tesch et al. (2010)

7/24/2019 Tesch Et Al. (2010)

1/5

Training & Testing704

Tseh W et al. Validity and Reliability of the BOD POD S/T Tracking Int J Sports Med 2010; 31: 704708

accepted after revision

May 29, 2010

Bibliography

DOI http://dx.doi.org/

10.1055/s-0030-1255111

Published online:

July 8, 2010

Int J Sports Med 2010; 31:

704708 Georg ThiemeVerlag KG Stuttgart New York

ISSN 0172-4622

Correspondence

Dr. Wayland Tseh

University of North Carolina

Wilmington

Health and Applied Human

Sciences

601 South College Road

28403-5956 Wilmington

United States

Tel.: + 1/910/962 2484

Fax: + 1/910/962 7073

[email protected]

Key words

percent body fat

overestimation

bod pod

Validity and Reliability of the BOD POD S/T TrackingSystem

Although the BOD POD has been tested for reli-

ability and for validity against several criterion

assessment tools [3, 4, 8, 14, 15, 19, 20, 21, 23], an

offshoot of the original BOD POD, the BOD POD

self-testing (S/T) body composition tracking sys-

tem, has received little research attention. The

BOD POD S/T, which utilizes identical air dis-

placement technology as the BOD POD, is an

assessment tool primarily used within commer-

cial and/or health and fitness venues. The distinct

advantage of the BOD POD S/T compared to the

original BOD POD is a self-testing capability.Specifically, individuals are able to conduct their

own body composition assessment without the

aid of a trained operator. A computer-generated

voice provides detailed, step-by-step verbal

instructions to the individual sitting within the

egg-shaped chamber throughout the assessment.

Moreover, Life Measurement Incorporated has

designed a user-friendly handle within the inte-

rior of the chamber to allow individuals to easily

and comfortably open and close the door to the

chamber when instructed to do so. From a tech-

nical standpoint, the BOD POD S/T system pre-

dicts participants thoracic gas volumes once age

IntroductionBody composition assessment provides valuable

knowledge and information to both practitioners

and clinicians. Practically, the information

extracted from body composition analyses can

be used to monitor the progression and effective-

ness of a strength training and/or cardiovascular

regime. Further, body composition assessments

help clinicians to monitor weight management

programs for obese patients and clients suffering

from eating disorders. The value of this knowl-edge for those who disseminate and/or receive

this information, however, is only as good as the

validity and reliability of the equipment utilized

to provide the body composition measurement.

The BOD POD, which derives body density by

way of air-displacement plethysmography, pro-

vides clientele with body composition informa-

tion, specifically, pounds of lean body mass and

pounds of fat mass. Compared to other body

composition assessment tools, such as hydro-

static weighing and skinfolds, the BOD POD pro-

vides a comfortable, convenient, quick and easy

alternative means of assessing body composition.

Authors W. Tseh1, J. L. Caputo2, D. J. Keefer3

Affiliations 1Health and Applied Human Sciences, University of North Carolina Wilmington, United States2Department of Health and Human Performance, Middle Tennessee State University, Murfreesboro, United States3Department of Wellness and Sport Sciences, Millersville University, Millersville, United States

Abstract

BOD POD self-testing (S/T) body composi-tion tracking system is a practical assessment

tool designed for use in the health and fitness

industries. Relative to its parent counterpart, the

BOD POD S/T has received little research atten-

tion. The primary purpose was to determine the

validity of the BOD POD S/T against hydrostatic

weighing and 7-site skinfolds. Secondary aim was

to determine the within-day and between-day

reliability of the BOD POD S/T. After a period of

equipment and testing accommodation, volun-

teers (N = 50) body composition ( %BF) via 7-site

skinfolds, BOD POD S/T, and hydrostatic weigh-

ing were obtained on the second and third visits.

