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

Changes in body composition and specifically fat mass, has traditionally been used as a way to monitor the changes produced by nutrition and training. The objective of the present study was to analyse the differences between the formulas used to estimate fat mass and to establish the existing relationship with the body mass index and sums of skinfolds measurement in kinanthropometry. A total of 2458 active adults participated in the study. Body mass index (BMI) and skinfolds were measured, and the Kerr, Durnin-Womersley, Faulkner and Carter equations were used to assess fat mass. Significant differences were found between all the formulas for the percentage of fat mass, ranging from 10.70 ± 2.48 to 28.43 ± 5.99% ( p &lt; 0.001) and fat mass from 7.56 ± 2.13 to 19.89 ± 4.24 kg ( p &lt; 0.001). The correlations among sums of skinfolds and the different equations were positive, high and significant in all the cases ( r from 0.705 to 0.926 p &lt; 0.001), unlike in the case of BMI, were the correlation was lower and both positive or negative ( r from -0.271 to 0.719; p &lt; 0.001). In conclusion, there were differences between all the formulas used to estimate fat mass; thus, for the evaluation of fat mass with kinanthropometry of an active adult, the use of the same formula is recommended on all occasions when the results are going to be compared or when an athlete is compared with a reference.

Differences in Fat Mass Estimation Formulas in Physically Active Adult Population and Relationship with Sums of Skinfolds