tesch et al. (2010)
Post on 20-Feb-2018
215 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/24/2019 Tesch Et Al. (2010)
1/5
Training & Testing704
Tseh W et al. Validity and Reliability of the BOD POD S/T Tracking Int J Sports Med 2010; 31: 704708
accepted after revision
May 29, 2010
Bibliography
DOI http://dx.doi.org/
10.1055/s-0030-1255111
Published online:
July 8, 2010
Int J Sports Med 2010; 31:
704708 Georg ThiemeVerlag KG Stuttgart New York
ISSN 0172-4622
Correspondence
Dr. Wayland Tseh
University of North Carolina
Wilmington
Health and Applied Human
Sciences
601 South College Road
28403-5956 Wilmington
United States
Tel.: + 1/910/962 2484
Fax: + 1/910/962 7073
tsehw@uncw.edu
Key words
percent body fat
overestimation
bod pod
Validity and Reliability of the BOD POD S/T TrackingSystem
Although the BOD POD has been tested for reli-
ability and for validity against several criterion
assessment tools [3, 4, 8, 14, 15, 19, 20, 21, 23], an
offshoot of the original BOD POD, the BOD POD
self-testing (S/T) body composition tracking sys-
tem, has received little research attention. The
BOD POD S/T, which utilizes identical air dis-
placement technology as the BOD POD, is an
assessment tool primarily used within commer-
cial and/or health and fitness venues. The distinct
advantage of the BOD POD S/T compared to the
original BOD POD is a self-testing capability.Specifically, individuals are able to conduct their
own body composition assessment without the
aid of a trained operator. A computer-generated
voice provides detailed, step-by-step verbal
instructions to the individual sitting within the
egg-shaped chamber throughout the assessment.
Moreover, Life Measurement Incorporated has
designed a user-friendly handle within the inte-
rior of the chamber to allow individuals to easily
and comfortably open and close the door to the
chamber when instructed to do so. From a tech-
nical standpoint, the BOD POD S/T system pre-
dicts participants thoracic gas volumes once age
IntroductionBody composition assessment provides valuable
knowledge and information to both practitioners
and clinicians. Practically, the information
extracted from body composition analyses can
be used to monitor the progression and effective-
ness of a strength training and/or cardiovascular
regime. Further, body composition assessments
help clinicians to monitor weight management
programs for obese patients and clients suffering
from eating disorders. The value of this knowl-edge for those who disseminate and/or receive
this information, however, is only as good as the
validity and reliability of the equipment utilized
to provide the body composition measurement.
The BOD POD, which derives body density by
way of air-displacement plethysmography, pro-
vides clientele with body composition informa-
tion, specifically, pounds of lean body mass and
pounds of fat mass. Compared to other body
composition assessment tools, such as hydro-
static weighing and skinfolds, the BOD POD pro-
vides a comfortable, convenient, quick and easy
alternative means of assessing body composition.
Authors W. Tseh1, J. L. Caputo2, D. J. Keefer3
Affiliations 1Health and Applied Human Sciences, University of North Carolina Wilmington, United States2Department of Health and Human Performance, Middle Tennessee State University, Murfreesboro, United States3Department of Wellness and Sport Sciences, Millersville University, Millersville, United States
Abstract
BOD POD self-testing (S/T) body composi-tion tracking system is a practical assessment
tool designed for use in the health and fitness
industries. Relative to its parent counterpart, the
BOD POD S/T has received little research atten-
tion. The primary purpose was to determine the
validity of the BOD POD S/T against hydrostatic
weighing and 7-site skinfolds. Secondary aim was
to determine the within-day and between-day
reliability of the BOD POD S/T. After a period of
equipment and testing accommodation, volun-
teers (N = 50) body composition ( %BF) via 7-site
skinfolds, BOD POD S/T, and hydrostatic weigh-
ing were obtained on the second and third visits.