BOD POD S/T significantly overestimated %BF

when compared to hydrostatic weighing and 7-site skinfolds. There was no statistical difference

between 7-site skinfolds and hydrostatic weigh-

ing values. BOD POD S/T reliability within-day

and between-days were high. While the BOD

POD S/T body composition tracking system is

deemed reliable both within-day and between-

days, it did significantly overestimate % BF in

comparison to hydrostatic weighing and skin-

folds. Future research should be aimed at deriv-

ing a correction factor for this body composition

assessment tool.

7/24/2019 Tesch Et Al. (2010)

2/5

Training & Testing 705


and height are entered into the computer systems kiosk. As

such, participants do not have to breathe into a tube to obtain a

direct measure of thoracic gas volumes, which makes the BOD

POD S/T system more attractive to a larger population.

Against this backdrop, the primary objectives of this study were

twofold. The first was to determine the validity of the BOD POD

S/T body composition tracking system against the well known

and commonly used assessment tools of hydrostatic weighing

and 7-site skinfold assessment. The secondary purpose of thisstudy was to determine the within-day and between-day relia-

bility of the BOD POD S/T body composition tracking system.

MethodsExperimental approach to the problemThe study protocol involved having each participant complete 3

testing sessions within a 7-day period. In an effort to minimize

intra-individual variability, participants were asked to wear the

same clothing (i. e., form-fitting bathing suit for men and 1-piece

or 2-piece bathing suit for women) for each testing session.

Additionally, to minimize circadian variation, participants werescheduled approximately the same time of day for each of the 3

testing sessions. All testing appointments were made daily

between 8 am and 10 am. Furthermore, subjects were asked to

fast for 12 h and void prior to testing in order to attenuate the

potential influence of food and/or liquid. Details of each testing

session are presented in the following sections.

Day 1: Equipment and testing accommodationThe purpose of this session was to collect baseline anthropomet-

ric data and to familiarize and accommodate participants with

testing instructions, equipment, and procedures. Upon arrival,

body mass and height were collected and recorded by a techni-

cian. Because body moisture has been shown to underestimatepercent body fat ( %BF) from the BOD POD [9], subjects data

were collected in the following order within each of the 3 testing

days: 7-site skinfolds, BOD POD S/T, 7-site skinfolds, BOD POD

S/T, and finally, hydrostatic weighing. In essence, 2 complete 7-

site skinfolds assessments and 2 complete BOD POD S/T meas-

ures were collected, followed by hydrostatic weighing. Lastly,

upon completion of the 2 7-site skinfolds and 2 BOD POD S/T

assessments, participants were provided with detailed instruc-

tions, familiarization, and afforded several practice trials of the

hydrostatic weighing testing procedures in the universitys nata-

torium.

Days 2 and 3: Collection of body composition valuesThe primary aim of Days 2 and 3 were to collect and record par-ticipants body composition via 7-site skinfolds, BOD POD S/T,

and hydrostatic weighing. Procedures for the second and third

sessions were identical to that of Day 1. More specifically, after

body mass was recorded, subjects body composition was

assessed by way of 7-site skinfolds, BOD POD S/T, 7-site skin-

fold, and finally, BOD POD S/T again. Upon completion of the

aforementioned testing modes, participants underwater weight

was quantified and recorded via hydrostatic weighing.

SubjectsParticipants included 25 male (age = 26.5 6.8 yrs; height

= 178.6 7.6 cm; body mass = 78.9 9.7 kg) and 25 female(age = 21.4 2.3 yrs; height = 162.5 7.5 cm; body mass = 59.4

8.6 kg) volunteers. All volunteers signed an informed consent

form, approved by the Universitys Institutional Review Board

for human subject use, prior to participation. Moreover, the

study protocol conformed to the ethical principles set forth by

the Declaration of Helsinki [12]. Volunteers were free from any

known cardiovascular and/or metabolic diseases. Subjects also

met the minimum exercise guidelines with respect to cardiovas-

cular fitness set forth by the American College of Sports Medi-

cine [1].

