Key result
Ultrasound measures of subcutaneous fat showed strong positive correlations with skinfold measures (r=0.813 to 0.888, p<0.01), although skinfold values were consistently higher.
Why the study?
Ultrasound offers an alternative to skinfold measurement for body composition with less technical skill requirement, but the relationship between the two methods is uncertain.
How do ultrasound measurements of subcutaneous fat compare to skinfold measurements in untrained healthy males?
Cross-Sectional (n=100)
How do ultrasound measurements of subcutaneous fat compare to skinfold measurements in untrained healthy males?
While ultrasound and skinfold measures of subcutaneous fat show strong linear agreement, skinfold measures are consistently higher, indicating they measure tissue differently.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Supports concurrent validity of skinfold and ultrasound for subcutaneous fat assessment; leaves open questions of interchangeability and accuracy in clinical use.
Ultrasound measurement of adipose tissue offers an alternative measure of body composition with less technical skill requirement than skinfolds. However, the relationship between skinfold and ultrasound measurements of adipose tissue is uncertain. The aim of this study was to compare these measures in a healthy untrained male population. One hundred male participants (aged 18–40 years) of varying body compositions had skinfold measures taken at the biceps, triceps and front thigh sites. Ultrasound measures were also taken at the same sites using B-wave ultrasound with a linear probe in the transverse plane. Strong, significant (p < 0.01), positive correlations were observed between skinfold and ultrasound measures at the biceps (r = 0.828), triceps (r = 0.813), and front thigh (r = 0.888) sites. However, there was significant (p < 0.01) variance between the techniques at all measurement sites. Whilst skinfold and ultrasound measures of adipose tissue have good linear agreement, skinfolds are consistently higher at all sites indicating a difference in the nature of the tissue measured via each technique. The exact nature of the relationship should be established on a population-specific basis.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ryan‐Stewart et al. (2021) conducted a cross-sectional in Healthy untrained males (n=100). Ultrasound measurement of subcutaneous fat vs. Skinfold measurement was evaluated on Correlation between skinfold and ultrasound measures at biceps, triceps, and front thigh (r = 0.813 to 0.888, p=<0.01). Ultrasound measures of subcutaneous fat showed strong positive correlations with skinfold measures (r=0.813 to 0.888, p<0.01), although skinfold values were consistently higher.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: