IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i21p8786-d433233.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Validity of the Portable Ultrasound BodyMetrix™ BX-2000 for Measuring Body Fat Percentage

Author

Listed:
  • Seoungki Kang

    (Graduate School of Education, Yongin University, 134 Yongindaehak-ro, Cheoin-gu, Yongin-si 17092, Gyeonggi-do, Korea)

  • Jeong-Hui Park

    (Department of Physical Education, Kyung Hee University (Global Campus), 1732 Deokyoungdaero, Giheung-gu, Yongin-si 17014, Gyeonggi-do, Korea)

  • Myong-Won Seo

    (Department of Taekwondo, Kyung Hee University (Global Campus), 1732 Deokyoungdaero, Giheung-gu, Yongin-si 17014, Gyeonggi-do, Korea)

  • Hyun Chul Jung

    (Department of Coaching, Kyung Hee University (Global Campus), 1732 Deokyoungdaero, Giheung-gu, Yongin-si 17014, Gyeonggi-do, Korea)

  • Yong Ik Kim

    (Department of Sports Health and Rehabilitation, Kookmin University, 77 Jeongneung-Ri, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul 02707, Korea)

  • Jung-Min Lee

    (Department of Physical Education, Kyung Hee University (Global Campus), 1732 Deokyoungdaero, Giheung-gu, Yongin-si 17014, Gyeonggi-do, Korea)

Abstract

BodyMetrix™ BX-2000 (IntelaMetrix, Livermore, CA, USA) has been introduced as one of the alternatives and portable methods to estimate body fat percentage. However, inconsistent results between protocols built-in the Bodymetrix TM may be compelling the question of its validity. Thus, this study first investigated the possible errors between protocols and evaluated the validity of body fat percentage (BF%) compared to the gold standard method (dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry, DEXA). One hundred and five collegiate males, aged 20.01 ± 2.11 years, body height, 174.81 ± 6.01 cm, body mass, 73.26 ± 13.60 kg, and body mass index, 23.91 ± 3.77 kg·m −2 participated in the present study. Participants’ body fat percentage was estimated by built-in nine different protocols in the BodyMetrix™ BX-2000 using A-MODE ultrasound. Pearson correlation (r), Mean absolute percentage errors (MAPEs), Bland & Altman plots, and Equivalence testing were used to examine the validity of each protocol by comparing it to the criterion measure (i.e., DEXA). The results indicated good potential for almost all of the protocols in correlation (Min: r = 0.79, Max: r = 0.92)., MAPEs (Min: 20.0%, Max: 33.8%), and Bland-Altman (Min diff: 16.7, Max diff: 41.4). Particularly, the estimated BF% from protocol 7 (4-sites by Durnin & Wormersley) and protocol 9 (9-sites Parllo) were completed within the equivalence zone (±10% of the mean). The estimates measured by protocol 7 and protocol 9 identified as the most valid methods for estimating BF% using a BodyMetrix™ BX-2000, compared to the DEXA. Our findings provide valuable information when applying in young male individuals, but future studies with other populations such as female or adolescents may be required to suggest a valid protocol within the instrument.

Suggested Citation

  • Seoungki Kang & Jeong-Hui Park & Myong-Won Seo & Hyun Chul Jung & Yong Ik Kim & Jung-Min Lee, 2020. "Validity of the Portable Ultrasound BodyMetrix™ BX-2000 for Measuring Body Fat Percentage," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-9, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:21:p:8786-:d:433233
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/21/8786/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/21/8786/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:21:p:8786-:d:433233. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.