BACKGROUND: Physical activity, exercise, and nutritional interventions are used to reduce the risk of chronic disease linked to excessive adiposity. Health professionals overseeing, or individuals autonomously using, these interventions have access to many different easy to use and widely available field assessments to track percent body fat (%BF). A newer commercially available bioelectrical impedance (BIA) device, Skulpt Chisel™, offers a unique multi-site full body approach to estimating %BF that overcomes the segmental restrictions of the upper-body (Omron™) and lower-body (Tanita™) only BIA devices. PURPOSE: The primary aim of this investigation was to compare the Skulpt Chisel™, Omron™, and Tanita™ BIA field devices against the InBody 520™, a whole-body multi-frequency BIA laboratory-based analyzer. METHODS: Twenty-six adults (25±4 years; BMI 23±3 kg∙m-2), thirteen male and thirteen female, were assessed using the Skulpt Chisel™, Omron™, Tanita™, and InBody 520™ in a randomized sequence. All body composition assessments were completed during one visit with participants instructed to remain hydrated the day before and day of assessment, perform a four-hour fast, refrain from alcohol for 24 hours, exercise for 12 hours, and caffeine 15 minutes prior to body composition assessments on the day of testing. RESULTS: A significant bias for underestimation (F1,24 = 4.634, R2 = 0.162, p = 0.042) and a significant mean difference (t25 = -3.41, MD = -2.4±3.6%, p = 0.002, Cohen’s d = -0.67) were found comparing the Omron™ to the InBody 520™. Bland-Altman limit of agreement (LOA) plots for the Skulpt Chisel™ minus the InBody 520™ were 13.97% for the upper bound (UB) and -10.1% for the lower bound (LB), 14.1% (UB) and -12.2% (LB) for the Tanita™ minus the InBody 520™, and for the Omron™ minus InBody 520™ the UB was 4.62% with a LB of -9.41%. CONCLUSION: At the group level the Omron™ shows an underestimation of %BF compared to the InBody 520™, however, at the individual level the Omron™ provides the best predictive estimate of %BF for the InBody 520™ method relative to the Tanita™ and Skulpt Chisel™. In contrast to the Omron™, the Tanita™ and Skulpt Chisel™ at group level means were similar to the InBody 520™ yet these devices at the individual level provided poor predictive estimates of %BF for the InBody 520™ due to unacceptably large LOAs.

This document is currently not available here.