Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 1998 Apr;22(4):329-37.
doi: 10.1038/sj.ijo.0800590.

Six-compartment body composition model: inter-method comparisons of total body fat measurement

Z M Wang  1 , P Deurenberg, S S Guo, A Pietrobelli, J Wang, R N Pierson Jr, S B Heymsfield
Affiliations
Comparative Study

Six-compartment body composition model: inter-method comparisons of total body fat measurement

Z M Wang et al. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 1998 Apr.

Abstract

Objective: To compare 16 currently used total body fat methods to a six-compartment criterion model based on in vivo neutron activation analysis.

Design: Observational, inter-method comparison study.

Subjects: Twenty-three healthy subjects (17 male and 6 female).

Measurements: Total body water (TBW) was measured by tritium dilution; body volume by underwater weighing (UWW); total body fat and bone mineral by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), total body potassium (TBK) by whole-body 40K counting; total body carbon, nitrogen, calcium, phosphorus, sodium and chlorine by in vivo neutron activation analysis; skinfolds/circumferences by anthropometry (Anth); and resistance by single-frequency bioimpedance analysis (BIA).

Results: The average of total body fat mass measurements by the six-compartment neutron activation model was 19.7+/-10.2kg (mean+/-s.d.) and comparable estimates by other methods ranged from 17.4-24.3 kg. Although all 16 methods were highly correlated with the six-compartment criterion model, three groups emerged based on their comparative characteristics (technical error, coefficient of reliability, Bland-Altman analysis) relative to criterion fat estimates, in decreasing order of agreement: 1. multi-compartment model methods of Baumgartner (19.5+/-9.9 kg), Heymsfield (19.6+/-9.9 kg), Selinger (19.7+/-10.2 kg) and Siri-3C (19.6+/-9.9 kg); 2. DXA (20.0+/-10.8 kg), Pace-TBW (18.8+/-10.1 kg), Siri-2C (20.0+/-9.9 kg), and Brozek-UWW (19.4+/-9.2 kg) methods; and 3. Segal-BIA (17.4+/-7.2 kg), Forbes-TBN (21.8+/-10.5 kg), Durnin-Anth (22.1+/-9.5 kg), Forbes-TBK (22.9+/-11.9 kg), and Steinkamp-Anth (24.3+/-9.5 kg) methods.

Conclusion: Relative to criterion fat estimates, body composition methods can be organized into three groups based on inter-method comparisons including technical error, coefficient of reliability and Bland-Altman analysis. These initial groupings may prove useful in establishing the clinical and research role of the many available fat estimation methods.

PubMed Disclaimer

Publication types