Equipment and proceduresBody mass and heightBody mass was measured to the nearest tenth of a kilogram

using an electronic scale (Tanita Corporation, Japan) and height

was assessed in centimeters while participants stood barefoot,

with both legs together, against a wall-mounted measuring tape.

Both body mass and height measurements were recorded in

duplicate values. Measurements were then averaged to produce

a single value of each participants body mass and height.

7-site skinfolds assessment

A Harpenden skinfold caliper (Baty International, England), cali-brated daily with a 15.9 mm dowel, was used to measure 7-site

skinfold thicknesses. Participants 7-site skinfolds were assessed

a minimum of 2 times. If measurements were not within 1 mm,

a third measure was taken. Anatomical locations of the 7-site

skinfold, specific measurement techniques, sex-specific 7-site

body density formulas [male body density = 1.1120.00043499

(sum of 7 skinfolds) + 0.00000055 (sum of 7 skinfolds)2

0.00028826 (age); female body density = 1.0970.00046971

(sum of 7 skinfolds) + 0.00000056 (sum of 7 skinfolds)2

0.00012828 (age)], and Siris [(495body density)450] percent

body fat formula was used in accordance with the guidelines set

forth by the American College of Sports Medicine [1].

BOD POD S/T assessmentBOD POD S/T body composition tracking system (Life Measure-

ment Incorporated, USA) was calibrated daily according to manu-

facturers instructions with a 49.368 L cylindrical volume

provided by Life Measurement Incorporated. Specific details

illustrating the technicalities of the calibration mechanism are

published elsewhere [4, 7]. Because different clothing schemes

have been shown to underestimate %BF results from the BOD

POD [10], subjects were instructed to wear the same 1-piece or

2-piece bathing suit for women and the same form-fitted bath-

ing suit for men throughout the study. Additionally, facial hair

has been shown to significantly underestimate %BF results from

the BOD POD

[13]. Therefore, if present, subjects were told by atechnician to maintain the facial hair throughout the course of

the investigation. All participants wore a swim cap provided by

Life Measurement Incorporated. After race, height, and age were

inputted by a technician into the BOD POD S/Ts kiosk, subjects

were asked to step on an electronic scale to determine body

weight to the nearest 0.045 kg. Once body mass was recorded by

the BOD POD S/T system, participants were instructed to sit

comfortably and breathe normally within the BOD POD S/T

chamber for 3 trials lasting 50 s per trial. Once the third trial was

recorded, results via Siris percent body fat formula were imme-

diately displayed on the kiosk viewer and recorded by a techni-

cian. This procedure was performed twice on each day.

7/24/2019 Tesch Et Al. (2010)

3/5



Hydrostatic weighing assessmentParticipants were hydrostatically weighed in the Universitys

natatorium. While in the natatorium, a technician provided the

volunteers both verbal instructions and a visual demonstration

of the hydrostatic weighing technique. Participants entered the

pool and removed all air bubbles from the swimsuit and body

hair and were afforded several practice trials by submerging

themselves and maximally exhaling all the air out of their lungs

while grasping onto the side of the pool deck. Once subjectswere comfortable with the technique, volunteers sat in a sub-

merged chair suspended by a Chatillon autopsy scale (Kew Gar-

dens, USA). At the discretion of the participant, subjects

completely submerged under water, maximally exhaled all the

air from the lungs, and held as still as possible for approximately

57 s. Once complete stillness was established and no further air

bubbles were exhaled, a technician collected and recorded par-

ticipants underwater weights to the nearest 0.025 kg until a

minimum of 3 values were all within a tenth of a kilogram. The

heaviest underwater body mass, calculated residual volume [RV

for men = (0.017 age) + (0.06858 height in inches)3.447; RV

for women = (0.009 age) + (0.08128 height in inches)3.9],

and water temperature were subsequently placed into a formulato calculate body density, then placed into Siris equation to

derive percent body fat values [1, 17].

