Utility of ultrasound for body fat assessment: validity and reliability compared to a multicompartment criterion

Authors

  • Abbie E. Smith-Ryan,

    Corresponding author
    1. Applied Physiology Laboratory, Department of Exercise and Sport Science, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
    2. Human Movement Sciences, Department of Allied Health Science, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
    • Correspondence

      Abbie E. Smith-Ryan, Applied Physiology Laboratory, Department of Exercise and Sport Science, University of North Carolina, 209 Fetzer Hall, CB#8700, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA

      E-mail: abbiesmith@unc.edu

    Search for more papers by this author
  • Malia N. M. Blue,

    1. Applied Physiology Laboratory, Department of Exercise and Sport Science, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Eric T. Trexler,

    1. Applied Physiology Laboratory, Department of Exercise and Sport Science, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
    2. Human Movement Sciences, Department of Allied Health Science, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Katie R. Hirsch

    1. Applied Physiology Laboratory, Department of Exercise and Sport Science, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
    2. Human Movement Sciences, Department of Allied Health Science, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
    Search for more papers by this author

Summary

Measurement of body composition to assess health risk and prevention is expanding. Accurate portable techniques are needed to facilitate use in clinical settings. This study evaluated the accuracy and repeatability of a portable ultrasound (US) in comparison with a four-compartment criterion for per cent body fat (%Fat) in overweight/obese adults. Fifty-one participants (mean ± SD; age: 37·2 ± 11·3 years; BMI: 31·6 ± 5·2 kg m−2) were measured for %Fat using US (GE Logiq-e) and skinfolds. A subset of 36 participants completed a second day of the same measurements, to determine reliability. US and skinfold %Fat were calculated using the seven-site Jackson–Pollock equation. The Wang 4C model was used as the criterion method for %Fat. Compared to a gold standard criterion, US %Fat (36·4 ± 11·8%; P = 0·001; standard error of estimate [SEE] = 3·5%) was significantly higher than the criterion (33·0 ± 8·0%), but not different than skinfolds (35·3 ± 5·9%; P = 0·836; SEE = 4·5%). US resulted in good reliability, with no significant differences from Day 1 (39·95 ± 15·37%) to Day 2 (40·01 ± 15·42%). Relative consistency was 0·96, and standard error of measure was 0·94%. Although US overpredicted %Fat compared to the criterion, a moderate SEE for US is suggestive of a practical assessment tool in overweight individuals. %Fat differences reported from these field-based techniques are less than reported by other single-measurement laboratory methods and therefore may have utility in a clinical setting. This technique may also accurately track changes.

Ancillary