BODY MASS INDEX AND BODY FAT CONTENT IN ELITE ATHLETES

Jelena Popadić Gaćeša ,
Jelena Popadić Gaćeša

Department of Physiology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Novi Sad, Novi Sad, Serbia

Otto Barak ,
Otto Barak

Department of Physiology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Novi Sad, Novi Sad, Serbia

Dae Karaba Jakovljevic ,
Dae Karaba Jakovljevic

Department of Physiology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Novi Sad, Novi Sad, Serbia

Aleksandar Klašnja ,
Aleksandar Klašnja

Department of Physiology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Novi Sad, Novi Sad, Serbia

Vladimir Galiċ ,
Vladimir Galiċ

Department of Physiology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Novi Sad, Novi Sad, Serbia

Miodrag Drapšin ,
Miodrag Drapšin

Department of Physiology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Novi Sad, Novi Sad, Serbia

Damir Lukač ,
Damir Lukač

Department of Physiology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Novi Sad, Novi Sad, Serbia

Nikola Grujić
Nikola Grujić

Department of Physiology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Novi Sad, Novi Sad, Serbia

Published: 02.12.2011.

Vol 3, No 2 (2011), 2011, 3 (2);

pp. 43-48;

https://doi.org/10.31382/EQOL201102065P

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate body fat content (BF) of elite athletes obtained by two different field methods for body composition measurements and to compare it with body mass index (BMI) values. The research was conducted on 40 male athletes (20 runners and 20 handball players) and 30 non athletes. BF was calculated from the skinfold values (BFsft) and estimated using a hand-held impedance analyzer (BFbia%). Body mass index, waist to hip ratio (WHR) and waist to stature ratio (WSR) were calculated from adequate anthropometric values. Comparing the BF content between non athletes and two different sport groups, significant difference was found in all parameters between runners and non athletes (p < 0.05). Significant difference was found between BF values of runners and handball players (p < 0.05). Runners have had significantly lower BF, estimated by both methods. They also have had significantly lower WHR and WSR (p < 0.05). In the group of athletes and non athletes with BMI higher than 25 kg/m 2 , or lower than 20 kg/m 2 , comparing with others, no significant difference was found in BFsft and WHR. BMI is not a good predictor of BF, because it does not provide specific information about body fatness, but rather body heaviness. Bioimpedance and anthropometry methods could be used to monitor non obese subjects in clinical routine and population based studies. For BF estimation in athletes, we recommend anthropometry, rather than bioimpedance because of inter individual and inter sports variations in arms length and regional masculinity.

Keywords

References

1.
Baumgarthner RN, Chumlea WC, Roche AF. Estimation of body composition from bioelectrical impedance of body segments. Vol. 50, The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. p. 221–6.
2.
Bottaro MF, Heyward VH, Bezerra RFA, Wagner DR. Skinfold method vs dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry to assess body composition in normal and obese women. Vol. 5, Journal of Exercise Physiology. p. 11–8.
3.
Deurenberg P, Andreoli A, Borg P. The validity of predicted body fat percentage from body mass index and from impedance in samples of five European populations. Vol. 55, European Journal of Clinical Nutrition. p. 973–9.
4.
Erselcan T, Candad F, Saruhan S, Ayca T. Comparison fo body composition analysis methods in clinical routine. Vol. 44, Annals of Nutrition and Metabolism. p. 243–8.
5.
Eveleth PB, Tanner JM. World-Wide Variation in Human Growth.
6.
Fuller NJ, Elia M. Potential use of bioelectrical impedance of the whole body and of body segments for the assessment of body composition: comparison with densitometry and anthropometry. Vol. 43, The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. p. 779–91.
7.
Goodpaster BH. Measuring body fat distribution and content in humans. Vol. 5, Current Opinion in Clinical Nutrition & Metabolic Care. p. 481–7.
8.
Heyward HV, Stolarczyk ML. Applied Body Composition Assessment.
9.
Loy SF, Likes EA, Andrews PM. Easy grip on body composition measurements. Vol. 2, ACSM’s Health & Fitness Journal. p. 16–9.
10.
Matiega J. The testing of physical efficiency. Vol. 4, American Journal of Physical Anthropology. p. 223–30.
11.
Prentice AM, Jebb SA. Beyond body mass index. Vol. 2, The International Association for the Study of Obesity, Obesity reviews. p. 141–7.
12.
Snijder MB, Kuyf BEM, Deurenberg P. Effect of body build on the validity of predicted body fat from body mass index and bioelectrical impedance. Vol. 43, Annals of Nutrition and Metabolism. p. 277–85.
13.
Srdic B, Stokic E, Polzovic A. Parameters defining size and distribution of body fat tissue: relationship analysis. Vol. 5, Medicinski Pregled. p. 232–6.
14.
W.H.O. Obesity-Preventing and Managing the Global Epidemic.

Citation

Copyright

Article metrics

Google scholar: See link

The statements, opinions and data contained in the journal are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publisher and the editor(s). We stay neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Most read articles