Asset Details
MbrlCatalogueTitleDetail
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Comparison of Body Composition Metrics for United States Air Force Airmen
by
Griffith, J R
, White, Edward D
, Lucas, Brandon M
, Fass, R David
in
Adult
/ Age
/ Armed forces
/ Body composition
/ Body Composition - physiology
/ Body mass index
/ Comparative studies
/ Exercise Test - methods
/ Exercise Test - standards
/ Female
/ Gender differences
/ Health risk assessment
/ Humans
/ Male
/ Metric system
/ Middle Aged
/ Military personnel
/ Military Personnel - education
/ Military Personnel - statistics & numerical data
/ Social Control, Formal - methods
/ Systematic review
/ United States
2018
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
You are currently in the queue to collect this book. You will be notified once it is your turn to collect the book.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Comparison of Body Composition Metrics for United States Air Force Airmen
by
Griffith, J R
, White, Edward D
, Lucas, Brandon M
, Fass, R David
in
Adult
/ Age
/ Armed forces
/ Body composition
/ Body Composition - physiology
/ Body mass index
/ Comparative studies
/ Exercise Test - methods
/ Exercise Test - standards
/ Female
/ Gender differences
/ Health risk assessment
/ Humans
/ Male
/ Metric system
/ Middle Aged
/ Military personnel
/ Military Personnel - education
/ Military Personnel - statistics & numerical data
/ Social Control, Formal - methods
/ Systematic review
/ United States
2018
Oops! Something went wrong.
While trying to remove the title from your shelf something went wrong :( Kindly try again later!
Do you wish to request the book?
Comparison of Body Composition Metrics for United States Air Force Airmen
by
Griffith, J R
, White, Edward D
, Lucas, Brandon M
, Fass, R David
in
Adult
/ Age
/ Armed forces
/ Body composition
/ Body Composition - physiology
/ Body mass index
/ Comparative studies
/ Exercise Test - methods
/ Exercise Test - standards
/ Female
/ Gender differences
/ Health risk assessment
/ Humans
/ Male
/ Metric system
/ Middle Aged
/ Military personnel
/ Military Personnel - education
/ Military Personnel - statistics & numerical data
/ Social Control, Formal - methods
/ Systematic review
/ United States
2018
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Comparison of Body Composition Metrics for United States Air Force Airmen
Journal Article
Comparison of Body Composition Metrics for United States Air Force Airmen
2018
Request Book From Autostore
and Choose the Collection Method
Overview
The United States Air Force currently uses AFI 36-2905 for cardiovascular fitness standards and evaluation. Regarding its fitness test, the Air Force considers waist circumference (WC) twice as important as push-ups or sit-ups. Because of this weighting, one assumes that the Air Force considers WC relatively correlated with overall fitness or at least cardiovascular fitness. To our knowledge, the Air Force has not considered on a large scale how body mass index (BMI), height-to-weight ratio (H-W), or waist-to-height ratio (WHtR) compares with WC with respect to its fitness test.
Using a 5.38 million record database from the Air Force Fitness Management System, we evaluated how WC, BMI, WHtR, and H-W correlate with fitness as assessed by the 1.5-mile run in addition to total fitness, which incorporates the 1.5-mile run time, number of push-ups and sit-ups. As this previously collected data were anonymous to us, this study fell under the definition of exempt status and approved by the institutional review board overseeing Joint Base San Antonio. For each waist metric, we performed a simple ordinary least squares regression to ascertain the correlation between that particular metric and either run time or total fitness; when incorporating more than one explanatory variable or covariate (to control for age and/or sex), we performed multiple ordinary least squares regressions. Due to the large database size and to mitigate against a type I error, we used an alpha of 0.001 for all statistical hypothesis tests.
Approximately 18% of the 5.38 million records belonged to women. With respect to sex differences, males appeared noticeably faster and performed more push-ups on average than females. The number of sit-ups completed was more comparable, with males having a slight advantage. Males also appeared to have larger WC, BMI, H-W, and WHtR measurements. We compared the ordinary least squares results between WC, H-W, WHtR, and BMI and ranked them by R2. Models varied in R2 from 1% to 46% depending on the covariates in the model, with sex having a greater effect than age. Whether individually or adjusting for age and sex, WHtR performed better than the other body composition variables with an average rank score of 1.1 and a median improvement of approximately 4% to the current Air Force metric of WC.
From our findings, we present a 20-point WHtR scoring system for the Air Force to use in lieu of its traditional usage of WC. We used this assessment chart to score all Airmen in our database and compared the results to their current scores on the abdominal circumference portion of the test with respect to predicting run time, after accounting for sex, age, and number of push-ups and sit-ups. The R2 value improved from 40.3 to 43.6, a relative improvement of approximately 8%, a fairly significant effect given the database consisted of over 5 million records. Future studies should investigate the longitudinal effect of varying waist metrics over time on run time or total fitness performance.
Publisher
Oxford University Press
This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website.