BOD POD S/T significantly overestimated %BF
when compared to hydrostatic weighing and 7-site skinfolds. There was no statistical difference
between 7-site skinfolds and hydrostatic weigh-
ing values. BOD POD S/T reliability within-day
and between-days were high. While the BOD
POD S/T body composition tracking system is
deemed reliable both within-day and between-
days, it did significantly overestimate % BF in
comparison to hydrostatic weighing and skin-
folds. Future research should be aimed at deriv-
ing a correction factor for this body composition
assessment tool.
-
7/24/2019 Tesch Et Al. (2010)
2/5
Training & Testing 705
Tseh W et al. Validity and Reliability of the BOD POD S/T Tracking Int J Sports Med 2010; 31: 704708
and height are entered into the computer systems kiosk. As
such, participants do not have to breathe into a tube to obtain a
direct measure of thoracic gas volumes, which makes the BOD
POD S/T system more attractive to a larger population.
Against this backdrop, the primary objectives of this study were
twofold. The first was to determine the validity of the BOD POD
S/T body composition tracking system against the well known
and commonly used assessment tools of hydrostatic weighing
and 7-site skinfold assessment. The secondary purpose of thisstudy was to determine the within-day and between-day relia-
bility of the BOD POD S/T body composition tracking system.
MethodsExperimental approach to the problemThe study protocol involved having each participant complete 3
testing sessions within a 7-day period. In an effort to minimize
intra-individual variability, participants were asked to wear the
same clothing (i. e., form-fitting bathing suit for men and 1-piece
or 2-piece bathing suit for women) for each testing session.
Additionally, to minimize circadian variation, participants werescheduled approximately the same time of day for each of the 3
testing sessions. All testing appointments were made daily
between 8 am and 10 am. Furthermore, subjects were asked to
fast for 12 h and void prior to testing in order to attenuate the
potential influence of food and/or liquid. Details of each testing
session are presented in the following sections.
Day 1: Equipment and testing accommodationThe purpose of this session was to collect baseline anthropomet-
ric data and to familiarize and accommodate participants with
testing instructions, equipment, and procedures. Upon arrival,
body mass and height were collected and recorded by a techni-
cian. Because body moisture has been shown to underestimatepercent body fat ( %BF) from the BOD POD [9], subjects data
were collected in the following order within each of the 3 testing
days: 7-site skinfolds, BOD POD S/T, 7-site skinfolds, BOD POD
S/T, and finally, hydrostatic weighing. In essence, 2 complete 7-
site skinfolds assessments and 2 complete BOD POD S/T meas-
ures were collected, followed by hydrostatic weighing. Lastly,
upon completion of the 2 7-site skinfolds and 2 BOD POD S/T
assessments, participants were provided with detailed instruc-
tions, familiarization, and afforded several practice trials of the
hydrostatic weighing testing procedures in the universitys nata-
torium.
Days 2 and 3: Collection of body composition valuesThe primary aim of Days 2 and 3 were to collect and record par-ticipants body composition via 7-site skinfolds, BOD POD S/T,
and hydrostatic weighing. Procedures for the second and third
sessions were identical to that of Day 1. More specifically, after
body mass was recorded, subjects body composition was
assessed by way of 7-site skinfolds, BOD POD S/T, 7-site skin-
fold, and finally, BOD POD S/T again. Upon completion of the
aforementioned testing modes, participants underwater weight
was quantified and recorded via hydrostatic weighing.
SubjectsParticipants included 25 male (age = 26.5 6.8 yrs; height
= 178.6 7.6 cm; body mass = 78.9 9.7 kg) and 25 female(age = 21.4 2.3 yrs; height = 162.5 7.5 cm; body mass = 59.4
8.6 kg) volunteers. All volunteers signed an informed consent
form, approved by the Universitys Institutional Review Board
for human subject use, prior to participation. Moreover, the
study protocol conformed to the ethical principles set forth by
the Declaration of Helsinki [12]. Volunteers were free from any
known cardiovascular and/or metabolic diseases. Subjects also
met the minimum exercise guidelines with respect to cardiovas-
cular fitness set forth by the American College of Sports Medi-
cine [1].