Statistical analysesBecause Day 1 was used solely to familiarize and accommodate

participants to testing instructions, equipment, and procedures,

data collected and recorded from this particular session were

not used in any of the statistical analyses. Within Days 2 and 3,

there were two 7-site skinfold measurements, 2 BOD POD S/T

assessments, and 1 hydrostatic weighing value, thereby provid-

ing a total of four 7-site skinfold measurements, 4 BOD POD S/T

assessments, and 2 hydrostatic weighing values for each partici-

pant. Within-day diff

erences in %BF values between Trial 1 andTrial 2 within Day 2 and Day 3 amongst the 2 body composition

assessment techniques (7-site skinfold and BOD POD S/T) were

determined by way of repeated-measures analysis of variance

(ANOVA). Because there was no statistical significance between

Trials 1 and 2 within Days 2 and 3, respectively, Trials 1 and 2

values were averaged to provide a single value for each day.

Between-day differences in %BF values between Day 2 and Day 3

amongst the 3 body composition assessment modes (7-site skin-

fold, BOD POD S/T, and hydrostatic weighing) were determined

via repeated-measures ANOVA. Data analyses revealed no differ-

ences in %BF between Day 2 and Day 3 for each modality;

therefore, %BF values for each mode were collapsed and placed

into subsequent analyses. All statistical analyses were performedseparately for males and females. For all data analyses, statistical

significance was established at p < 0.05.

ValidityDifferences in mean %BF values among the 7-site skinfolds, BOD

POD S/T, and hydrostatic weighing techniques were analyzed

using repeated-measures ANOVA. If differences existed, a Tukey

Honestly Significant Difference (HSD) post-hoc test was used to

specifically locate the difference(s) amongst the 3 assessment

modes. Moreover, if differences were detected, effect size (ES)

was calculated to determine meaningfulness of difference(s).

ReliabilityWithin-day reliability of %BF values between Trial 1 and Trial 2

within Day 2 and Day 3, respectively, amongst the 3 body com-

position techniques were determined using intra-class correla-

tion (R1) coeffi cient values. Lastly, Pearson product-moment

correlation coeffi cients (r) were calculated to determine the

relationships among the 7-site skinfolds, BOD POD S/T, and

hydrostatic weighing.

Results

ValidityResults of the repeated-measures ANOVA for both males andfemales are displayed in Table 1. Statistical analyses revealed

significant difference in %BF values amongst the 3 modes of

body composition techniques. Tukey HSD revealed that mean

BOD POD S/T %BF values were significantly higher than both

mean 7-site skinfolds and mean hydrostatic weighing %BF val-

ues. There were, however, no statistical differences between

mean 7-site skinfolds and mean hydrostatic weighing %BF val-

ues. The effect size calculated between BOD POD S/T and hydro-

static weighing was 0.62, whereas the ES calculated between

BOD POD S/T and 7-site skinfolds assessment was 0.52.

Reliability Table 2 illustrates within-day reliability %BF values between

Trial 1 and Trial 2 for Day 2 and Day 3, respectively, for both men

and women. As shown in Table 2, there were no significant

Table 1 Mean percent body fat values for BOD POD S/T, 7-site skinfolds,

and hydrostatic weighing for males and females.

Mode Males

(Mean SD)

Females

(Mean SD)

BOD POD S/T ( %) 17.6 6.7a 27.9 6.5a

7-site skinfolds ( %) 13.1 4.5b 22.5 4.5b

hydrostatic weighing ( %) 11.6 5.4 21.8 5.0ap < 0.05; BOD POD S/T statistically different from 7-site skinfolds and hydrostatic

weighingbp > 0.05; 7-site skinfolds not statistically different from hydrostatic weighing

Table 2 Within-day comparison

of percent body fat and reliability

values obtained from the BOD

POD S/T and 7-site skinfolds

technique for males and females.

Day 2 Day 3

Mode Trial 1 Trial 2 R1 Trial 1 Trial 2 R1

males

BOD POD S/T ( %) 17.4 6.8 17.2 6.9a 0.992 17.2 6.7 17.8 6.7b 0.994

7-site skinfolds ( %) 13.1 4.5 13.0 4.5a 0.999 13.3 4.7 13.1 4.3b 0.998

females

BOD POD S/T ( %) 27.3 6.5 27.7 6.5a 0.998 27.1 6.6 27.5 6.7b 0.991

7-site skinfolds ( %) 22.5 4.1 22.3 4.6a 0.998 22.4 4.5 22.2 4.8b 0.999

a

p > 0.05; Day 2 Trial 2 not statistically different from Day 2 Trial 1bp > 0.05; Day 3 Trial 2 not statistically different from Day 3 Trial 1

7/24/2019 Tesch Et Al. (2010)

4/5

Training & Testing 707


within-day differences for 7-site skinfolds and the BOD POD S/T

assessment. Additionally, intra-class correlation coefficient val-

ues for the 7-site skinfolds and BOD POD S/T within Day 2 and

Day 3 were reliable (see Table 2). Consequently, given no sig-

nificant differences and the high degree of reliability between

Trials 1 and 2, all %BF values were collapsed to produce a respec-

tive mean %BF value for the 7-site skinfolds and BOD POD S/T

modes and placed into further analysis to calculate between-day

differences and reliability between Days 2 and 3.

There were no signifi

cant between-day %BF diff

erences for Day2 and Day 3 for each of the 3 body composition modes, respec-

tively (see Table 3), for both males and females. Between-day

intra-class correlation coeffi cient value for Days 2 and 3 for 7-

site skinfolds, BOD POD S/T, and hydrostatic weighing were

reliable. Subsequently, %BF values for Day 2 and Day 3 were

averaged to produce a mean %BF value for each body composi-

tion modality.

As illustrated in Table 4, Pearson product-moment correlation

coefficients revealed a strong, positive relationship between

mean BOD POD S/T %BF values and both mean 7-site skinfolds

and mean hydrostatic weighing %BF values, respectively, for

both men and women.

DiscussionThe primary purpose of this investigation was to determine the

validity of the BOD POD S/T body composition tracking system

against 2 well-known, commonly used assessment tools, while

the secondary purpose was to determine the within-day and

between-day reliability of the BOD POD S/T body composition

tracking system. Overall, with respect to men, the BOD POD S/T

statistically overestimated participants %BF values by + 6.0 %

and + 4.5 % compared to the hydrostatic weighing and 7-site

skinfolds, respectively. Similarly, in regards to women, the BOD

POD

S/T statistically overestimated participants %BF by + 6.1 %and + 5.4 % compared to hydrostatic weighing and 7-site skin-

folds, respectively. The BOD POD S/T, however, provided

reliable %BF values within- and between-days amongst the sam-

ple male and female subjects.

Generally, findings from the current study both contrast [3, 4]

and concur [14, 20, 21] with the literature examining the validity

and reliability values between the BOD POD and other forms of

body composition assessment tools (e. g., hydrodensitometry

and skinfolds). While the authors of this paper could specifically

reiterate the vast comparative BOD POD

literature [2, 5,6, 11, 16, 22], this would, however, not serve to support the impe-

tus of the investigation, which was to determine the validity and

reliability of the BOD POD S/T assessment tool, not its parent-

counterpart, the BOD POD. Moreover, while both BOD POD S/T

and BOD POD are fairly similar principally and mechanistically,

there are distinct differences (e. g., self-testing capabilities and

estimated thoracic gas volumes) that make each model inher-

ently unique, therefore would provide ineffective conclusions if

the findings from the current study were compared with the

multitude of findings with previously-conducted BOD POD

investigations.

