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

Seoungki Kang, Jeong-Hui Park, Myong-Won Seo, Hyun Chul Jung, Yong Ik Kim and Jung-Min Lee
Additional contact information
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

Sustainability, 2020, vol. 12, issue 21, 1-9

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.

Keywords: body composition; body fat percentage; DEXA; body metrix (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: O13 Q Q0 Q2 Q3 Q5 Q56 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2020
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/21/8786/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/21/8786/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:21:p:8786-:d:433233

Access Statistics for this article

Sustainability is currently edited by Ms. Alexandra Wu

More articles in Sustainability from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().