and consistency to reflect published values. Following consideration of the above points, the skinfold method represents the best field method when testing individuals.

CONCLUSION With our method of choice ready to go and the appropriately selected equation to hand, there is a final issue concerning repeated assessment that the tester should be aware of. In specific reference to research, Wilmore et al. stated that predictive equations are not appropriate for monitoring changes in body composition, ie. longitudinal assessment (7). Since then, surprisingly few studies have investigated the aspect of tracking within-subject changes in body composition. However, more recently, research carried out on sporting populations has led to the development of the lean mass index (8). The paper concludes that this index has the capacity to monitor changes in body mass, adjusted for changes in skinfold thickness. The authors claim that this index is valid for monitoring moderate to large changes in lean mass. Further investigation should focus upon the development and validation of such measures using the multi- compartment methods. Irrespective of developments

in predictive equations or advancements in technology, the value of a set of skinfold callipers accompanied by a well-practised hand can never be overstated.

References 1. Norton K, Olds T, Australian Sports Commission. Anthropometrica: A Textbook of Body Measurement for Sports and Health Courses. UNSW Press 1996. ISBN 9780868402239 2. Conway JM, Norris KH, Bodwell CE. A new approach for the estimation of body composition: infrared interactance. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 1984;40:1123–1130 3. Kalantar-Zadeh K, Dunne E, Nixon K, Kahn K, et al. Near infra-red interactance for nutritional assessment of dialysis patients. Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation 1999;14:169– 175 4. Moon JR, Hull HR, Tobkin SE, Teramoto M, et al. Percent body fat estimations in college women using field and laboratory methods: a three-

26

compartment model approach. Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition 2007;4:16

5. Jackson AS, Pollock ML. Generalized equations for predicting body density of men. British Journal of Nutrition 1978;40:497–504 6. Durnin JVCA, Womersley J. Body fat assessed from body density and its estimation from skinfold thickness: measurements in 481 men and women aged from 16 to 72 years. British Journal of Nutrition 1974;32:77–97 7. Wilmore JH, Girandola RN, Moody DL. Validity of skinfold and girth assessment for predicting alterations in body composition. Journal of Applied Physiology 1970;29:313–317 8. Slater GJ, Duthie GM, Pyne DB, Hopkins WG. Validation of a skinfold based index

THE AMERICAN COUNCIL ON EXERCISE HAS CATEGORIZED RANGES OF BODY FAT PERCENTAGES AS FOLLOWS:

Description Essential fat Athletes Fitness

Acceptable Overweight Obese

Women 10–12% 14–20% 21–24% 25–31% 32-41% 42%+

for tracking proportional changes in lean mass. British Journal of Sports Medicine 2006;40:208–213

online

Launch the extras by clicking on the images below

Video showing correct technique of

NEED TO PUT THE ICONS ON THIS BUT HAVEN’T FINISHED YET

measuring body fat

Men

2–4% 6–13% 14–17% 18–25% 26-37% 38%+

SKINFOLD DATA COLLECTION SHEET online

Video talking about methods of body fat assessment

TEST CONDUCTED BY CLIENT NAME reference number

date of birth (dd/mm/yy) gender

weight (kg) temperature/humidity

CIRCUMFERENCES (cm) head

torso at umbilicus maximum upper arm wrist

maximum thigh male n female n weight (st/lbs) barometric pressure

date age

height (cm)

torso at nipple height torso at hip

maximum forearm gluteal furrow maximum calf

4 SITE METHOD SKINFOLD MEASUREMENTS (mm) male/female triceps

subscapular

biceps suprailiac Download further copies in PDF format at wwwsportex.net

A skinfold data collection form THE AUTHOR

Mark Cheetham, BSc, MCSP is a sports scientist and physiotherapist. He lectures at the University of Buxton and works in private practice.

sportEX dynamics 2009;21(Jul):24-26

www.sportCX.net