Equipment and proceduresBody mass and heightBody mass was measured to the nearest tenth of a kilogram
using an electronic scale (Tanita Corporation, Japan) and height
was assessed in centimeters while participants stood barefoot,
with both legs together, against a wall-mounted measuring tape.
Both body mass and height measurements were recorded in
duplicate values. Measurements were then averaged to produce
a single value of each participants body mass and height.
7-site skinfolds assessment
A Harpenden skinfold caliper (Baty International, England), cali-brated daily with a 15.9 mm dowel, was used to measure 7-site
skinfold thicknesses. Participants 7-site skinfolds were assessed
a minimum of 2 times. If measurements were not within 1 mm,
a third measure was taken. Anatomical locations of the 7-site
skinfold, specific measurement techniques, sex-specific 7-site
body density formulas [male body density = 1.1120.00043499
(sum of 7 skinfolds) + 0.00000055 (sum of 7 skinfolds)2
0.00028826 (age); female body density = 1.0970.00046971
(sum of 7 skinfolds) + 0.00000056 (sum of 7 skinfolds)2
0.00012828 (age)], and Siris [(495body density)450] percent
body fat formula was used in accordance with the guidelines set
forth by the American College of Sports Medicine [1].
BOD POD S/T assessmentBOD POD S/T body composition tracking system (Life Measure-
ment Incorporated, USA) was calibrated daily according to manu-
facturers instructions with a 49.368 L cylindrical volume
provided by Life Measurement Incorporated. Specific details
illustrating the technicalities of the calibration mechanism are
published elsewhere [4, 7]. Because different clothing schemes
have been shown to underestimate %BF results from the BOD
POD [10], subjects were instructed to wear the same 1-piece or
2-piece bathing suit for women and the same form-fitted bath-
ing suit for men throughout the study. Additionally, facial hair
has been shown to significantly underestimate %BF results from
the BOD POD
[13]. Therefore, if present, subjects were told by atechnician to maintain the facial hair throughout the course of
the investigation. All participants wore a swim cap provided by
Life Measurement Incorporated. After race, height, and age were
inputted by a technician into the BOD POD S/Ts kiosk, subjects
were asked to step on an electronic scale to determine body
weight to the nearest 0.045 kg. Once body mass was recorded by
the BOD POD S/T system, participants were instructed to sit
comfortably and breathe normally within the BOD POD S/T
chamber for 3 trials lasting 50 s per trial. Once the third trial was
recorded, results via Siris percent body fat formula were imme-
diately displayed on the kiosk viewer and recorded by a techni-
cian. This procedure was performed twice on each day.
-
7/24/2019 Tesch Et Al. (2010)
3/5
Training & Testing706
Tseh W et al. Validity and Reliability of the BOD POD S/T Tracking Int J Sports Med 2010; 31: 704708
Hydrostatic weighing assessmentParticipants were hydrostatically weighed in the Universitys
natatorium. While in the natatorium, a technician provided the
volunteers both verbal instructions and a visual demonstration
of the hydrostatic weighing technique. Participants entered the
pool and removed all air bubbles from the swimsuit and body
hair and were afforded several practice trials by submerging
themselves and maximally exhaling all the air out of their lungs
while grasping onto the side of the pool deck. Once subjectswere comfortable with the technique, volunteers sat in a sub-
merged chair suspended by a Chatillon autopsy scale (Kew Gar-
dens, USA). At the discretion of the participant, subjects
completely submerged under water, maximally exhaled all the
air from the lungs, and held as still as possible for approximately
57 s. Once complete stillness was established and no further air
bubbles were exhaled, a technician collected and recorded par-
ticipants underwater weights to the nearest 0.025 kg until a
minimum of 3 values were all within a tenth of a kilogram. The
heaviest underwater body mass, calculated residual volume [RV
for men = (0.017 age) + (0.06858 height in inches)3.447; RV
for women = (0.009 age) + (0.08128 height in inches)3.9],
and water temperature were subsequently placed into a formulato calculate body density, then placed into Siris equation to
derive percent body fat values [1, 17].