ValidityAs displayed in Table 1, the BOD POD S/T significantlyoverestimated %BF values when compared to both hydrostatic

weighing and 7-site skinfolds techniques. There was, however,

no difference in %BF values between the hydrostatic weighing

and 7-site skinfolds techniques for both men and women. As

mentioned in the previous sections, the ES was calculated to

determine the meaningfulness of the differences found within

the current study. The effect size calculated between BOD POD

S/T and hydrostatic weighing was 0.62, whereas the ES calcu-

lated between BOD POD S/T and 7-site skinfolds assessment

was 0.52. According to Thomas and Nelson [18], an ES less than

0.20 is small, 0.50 is medium, and greater than 0.80 is large. In

the current study, with an ES ranging 0.520.62, this suggeststhat the meaningfulness of the differences between the BOD

POD S/T compared to hydrostatic weighing and 7-site skinfolds

are deemed medium to large. As such, because the BOD POD

S/T overestimated both men and women %BF values by approxi-

mately 46 %, the magnitude of this overestimation is quite

meaningful.

ReliabilityAs displayed in Table 2, the reliability of the BOD POD S/T

within Days 2 and 3 yielded a reliability coefficient of 0.992 and

0.994, respectively, for men, whereas for women, 0.998 and

0.991, respectively, for Days 2 and 3. Similarly, the reliability

coeffi

cient between Days 2 and 3 for men and women was 0.996and 0.995, respectively, as shown in Table 3. With that stated,

these data suggest that the BOD POD S/T is a reliable assess-

ment tool both within- and between-days.

Practical ApplicationsViewed in concert, the BOD POD S/T body composition tracking

system, an offshoot of the BOD POD, is an assessment tool that

is practicably and feasibly designed for the health/fitness indus-

try. Results of the study revealed that this particular BOD POD

S/T body composition tracking system is deemed reliable both

within-day and between-days, however, %BF was overestimatedin comparison to both hydrostatic weighing and skinfolds. Given

Table 3 Between-day comparison of mean percent body fat and reliability

values obtained from the BOD POD S/T, 7-site skinfolds, and hydrostatic

weighing techniques for males and females.

Mode Day 2 Day 3 R1

males

BOD POD S/T ( %) 17.3 6.9 17.5 6.7a 0.996

7-site skinfolds ( %) 13.1 4.2 13.2 4.5a 0.991

hydrostatic weighing ( %) 11.6 5.4 11.5 6.0a 0.993

females

BOD POD S/T ( %) 27.5 6.5 27.3 6.7a 0.995

7-site skinfolds ( %) 22.6 4.5 22.4 4.7a 0.997

hydrostatic weighing ( %) 22.1 5.3 21.7 5.0a 0.987

ap > 0.05; Day 3 not statistically different from Day 2

Table 4 Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients between mean

percent body fat values for BOD POD S/T and mean 7-site skinfolds and

hydrostatic weighing techniques for males and females.

Variable

Males

BOD POD S/T

Females

BOD POD S/T

7-site skinfolds 0.89a 0.87a

hydrostatic weighing 0.81a 0.93aap < 0.05

7/24/2019 Tesch Et Al. (2010)

5/5



these aforementioned findings, caution should be warranted in

applying the results of this investigation. More specifically, the

findings from this study should not be generalized to suggest

that all BOD PODS/T systems are reliable and/or overestimate %BF

amongst individuals. In fact, it is highly recommended and pru-

dent that fitness directors and/or owners of this particular model

conduct their own investigation to determine the extent to

which their specific model is valid and/or reliable. With all that

said, ongoing research is being conducted within our lab todetermine whether an overall correction factor or a sex-specific

correction factor is necessary to amend the overestimation

of %BF by the BOD POD S/T body composition tracking system.

References1 ACSMs Guidelines for Exercise Testing and Prescription. Philadelphia,

PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2007

2 ClarosG, HullHR, FieldsDA. Comparison of air displacement plethys-mography to hydrostatic weighing for estimating total body densityin children. BMC Pediatr 2005; 5 : 3745

3 CollinsMA, Millard-StaffordML, EvansEM,SnowTK, RosskopfLB, Cure-tonKJ. Validation of air displacement plethysmography for examiningbody fat in young adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1998; 30: S146

