English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Body composition and appropriate playing weight are frequently requested by coaches. Numerous methods for estimating these figures are available, and each has its own limitation, be it technical or biological. A comparison of three common methods was made-underwater weighting (H2O, the criterion), skinfold thicknesses (SF), and commercial bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA). Subjects were 29 professional football players measured by each of the three methods after an overnight fast. Data was collected 10 weeks preceding the players' formal training camp. There was no difference for percentage of weight as fat between SF (15.8%) and H2O (14.2%). Bioelectrical impedance analysis significantly (p &lt; .05) overestimated percent fat (19.2%) compared to H20. Error rates when regressing SF on H2O were favorable, whether expressed for the whole sample (3.04%) or by race (1.78% or 3.56% for whites and blacks, respectively). Regression of BIA on H2O showed an elevated, overall error rate (14.12%) and elevated error rates for whites (11.57%) and blacks (13.81%). Of the two estimates of body composition on a racially mixed sample of males, SF provided the best estimate with the least amount of error. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 1991;13(5):235-239.

Field Comparison of Body Composition Techniques: Hydrostatic Weighing, Skinfold Thickness, and Bioelectric Impedance