Comparison of body composition

calculation methods
Introduction

In the sports & medicine sector, body composition refers to the amount of fat, water, bones,
muscles, skin, and other lean components that compose the body (1). Given that having a high
body fat percentage is linked to increased mortality and morbidity, it is no surprise that this
macronutrient has drawn the most interest from laypeople to doctors or sports scientists (19).
Measuring an individual’s body composition is crucial for determining their nutritional and
health state (2). Body composition is essential since two different humans can have the same
body mass index, but one may have more body fat and less muscle. This might result in a variety
of health problems for them, as too much body fat can lead to different diseases (3). Body
composition evaluation techniques range from basic indirect measures to more advanced direct
volumetric assessments. Body composition methods can be used to evaluate the efficacy of
dietary treatments and to track changes related to growth and illness situations (4). However,
each approach has its own advantages and disadvantages.

The experiment's aim was trying the various body calculation methodologies to compare the
body fat percentage estimates obtained from circumference measurements, skinfolds and from
bioelectric impedance analysis. To sum their precision and reliability in body fat % calculations
and conclude their benefits and limitations.

It was hypothesized that the Skinfolds method was a more precise and reliable measurement for
finding body composition instead of the BIA or the girts method.
Methods

- Study design and participants

The experiment included 72 participants, 23 of whom were females and the remaining 49 were
males. Before the experiment, participants were asked to not eat, smoke, or drink caffeine for
two hours before the session, and to not have exercised heavily immediately prior to it. In terms
of clothing, participants were instructed to wear appropriate loose clothing for the
measurements (e.g., running shorts, training top...) to allow easy access to the various body areas
examined.

- Body measurements

Body mass index measurements were taken prior to the body composition techniques. Wearing
only underwear and no shoes, in accordance with standard procedures (5) the height and the
weight of the participants were measured. A wall stadiometer was used to measure body height,
and an electronic scale was used to measure body weight. BMI was calculated (Appendix H).
After the BMI results, the participants were classified as underweight / normal weight /
overweight / obese according to WHO adult BMI classifications (6). After that, the participants'
waist circumference (cm) (narrowest point ribs to iliac crest) and the Hip circumference (cm)
(widest part of gluteal region) were measured using a tape-measure.

- Body composition techniques

1. GIRTHS/CIRCUMFERENCES

In 1983, Mc Ardle & Katch (7) described a method of using girths to calculate % body fat. For the
first method, the following body part of the participants were measured with a tape-measure
(cm): Right upper arm, Right forearm, for males the Abdomen and for females the right thigh.
(Appendix A,G)

After all the calculations were done, each body part was related to each constant based in the
constant value table from McArdle, Katch and Katch (Appendix B). Each part of the body
measured was related to a constant (Appendix J). Consequently, the body fat % of the
participants was calculated using the McArdle & Catch formula (Appendix C).
2. BIA (Bioelectric impedance analysis)

The second technique used for the body composition was the BIA, the Body-stat 1500 analyzer
was utilized. For this method, the participant had to lie quietly supine with the arms and legs
away separated on mat. Prior to the measurement the participant had to lie down for 3 minutes.
While that time, the electrodes were taken out and were distributed (Appendix I).

After that, the BIA analyzer was turned on, where asked the gender, the age, the height, the
weight, and the activity level of the participant. Following, it asked to connect the electrodes, so
the wire was attached to them. The red wire was connected to the most distant electrode in both
limbs and the black wire in the respective ones. Once the electrodes were connected to the
analyzer, the start button of the analyzer was pressed. After a couple seconds Fat percentage,
Fat mass (Kg), Lean mass (Kg) and Basal metabolic rate estimation were obtained. After the
calculations were done, the analyzer was turned off and the wires and electrodes were retired
carefully.

3. SKINFOLDS

For the third technique, a tape-measure, a Harpenden skin folds caliper and a segmometer were
used. For this method, the skin folds of the following body parts were measured: Biceps, Triceps,
Sub-scapular, Iliac crest, Supra-spinal, Abdomen, Front thigh, Calf and Chest (males only)
(Appendix D,G).

Before all the calculations, landmarks were drawn close to the body surface and markers were
drawn in the exact location tested with the use of a pen, segmometer and the tape-measure. After
all the marks were done, the skin fold calculation with the Harpenden caliper was realized. Each
part of the body was measured two times (mm) and finally an average was produced. To
calculate the skin-folds body fat percentage the Durnin & Womersley Method (8) and Jackson &
Pollock Method (9) were used.

