•  
  •  
 

Abstract

The United States (US) Army currently uses circumference measurements (with body mass index, BMI) to estimate body fat (BF) composition in soldiers. While this current system is easy to administer, it has been shown to have poor validity compared to other modern body composition assessment techniques, such as air displacement plethysmography (BodPod). Specifically, circumference/BMI measures do not account for different body types, especially among female soldiers. PURPOSE: This study aimed to compare 1) body composition measures in US Army Soldiers (BF% via circumferences vs BodPod) and 2) differences in BF% between males and females. We hypothesized there would be significant differences in BF% a) reported between the two measures and b) between males and females. METHODS: Data were collected from active-duty soldiers (n=20; 11 males, 9 females) from several US Army units. This cross-sectional study used circumference/BMI BF data from both male and female Soldiers and compared the results to their BF reported via BodPod. RESULTS: Soldier’s mean BF% was 24.9±1.5 (mean±SE) for circumference measures and 25.6±1.9 for the BodPod. Contrary to our first hypothesis, a paired t-test showed no difference between the two measures (t(19) = -519, p = 0.609 with a small effect of d = -0.12). An ANOVA investigated the overall difference between measures and sex; it was noted that there was a difference in BF% only between males and females for circumferences (20.7±4.2 vs 29.9±5.0), but none for BodPod (23.7±6.8 vs 28.0±10.0). Results showed a main effect for sex (p = 0.003), but no significant main effect for measurement type (p = 0.818) and no interaction between sex and measurement type (p = 0.266). We also found that within the sexes, there was a tendency for circumference measurements to underestimate male and overestimate female BF%. CONCLUSION: The US Army has been using circumference measures to assess body composition for over one hundred years, and our data suggests that females may be at a disadvantage using this method compared to males. Since this data was collected from a unique sample which was also smaller in size, future research should include a larger sample size with equal representation of males and females.

Download

Share

COinS
 
 

To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.