Advertisement

Sports Medicine

, Volume 42, Issue 3, pp 227–249 | Cite as

Current Status of Body Composition Assessment in Sport

Review and Position Statement on Behalf of the Ad Hoc Research Working Group on Body Composition Health and Performance, Under the Auspices of the I.O.C.Medical Commission
  • Timothy R. Ackland
  • Timothy G. Lohman
  • Jorunn Sundgot-Borgen
  • Ronald J. Maughan
  • Nanna L. Meyer
  • Arthur D. Stewart
  • Wolfram Müller
Review Article

Abstract

Quantifying human body composition has played an important role in monitoring all athlete performance and training regimens, but especially so in gravitational, weight class and aesthetic sports wherein the tissue composition of the body profoundly affects performance or adjudication. Over the past century, a myriad of techniques and equations have been proposed, but all have some inherent problems, whether in measurement methodology or in the assumptions they make. To date, there is no universally applicable criterion or ‘gold standard’ methodology for body composition assessment. Having considered issues of accuracy, repeatability and utility, the multi-component model might be employed as a performance or selection criterion, provided the selected model accounts for variability in the density of fat-free mass in its computation. However, when profiling change in interventions, single methods whose raw data are surrogates for body composition (with the notable exception of the body mass index) remain useful.

Keywords

Body Composition Subcutaneous Adipose Tissue Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis Body Composition Assessment Estimate Body Composition 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to acknowledge the support from the Medical Commission of the International Olympic Committee in creating the Ad Hoc Research Working Group on Body Composition, Health and Performance. This review of the status of body composition assessment methods was one of the primary objectives of the working group.

