Cited by 47Body Composition Measurement TechniquesSports Performance and TrainingPhysical Education and Training Studies

Evaluation of the BOD POD for Estimating Percent Fat in Female College Athletes

VESCOVI, JASON D., HILDEBRANDT, LESLIE, MILLER, WAYNE, HAMMER, ROGER, SPILLER, AMANDA·2002·Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Abstract

The purpose of this investigation was to examine the accuracy of percent body fat (%BF) estimates obtained by air displacement plethysmography (ADP) using the BOD POD Body Composition System compared with hydrostatic weighing (HW) in a group of female college athletes (n = 80). In addition, %BF estimates by skinfold measures (SF) were also obtained for comparison. A lean subset (n = 39) of the sample was also examined. Mean %BF estimated for the entire sample by ADP (21.2 +/- 5.9%) was significantly greater than that determined by HW (19.4 +/- 6.4%) and SF (18.8 +/- 5.5%). Results from the lean subset also revealed that %BF determined by ADP (17.1 +/- 3.7%) was significantly higher than %BF estimates by HW (14.3 +/- 2.8%) and SF (15.2 +/- 3.2%). The regression equation for the entire sample (%BF HW = 0.937%BF ADP - 0.452, r(2) = 0.73, standard error of estimates (SEE) = 3.34) did not differ from the line of identity. In contrast, the line of identity differed significantly from the regression equation for the lean subset of female athletes (%BF HW = 0.48%BF ADP + 6.115, r(2) = 0.41, SEE = 2.18). The results of this investigation indicate that ADP significantly overestimated %BF by 8% in female athletes and by 16% for a leaner subset of the sample compared with HW. It appears that %BF estimates by SF may be more accurate than those obtained by ADP for female college athletes, regardless of body composition. Coaches and trainers evaluating body composition should consider the use of SF before ADP when measuring %BF in female college athletes. Sports scientists should continue to examine the possible gender and body composition bias for ADP.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1519/00124278-200211000-00018

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Authors
VESCOVI, J. D., HILDEBRANDT, L., MILLER, W., HAMMER, R., & SPILLER, A.
Affiliations
  • George Washington University (US)
  • Central Michigan University (US)
Venue
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Published
2002-11
Volume
16
Issue
4
Pages
599-605
ISSN
1064-8011 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1996306223
Cited by
47
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 4
FWCI
1.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Body Composition Measurement Techniques
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Orthopedics and Sports Medicine › Sports Performance and Training
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Physical Education and Training Studies
Keywords
body fat percentage, air displacement plethysmography, BOD POD, hydrostatic weighing, skinfold thickness, body composition assessment, measurement accuracy, female collegiate athletes, lean body mass
MeSH terms
Adult, Analysis of Variance, Anthropometry, Body Composition, Body Weight, Female, Humans, Obesity, Plethysmography, Probability, Respiratory Function Tests, Sampling Studies, Sensitivity and Specificity, Skinfold Thickness, Sports, Body Mass Index

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