Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/1893/28188
Appears in Collections:Faculty of Health Sciences and Sport Journal Articles
Peer Review Status: Refereed
Title: Body Composition Changes in Bodybuilders: A Method Comparison
Author(s): Van Marken Lichtenbelt, Wouter D
Hartgens, Fred
Vollaard, Niels
Ebbing, Spike
Kuipers, Harm
Contact Email: n.vollaard@stir.ac.uk
Keywords: Androgenic-anabolic steroids
Strength training
Four compartment model
Deuterium dilution
DXA
Issue Date: 31-Mar-2004
Date Deposited: 7-Nov-2018
Citation: Van Marken Lichtenbelt WD, Hartgens F, Vollaard N, Ebbing S & Kuipers H (2004) Body Composition Changes in Bodybuilders: A Method Comparison. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 36 (3), pp. 490-497. https://doi.org/10.1249/01.MSS.0000117159.70295.73
Abstract: Introduction: Few studies report on validation of body composition changes using the four-compartment model (4C), and no such studies are available in strength training. Here we present such a validation study for the determination of body fat and fat-free mass changes in bodybuilders, who used exercise and androgenic-anabolic steroids. Methods: The study was carried out with 27 male bodybuilders in a cross-sectional study. Fifteen of these subjects also participated in an intervention program where body composition changes were measured. The 4C model served as the gold standard. The alternative mechanistic methods were underwater weighing (uww), deuterium dilution (dil), three-compartment model incorporating total body water (3Cw), three-compartment model incorporating bone mineral content (3Cb), and descriptive methods, namely dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA), prediction equations based on body mass index (BMI), skinfold measurement, and bioimpedance analyses. Results: From the cross-sectional study, it appeared that biases and errors of most mechanistic methods were small (maximal 0.5% BF and 3.4%BF, respectively; exception 3Cb model). The 3Cw model had the lowest error (0.9%BF). The descriptive methods had small biases (exception BMI) but relatively large errors (range: 5.5-8%). Results on body composition changes (intervention study) were comparable with the results from the cross-sectional study. Conclusions: Using the 4C model as the standard for determination of body fat and fat-free mass, this study revealed that apart from the prediction equation based on BMI and the 3Cb model, all methods gave acceptable group mean values. When accurate measurements on body composition and/or body composition changes on an individual level are needed, only the 3Cw model could serve as an alternative for the 4C method.
DOI Link: 10.1249/01.MSS.0000117159.70295.73
Rights: The publisher does not allow this work to be made publicly available in this Repository. Please use the Request a Copy feature at the foot of the Repository record to request a copy directly from the author. You can only request a copy if you wish to use this work for your own research or private study.
Licence URL(s): http://www.rioxx.net/licenses/under-embargo-all-rights-reserved

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
Vollaard_Medicine_and_Science_in_Sports_and_Exercise_March_2004.pdfFulltext - Published Version199.13 kBAdobe PDFView/Open



This item is protected by original copyright



Items in the Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

The metadata of the records in the Repository are available under the CC0 public domain dedication: No Rights Reserved https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/

If you believe that any material held in STORRE infringes copyright, please contact library@stir.ac.uk providing details and we will remove the Work from public display in STORRE and investigate your claim.