4 Collins MA, Millard-Stafford ML, Sparling PB, Snow TK, Rosskopf LB,

WebbSA, OmerJ. Evaluation of the BOD POD for assessing body fat incollegiate football players. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1999; 31: 13501356

5 CollinsAL,SaundersS, MccarthyHD, WilliamsJE, FullerNJ. Within- andbetween-laboratory precision in the measurement of body volume

using air displacement plethysmography and its effect on body com-position assessment. Int J Obes Metab Disord 2004; 28: 8090

6 DemerathEW, GuoSS, ChumleaWC, TowneB, RocheAF, SiervogelRM.Comparison of percent body fat estimates using air displacementplethysmography and hydrodensitometry in adults and children. Int

J Relat Metab Disord 2002; 26: 3893977 DempsterP, AitkensS. A new air displacement method for the deter-

mination of human body composition. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1995;27: 16921697

8 DixonCB, DeitrickRW, PiercePT, CutrufelloPT, DrapeauLL. Evaluationof the BOD POD and leg-to-leg bioelectrical impedance analysis for

estimating percent body fat in National Collegiate Athletic AssociationDivision III collegiate wrestlers. J Strength Cond Res 2005; 19: 8591

9 FieldsDA, HigginsPB, HunterGR. Assessment of body composition byair-displacement plethysmography: influence of body temperatureand moisture. Dyn Med 2004; 3: 39

10 FieldsDA, HunterGR, GoranMI. Validation of the BOD POD with hydro-static weighing: influence of body clothing. Int J Obes Relat MetabDisord 2000; 24: 200205

11 GindeSR, GeliebterA, RubianoF,SilvaAM, WangJ, HeshkaS, HeymsfieldSB. Air displacement plethysmography: validation in overweight andobese subjects. Obes Res 2005; 13: 12321237

12 HarrissDJ,AtkinsonG. International Journal of Sports Medicine Eth-ical Standards in Sport and Exercise Science Research. Int J Sports Med

2009; 30: 70170213 HigginsPB, FieldsDA, HunterGR, GowerBA. Effect of scalp and facial

hair on air displacement plethysmography estimates of percentage

body fat. Obes Res 2001; 9: 32633014 LevenhagenDK, BorelMJ, WelchDC, PiaseckiJH, PiaseckiDP, ChenKY,

FlakollPJ. A comparison of air displacement plethysmography with 3other techniques to determine body fat in healthy adults. J Parent EntNut 1999; 23: 293299

15 Mccrory MA, Gomez TD, Bernauer EM, Mole PA. Evaluation of a newair displacement plethysmography for measuring human body com-position. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1995; 27: 16861691

16 MiyatakeN, NonakaK, FujiiM. A new air displacement plethysmog-raphy for the determination of Japanese body composition. Diab ObesMetab 1999; 1: 347351

17 PowersSK, HowleyET. Exercise Physiology: Theory and Application toFitness and Performance. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Companies;

200918 ThomasR, NelsonJ. Research Methods in Physical Activity. Champaign,

IL: Human Kinetics; 1996

19 UtterAC, GossFL,SwanPD, HarrisGS, RobertsonRJ, TroneGA. Evalua-tion of air displacement for assessing body composition of collegiate

wrestlers. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2003; 35: 50050520 VescoviJD, HildebrandtL, MillerWC, HammerRL,SpillerA. Evaluation

of the BOD POD for estimating percent fat in female college athletes.J Strength Cond Res 2002; 16: 599605

21 VescoviJD,ZimmermanSL, MillerWC, HildebrandtL, HammerRL, Fern-hallB. Evaluation of the BOD POD for estimating percentage body fat

in a heterogeneous group of adult humans. Eur J Appl Physiol 2001;85: 326332

22 Wagner DR, Heyward VH, GibsonAL. Validation of air displacementplethysmography for assessing body composition. Med Sci SportsExerc 2000; 32: 13391344

23 YeeA, Kern M. Validation of the BOD POD: method for estimatingpercent body fat in an elderly population. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1998;30: S146

tesch et al. (2010)

Documents