- Statistical analysis

All values shown are mean ± standard deviation (SD). Statistical tests were performed using
SPSS statistical software. Independent sample t-test were used for all figures. Alpha was set at
0.05.
Results

No significant difference was observed for BMI between men and women (Figure 1). According
to WHO adult BMI classifications, both men and women were classed as normal weight (6). Waist
to hip ratio was significantly higher in men (0,84) compared to women (0,77; p<0.001; Figure
2). According to WHO Waist Circumference and Waist-Hip Ratio, both male and female subjects
didn’t exceed cut-off scores (≥0.90 (M); ≥0.85 (F)) for increased mortality (12). Body fat % was
significantly greater by 9,88% in women (26,66%) compared to men (16,78%; p<0.001; Figure
3). According to the ACE body fat chart, male body fat % was in the ‘fitness’ category while female
body fat % was in the ‘acceptable’ category (10). There was significant difference in body fat %
between male (9%) and female (16,7%) subjects (p<0.001; Figure 4). According to the ACE body
fat chart, male body fat % was in the ‘athletes’ category as well as female body fat % (10). Values
for biceps and triceps skinfold measurements were significantly higher in females compared to
males (p<0.001 for both; Table 1), however there was no significant difference between genders
in subscapular and iliac crest and skinfold measurements. The total of the four skinfold
measurements combined (as entered the body density calculations) was significantly greater in
females compared to males (p=0.003). According to the ACE body fat chart, male body fat % was
in the ‘fitness’ category while female body fat % was in the ‘acceptable’ category (10). Fat free
mas was significantly higher in males (p<0.001) whereas fat mass was significantly higher in
females (p=0.027; Figure 5). Body fat % was significantly higher in females compared to males
(p<0.001; Figure 6). According to the ACE body fat chart, male body fat % was in the ‘athletes’
category while female body fat % was in the ‘fitness’ category (10)

30
25
BMI (kg/m^2)

20
15
10
5
0
Female (n=23) Male (n=49)

Values are means±SD

Figure 1: Gender differences in BMI

 1.00

WHR (Waist to hip

0.80

0.60

ratio)
0.40

0.20

0.00
Female (n=23) Male (n=49)

Values are means±SD

Figure 2: Gender differences in WHR

35
30
Body fat (%)

25
20
15
10
5
0
Female (n=21) Male (n=48)

Values are means±SD

Figure 3: Gender differences in body fat % calculated by method of using girths.

25
Body fat (%)

20
15
10
5
0
Female (n=23) Male (n=49)

Values are means±SD

Figure 4: Gender differences in body fat % calculated by using Jackson & Pollok skinfold
method.
Table 1: Body fat % in males and females as calculated by collecting skinfold measurements
and applying them to the Durnin-Womersley body fat formulas (Appendix F) .

Male (n=48) (mm) Female (n=23) Difference (mm)

(mm)

Biceps 4.9 9.3 Females 4.4 mm higher

Triceps 8.8 13.9 Females 5.1 mm higher

Subscapular 9.9 12.9 Females 3 mm higher

Iliac crest 10.6 12.3 Females 1.7 mm higher

Total 34.2 48.4 Females 14.2 mm higher

Body density 1.062 kg/m3 1.036 kg/m3 Males 0.026 kg/m3

denser

Body fat % - 16.1% 27.8% Females 11.7% higher

Values are means± SD

Values are means±SD

Figure 5: Fat free mass and fat mass in males and females as calculated by use of bioelectrical
impedance.
Values are means±SD

Figure 6: Body fat % in males and females as calculated by use of bioelectrical impedance.
Discussion

This study was carried out to investigate some of the different methods to determine body
composition. There are many methods to measure body composition, in this report is focusing
on girth circumference, bioelectric impedance analysis (BIA) and skinfold measurement. All the
methods have their advantages and disadvantages. First, girth circumference by Mc Ardle and
Katch (7) is measure different body parts and use the relate constants to calculate the body fat.
This measurement is simple and low-cost to measure, and it is closely associated with adult body
fat as determined by the most precise techniques (13). However, since the measurement process
is not standardized. It could be hard and less precise to measure obese people, also there are not
any clear reference criteria for kids (13). Therefore, this measurement might not be accurate in
some conditions.

Bioelectric impedance analysis (BIA) is a common method to measure body composition. It

gauges ‘impedance’, or the opposition that a mild electrical current encounter as it passes
through the body’s water reservoir. Resistance and reactance are both components of
impedance (14). It is a quick, safe and simple procedure since measurement is straightforward
and does not need for specialized operator abilities or a lot of patient engagement (15). But
sometime the bodily water to fat ratio might alter due to sickness, dehydration or weight loss,
making this measurement difficult to calibrate and less reliable than other techniques (13).

The skinfold measurement, which is measure subcutaneous fat folds, is based on the principle
that fat has a known density and that total and localized fat may be calculated by summarizing
measurements of subcutaneous fat thickness taken at various point on the body (16). This
approach is also easy, affordable and safe. It can give details on the distribution of body fat (17).
Nevertheless, the prediction of body fat is not as precise or repeatable as other techniques and
is dependent on certain calculation assumptions. It is also challenging to assess extremely obese
people (13,17).

