Associations Between Girth And Skinfold Measurements With Visceral Fat

While body fat percentage (BF%) and girth ratios (GR), such as waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) and waist-to-height ratio (WHtR), have been widely used to describe visceral fat (VF), less attention has been given to the applicability of skinfold (SF) measurements for the same purpose. PURPOSE: This study examined the associations between BF%, GR, SF, and VF. METHODS: Sixty healthy participants (38 males and 22 females, age = 21.23 ± 4.37 years, BMI = 24.87 ± 3.02 kg/m2, BF% = 19.70 ± 7.28%) participated in the study. Girth ratios, including WHR and WHtR, were assessed. SF thickness was measured using a Lange skinfold caliper at 5 different regions, including the navel, upper abdomen, axillary, lumbar, and subscapular. Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry was used to measure VF. Pearson correlation was utilized to examine the associations among BF%, GR, SF, and VF. RESULTS: Females’ VF (33.9 ± 16.9 cm2) was significantly correlated with BMI (23.9 ± 3.7 kg/m2, r = .451, p = .035) and BF% (26.6 ± 5.3%, r = .590, p = .004), while males’ VF (49.6 ± 10.9 cm2) was not correlated with BMI (25.4 ± 2.4 kg/m2, r = -.021, p = .899) nor BF% (15.7 ± 4.8%, r = -.084, p = .616). In addition, WHR (.85 ± .04) was correlated with VF in males (r = .462, p = .004), while WHtR (.47 ± .06) was correlated with VF (r = .616, p = .002) in females. When participants were clustered into two groups based on BMI (< 25 or ≥ 25 kg/m2), VF was correlated with the WHR in males (n = 18) with a BMI ≥ 25 kg/m2 (r = .522, p = .026) and in women (n = 14) with a BMI < 25 kg/m2 (r = .567, p = .035). However, males (n = 20) with a BMI < 25 kg/m2 and women (n = 8) with a BMI ≥ 25 kg/m2 had no correlations between VF and any GR or SF measurements. Although there was no correlation between VF and SF in males, VF in females was correlated with SF at the anterior slimmest part of the waist (16.1 ± 4.9 mm, r = .450, p = .035), iliac crest (14.0 ± 5.4 mm, r = .527, p = .012), and subscapular (14.0 ± 5.3 mm, r = .51, p = .018). CONCLUSION: BF% has a greater correlation with VF in females than in males, while WHR (a marker of body fat distribution) better explains VF in males. In addition, SF only held a degree of applicability within females. Furthermore, fat distribution seems to be more important in males, while fat content seems to be more important in females when assessing VF content.