'
Measures of Body Fat and Related Factors in Normal Adults --H]
1303
!
Vy
|:
Bi=biiliac diameter.
Hf =height in inches.
rmula:
|
iy
:
b=partial regression coefficient of weight with L, Bi and H.
7.
Chis is based on
ge.
Moore ef al. [10]. Body weight, age, sex and assumption of hydration factor
of 0.73 for bodyfat-free tissue.
Body fat= Body weight — (Total body water) /0.73
The equations for calculation of total body water (TBW) together with
ge of 4 skinfold
numberof subjects on which equations were based follow.
Males, 16-30 yr
(63): TBW=13.26+0.404 body wt in kg
‘er, upper arm
sed on data for
1885 biacromial
of subcutaneous
ristal diameter,
nce.)
{ stature. This
ig his reference
mference
meter,
was
From
she developed
riables.
Females, 31-90 yr (34): TBW= 8.84+0.331 body wt in kg
Table 8 presents the correlation coefficients obtained from the present anthropometric data calculated by the above seven formulas and the appropriate observed
value.
TABLE 8,
CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS OF DETERMINED WITH PREDICTED VARIABLE
Investigator
Younc [15]
Variable predicted
% body fat
Category
I
(n=35}
Category Category Category Category
II
(n=34)
CHINN and ALLEN[16]
Hurt [17]
Total body fat
Fat-free body wt
0.196
0.896
—0.065
0.751
HECHTER [19]
Total body wt
0.938
0.944
Brozek [18]
Pryor [21]
Moore ef al. [10]
Total body wt
Total body wt
Total body fat
0.776
0.708
0.726
WH
IV
(n=33)
(n=31)
0.680
0.839
0.582
0.779
0.807
0.672
0.707
0.645
0.857
0.607
0.959
v
(n=34)
0.298
0.851
0.839
0.946
0.777
0.773
Although the Younc formula (No. 1) was based on body density for women aged
17-30 years, the correlation coefficient with observed values for the older women
(category IV) was greater than for the younger women (category III). Only a
partial explanation may be made on the basis of the use of a different standard
weight table. At the extremes of height, the Build and Biood Pressure table differs
by one pound less for the shortest and by one pound morefor the tallest women
from the weights given in HaATHAway and Foarp’s table [8]. The range of height
for category III, however, was less than for category [V: 153.2-—174.9 cm as compared to 146.0—181.0 cm. YOUNG’s group averaged 167.5+6.03 cm. YOUNG’s
reference group was found by densitometry to average 28.69 + 4.856 per cent of body
weight as fat. Corresponding values determined by TBW-body density for our
category HI were 30.89 + 6.1 and for category IV, 35.70 + 5.7.
CHINN and ALLEN’s formula (No. 2) for predicting body fat gave low or negative
correlations with determined body fat. Probably this is in part related to the high
percentage of Oriental and young menin the reference group. Thecorrelations were
neter for our
not significant.
It was expected that Hunt’s formula (No. 3) would have good predictive value
since waist circumference and weight were found to have high correlation coefficients
with body fat in kg (Table 4). For categories I and V, predicted ‘fat-free body
ote ee tee raecanine talarsincny MBbantaneibaiien hah SM we
ula.
Poop,
hie
weight, was not
DaiD
iisseetaapnoeryeinepeteeBaeer 2Saat
, based on two
ec cua
as aay “ebbPEE,9S.SORedMaas 28aE
Males, 31-60 yr
(56): TBW=11.03+ 0.397 body wt in kg
Females, 16-30 yr (54): TBW=11.634+0.318 body wt in kg