Validation of the Integrative Body Composition Method for Assessing Fat Mass with Dual-energy X-ray Absorptiometry: 3609 Board #48 June 4, 8: 00 AM - 9: 30 AM.

Body composition (BC) is considered to be an important component of fitness testing, and accurate assessment of one’s BC is critical to determining that person’s general level of fitness, as well as their risk for cardiovascular disease. There are numerous methods to assess BC, but a relatively new technique, called Integrative Body Composition (IBC), has been developed using a person’s height (H), weight (W), waist circumference (WAIST), and wrist diameter (WD). This method has been validated previously against other BC assessment methods, such as hydrostatic weighing (HW) and air displacement plethysmography (ADP), but it has not been tested using dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) as the criterion measure. PURPOSE: To investigate the validity of the IBC method for assessing a person’s BC using DXA as the criterion measure. For comparison purposes, data from skinfolds (SF) and from bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) were also collected. METHODS: A convenience sample of sixty participants (Males n=24; Females n=36) reported twice to the lab, once where H, W, WAIST, and WD data were collected for IBC assessment, as well as data for SF and BIA, and a second time where data from DXA were collected. RESULTS: Mean percent body fat values for the four assessment methods were as follows: [IBC (Total: 25.3 ± 8.5; Males: 20.6 ± 8.4; Females: 28.5 ± 6.9); DXA (Total: 28 ± 7.2; Males: 23.9 ± 6.6; Females: 30.8 ± 6.2); SF (Total: 21.1 ± 8.3; Males: 17.1 ± 6.8; Females: 23.9 ± 8.1); BIA (Total: 22.2 ± 8.2; Males: 18.8 ± 8.8; Females: 24.6 ± 6.8)]. Pearson correlations revealed significant relationships (p<0.01) between IBC & DXA (Total: r=0.81; Males: r=0.77; Females: r=0.74), IBC & SF (Total: r=0.84; Males: r=0.81; Females: r=0.83), and IBC & BIA (Total: r=0.83; Males: r=0.78; Females: r=0.82). CONCLUSIONS: Consistent with previous research identifying IBC as a valid measure when compared to HW and ADP, these data support IBC as a valid BC assessment technique when also compared to DXA. However, it should be noted that the standard deviations in these data were fairly large, and that these data as well as previously collected data on IBC are limited to correlational values. Additional analyses of these data should be conducted to determine the magnitude of agreement between these assessment methods.