Estimation Of Fat-free Mass By Height, Corrected Girths And Skeletal Diameters In Mexican Athletes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fat-free mass (FFM) is a key factor in athletic performance. Although FFM can be estimated through many body composition assessment techniques, anthropometry remains a practical option among exercise science professionals. Anthropometric models traditionally focus on fat mass estimation to predict FFM as the remaining component. However, corrected girths that assume geometric models to enhance theoretical validity have been promising for estimating FFM directly. PURPOSE: To develop and validate a prediction model for estimating FFM using corrected girths, skeletal widths, and height. METHODS: A total of 220 male university athletes (age: 24.2 ± 4.7 y; weight: 73.9 ± 8.2 kg; height 1.77 ± 0.06 m; FFM: 61.7 ± 6.1 kg) underwent a whole-body DXA scan (Hologic QDR 4500) to assess their FFM, and anthropometric measurements according to the ISAK protocol and carried out by certified personnel. We calculated three corrected girths (CG) as Girth - (π * skinfold) for the arm, forearm, and calf girths corrected for the triceps, biceps, and calf skinfolds, respectively. The CG, four appendicular skeletal widths (SW) (wrist, elbow, knee, and ankle), four trunk SW (bi-acromial, bi-ileocrestal, transverse and anteroposterior chest), and height were included to set an Anthropometric Lean Constitution method (ALCM), which was calculated as ALCM = Average CG (cm) * Average SW (m) * Height (m). The ALCM was calculated with either the appendicular (ALCM4) or all (ALCM8) the SW. We used two-thirds of the sample for model development (linear regression) and the third remaining for validation using Bland-Altman analysis. RESULTS: The mean ALCM4 and ALCM8 were 3.94 ± 0.41 and 9.72 ± 1.11, respectively. The obtained regression equations were FFM = 13.16 + 10.02 * ALCM4 (SEE = 2.53 kg, R2 = 0.81), and FFM = 5.66 + 6.69 * ALCM8 (SEE = 2.18 kg, R2 = 0.91). The mean difference (95% limits of agreement) between the equations and DXA-derived FFM were -0.37 kg (-4.77 to 4.03) for ALCM4 and 1.01 kg (-2.72 to 4.74) for ALCM8. CONCLUSIONS: Estimating FFM using the ALCM is feasible. The strong correlation between ALCM and DXA-derived FFM suggests that ALCM can be used as an indicator of FFM on athletes without the necessity of estimating FFM.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".