{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.032165832737669764, 'fraction_numerical': 0.01858470335954253, 'mean_word_length': 5.25, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, '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 fat estimations by electrical impedance and infra-red interactance.

The purpose of this study was to examine body fat estimation using three methods of electrical impedance (the BIA-103 Body Composition Analyser--RJL Systems, Detroit; the BMR 2000 Body Composition Analyzer--Berkeley Medical Research, San Leandro; the BC300 Body Composition Analyzer--Spacelabs, Dallas) and an infra-red interactance method (Futrex 5000 Analyzer--Futrex Inc. Gaithersburg) as an alternative to hydrodensitometry. Five different groups were examined using at least one of the electrical systems and in all cases utilising hydrodensitometry as the criterion method. The results produced highly significant correlations between all methods, but caution is recommended due to the limited common variance in some cases. The individual electrical methods differed from hydrodensitometry by a maximum of 1.1% in obese women, by 21.6% in athletic adults, by 6.2% in the slightly obese group, by 8.1% in normal women and by 56.0% in normal children. Significant mean differences between one of the impedance methods and hydrodensitometry were only noted in two of the groups tested. This suggests, allowing for the limitations of hydrodensitometry itself, that the other three electrical methods appear to be reasonably valid alternatives to underwater weighing, especially for field work of an epidemiological nature.