References

  1. 1.
    Nattiv A, Loucks AB, Manore MM, et al. The female athlete triad special communications: position stand. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2007; 39 (10): 1867–82PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sundgot-Borgen J, Torstveit MK. Aspects of disordered eating continuum in elite high-intensity sports. Scand J Med Sci Sports 2010; 20: 112–21PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Müller W. Towards research based approaches for solving body composition in sports: ski jumping as a heuristic example. Br J Sports Med 2009; 43 (13): 1013–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Müller W. Determination of ski jump performance and implications for health, safety and fairness. Sports Med 2009; 39 (2): 85–106PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Müller W, Gröschl W, Müller R, et al. Underweight in ski jumping: the solution of the problem. Int J Sports Med 2006; 27: 926–34PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Adams J, Mottola M, Bagnell KM, et al. Total body fat content in a group of professional football players. Can J Appl Sport Sci 1982; 7: 36–40PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Stewart AD, Hannan WJ. Prediction of fat and fat free mass in male athletes using dual X-ray absorptiometry as the reference method. J Sports Sci 2000; 18: 263–74PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hawse MR, Martin AD. Human body composition. In: Eston R, Reilly T, editors. Kinanthropometry and exercise physiological laboratory manual: tests, procedures and data, 2nd ed. London: Routledge, 2001: 7–43Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Martin AD, Ross WD, Drinkwater DT, et al. Prediction of body fat by skinfold caliper: assumptions and cadaver evidence. Int J Obesity 1985; 9: 31–9Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Martin AD, Spenst LF, Drinkwater DT, et al. Anthropometric estimation of muscle mass in men. Med Sci Sports Exer 1990; 22: 729–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Martin AD, Drinkwater DT, Clarys JP, et al. Effects of skin thickness and skinfold compressibility on skinfold thickness measurement. Am J Hum Biol 1992; 4 (4): 453–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wang Z, Shen W, Withers RT, et al. Multicomponent molecular-level models of body composition analysis. In: Heymsfield SB, Lohman TG, Wang ZM, et al., editors. Human body composition: 2nd ed. Champaign (IL): Human Kinetics, 2005: 163–76Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Withers RT, Laforgia J, Heymsfield SB. Critical appraisal of the estimation of body composition via two, three, and four-compartment models. Am J Hum Biol 1999; 11 (2): 175–85PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Friedl KE, DeLuca JP, Marchitelli LJ, et al. Reliability of body-fat estimations from a four-component model by using density, body water, and bone mineral measurements. Am J Clin Nutr 1992; 55: 764–70PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lohman TG, Harris M, Teixeira PJ, et al. Assessing body composition and changes in body composition. Another look at dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2000; 904: 45–54PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Clasey JL, Kanaley JA, Wideman L, et al. Validity of methods of body composition assessment in young and older men and women. J Appl Physiol 1999; 86 (5): 1728–38PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wang Z, Heymsfield SB, Chen S, et al. Estimation of percentage body fat by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry: evaluation by in vivo human elemental composition. Phys Med Biol 2010; 55: 2619–35PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Runge VM, Nitz WR, Schmeets SH. The physics of clinical MR: taught through images. New York (NY): Thieme, 2005Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Liang Z-P, Lauterbur PC. Principles of magnetic resonance imaging: a signal processing perspective. New York (NY): IEEE Press, 2000Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Clarys JP, Scafoglieri A, Provyn S, et al. A macro-quality evaluation of DXA variables using whole dissection, ashing and computer tomography in pigs. Obesity 2010; 18 (8): 1477–85PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pietrobelli A, Formica C, Wang Z, et al. Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry body composition model: review of physical concepts. Am J Physiol 1996; 271: E941–51PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Prior BM, Cureton KJ, Modelsky CM, et al. In vivo validation of whole body composition estimates from dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. J Appl Physiol 1997; 83: 623–30PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wang ZM, Visser M, Ma R, et al. Skeletal muscle mass: evaluation of neutron activation and dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry methods. J App Physiol 1996; 80 (3): 824–31Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wang W, Wang Z, Faith MS, et al. Regional skeletal muscle measurement: evaluation of new dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry model. J App Physiol 1999; 87 (3): 1163–71Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kim J, Wang Z, Heymsfield SB, et al. Total-body skeletal muscle mass: estimation by a new dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry method. Am J Clin Nutr 2002; 76 (2): 378–83PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Tothill P, Hannan WJ, Wilkinson S. Comparisons between a pencil beam and two fan beam dual energy X-ray absorptiometers used for measuring total body bone and soft tissue. Brit J Radiol 2001; 74: 166–76PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Visser V, Fuerst T, Lang T, et al. Validity of fan beam dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry for measuring fat-free mass and leg muscle mass. J App Physiol 1999; 87 (4): 1513–20Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Brozek J, Grande F, Anderson JT, et al. Densitometric analysis of body composition: revision of some quantitative assumptions. Ann NY Acad Sci 1963; 110: 113–40PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Siri WE. The gross composition of the body. In: Lawrence JH, Tobias CA, editors. Advances in biological and medical physics. London: Academic Press, 1956Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Going SB. Hydrodensitometry and air displacement plethysmography. In: Heymsfield SB, Lohman TG, Wang ZM, et al., editors. Human body composition, 2nd ed. Champaign (IL): Human Kinetics, 2005: 17–33Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wilmore JH, Vodak PA, Parr RB, et al. Further simplification of a method for determination of residual volume. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1980; 12: 216–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Peeters M, Claessens A. Effect of deviating clothing schemes on the accuracy of body composition measurements by air-displacement plethysmography. Inte J Body Comp Res 2009; 7 (4): 123–9Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Peeters M, Claessens A. Effect of different swim caps on the assessment of body volume and percentage body fat by air displacement plethysmography. J Sports Sci 2011; 29: 191–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Biaggi RB, Vollman MW, Niles MA, et al. 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 1999; 69: 898–903PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Vescovi J, Hildebrandt L, Miller W, et al. Evaluation of the BOD POD for estimating percent fat in female college athletes. J Str Cond Res 2002; 16: 599–605Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Claros G, Hull HR, Fields DA. Comparison of air displacement plethysmography to hydrostatic weighing for estimating total body density in children. BMC Pediatrics 2005; 5: 37PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Collins MA, Millard-Stafford ML, Sparling PB, et al. Evaluation of the BOD POD for assessing body fat in collegiate football players. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1999; 31 (9): 1350–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Bender DA, Bender AE. Nutrition: A reference handbook. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997: 10–138Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Institute of Medicine. Dietary reference intakes for water, sodium, chloride, potassium and sulphate. Washington, DC: National Academic Press, 2005: 73–185Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Schoeller DA. Hydrometry. In: Heymsfield SB, Lohman TG, Wang ZM, et al., editors. Human body composition. 2nd ed. Champaign (IL): Human Kinetics, 2005: 35–49Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Bullen BA, Quaade F, Olsen F, et al. Ultrasonic reflections used for measuring subcutaneous fat in humans. Hum Biol 1965; 37 (4): 375–84PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Booth RAD, Goddard BA, Paton A. Measurement of fat thickness in man: a comparison of ultrasound, Harpenden calipers and electrical conductivity. Brit J Nutr 1966; 20 (4): 719–25PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Bellisari A, Roche AF. Anthropometry and ultrasound. In: Heymsfield SB, Lohman TG, Wang ZM, Going SB, editors. Human body composition. 2nd ed. Champaign (IL): Human Kinetics, 2005: 109–27Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Bellisari A, Roche AF, Siervogel RM. Reliability of B-mode ultrasonic measurements of subcutaneous adipose tissue and intra-abdominal depth: comparisons with skinfold thickness. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 1993; 17 (8): 475–80PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Ishida Y, Carroll JF, Pollock ML, et al. Reliability of B-mode ultrasound for the measurement of body fat and muscle thickness. Am J Hum Biol 1992; 4: 511–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Abe T, Kawakami Y, Sugita M, et al. Use of B-mode ultrasound for visceral fat mass evaluation: comparisons with magnetic resonance imaging. Appl Human Sci 1995; 14 (3): 133–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Moore TL, Lunt M, McManus B, et al. Seventeen-point dermal ultrasound scoring system: a reliable measure of skin thickness in patients with systemic sclerosis. Rheumatology 2003; 42 (12): 1559–63PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Horn M, Müller W. Towards an accurate determination of subcutaneous adipose tissue by means of ultrasound [abstract WCB-A01448-02611]. 6th World Congress of Bio-mechanics; 2010 Aug 1–6; SingaporeGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Ross R, Janssen I. Computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging. In: Heymsfield SB, Lohman TG, Wang ZM, et al., editors. Human body composition, 2nd ed. Champaign (IL): Human Kinetics, 2005: 89–108Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Koda M, Senda M, Kamba M, et al. Subcutaneous and visceral fat indices represent the distribution of body fat volume. Abdom Imaging 2007; 32 (3): 387–92PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Wells JCK, Treleaven P, Cole TJ. BMI compared with 3-dimensional body shape: The UK national sizing survey. Am J Clin Nutr 2007; 85: 419–25PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Wells JCK, Cole TJ, Treleaven P. Age-variability in body shape associated with excess weight: The UK national sizing survey. Obesity 2008; 16: 435–41PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Wells JCK, Cole TJ, Bruner D, et al. Body shape in American and British adults: between-country and interethnic comparisons. Int J Obesity 2008; 32: 152–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Wang J, Gallagher D, Thornton JC, et al. Validation of a 3-dimensional photonic scanner for the measurement of body volumes, dimensions, and percentage body fat. Am J Clin Nutr 2006; 83: 809–16PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Garlie TN, Obusek JP, Corner BD, et al. Comparison of body fat estimates using 3D digital laser scans, direct manual anthropometry and DXA in men. Am J Hum Biol 2010; 22: 695–701PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Schranz N, Tomkinson G, Olds T, et al. Three-dimensional anthropometric analysis: Differences between elite Australian rowers and the general population. J Sports Sci 2010; 28: 459–69PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Mateigka J. The testing of physical efficiency. Am J Phys Anthropol 1921; 4: 223–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Tanner JM. The physique of the Olympic athlete. London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd, 1964Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Lohman TG, Roche AF, Martorell R. Anthropometric standardization reference manual. Champaign (IL): Human Kinetics, 1988Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Hume P, Marfell-Jones M. The importance of accurate site location for skinfold measurement. J Sports Sci 2008; 26: 1333–40PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Marfell-Jones M, Olds T, Stewart AD, et al. International standards for anthropometric assessment. Potchesfstroom: International Society for the Advancement of Kinan-thropometry, 2006Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Durnin JVGA, Womersley J. Body fat assessed from total body density and its estimation from skinfold thickness: measurements on 481 men and women aged 16 to 72 years. Br J Nutr 1974; 32: 77–97PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Sinning WE, Dolny DG, Little KD, et al. Validity of “generalised” equations for body composition analysis in male athletes. