LAUSR

Abstract Nickerson, BS, Esco, MR, Bishop, PA, Schumacker, RE, Richardson, MT, Fedewa, MV, Wingo, JE, and Welborn, BA. Impact of measured vs. predicted residual lung volume on body fat percentage using underwater weighing and 4-compartment model. J Strength Cond Res 31(9): 2519–2527, 2017—The purpose of this study was to compare underwater weighing (UWW) and 4-compartment (4C) model body fat percentage (BF%) for predicted vs. simultaneously measured residual lung volume (RLV). Forty-seven women and 33 men (age = 22 ± 5 years) had UWW and 4C model BF% determined using Boren et al. (RLVBOREN), Goldman and Becklake (RLVGB), and Miller et al. (RLVMILLER) RLV prediction equations. Criterion UWW BF% included body density (BD) values with simultaneous RLV. Criterion 4C model BF% included BD through UWW with simultaneous RLV, total body water through bioimpedance spectroscopy, and bone mineral content through dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry. The standard error of estimate (SEE) for UWW and 4C model BF% determined through RLV prediction equations varied from 2.0 to 2.6% and from 1.3 to 1.5%, respectively. The constant error (CE) was significantly different for UWW BF% when using RLVBOREN, RLVGB, and RLVMILLER (all p < 0.016; CE = 0.7, −2.0, 1.0%, respectively). However, the CEs for RLVBOREN and RLVMILLER were not significant in the 4C model (p = 0.73 and 0.11; CE = 0.1 and 0.2%, respectively), whereas RLVGB remained significantly different (p < 0.001; CE = −1.5%). The 95% limits of agreement were less than ±5.2% for UWW BF% and less than ±3.1% for the 4C model when using the 3 RLV equations. When used in a 4C model, the RLV equations yielded a smaller CE, SEE, and 95% limits of agreement than UWW BF% results. However, because of the range of individual error shown in the current study, caution should be employed when using the 4C model as a criterion method with predicted RLV.