological
advances and physiological interrelationships. Journal of
Nutrition, 123:438-443.
Lukaski, H. C. 2009. Evaluation of body composition: why
and how? Mediterranean Journal of Nutrition and
Metabolism, 2(1): 1-10. doi: 10.1007/s12349-009-0042-x.
Lukaski, H.C., Phyllis, E. J., William W. B., Glen I L. 1985.
Assessment of fat-free mass using bioimpedance
measurements of the human body. Am J Clin Nutr., 41: pp
810-817.
MACKENZIE, B. 2015. Body fat Percentage 1998; (WWW)
Available from: http://www.brianmac.co.uk/fatcent.htm
(Accessed 7/2/2015).
Marie Dunford. Sports Nutrition: A Practice Manual for
Professionals. In: Christopher M M. Assessment of body
size and composition 2006; pp:177-
210.https://books.google.co.in/books?isbn=0880914114
Mazess, R.B., Burden, H.S., Bisek, J.P.and Hanson, J. 1990.
Dual-energy x-ray absoptionmetry for total-body and
regional bone-mineral and soft tissue composition.
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 51: 1106-1112.
McArdle, W. D., Katch, F. I. & Katch, V. I. 2001. Body
composition assessment. Exercise physiology: Energy,
27944 Ramananda Ningthoujam et al. Underlying principles and theories of common body composition techniques: A systematic review
Nutrition and Human Performance (5th Edition), Pp 752-
931.
Michael Chia and Jasson Chiang. Sport, Science, and Studies
in Asia: Issues, Reflections, and Emergent Solutions.
Proceedings of the 2008 ACESS Conference in Sports
Science. World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd. 2010.
Niels U. 2005. Anthropometric Comparison of World-Class
Sprinters and Normal Populations, Journal of Sports
Science and Medicine,4: 608-616.
Philip D. and Susan A. 1995. A new air displacement method
for the determination of human body composition.
Medicine and Science in Sports Exercise, June; 1692-1697.
Pinilla JC, Webster B, Baetz M, Reeder B, Hattori S, Liu L.
1992. Effect of body position and splints in bioelectrical
impedance analysis. J Parenter Enteral Nutr., 16:408-412.
Prior BM, Cureton KJ, Modlesky CM, Evans EM, Sloniger
MA, Saunders M. 1993. In vivo validation of whole body
composition estimates from dual-energy x-ray
absorptiometry. Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 47(3): 216-
28.
Scherf J, Frankli BA, Lucas CP. 1986. Validity of skinfold
thicknesses in formally obese adults. Am J Clin Nutr.,
43:128-135.
Seon Yeong Lee, 2008. Dympna Gallagher.Assessment
methods in human body composition. Curr Opin Clin Nutr
Metab Care, 11(5): 566–572.doi: 10.1097/MCO.
0b013e32830b5f23
Siri WE. 1961. Body composition from fluid space and
density. In J. Brozek & A. Hanschel (Eds.), Techniques for
measuring body composition. Washington, DC: National
Academy of Science, 223-244.
Timothy R. Ackland, Timothy G. Lohman, Jorunn Sundgot-
Borgen, Ronald J. Maughan, Nanna L. Meyer, Arthur D.
Stewart and Wolfran Miiller. 2012. Current status of body
composition assessment in sport. Sports Med., 42(3): 227-
249.
Wang J, Thornron JC, Kolesnick S, Pierson RJ. 2000.
Anthropometry in body composition. Ann N Y Acad Sci.,
904.
Williams JE, Wells JC, Wilson CM, Haroun D, Lucas A,
Fewtrell MS. 2006. Evaluation of Lunar Prodigy dual-
energy X-ray absorptiometry for assessing body
composition in healthy persons and patients by comparison
with the criterion 4-compartment model. Am J Clin Nutr.,
83:1047-1054.
Wilmore JH. 1969. The use of actual, predicted and constant
residual volumes in the assessment of body composition by
underwater weighing. Med Sci Sports Exerc., 1:87-90.
Winter D.A. 1990. Biomechanics and motor control of human
movement. 2nd Edition New York: Wiley-Inter science 51-
74.
Withers RT, Smith DA, Chatterton BE, Schultz CG, Gaffney
RD. 1992. A comparison of four methods of estimating the
body composition of male endurance athletes. Eur J Clin
Nutr., 46:773-784.
*******
27945 International Journal of Current Research, Vol. 08, Issue, 03, pp.27939-27945, March, 2016