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1985; 17: 124–30PubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Thorland WG, Tipton CM, Lohman TG, et al. Midwest wrestling study: prediction of minimal weight for high school wrestlers. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1991; 23 (9): 1102–10PubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Lohman TG. Skinfolds and body density and their relationship to body fatness: a review. Hum Biol 1981; 53 (2): 181–255PubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Behnke AR, Wilmore JH. Evaluation and regulation of body build and composition. Englewood Cliffs (NJ): Prentice Hall, 1974Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Van Der Kooy K, Leenen R, Siedell JC, et al. Abdominal diameters as indicators of visceral fat: comparison between magnetic resonance imaging and anthropometry. Brit J Nutr 1993; 70: 47–58Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Valsamakis G, Chetty R, Anwar A, et al. Association of simple anthropometric measures of obesity with visceral fat and the metabolic syndrome. Diabetic Med 2004; 21: 1339–448PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Iribarren C, Darbinian JA, Lo JC, et al. Value of the sagittal abdominal diameter in coronary heart disease risk assessment: cohort study in a large, multiethnic population. Am J Epidemiol 2006; 164: 1150–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Stewart AD, Nevill AM, Johnstone AM. Shape change assessed by 3D laser scanning following weight loss in obese men. In: Hume P, Stewart AD, de Ridder H, editors. Kinanthropometry XI: 2008 Pre-Olympic Congress Anthropometry Research. Auckland: Auckland University of Technology, 2009: 20–4Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Marfell-Jones MJ. The value of the skinfold: background assumptions, cautions, and recommendations on taking and interpreting skinfold measurements. In: KAHPERD, Proceedings of the 2001 Seoul International Sport Science Congress, Seoul, 2001: 313–23Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Carter JEL. Morphological factors limiting human performance. In: Eckert HM, Clarke DH, editors. The limits of human performance. The American Academy of Physical Education Papers, No. 18. Champaign (IL): Human Kinetics, 1985: 106–17Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Carter JEL, Ackland TR. Kinanthropometry in Aquatic Sports. Champaign (IL): Human Kinetics, 1994Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Ridge BR, Broad E, Kerr DA, et al. Morphological characteristics of Olympic slalom canoe and kayak paddlers. Europ J Sp Sci 2007; 7 (2): 107–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Kerr DA, Ackland TR, Ross WD, et al. Olympic lightweight and open rowers possess distinctive physical and proportionality characteristics. J Sports Sci 2007; 25 (1): 43–53PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Carter JEL, Ackland TR, Kerr DA, et al. Somatotype and size of elite female basketball players. J Sports Sci 2005; 23 (10): 1057–63PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Kerr DA, Stewart AD. Body composition in sport. In: Ackland T, Elliott B, Bloomfield J, editors. Applied anatomy and biomechanics in sport. Champaign (IL): Human Kinetics, 2009: 67–86Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Orphanidou CI, McCargar LJ, Birmingham CL, et al. Changes in body composition and fat distribution after short term weight gain in patients with anorexia nervosa. Am J Clin Nutr 1997; 65: 1034–41PubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Stewart AD. Body composition in athletes assessed by DXA and other methods [unpublished PhD thesis]. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh, 1999Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Stewart AD. Anthropometric fat patterning in male and female subjects. In: Reilly T, Marfell-Jones M, editors. Kinanthropometry VIII: Proceedings of the 8th International Society for the Advancement of Kinanthropometry Conference. London: Routledge, 2003: 195–238Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Chumlea WC, Sun SS. Bioelectrical impedance analysis. In: Heymsfield SB, Lohman TG, Wang ZM, et al., editors. Human body composition, 2nd ed. Champaign (IL): Human Kinetics, 2005: 79–87Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Matthie JR. Bioimpedance measurements of human body composition: critical analysis and outlook. Expert Rev Med Devices 2008; 5 (2): 239–61PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Wabel P, Chamney P, Moissl U, et al. Importance of whole-body bioimpedance spectroscopy for the management of fluid balance. Blood Purif 2009; 27 (1): 75–80PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Lohman TG. Advances in human body composition. Champaign (IL): Human Kinetics, 1992Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Lee J, Kolonel LN, Hinds MW. Relative merits of the weight-corrected-for-height indices. Am J Clin Nutr 1981; 34: 2521–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Keyes A, Fidanza F, Karvonen MJ, et al. Indices of relative weight and obesity. J Chron Dis 1972; 25: 329–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Benn RT. Some mathematical properties of weight-for-height indices used as measures of adiposity. Br J Prev Soc Med 1971; 25: 42–50PubMedGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    WHO Expert Committee. Physical status, use and interpretation of anthropometry. Technical Report Series 1995; 854: 355Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    Norgen NG. Population differences in body composition in relation to the BMI. Eur Clin Nutr 1994; 48: 10–27Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    Nevill AM, Winter EM, Ingham SA, et al. Adjusting athletes’ body mass index to better reflect adiposity in epidemiological research. J Sports Sci 2010; 28: 1009–24PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    WHO Expert Committee. Physical status, use and interpretation of anthropometry. Technical Report Series 1995; 854: 428Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Timothy R. Ackland
    • 1
  • Timothy G. Lohman
    • 2
  • Jorunn Sundgot-Borgen
    • 3
  • Ronald J. Maughan
    • 4
  • Nanna L. Meyer
    • 5
  • Arthur D. Stewart
    • 6
  • Wolfram Müller
    • 7
  1. 1.University of Western AustraliaPerthAustralia
  2. 2.University of ArizonaTucsonUSA
  3. 3.The Norwegian School of Sport SciencesOsloNorway
  4. 4.Loughborough UniversityLoughborough, LeicestershireUK
  5. 5.University of Colorado and United States Olympic CommitteeColorado SpringsUSA
  6. 6.Robert Gordon UniversityAberdeenUK
  7. 7.Karl-Franzens University and Medical University of GrazGrazAustria

Personalised recommendations