Statistical analysesBecause Day 1 was used solely to familiarize and accommodate
participants to testing instructions, equipment, and procedures,
data collected and recorded from this particular session were
not used in any of the statistical analyses. Within Days 2 and 3,
there were two 7-site skinfold measurements, 2 BOD POD S/T
assessments, and 1 hydrostatic weighing value, thereby provid-
ing a total of four 7-site skinfold measurements, 4 BOD POD S/T
assessments, and 2 hydrostatic weighing values for each partici-
pant. Within-day diff
erences in %BF values between Trial 1 andTrial 2 within Day 2 and Day 3 amongst the 2 body composition
assessment techniques (7-site skinfold and BOD POD S/T) were
determined by way of repeated-measures analysis of variance
(ANOVA). Because there was no statistical significance between
Trials 1 and 2 within Days 2 and 3, respectively, Trials 1 and 2
values were averaged to provide a single value for each day.
Between-day differences in %BF values between Day 2 and Day 3
amongst the 3 body composition assessment modes (7-site skin-
fold, BOD POD S/T, and hydrostatic weighing) were determined
via repeated-measures ANOVA. Data analyses revealed no differ-
ences in %BF between Day 2 and Day 3 for each modality;
therefore, %BF values for each mode were collapsed and placed
into subsequent analyses. All statistical analyses were performedseparately for males and females. For all data analyses, statistical
significance was established at p < 0.05.
ValidityDifferences in mean %BF values among the 7-site skinfolds, BOD
POD S/T, and hydrostatic weighing techniques were analyzed
using repeated-measures ANOVA. If differences existed, a Tukey
Honestly Significant Difference (HSD) post-hoc test was used to
specifically locate the difference(s) amongst the 3 assessment
modes. Moreover, if differences were detected, effect size (ES)
was calculated to determine meaningfulness of difference(s).
ReliabilityWithin-day reliability of %BF values between Trial 1 and Trial 2
within Day 2 and Day 3, respectively, amongst the 3 body com-
position techniques were determined using intra-class correla-
tion (R1) coeffi cient values. Lastly, Pearson product-moment
correlation coeffi cients (r) were calculated to determine the
relationships among the 7-site skinfolds, BOD POD S/T, and
hydrostatic weighing.
Results
ValidityResults of the repeated-measures ANOVA for both males andfemales are displayed in Table 1. Statistical analyses revealed
significant difference in %BF values amongst the 3 modes of
body composition techniques. Tukey HSD revealed that mean
BOD POD S/T %BF values were significantly higher than both
mean 7-site skinfolds and mean hydrostatic weighing %BF val-
ues. There were, however, no statistical differences between
mean 7-site skinfolds and mean hydrostatic weighing %BF val-
ues. The effect size calculated between BOD POD S/T and hydro-
static weighing was 0.62, whereas the ES calculated between
BOD POD S/T and 7-site skinfolds assessment was 0.52.
Reliability Table 2 illustrates within-day reliability %BF values between
Trial 1 and Trial 2 for Day 2 and Day 3, respectively, for both men
and women. As shown in Table 2, there were no significant
Table 1 Mean percent body fat values for BOD POD S/T, 7-site skinfolds,
and hydrostatic weighing for males and females.
Mode Males
(Mean SD)
Females
(Mean SD)
BOD POD S/T ( %) 17.6 6.7a 27.9 6.5a
7-site skinfolds ( %) 13.1 4.5b 22.5 4.5b
hydrostatic weighing ( %) 11.6 5.4 21.8 5.0ap < 0.05; BOD POD S/T statistically different from 7-site skinfolds and hydrostatic
weighingbp > 0.05; 7-site skinfolds not statistically different from hydrostatic weighing
Table 2 Within-day comparison
of percent body fat and reliability
values obtained from the BOD
POD S/T and 7-site skinfolds
technique for males and females.
