CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 196Body Composition Measurement TechniquesSports Performance and TrainingBone health and osteoporosis research

Come Back Skinfolds, All Is Forgiven: A Narrative Review of the Efficacy of Common Body Composition Methods in Applied Sports Practice

Open access
Kasper, Andreas M., Langan-Evans, Carl, Hudson, James F., Brownlee, Thomas E., Harper, Liam D., Naughton, Robert J., Morton, James P., Close, Graeme L.·2021·Nutrients
DOI 10.3390/nu13041075PMC PMC8065383
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Whilst the assessment of body composition is routine practice in sport, there remains considerable debate on the best tools available, with the chosen technique often based upon convenience rather than understanding the method and its limitations. The aim of this manuscript was threefold: (1) provide an overview of the common methodologies used within sport to measure body composition, specifically hydro-densitometry, air displacement plethysmography, bioelectrical impedance analysis and spectroscopy, ultra-sound, three-dimensional scanning, dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) and skinfold thickness; (2) compare the efficacy of what are widely believed to be the most accurate (DXA) and practical (skinfold thickness) assessment tools and (3) provide a framework to help select the most appropriate assessment in applied sports practice including insights from the authors’ experiences working in elite sport. Traditionally, skinfold thickness has been the most popular method of body composition but the use of DXA has increased in recent years, with a wide held belief that it is the criterion standard. When bone mineral content needs to be assessed, and/or when it is necessary to take limb-specific estimations of fat and fat-free mass, then DXA appears to be the preferred method, although it is crucial to be aware of the logistical constraints required to produce reliable data, including controlling food intake, prior exercise and hydration status. However, given the need for simplicity and after considering the evidence across all assessment methods, skinfolds appear to be the least affected by day-to-day variability, leading to the conclusion ‘come back skinfolds, all is forgiven’.

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 · 10.3390/nu13041075

Cites

93 of 93 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?

  • Some easy-to-use body composition methods are 'doubly indirect', relying on regression equations to derive a body fat per cent; they do not provide valid data, use spurious assumptions and/or are influenced greatly by athlete presentation (eg, hydration levels).

    “Some easy-to-use methods are 'doubly indirect', relying on regression equations to derive a body fat per cent; they do not provide valid data, use spurious assumptions and/ or are influenced greatly by athlete presentation (eg, hydration levels).136”

    From 2023 international olympic committee's (IOC) consensus statement on relative energy deficiency in sport (REDs) (2023) · cites this paper as [136]

    Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • DXA, although considered the gold standard method, has limitations that can affect calculations of measurements, such as subject dimensions, high economic cost, experience needed, and software updates.

    “In relation to DXA, although it is considered the gold standard method, it has limitations that can affect the calculations of the measurements, such as the dimensions of the subject to be analyzed (both in height and width), the high economic cost, the experience needed for processing and interpreting the results, or software updates with new algorithms to calculate body composition [6,8,75,107].”

    From Body Composition of Male Professional Soccer Players Using Different Measurement Methods: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (2023) · cites this paper as [8]

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

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [91]Norton K. Olds T. Dolman J. Kinanthropometry VI: Proceedings of the sixth scientific conference of the International Society for the Advancement of Kinanthropometry. Adelaide, 13–16 October 1998 Available online: https://trove.nla.gov.au/nbdid/22043824 (accessed on 22 February 2021)

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Kasper, A. M., Langan-Evans, C., Hudson, J. F., Brownlee, T. E., Harper, L. D., Naughton, R. J., Morton, J. P., & Close, G. L.
Affiliations
  • Liverpool John Moores University (GB)
  • Research Institute for Sport and Exercise Sciences, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool L3 3AF, UK
  • University of Huddersfield (GB)
Corresponding author
Close, Graeme L.
ORCID
Venue
Nutrients
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2021-03-25
Volume
13
Issue
4
Pages
1075
ISSN
2072-6643 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3390/nu13041075
PMC
PMC8065383
OpenAlex
W3135987593
Cited by
196
References
93
Citations by year
2026: 32 · 2025: 36 · 2024: 32 · 2023: 49 · 2022: 29 · 2021: 18
FWCI
4.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Nutrients (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Liverpool John Moores University (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Huddersfield Research Portal (University of Huddersfield) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • University of Birmingham Research Portal (University of Birmingham) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Body Composition Measurement Techniques
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Orthopedics and Sports Medicine › Sports Performance and Training
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Orthopedics and Sports Medicine › Bone health and osteoporosis research
Keywords
body composition assessment, skinfold thickness, dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry, air displacement plethysmography, bioelectrical impedance analysis, hydrodensitometry, ultrasound, 3D scanning, bone mineral content, day-to-day variability, method comparison, elite sport
MeSH terms
Body Composition, Densitometry, Humans, Plethysmography, Skinfold Thickness, Spectrum Analysis, Sports, Ultrasonography, Reproducibility of Results, Absorptiometry, Photon, Electric Impedance, Athletes

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