Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Differences in Fat Mass Estimation Formulas in Physically Active Adult Population and Relationship with Sums of Skinfolds
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.
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?
Differences in Fat Mass Estimation Formulas in Physically Active Adult Population and Relationship with Sums of Skinfolds
Do you wish to request the book?
Differences in Fat Mass Estimation Formulas in Physically Active Adult Population and Relationship with Sums of Skinfolds
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.
Journal Article
Differences in Fat Mass Estimation Formulas in Physically Active Adult Population and Relationship with Sums of Skinfolds
2020
Overview
Changes in body composition and specifically fat mass, has traditionally been used as a way to monitor the changes produced by nutrition and training. The objective of the present study was to analyse the differences between the formulas used to estimate fat mass and to establish the existing relationship with the body mass index and sums of skinfolds measurement in kinanthropometry. A total of 2458 active adults participated in the study. Body mass index (BMI) and skinfolds were measured, and the Kerr, Durnin-Womersley, Faulkner and Carter equations were used to assess fat mass. Significant differences were found between all the formulas for the percentage of fat mass, ranging from 10.70 ± 2.48 to 28.43 ± 5.99% (p < 0.001) and fat mass from 7.56 ± 2.13 to 19.89 ± 4.24 kg (p < 0.001). The correlations among sums of skinfolds and the different equations were positive, high and significant in all the cases (r from 0.705 to 0.926 p < 0.001), unlike in the case of BMI, were the correlation was lower and both positive or negative (r from −0.271 to 0.719; p < 0.001). In conclusion, there were differences between all the formulas used to estimate fat mass; thus, for the evaluation of fat mass with kinanthropometry of an active adult, the use of the same formula is recommended on all occasions when the results are going to be compared or when an athlete is compared with a reference.
Publisher
MDPI AG,MDPI
Subject
