CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 22Body Composition Measurement TechniquesObesity, Physical Activity, DietCardiovascular and exercise physiology

Cross‐Validation of Fat‐Free Mass Estimated From Body Density Against Bioelectrical Resistance: Effects of Obesity and Gender

Open access
Goran, Michael I., Khaled, M. Abu·1995·Obesity Research
DOI 10.1002/j.1550-8528.1995.tb00187.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

GORAN, MICHAEL I AND M ABU KHALED. Cross‐validation of fat‐free mass estimated from body density against bioelectrical resistance: effects of obesity and gender. Obes Res. The major purpose of this study was to examine whether estimates of body composition from bioelectrical resistance were systematically biased by obesity and/or gender (using hydrodensitometry as a comparison method). We compared fat‐free mass (FFM) by bioelectrical resistance (BR) using 5 equations (Lukaski, Kushner, Rising, Khaled, and Segal) to FFM by hydrodensitometry (HD) in 20 lean men, 30 lean women, 33 obese men and 22 obese women. None of the BR equations was successfully cross‐validated against FFM by HD in all 4 sub‐groups. The Lukaski equation significantly underestimated FFM in all 4 groups by 2.7 to 4.7 kg; the Kushner equation significantly underestimated FFM by 2.0 to 2.9 kg except in obese women; the Rising equation significantly overestimated FFM in obese women (5.3 kg) and men (2.9 kg); the Khaled equation successfully predicted FFM in all groups except obese men; and the Segal equation successfully predicted FFM in all groups except lean men. In some groups, a portion of the discrepancy could be explained by bias originating from body fat. Analysis of our data by forward regression analysis demonstrated that height 2/resistance, body weight, gender and suprailiac skinfold thickness provide the most accurate estimates of FFM (R 2=0.92; SEE = 3.58kg) that are free of bias originating from gender and body fat. We conclude that the estimation of fat‐free mass by BR is significantly influenced by gender and obesity. An alternative equation is proposed for estimating fat‐free mass based on measurement of height 2/resistance, body weight, gender and suprailiac skinfold thickness.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/j.1550-8528.1995.tb00187.x

Cites

21 of 21 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In a study of normal and overweight adults, the Kushner equation accurately predicted fat-free mass in overweight women but tended to overestimate fat-free mass as fat mass increased.

    “In a study of normal and overweight adults (29), the Kushner equation accurately predicted fat-free mass in overweight women, although it also tended to overestimate fat-free mass with increasing fat mass.”

    From Comparison of Body Composition Methods in Obese African‐American Women (2006) · cites this paper as [29]

    The Results (Table 3) say the Kushner equation cross-validated in obese women, supporting that part of the claim, though the paper calls this group obese rather than overweight. The Results (p. 534) also report overestimation with increasing fat mass, but only in women; the citing sentence leaves that restriction unstated. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • In the same sample, the Lukaski equation significantly underestimated fat-free mass, but its estimates were unaffected by body weight in obese women.

    “In this same sample, the Lukaski equation provided estimates that significantly underestimated fat-free mass, but estimates were unaffected by body weight in obese women.”

    From Comparison of Body Composition Methods in Obese African‐American Women (2006) · cites this paper as [29]

    The Discussion states that the Lukaski equation significantly underestimated fat-free mass, and the Results say it failed to cross-validate in every subgroup, including obese women. The paper reports that its discrepancy was not influenced by obesity and that a trend with fat mass was significant only in the full sample (Results, p. 534); it does not establish that estimates were unaffected by body weight within obese women. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 22 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Arciero PJ, Goran MI, Poehlman ET. Resting metabol- ic rate is lower in women compared to men. } Appl Physiol. 1993;75:2514-2520.
  2. Goran MI, Kaskoun MC, Carpenter WH, Poehlman ET, Ravussln E, FontvieiUe AM. Estimating body com- position in young children using bioelectrical resistance. } Appl Physiol. 1993;75: 1776-1780.
  3. Must A, Dallal GE, Dietz WHo Reference data for obe- sity: 85th and 95th percentiles of body mass index (wtlht 2). Am J Clin Nutr. 1991;53:839-846.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Goran, M. I., & Khaled, M. A.
Affiliations
  • University of Alabama (US)
  • University of Vermont (US)
Corresponding author
Goran, Michael I.
ORCID
Venue
Obesity Research
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1995-11
Volume
3
Issue
6
Pages
531-539
ISSN
  • 1071-7323 (ISSN-L)
  • 1550-8528
DOI
10.1002/j.1550-8528.1995.tb00187.x
OpenAlex
W1978893185
Cited by
22
References
22
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2012: 1
FWCI
0.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor, 6154 d)
Locations
  • Obesity Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • American Diabetes Association
  • U.S. Department of Agriculture
  • National Institutes of Health (RR-109, 5r29hd032668-05, 1r55hd028720-01a1)
  • National Center for Research Resources (NIH RR-109)
  • Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R29-HD-32668, R55 HD-28720)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Body Composition Measurement Techniques
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Obesity, Physical Activity, Diet
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Complementary and alternative medicine › Cardiovascular and exercise physiology
Keywords
fat-free mass, body composition, obesity, sex differences, hydrodensitometry, cross-validation, fat mass, skinfold thickness
MeSH terms
Adult, Analysis of Variance, Body Constitution, Densitometry, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Models, Theoretical, Obesity, Reference Values, Regression Analysis, Sex Characteristics, Body Mass Index, Electric Impedance

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review