Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Predicting Body Composition From Anthropometry in Pre-Adolescent Children
Predicting Body Composition From Anthropometry in Pre-Adolescent Children
The objectives of this paper were to: a) evaluate the accuracy and precision of previously published pediatric body
composition prediction equations and b) develop additional prediction equations from a large, heterogeneous group
of Caucasian (n 133) and African-American (n 69) children. The combined cohort of 202 children included a wide
range of ages (4.0 ± 10.9 y), weights (14.0 ± 70.8 kg), fat mass (FM: 1.2 ± 28.5 kg) and percent body fat (% body fat: 6.2 ±
49.6%). Skinfold measurements were obtained using a Lange caliper and body fat was measured with a Lunar DPX-L
densitometer. The previously published equations of Slaughter et al and Goran et al did not accurately predict body
fat. The entire cohort was randomly divided into two sub-groups for purposes of deriving and cross-validating a new
prediction equation. In stepwise regression analysis in the development group (n 135), weight, triceps skinfold,
gender, ethnicity and abdominal skinfold estimated FM measured by dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) with a
model R2 of 0.95. The new prediction equation was cross-validated in the control group (n 67) and each ethnic and
gender subgroup. We conclude that a) the equations of Slaughter et al and Goran et al did not accurately predict FM in
a heterogeneous group of children and b) a new anthropometric prediction equation is proposed that may provide
accurate estimates of FM in both Caucasian and African-American children aged 4 ± 10 y with a wide range of FM and
body composition.
Table 1 Physical characteristics of the Vermont and Alabama cohorts. Reported as range (minimum-maximum) and mean s.d. By
ANOVA, there were no signi®cant effects of laboratory, gender or ethnicity on age, but there were signi®cant effects of laboratory and
gender on weight and of laboratory, gender, and ethnicity on fat mass (FM)
Vermont cohort
Total 98 4.0 ± 9.9 (6.6 1.4) 16.2 ± 51.0 (24.1 5.9) 1.2 20.0 (4.8 3.0)
White boys 49 4.0 ± 9.9 (6.6 1.4) 16.6 ± 43.2 (23.8 5.5) 1.2 ± 12.1 (4.0 2.4)
White girls 49 4.1 ± 9.2 (6.5 1.4) 16.2 ± 51.0 (24.4 6.3) 1.6 ± 20.0 (5.5 3.3)
Alabama cohort
Total 104 4.2 ± 10.9 (7.7 1.6) 14.0 ± 70.8 (33.0 12.1) 2.0 ± 28.5 (9.2 6.3)
White boys 16 6.0 ± 10.9 (8.0 1.0) 20.3 ± 41.9 (28.2 6.1) 2.5 ± 14.5 (6.2 3.6)
White girls 19 5.2 ± 9.8 (8.3 1.2) 18.5 ± 70.8 (42.5 14.0) 3.8 ± 28.5 (13.3 6.8)
Black boys 31 4.2 ± 10.0 (7.3 1.6) 16.9 ± 59.7 (29.6 10.0) 2.0 ± 27.3 (6.8 5.6)
Black girls 38 4.2 ± 10.0 (7.4 1.8) 14.0 ± 62.6 (33.1 11.8) 2.5 ± 25.6 (10.2 6.1)
Slaughter et al equations
Alabama cohort 104 0.92 0.80 0.02* 2.43 0.27** 70.79 0.23***
Boys 47 0.91 0.83 0.04* 2.12 0.30** 71.21 0.26***
Girls 57 0.90 0.78 0.03* 2.81 0.47** 70.44 0.36
Alabama Vermont cohorts 202 0.90 0.84 0.02* 1.40 0.18** 0.35 0.14***
Boys 96 0.85 0.83 0.04* 1.16 0.24** 70.28 0.18
Girls 106 0.91 0.83 0.02* 1.83 0.27** 70.42 0.21***
Goran et al equations
Alabama cohort 104 0.91 1.17 0.04* 0.31 0.33 1.61 0.20***
Boys 47 0.95 1.37 0.04* 70.78 0.29** 1.21 0.25***
Girls 57 0.89 1.10 0.05 0.97 0.57 1.94 0.30***
Caucasian, FM < 20 kg 32 0.91 0.92 0.05 1.44 0.48** 0.78 0.27***
Boys 16 0.86 1.49 0.15* 71.03 0.82 1.36 0.44***
Girls 16 0.97 0.88 0.04* 1.46 0.45** 0.20 0.25
*Slope signi®cantly different from 1.0; **intercept signi®cantly different from 0.0; ***mean difference signi®cantly different from 0.0
by paired t-test.
Table 3 Stepwise regression analysis for the determination of fat mass (FM) as measured by dual energy x-ray absorptiometry
(DEXA)
Step and variable Regression equation for FM (kg)a Model R2 Model SEE (kg)
Step 1 Total control group 0.86 0.97 0.05 70.21 0.44 70.15 0.13
Caucasian boys 0.76 0.96 0.13 70.28 0.89 70.73 0.24***
Caucasian girls 0.92 0.93 0.06 0.15 0.60 0.13 0.19
African-American boys 0.76 0.85 0.13 0.07 1.04 70.84 0.35***
African-American girls 0.84 1.35 0.19 72.97 1.99 0.89 0.25***
Step 2 Total control group 0.91 0.96 0.04 70.02 0.34 70.11 0.10
Caucasian boys 0.89 0.90 0.08 70.04 0.56 70.59 0.17***
Caucasian girls 0.92 0.93 0.06 70.09 0.63 70.17 0.19
African-American boys 0.90 0.96 0.08 0.09 0.63 70.04 0.21
African-American girls 0.96 1.07 0.08 0.20 0.80 0.78 0.18***
Step 3 Total control group 0.91 0.96 0.04 0.04 0.33 70.09 0.10
Caucasian boys 0.89 0.93 0.08 0.20 0.55 70.17 0.17
Caucasian girls 0.92 0.95 0.06 70.55 0.64 70.51 0.18***
African-American boys 0.89 0.97 0.09 0.40 0.64 0.35 0.22
African-American girls 0.95 1.12 0.08 70.63 0.88 0.45 0.18***
Step 4 Total control group 0.92 0.97 0.04 70.10 0.32 70.11 0.09
Caucasian boys 0.89 0.94 0.08 0.31 0.54 70.01 0.17
Caucasian girls 0.92 0.96 0.06 70.40 0.64 70.26 0.18
African-American boys 0.90 0.98 0.09 70.20 0.67 70.15 0.22
African-American girls 0.95 1.12 0.08 71.12 0.90 0.03 0.18
Step 5 Total control group 0.92 0.97 0.03 70.09 0.31 70.11 0.09
Caucasian boys 0.89 0.92 0.08 0.40 0.52 0.01 0.16
Caucasian girls 0.92 0.96 0.06 70.38 0.63 70.26 0.18
African-American boys 0.91 0.97 0.08 70.18 0.61 70.23 0.20
African-American girls 0.96 1.12 0.08 71.03 0.86 0.08 0.18
*All slopes not signi®cantly different from 1.0; **All intercepts not signi®cantly different from 0.0; ***Mean differences signi®cantly
different from 0.0 by paired t-test.