Day 2 Day 3
Mode Trial 1 Trial 2 R1 Trial 1 Trial 2 R1
males
BOD POD S/T ( %) 17.4 6.8 17.2 6.9a 0.992 17.2 6.7 17.8 6.7b 0.994
7-site skinfolds ( %) 13.1 4.5 13.0 4.5a 0.999 13.3 4.7 13.1 4.3b 0.998
females
BOD POD S/T ( %) 27.3 6.5 27.7 6.5a 0.998 27.1 6.6 27.5 6.7b 0.991
7-site skinfolds ( %) 22.5 4.1 22.3 4.6a 0.998 22.4 4.5 22.2 4.8b 0.999
a
p > 0.05; Day 2 Trial 2 not statistically different from Day 2 Trial 1bp > 0.05; Day 3 Trial 2 not statistically different from Day 3 Trial 1
-
7/24/2019 Tesch Et Al. (2010)
4/5
Training & Testing 707
Tseh W et al. Validity and Reliability of the BOD POD S/T Tracking Int J Sports Med 2010; 31: 704708
within-day differences for 7-site skinfolds and the BOD POD S/T
assessment. Additionally, intra-class correlation coefficient val-
ues for the 7-site skinfolds and BOD POD S/T within Day 2 and
Day 3 were reliable (see Table 2). Consequently, given no sig-
nificant differences and the high degree of reliability between
Trials 1 and 2, all %BF values were collapsed to produce a respec-
tive mean %BF value for the 7-site skinfolds and BOD POD S/T
modes and placed into further analysis to calculate between-day
differences and reliability between Days 2 and 3.
There were no signifi
cant between-day %BF diff
erences for Day2 and Day 3 for each of the 3 body composition modes, respec-
tively (see Table 3), for both males and females. Between-day
intra-class correlation coeffi cient value for Days 2 and 3 for 7-
site skinfolds, BOD POD S/T, and hydrostatic weighing were
reliable. Subsequently, %BF values for Day 2 and Day 3 were
averaged to produce a mean %BF value for each body composi-
tion modality.
As illustrated in Table 4, Pearson product-moment correlation
coefficients revealed a strong, positive relationship between
mean BOD POD S/T %BF values and both mean 7-site skinfolds
and mean hydrostatic weighing %BF values, respectively, for
both men and women.
DiscussionThe primary purpose of this investigation was to determine the
validity of the BOD POD S/T body composition tracking system
against 2 well-known, commonly used assessment tools, while
the secondary purpose was to determine the within-day and
between-day reliability of the BOD POD S/T body composition
tracking system. Overall, with respect to men, the BOD POD S/T
statistically overestimated participants %BF values by + 6.0 %
and + 4.5 % compared to the hydrostatic weighing and 7-site
skinfolds, respectively. Similarly, in regards to women, the BOD
POD
S/T statistically overestimated participants %BF by + 6.1 %and + 5.4 % compared to hydrostatic weighing and 7-site skin-
folds, respectively. The BOD POD S/T, however, provided
reliable %BF values within- and between-days amongst the sam-
ple male and female subjects.
Generally, findings from the current study both contrast [3, 4]
and concur [14, 20, 21] with the literature examining the validity
and reliability values between the BOD POD and other forms of
body composition assessment tools (e. g., hydrodensitometry
and skinfolds). While the authors of this paper could specifically
reiterate the vast comparative BOD POD
literature [2, 5,6, 11, 16, 22], this would, however, not serve to support the impe-
tus of the investigation, which was to determine the validity and
reliability of the BOD POD S/T assessment tool, not its parent-
counterpart, the BOD POD. Moreover, while both BOD POD S/T
and BOD POD are fairly similar principally and mechanistically,
there are distinct differences (e. g., self-testing capabilities and
estimated thoracic gas volumes) that make each model inher-
ently unique, therefore would provide ineffective conclusions if
the findings from the current study were compared with the
multitude of findings with previously-conducted BOD POD
investigations.
