Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Nutrition and Health (including climate and ecological aspects)

Validity of a 3-compartment body composition model using body volume derived from a novel 2-dimensional image analysis program

Abstract

Background/Objectives

The purpose of this study was: (1) to compare body volume (BV) estimated from a 2-dimensional (2D) image analysis program (BVIMAGE), and a dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) equation (BVDXA-Smith-Ryan) to an underwater weighing (UWW) criterion (BVUWW); (2) to compare relative adiposity (%Fat) derived from a 3-compartment (3C) model using BVIMAGE (%Fat3C-IMAGE), and a 4-compartment (4C) model using BVDXA-Smith-Ryan (%Fat4C-DXA-Smith-Ryan) to a 4C criterion model using BVUWW (%Fat4C-UWW).

Subject/Methods

Forty-eight participants were included (60% male, 22.9 ± 5.0 years, 24.2 ± 2.6 kg/m2). BVIMAGE was derived using a single digital image of each participant taken from the rear/posterior view. DXA-derived BV was calculated according to Smith-Ryan et al. Bioimpedance spectroscopy and DXA were used to measure total body water and bone mineral content, respectively, in the 3C and 4C models. A standardized mean effect size (ES) assessed the magnitude of differences between models with values of 0.2, 0.5, and 0.8 for small, moderate, and large differences, respectively. Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation.

Results

Near-perfect correlation (r = 0.998, p < 0.001) and no mean differences (p = 0.267) were observed between BVIMAGE (69.6 ± 11.5 L) and BVUWW (69.5 ± 11.4 L). No mean differences were observed between %Fat4C-DXA-Smith-Ryan and the %Fat4C-UWW criterion (p = 0.988). Small mean differences were observed between %Fat3C-IMAGE and %Fat4C-UWW (ES = 0.2, p < 0.001). %Fat3C-IMAGE exhibited smaller SEE and TE, and tighter limits of agreement than %Fat4C-DXA-Smith-Ryan.

Conclusions

The 2D image analysis program provided an accurate and non-invasive estimate of BV, and subsequently %Fat within a 3C model in generally healthy, young adults.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Bland–Altman plot of the difference between relative adiposity (%Fat) measured by the 3-compartment image-based model (%Fat3C-IMAGE) and the 4-compartment underwater weighing criterion method (%Fat4C-UWW).
Fig. 2: Bland–Altman plot of the difference between relative adiposity (%Fat) measured using DXA-derived body volume (%Fat4C-Smith-Ryan) and the 4-compartment underwater weighing criterion method (%Fat4C-UWW).

References

  1. 1.

    Borga M, West J, Bell JD, Harvey NC, Romu T, Heymsfield SB, et al. Advanced body composition assessment: from body mass index to body composition profiling. J Investig Med. 2018;66:1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Dhana K, Kavousi M, Ikram MA, Tiemeier HW, Hofman A, Franco OH. Body shape index in comparison with other anthropometric measures in prediction of total and cause-specific mortality. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2016;70:90–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Jensen MD. Role of body fat distribution and the metabolic complications of obesity. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2008;93:S57–63.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Sternfeld B, Ngo L, Satariano WA, Tager IB. Associations of body composition with physical performance and self-reported functional limitation in elderly men and women. Am J Epidemiol. 2002;156:110–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Hyde PN, Kendall KL, Fairman CM, Coker NA, Yarbrough ME, Rossi SJ. Use of b-mode ultrasound as a body fat estimate in collegiate football players. J Strength Conditioning Res. 2016;30:3525–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Suchomel TJ, Nimphius S, Stone MH. The importance of muscular strength in athletic performance. Sports Med. 2016;46:1419–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Woodrow G. Body composition analysis techniques in the aged adult: Indications and limitations. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care. 2009;12:8–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Sheng HP, Huggins RA. A review of body composition studies with emphasis on total body water and fat. Am J Clin Nutr. 1979;32:630–47.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Forslund AH, Johansson AG, Sjodin A, Bryding G, Ljunghall S, Hambraeus L. Evaluation of modified multicompartment models to calculate body composition in healthy males. Am J Clin Nutr. 1996;63:856–62.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Siri WE. Body composition from fluid spaces and density: analysis of methods. Tech Measuring Body Composition. 1961;61:223–44.

    Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Moon JR. Body composition in athletes and sports nutrition: An examination of the bioimpedance analysis technique. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2013;67:S54–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Wells JC, Fewtrell MS. Measuring body composition. Arch Dis Child. 2006;91:612–7.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Withers RT, LaForgia J, Pillans RK, Shipp NJ, Chatterton BE, Schultz CG, et al. Comparisons of two-, three-, and four-compartment models of body composition analysis in men and women. J Appl Physiol. 1998;85:238–45.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Moon JR, Smith AE, Tobkin SE, Lockwood CM, Kendall KL, Graef JL, et al. Total body water changes after an exercise intervention tracked using bioimpedance spectroscopy: a deuterium oxide comparison. Clin Nutr. 2009;28:516–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Wilson JP, Strauss BJ, Fan B, Duewer FW, Shepherd JA. Improved 4-compartment body-composition model for a clinically accessible measure of total body protein. Am J Clin Nutr. 2013;97:497–504.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Heyward V. ASEP methods recommendation: body composition assessment. J Exerc Physiol Online. 2001;4:1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Smith-Ryan AE, Mock MG, Ryan ED, Gerstner GR, Trexler ET, Hirsch KR. Validity and reliability of a 4-compartment body composition model using dual energy x-ray absorptiometry-derived body volume. Clin Nutr. 2017;36:825–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Nickerson BS, Esco MR, Bishop PA, Kliszczewicz BM, Park KS, Williford HN. Validity of four-compartment model body fat in physically active men and women when using dxa for body volume. Int J Sport Nutr Exerc Metab. 2017;27:520–7.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Nickerson BS, Fedewa MV, McLester CN, McLester JR, Esco MR. Development of a dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry-derived body volume equation in hispanic adults for administering a four-compartment model. Br J Nutr. 2020;123:1373–81.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Wilson JP, Mulligan K, Fan B, Sherman JL, Murphy EJ, Tai VW, et al. Dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry-based body volume measurement for 4-compartment body composition. Am J Clin Nutr. 2012;95:25–31.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Blue MNM, Hirsch KR, Trexler ET, Smith-Ryan AE. Validity of the 4-compartment model using dual energy x-ray absorptiometry-derived body volume in overweight individuals. Appl Physicol Nutr Metab. 2018;43:742–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Fedewa MV, Sullivan K, Hornikel B, Holmes CJ, Metoyer CJ, Esco MR. Accuracy of a mobile 2D imaging system for body volume and subsequent composition estimates in a three-compartment model. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0000000000002550.

  23. 23.

    Fedewa MV, Esco MR. Body composition assessment using two-dimensional digital image analysis. United States Provisional Patent 16/841,944 April 8, 2020.

  24. 24.

    Moon JR, Tobkin SE, Roberts MD, Dalbo VJ, Kerksick CM, Bemben MG, et al. Total body water estimations in healthy men and women using bioimpedance spectroscopy: a deuterium oxide comparison. Nutr Metab. 2008;5:7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Nickerson BS, Tinsley GM, Esco MR. Validity of field and laboratory three-compartment models in healthy adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2019;51:1032–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Heymsfield SB, Wang J, Heshka S, Kehayias JJ, Pierson RN. Dual-photon absorptiometry: comparison of bone mineral and soft tissue mass measurements in vivo with established methods. Am J Clin Nutr. 1989;49:1283–9.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Wang Z, Shen W, Withers RT, and Heymsfield SB. Multicomponent molecular-level models of body composition analysis. Champaign, IL: HumanKinetics, 2005.

  28. 28.

    Heyward VH, Stolarczyk LM. Applied body composition assessment. Champaign, IL. Human Kinetics, 1996.

  29. 29.

    Cohen J. A power primer. Psychol Bull. 1992;112:155–9.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    McBride G. A proposal for strength-of-agreement criteria for lin’s concordance correlation coefficient. NIWA Client Rep. 2005;062:62.

    Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Lipsey MW, Wilson DB. Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE publications, Inc; 2001.

  32. 32.

    Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986;1:307–10.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Moon JR, Tobkin SE, Walter AA, Smith AE, Beck TW, Cramer JT, et al. A simplified method for estimating body volume in men and women using digital image plethysmography (dip): 1667. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2008;40:S270–S1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Esco MR, Nickerson BS, Fedewa MV, Moon JR, Snarr RL. A novel method of utilizing skinfolds and bioimpedance for determining body fat percentage via a field-based three-compartment model. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2018;72:1431–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Tinsley GM, Rodriguez C, White SJ, Williams AD, Stratton MT, Harty PS. A field-based three-compartment model derived from ultrasonography and bioimpedance for estimating body composition changes. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2021;53:658–667.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Wagner DR, Heyward VH. Techniques of body composition assessment: a review of laboratory and field methods. Res Q Exerc Sport. 1999;70:135–49.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Lohman TG. Skinfolds and body density and their relation to body fatness: a review. Hum Biol. 1981;53:181–225.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Kispert CP, Merrifield HH. Interrater reliability of skinfold fat measurements. Phys Ther. 1987;67:917–20.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    McLester CN, Nickerson BS, Kliszczewicz BM, Hicks CS, Williamson CM, Bechke EE, et al. Validity of dxa body volume equations in a four-compartment model for adults with varying body mass index and waist circumference classifications. PLoS ONE. 2018;13:e0206866.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Tinsley GM. Reliability and agreement between dxa-derived body volumes and their usage in 4-compartment body composition models produced from dxa and bia values. J Sports Sci. 2018;36:1235–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

Conception and design: MRE and MVF. Collection and assembly of data: KS, BH, CJH, and MVF. Data analysis and interpretation: KS, MRE, and MVF. Manuscript writing/revisions: KS, BH, CJH, MRE, and MVF. Final approval of manuscript: KS, BH, CJH, MRE, and MVF.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael V. Fedewa.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

MRE and MVF are co-inventors of the novel 2-dimensional image analysis system (US Utility Patent 16/841,944) which was developed as part of their ongoing research at the University of Alabama. Funding for the development of the 2-Dimensional Image Analysis Program, as well as for other laboratory equipment used in this study was provided by the University of Alabama. The University of Alabama is listed as the owner of the patent, where MRE and MVF were employed at the time of publication of this manuscript. MRE and MVF are co-owners of made Health and Fitness LLC, to which the patent is licensed for commercial use. The results of the current study do not constitute endorsement of the product by the authors. KS, BH, and CJH declare no potential conflicts of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sullivan, K., Hornikel, B., Holmes, C.J. et al. Validity of a 3-compartment body composition model using body volume derived from a novel 2-dimensional image analysis program. Eur J Clin Nutr (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41430-021-00899-1

Download citation

Search

Quick links