Body composition for health and performance: a survey of body composition assessment practice carried out by the Ad Hoc Research Working Group on Body Composition, Health and Performance under the auspices of the IOC Medical Commission. Issue 16 (24th September 2013)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Meyer, Nanna L; Sundgot-Borgen, Jorunn; Lohman, Timothy G; Ackland, Timothy R; Stewart, Arthur D; Maughan, Ronald J; Smith, Suzanne; Müller, Wolfram
• Is Part Of: British journal of sports medicine. Volume 47:Issue 16(2013)
• Page Start: 1044
• Page End: 1053
• Publication Date: 2013-09-24
• Subjects: Body composition methodology -- Exercise and/or caloric restriction effects on body weight/composition -- Injury Prevention -- Eating disorders -- Sports and nutrition; Sports medicine -- Periodicals; 617.1027
• DOI: 10.1136/bjsports-2013-092561
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0306-3674

Abstract

Abstract : Background: Successful performers in weight-sensitive sports are characterised by low body mass (BM) and fat content. This often requires chronic energy restriction and acute weight loss practices. Aim: To evaluate current use of body composition (BC) assessment methods and identify problems and solutions with current BC approaches. Methods: A 40-item survey was developed, including demographic and content questions related to BC assessment. The survey was electronically distributed among international sporting organisations. Frequencies and χ 2 analyses were computed. Results: 216 responses were received, from 33 countries, representing various institutions, sports and competitive levels. Of the sample, 86% of respondents currently assess BC, most frequently using skinfolds (International Society for the Advancement of Kinanthropometry (ISAK): 50%; non-ISAK, conventional: 40%; both: 28%), dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (38%), bioelectrical impedance (29%), air displacement plethysmography (17%) and hydrostatic weighing (10%). Of those using skinfolds, more at the international level used ISAK, whereas conventional approaches were more reported at regional/national level (p=0.006). The sport dietitian/nutritionist (57%) and physiologist/sports scientist (54%) were most frequently the professionals assessing BC, followed by MDs and athletic trainers, with some reporting coaches (5%). 36% of 116 respondents assessed hydration status and more (64%) did so at international than regional/national level (36%, p=0.028). Of 125 participants answering the question of whether they thought that BC assessment raised problems, 69% said 'yes', with most providing ideas for solutions. Conclusions: Results show high use of BC assessment but also a lack of standardisation and widespread perception of problems related to BM and BC in sport. Future work should emphasise standardisation with appropriate training opportunities and more research on BC and performance.