ValidityAs displayed in Table 1, the BOD POD S/T significantlyoverestimated %BF values when compared to both hydrostatic
weighing and 7-site skinfolds techniques. There was, however,
no difference in %BF values between the hydrostatic weighing
and 7-site skinfolds techniques for both men and women. As
mentioned in the previous sections, the ES was calculated to
determine the meaningfulness of the differences found within
the current study. The effect size calculated between BOD POD
S/T and hydrostatic weighing was 0.62, whereas the ES calcu-
lated between BOD POD S/T and 7-site skinfolds assessment
was 0.52. According to Thomas and Nelson [18], an ES less than
0.20 is small, 0.50 is medium, and greater than 0.80 is large. In
the current study, with an ES ranging 0.520.62, this suggeststhat the meaningfulness of the differences between the BOD
POD S/T compared to hydrostatic weighing and 7-site skinfolds
are deemed medium to large. As such, because the BOD POD
S/T overestimated both men and women %BF values by approxi-
mately 46 %, the magnitude of this overestimation is quite
meaningful.
ReliabilityAs displayed in Table 2, the reliability of the BOD POD S/T
within Days 2 and 3 yielded a reliability coefficient of 0.992 and
0.994, respectively, for men, whereas for women, 0.998 and
0.991, respectively, for Days 2 and 3. Similarly, the reliability
coeffi
cient between Days 2 and 3 for men and women was 0.996and 0.995, respectively, as shown in Table 3. With that stated,
these data suggest that the BOD POD S/T is a reliable assess-
ment tool both within- and between-days.
Practical ApplicationsViewed in concert, the BOD POD S/T body composition tracking
system, an offshoot of the BOD POD, is an assessment tool that
is practicably and feasibly designed for the health/fitness indus-
try. Results of the study revealed that this particular BOD POD
S/T body composition tracking system is deemed reliable both
within-day and between-days, however, %BF was overestimatedin comparison to both hydrostatic weighing and skinfolds. Given
Table 3 Between-day comparison of mean percent body fat and reliability
values obtained from the BOD POD S/T, 7-site skinfolds, and hydrostatic
weighing techniques for males and females.
Mode Day 2 Day 3 R1
males
BOD POD S/T ( %) 17.3 6.9 17.5 6.7a 0.996
7-site skinfolds ( %) 13.1 4.2 13.2 4.5a 0.991
hydrostatic weighing ( %) 11.6 5.4 11.5 6.0a 0.993
females
BOD POD S/T ( %) 27.5 6.5 27.3 6.7a 0.995
7-site skinfolds ( %) 22.6 4.5 22.4 4.7a 0.997
hydrostatic weighing ( %) 22.1 5.3 21.7 5.0a 0.987
ap > 0.05; Day 3 not statistically different from Day 2
Table 4 Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients between mean
percent body fat values for BOD POD S/T and mean 7-site skinfolds and
hydrostatic weighing techniques for males and females.
Variable
Males
BOD POD S/T
Females
BOD POD S/T
7-site skinfolds 0.89a 0.87a
hydrostatic weighing 0.81a 0.93aap < 0.05
-
7/24/2019 Tesch Et Al. (2010)
5/5
Training & Testing708
Tseh W et al. Validity and Reliability of the BOD POD S/T Tracking Int J Sports Med 2010; 31: 704708
these aforementioned findings, caution should be warranted in
applying the results of this investigation. More specifically, the
findings from this study should not be generalized to suggest
that all BOD PODS/T systems are reliable and/or overestimate %BF
amongst individuals. In fact, it is highly recommended and pru-
dent that fitness directors and/or owners of this particular model
conduct their own investigation to determine the extent to
which their specific model is valid and/or reliable. With all that
said, ongoing research is being conducted within our lab todetermine whether an overall correction factor or a sex-specific
correction factor is necessary to amend the overestimation
of %BF by the BOD POD S/T body composition tracking system.