The hypothesis of the experiment was partly accepted. Body fat percentage is a frequently used
parameter in the assessment of body composition (18). The percentage of body fat in men and
women differed significantly when calculated by each method being higher in women than men.
According to the obtained results, body fat percentage for both men and women estimated by
using girths method was relatively similar to the results obtained by skinfolds method using
Durnin & Womersley equation (16,78% and 26,66%; 16,1% and 27,8% respectively).
Meanwhile, calculated body fat percentage for both men and women by using BIA and Jackson
& Pollok skinfold method was much lower, especially male body fat percentage which was,
according to the ACE body fat chart (10), in the ‘athletes’ category which could be arguable
looking at the male subjects BMI and WHR. Therefore, Durnin & Womersley skinfold method and
girths method could be seen as more reliable methods among all four different methods
performed.

During this study, comparison of collected data to the norms was hindered by not having
information regarding the age of each participant. For body fat %, the Accumeasure norms were
optimal for comparison with collected data in ordinary individuals (10). However, making
comparisons to these norms wasn’t a viable option because they were categorized into age
brackets. The alternative method used was ACE norms, which are specifically used for
athletes/sports performers (10) and isn’t optimal for categorizing ordinary individuals.

Additionally, when analyzing BMI another potential limitation had to be considered - the
category in which a participant’s BMI fell under may have been altered by a particularly high
amount of muscle mass (altering total body mass). This could be misleading because someone
with a low body fat % could potentially be classed as obese (11). According to a study by D.S.
Freedman, PhD et al, BMI is an accurate predictor of health risk factors, however, is flawed for
some individuals (those with greater muscle mass) (11).

A limitation of the bioelectrical impedance method was variation/lack of reliability in results

displayed by the device. Some participants who completed the process twice found despite
having entered identical statistics on both attempts that there was significant variation in their
results (only one attempt recorded). In future, to ensure greater accuracy in results it would be
advisable to perform the process on three separate occasions and take the mean value for each
piece of data provided by the devise.
Conclusion

Compared to all the methods, all of them have their advantages and disadvantages. However,
consider to different conditions and limitations, skinfold method is a more reliable in finding
body composition. According to the literatures and the results above, BIA, girth method and BMI
will affect by different aspects or not suitable for ordinary people, such as BIA was found having
different results with same identical statistics or having high muscle mass was classed as obese
in BMI. But in skinfold method, it can find out the total body fat by calculating and give details
on the regional body part distribution of body fat. Although it is hard to measure obese
individual, in most of the occasion skinfold measurement is more precise and reliable than other
methods. Therefore, from all the information obtained, it can consider the hypothesis was stated
in this report is partly correct.
Bibliography

