Comparison of a mobile application to estimate percentage body fat to other non-laboratory based measurements
Study aim: The measurement of body composition is important from a population perspective as it is a variable associated with a person’s health, and also from a sporting perspective as it can be used to evaluate training. This study aimed to examine the reliability of a mobile application that estim...
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Sciendo
2017-02-01
|
| Series: | Biomedical Human Kinetics |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1515/bhk-2017-0014 |
| _version_ | 1818689130032267264 |
|---|---|
| author | Shaw Matthew P. Robinson Joshua Peart Daniel J. |
| author_facet | Shaw Matthew P. Robinson Joshua Peart Daniel J. |
| author_sort | Shaw Matthew P. |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Study aim: The measurement of body composition is important from a population perspective as it is a variable associated with a person’s health, and also from a sporting perspective as it can be used to evaluate training. This study aimed to examine the reliability of a mobile application that estimates body composition by digitising a two-dimensional image. Materials and methods: Thirty participants (15 men and 15 women) volunteered to have their percentage body fat (%BF) estimated via three different methods (skinfold measurements, SFM; bio-electrical impedance, BIA; LeanScreenTM mobile application, LSA). Intra-method reproducibility was assessed using intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC), coefficient of variance (CV) and typical error of measurement (TEM). The average measurement for each method were also compared. Results: There were no significant differences between the methods for estimated %BF (p = 0.818) and the reliability of each method as assessed via ICC was good (≥0.974). However the absolute reproducibility, as measured by CV and TEM, was much higher in SFM and BIA (≤1.07 and ≤0.37 respectively) compared with LSA (CV 6.47, TEM 1.6). Conclusion: LSA may offer an alternative to other field-based measures for practitioners, however individual variance should be considered to develop an understanding of minimal worthwhile change, as it may not be suitable for a one-off measurement. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-17T12:05:12Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-e294f7de9a7f42f7835d296732de076a |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2080-2234 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-17T12:05:12Z |
| publishDate | 2017-02-01 |
| publisher | Sciendo |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Biomedical Human Kinetics |
| spelling | doaj.art-e294f7de9a7f42f7835d296732de076a2022-12-21T21:49:39ZengSciendoBiomedical Human Kinetics2080-22342017-02-0191949810.1515/bhk-2017-0014bhk-2017-0014Comparison of a mobile application to estimate percentage body fat to other non-laboratory based measurementsShaw Matthew P.0Robinson Joshua1Peart Daniel J.2Higher Education Sport, Faculty of Business and Science, Hull College, Kingston-upon-Hull, UKSport and Biosciences, University Centre, North Lindsey College, Scunthorpe, UKDepartment of Sport, Exercise and Rehabilitation, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, Northumbria University, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UKStudy aim: The measurement of body composition is important from a population perspective as it is a variable associated with a person’s health, and also from a sporting perspective as it can be used to evaluate training. This study aimed to examine the reliability of a mobile application that estimates body composition by digitising a two-dimensional image. Materials and methods: Thirty participants (15 men and 15 women) volunteered to have their percentage body fat (%BF) estimated via three different methods (skinfold measurements, SFM; bio-electrical impedance, BIA; LeanScreenTM mobile application, LSA). Intra-method reproducibility was assessed using intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC), coefficient of variance (CV) and typical error of measurement (TEM). The average measurement for each method were also compared. Results: There were no significant differences between the methods for estimated %BF (p = 0.818) and the reliability of each method as assessed via ICC was good (≥0.974). However the absolute reproducibility, as measured by CV and TEM, was much higher in SFM and BIA (≤1.07 and ≤0.37 respectively) compared with LSA (CV 6.47, TEM 1.6). Conclusion: LSA may offer an alternative to other field-based measures for practitioners, however individual variance should be considered to develop an understanding of minimal worthwhile change, as it may not be suitable for a one-off measurement.https://doi.org/10.1515/bhk-2017-0014mobile technology - field testing - body composition - reproducibility |
| spellingShingle | Shaw Matthew P. Robinson Joshua Peart Daniel J. Comparison of a mobile application to estimate percentage body fat to other non-laboratory based measurements Biomedical Human Kinetics mobile technology - field testing - body composition - reproducibility |
| title | Comparison of a mobile application to estimate percentage body fat to other non-laboratory based measurements |
| title_full | Comparison of a mobile application to estimate percentage body fat to other non-laboratory based measurements |
| title_fullStr | Comparison of a mobile application to estimate percentage body fat to other non-laboratory based measurements |
| title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of a mobile application to estimate percentage body fat to other non-laboratory based measurements |
| title_short | Comparison of a mobile application to estimate percentage body fat to other non-laboratory based measurements |
| title_sort | comparison of a mobile application to estimate percentage body fat to other non laboratory based measurements |
| topic | mobile technology - field testing - body composition - reproducibility |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1515/bhk-2017-0014 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT shawmatthewp comparisonofamobileapplicationtoestimatepercentagebodyfattoothernonlaboratorybasedmeasurements AT robinsonjoshua comparisonofamobileapplicationtoestimatepercentagebodyfattoothernonlaboratorybasedmeasurements AT peartdanielj comparisonofamobileapplicationtoestimatepercentagebodyfattoothernonlaboratorybasedmeasurements |