{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.04815864022662889, 'fraction_numerical': 0.030453257790368272, 'mean_word_length': 5.252212389380531, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 3, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 1, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
[Body composition assessment by anthropometry and bioelectrical impedance].

INTRODUCTION
Anthropometry and electric impedance methods are widely used for body composition assessment. However the evidence is unclear whether the results obtained from the two methods can be compared.


OBJECTIVE
Two methods are compared for assessment of body composition; anthropometry and electric impedance.


MATERIALS AND METHODS
Body composition was measured in 70 women; aged 22 to 56 and 53 men; aged 24 to 54, using anthropometry (Durning/Womersley and Jackson/Pollock skinfolds equations) and electric impedance (foot to foot electric impedance) to obtain percentage body fat.


RESULTS
The mean percentage body fat was significant higher with Durning/Womersley (25.2%) than Jackson/Pollock (20.1%) and electric impedance (19.3%) for men (p<0.001). The mean percentage body fat was significant higher with Durning/Womersley (36.9%) than Jackson/Pollock (31.0%) and electric impedance (27.6%) for women (p<0.001). Correlation coefficient was high when two methods were compared (r>0.77) however, the concordance between methods to classify obesity subjects was low (K<0.5).


CONCLUSIONS
The percentages obtained from the anthropometry method were higher than the bioelectrical impedance method. A significant difference was found between methods applied in men and women, and therefore these methods are not comparable.