References1 ACSMs Guidelines for Exercise Testing and Prescription. Philadelphia,
PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2007
2 ClarosG, HullHR, FieldsDA. Comparison of air displacement plethys-mography to hydrostatic weighing for estimating total body densityin children. BMC Pediatr 2005; 5 : 3745
3 CollinsMA, Millard-StaffordML, EvansEM,SnowTK, RosskopfLB, Cure-tonKJ. Validation of air displacement plethysmography for examiningbody fat in young adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1998; 30: S146
4 Collins MA, Millard-Stafford ML, Sparling PB, Snow TK, Rosskopf LB,
WebbSA, OmerJ. Evaluation of the BOD POD for assessing body fat incollegiate football players. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1999; 31: 13501356
5 CollinsAL,SaundersS, MccarthyHD, WilliamsJE, FullerNJ. Within- andbetween-laboratory precision in the measurement of body volume
using air displacement plethysmography and its effect on body com-position assessment. Int J Obes Metab Disord 2004; 28: 8090
6 DemerathEW, GuoSS, ChumleaWC, TowneB, RocheAF, SiervogelRM.Comparison of percent body fat estimates using air displacementplethysmography and hydrodensitometry in adults and children. Int
J Relat Metab Disord 2002; 26: 3893977 DempsterP, AitkensS. A new air displacement method for the deter-
mination of human body composition. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1995;27: 16921697
8 DixonCB, DeitrickRW, PiercePT, CutrufelloPT, DrapeauLL. Evaluationof the BOD POD and leg-to-leg bioelectrical impedance analysis for
estimating percent body fat in National Collegiate Athletic AssociationDivision III collegiate wrestlers. J Strength Cond Res 2005; 19: 8591
9 FieldsDA, HigginsPB, HunterGR. Assessment of body composition byair-displacement plethysmography: influence of body temperatureand moisture. Dyn Med 2004; 3: 39
10 FieldsDA, HunterGR, GoranMI. Validation of the BOD POD with hydro-static weighing: influence of body clothing. Int J Obes Relat MetabDisord 2000; 24: 200205
11 GindeSR, GeliebterA, RubianoF,SilvaAM, WangJ, HeshkaS, HeymsfieldSB. Air displacement plethysmography: validation in overweight andobese subjects. Obes Res 2005; 13: 12321237
12 HarrissDJ,AtkinsonG. International Journal of Sports Medicine Eth-ical Standards in Sport and Exercise Science Research. Int J Sports Med
2009; 30: 70170213 HigginsPB, FieldsDA, HunterGR, GowerBA. Effect of scalp and facial
hair on air displacement plethysmography estimates of percentage
body fat. Obes Res 2001; 9: 32633014 LevenhagenDK, BorelMJ, WelchDC, PiaseckiJH, PiaseckiDP, ChenKY,
FlakollPJ. A comparison of air displacement plethysmography with 3other techniques to determine body fat in healthy adults. J Parent EntNut 1999; 23: 293299
15 Mccrory MA, Gomez TD, Bernauer EM, Mole PA. Evaluation of a newair displacement plethysmography for measuring human body com-position. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1995; 27: 16861691
16 MiyatakeN, NonakaK, FujiiM. A new air displacement plethysmog-raphy for the determination of Japanese body composition. Diab ObesMetab 1999; 1: 347351
17 PowersSK, HowleyET. Exercise Physiology: Theory and Application toFitness and Performance. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Companies;
200918 ThomasR, NelsonJ. Research Methods in Physical Activity. Champaign,
IL: Human Kinetics; 1996
19 UtterAC, GossFL,SwanPD, HarrisGS, RobertsonRJ, TroneGA. Evalua-tion of air displacement for assessing body composition of collegiate
wrestlers. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2003; 35: 50050520 VescoviJD, HildebrandtL, MillerWC, HammerRL,SpillerA. Evaluation
of the BOD POD for estimating percent fat in female college athletes.J Strength Cond Res 2002; 16: 599605
21 VescoviJD,ZimmermanSL, MillerWC, HildebrandtL, HammerRL, Fern-hallB. Evaluation of the BOD POD for estimating percentage body fat
in a heterogeneous group of adult humans. Eur J Appl Physiol 2001;85: 326332
22 Wagner DR, Heyward VH, GibsonAL. Validation of air displacementplethysmography for assessing body composition. Med Sci SportsExerc 2000; 32: 13391344
23 YeeA, Kern M. Validation of the BOD POD: method for estimatingpercent body fat in an elderly population. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1998;30: S146
top related