Evaluation of the BOD POD for estimating percentage body fat in a heterogeneous group of adult humans
Abstract
The primary purpose of this investigation was to compare estimations of percentage body fat (%fat) using air displacement plethysmography (ADP) and hydrostatic weighing (HW) in a heterogeneous (age and %fat) sample of the population. Of secondary importance was to determine whether there were differences between the two methods among lean (n = 32), average (n = 34) and overweight (n = 29) subsets of this sample. A total of 95 adults (men 27, women 68) ranging in age from 18-52 years volunteered for this study. Test-retest reliability for %fat ADP (n = 16) was 0.99 with a technical error of 0.75%fat and a coefficient of variation of 3.4%fat. Mean body density using ADP [1.048 (SD 0.016) g.ml-1] was not significantly different when compared to HW [1.049 (SD 0.017) g.ml-1], which corresponded to a non-significant difference in %fat [22.5 (SD 7.3)% ADP compared to 22.0 (SD 7.6)% HW]. Regression analysis provided the equation: %fat HW = 0.9121%fat ADP + 1.5123; r = 0.88, SEE = 3.6, which did not differ significantly from the line of identity. Data for the subsets revealed a significant overestimation of %fat ADP [16.4 (SD 4.8)%] compared to HW [14.1 (SD 3.2)%] (P = 0.001) for lean individuals while no difference was found in the average [21.9 (SD 4.4)%fat ADP compared to 22.0 (SD 3.4)%fat HW] or overweight [29.9 (SD 5.5)%fat ADP compared to 30.8 (SD 4.1)%fat HW] subsets. Measuring %fat by ADP is a highly reliable method and valid when compared to HW for a heterogeneous sample of adults. The ADP method requires little expertise to operate, is quick to perform, and may be more accommodating for certain individuals compared to HW. However, in this study ADP was less valid for lean individuals. Further investigation is warranted to determine the bias of this method for subsets of the population which may be outside the average range of %fat (men 15.4%-22.0%, women 18.4%-28.5%).
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Other studies suggest it is important to test ADP accuracy in more heterogeneous samples, or in individuals outside the average percent fat range, specifically lean individuals, and to look at possible gender bias.
“Other studies [31] suggest that that it is important to test its accuracy in more heterogeneous samples, or in individuals outside the average % fat range, specifically lean individuals, and insist in looking at possible gender bias.”
The accuracy of the BOD POD has been deemed high, but it has been shown to overestimate %Fat in lean individuals in some studies when compared to hydrostatic weighing.
“The accuracy of the BOD POD has been deemed high, but it has been shown to overestimate %Fat in lean individuals in some studies when compared to HW [65,66,67].”
From The Utility of Body Composition Assessment in Nutrition and Clinical Practice: An Overview of Current Methodology (2021) · cites this paper as [67]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Garvey, W. T., Mechanick, J. I., Brett, E. M., Garber, A. J., Hurley, D. L., Jastreboff, A. M., Nadolsky, K., Pessah-Pollack, R., & Plodkowski, R. (2016) · Endocrine Practice · doi:10.4158/ep161365.gl · Cited by 1,914 · see citing works
Holmes, C. J., & Racette, S. B. (2021) · Nutrients · doi:10.3390/nu13082493 · Cited by 402 · see citing works
Comparison of Methods to Assess Body Composition Changes during a Period of Weight Loss
Frisard, M. I., Greenway, F. L., & DeLany, J. P. (2005) · Obesity Research · doi:10.1038/oby.2005.97 · Cited by 153 · see citing works
Figueroa, A., Baynard, T., Fernhall, B., Carhart, R., & Kanaley, J. A. (2007) · European Journal of Applied Physiology · doi:10.1007/s00421-007-0446-3 · Cited by 117 · see citing works
Self-citationBentzur, K. M., Kravitz, L., & Lockner, D. W. (2008) · Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research · doi:10.1519/jsc.0b013e318185f196 · Cited by 64 · see citing works
Macias, N., Alemán-Mateo, H., Esparza-Romero, J., & Valencia, M. E. (2007) · Nutrition Journal · doi:10.1186/1475-2891-6-18 · Cited by 46 · see citing works
“Other studies [31] suggest that that it is important to test its accuracy in more heterogeneous samples, or in individuals outside the average % fat range, specifically lean individuals, and insist in looking at possible gender bias.”
Background
- Authors
- Vescovi, J. D., Zimmerman, S. L., Miller, W. C., Hildebrandt, L., Hammer, R. L., & Fernhall, B.
- Affiliations
- George Washington University (US)
- Central Michigan University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Vescovi, Jason D.
- Venue
- European Journal of Applied Physiology
- Published
- 2001-08-01
- Volume
- 85
- Issue
- 3-4
- Pages
- 326-332
- ISSN
- 0020-9376 (ISSN-L)
- 1439-6319
- 1439-6327
- OpenAlex
- W1982384213
- Cited by
- 98
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 4
- FWCI
- 2.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- Locations
- European Journal of Applied Physiology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- 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
- body fat percentage, air displacement plethysmography, hydrostatic weighing, BOD POD, body density, method comparison, test-retest reliability, method validity, lean individuals, overweight individuals, body composition assessment, adults, sex differences, age differences, measurement bias, regression equations
- MeSH terms
- Adipose Tissue, Adolescent, Adult, Body Composition, Body Weight, Female, Humans, Male, Obesity, Plethysmography, Regression Analysis, Water, Reproducibility of Results
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