Table 1.
Characteristics of the selected equations for prediction of Body Fat (BF) and Fat-Free Mass (FFM).
Table 2.
Anthropometry, bioelectrical impedance (BIA) and dual-energy-X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) results of the studied non-professional classical ballet dancers.
Fig 1.
Mean differences between A) Body Fat (BF) from the anthropometry equations and BF given by DXA and B) Fat-Free Mass (FFM) from the BIA equations and FFM given by DXA.
Error bars represent ± 1.96 x standard deviations of the mean differences. *Equation presented one-sample t-test with p = 0.600, no significant difference for results obtained from BF by the equation against DXA. The other predictive equations presented p values < 0.05 for the one-sample t-test. The doted line represents the reference value expected in the one-sample t-test (zero).
Table 3.
Comparison of Body Fat (BF) measured by different anthropometry equations using the dual-energy-X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) as a reference method.
Table 4.
Comparison of Fat-Free Mass (FFM) measured by different Bioelectric impedance (BIA) equations using the dual-energy-X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) as a reference method.
Fig 2.
Bland-Altman plot for Body Fat (BF) estimated by the anthropometry equation proposed by Durnin and Womersley (1974) and BF estimation by dual-energy-X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) as a reference method.
The doted lines represent 95% limits of agreement (±1.96 SD). The red line represents the regression line between mean BF by the equation and BF by DXA and mean differences between BF equation and BF DXA. Beta coeficient = 0.021 and SEE = 4.91. Curved lines represent the 95% confidence interval for the regression line.