1. Braun A. What is body composition? [Internet]. Verywell Health. Verywell Health; 2022
[cited 2022Nov13]. Available from: https://www.verywellhealth.com/body-
composition-5509458
2. Toomey CM, Cremona A, Hughes K, Norton C, Jakeman P. A review of body composition
measurement in the assessment of health. Topics in Clinical Nutrition. 2015;30(1):16–
32. https://doi.org/10.1097/tin.0000000000000017
3. Ratini M. Body composition: Health, Body Fat, and more [Internet]. WebMD. WebMD;
2021 [cited 2022Nov13]. Available from: https://www.webmd.com/fitness-
exercise/what-is-body-composition
4. Kuriyan R. Body composition techniques. Indian Journal of Medical Research.
2018;148(5):648. https://doi.org/10.4103/ijmr.ijmr_1777_18
5. Fields DA, Goran MI, McCrory MA. Body-composition assessment via air-displacement
plethysmography in adults and children: A Review. The American Journal of Clinical
Nutrition. 2002;75(3):453–67. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcn/75.3.453
6. WHO experts. A healthy lifestyle - who recommendations [Internet]. World Health
Organization. World Health Organization; 2010 [cited 2022Nov13]. Available from:
https://www.who.int/europe/news-room/fact-sheets/item/a-healthy-lifestyle---who-
recommendations
7. Katch FI, McArdle WD. Nutrition, weight control, and exercise. Philadelphia: Lea &
Febiger; 1988.
8. Durnin, J. V., & Womersley, J. (1974). Body fat assessed from total body density and its
estimation from skinfold thickness: measurements on 481 men and women aged from
16 to 72 years. The British journal of nutrition, 32(1), 77–97.
https://doi.org/10.1079/bjn19740060
9. Jackson, A. S., & Pollock, M. L. (1978). Generalized equations for predicting body density
of men. The British journal of nutrition, 40(3), 497–504.
https://doi.org/10.1079/bjn19780152
10. Sports nova team, 2022, Body fat percentage chart, Body Fat Percentage Chart - Calculate
for Men and Women | SportNova UK [Accessed 10th November 22]
11. D.S. Freedman, PhD et al, 2009, The validity of BMI as an Indicator of Body Fatness and
Risk Among Children The Validity of BMI as an Indicator of Body Fatness and Risk
 Among Children | Pediatrics | American Academy of Pediatrics (aap.org) [Accessed 11th
November 22]
12. Waist circumference and waist–hip ratio: report of a WHO expert consultation, 2008,
Geneva.
http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/44583/9789241501491_eng.pdf?se
quence=1. [Accessed 13th November 22]
13. Harvard T.H. Chan (n.d) Obesity Prevention Source – Measuring Obesity.
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/obesity-prevention-source/obesity-definition/how-to-
measure-body-fatness/ [Accessed 12 November 2022]
14. NHR (n.d) Bioelectric impedance analysis. https://dapa-
toolkit.mrc.ac.uk/anthropometry/objective-methods/bioelectric-impedence-analysis
[Accessed 12 November 2022]
15. Lebiedowska, A., Hartman-Petrycka, M. & Błońska-Fajfrowska, B. How reliable is BMI?
Bioimpedance analysis of body composition in underweight, normal weight, overweight,
and obese women. Ir J Med Sci 190, 993–998 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11845-
020-02403-3 [Accessed 13 November 2022]
16. NHR (n.d) Simple measures – Skinfolds. https://dapa-
toolkit.mrc.ac.uk/anthropometry/objective-methods/simple-measures-skinfolds
[Accessed 13 November 2022]
17. Nassis, G. P. & Sidossis, L. S. (2006) Methods for assessing body composition,
cardiovascular and metabolic function in children and adolescents: Implications for
exercise studies. Current Opinion in Clinical Nutrition and Metabolic Care 9(5):560-7.
10.1097/01.mco.0000241665.38385.5b [Accessed 12 November 2022]
18. Uçar M. K., Uçar Z., Uçar K., Akman M. & Bozkurt M. R. (2021). Determination of body fat
percentage by electrocardiography signal with gender based artificial intelligence.
Biomedical Signal Processing and Control, 68.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1746809421002470 [Accessed 14
November 2022].

19. Borga M, West J, Bell JD, Harvey NC, Romu T, Heymsfield SB, et al. Advanced body
composition assessment: From body mass index to body composition profiling. Journal
of Investigative Medicine. 2018;66(5). 10.1136/jim-2018-000722
Appendix
A. Body parts measured for the participants in the Girths method (Page 4 lab handout)

Right upper arm: find midpoint between shoulder and elbow, have arm extended in front of the
body and palm facing upward, measure girth at the midpoint of upper arm.

Right forearm maximum girth with the arm extended in front of the body with palm up

Abdomen 1 inch above umbilicus (Males)

Right thigh upper thigh just below the buttocks (Females)

B. Constant value table from McArdle, Katch and Katch:

https://canvas.stir.ac.uk/courses/11966/files/2668769/preview

C. McArdle, Katch and Katch formula: (Page 4 lab handout)

MALES % Body fat = Constant A + Constant B - Constant C -10.2 = ______________%

FEMALES % Body fat = Constant A + Constant B - Constant C- 19.6 = ___________%

D. Landmarks for the skinfold method

Protocol for the Women And Their Children’s Health (WATCH) Study: A Cohort of Pregnancy
and Beyond - Scientific Figure on ResearchGate. Available from:
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Location-of-skinfold-sites-evaluated-in-the-WATCH-
study-as-defined-by-the-International_fig3_221870345

E. Lab Handout: Download SPSU9SM BODY COMPOSITION LAB handout 2022.pdf

F. Formulas (as displayed on page 7 of body composition lab practical handout)

Body density:

Males = 1.1765–0.0744(log10(sum of 4 skinfolds))

Females = 1.1567–0.0717(log10(sum of 4 skinfolds))

Body fat % (Siri equation) = (495 / body density) – 450

G. ISAK manual: Download ISAK Manual.pdf

H. BMI = kg/m2 where kg is a person's weight in kilograms and m 2 is their height in metres
squared.

I. Electrodes placement: 2 on the hand (one at the wrist and one below the third finger and
two in the foot (one at the ankle and one below the second toe).

J. Relation between body parts and constants: In males, Upper arm girth (cm) was related
to the constant A, the abdomen girth to the constant B and the forearm girth to the constant
C. In case of the females, the abdomen girth was related to the constant A, the thigh girth to
the constant B and the forearm girth to the constant C. (as displayed on page 4 of body
composition lab practical handout)