704 Training & Testing

Validity and Reliability of the BOD POD S/T Tracking

System

Authors

W. Tseh1, J. L. Caputo2, D. J. Keefer3

Aliations

Key words

Abstract

BOD POD self-testing (S/T) body composition tracking system is a practical assessment
tool designed for use in the health and fitness
industries. Relative to its parent counterpart, the
BOD POD S/T has received little research attention. The primary purpose was to determine the
validity of the BOD POD S/T against hydrostatic
weighing and 7-site skinfolds. Secondary aim was
to determine the within-day and between-day
reliability of the BOD POD S/T. After a period of
equipment and testing accommodation, volunteers (N = 50) body composition ( %BF) via 7-site
skinfolds, BOD POD S/T, and hydrostatic weigh-

Introduction

accepted after revision

May 29, 2010
Bibliography
DOI http://dx.doi.org/
10.1055/s-0030-1255111
Published online:
July 8, 2010
Int J Sports Med 2010; 31:
704708 Georg Thieme
Verlag KG Stuttgart New York
ISSN 0172-4622
Correspondence
Dr. Wayland Tseh
University of North Carolina
Wilmington
Health and Applied Human
Sciences
601 South College Road
28403-5956 Wilmington
United States
Tel.: + 1/910/962 2484
Fax: + 1/910/962 7073
tsehw@uncw.edu

Body composition assessment provides valuable

knowledge and information to both practitioners
and clinicians. Practically, the information
extracted from body composition analyses can
be used to monitor the progression and eectiveness of a strength training and/or cardiovascular
regime. Further, body composition assessments
help clinicians to monitor weight management
programs for obese patients and clients suering
from eating disorders. The value of this knowledge for those who disseminate and/or receive
this information, however, is only as good as the
validity and reliability of the equipment utilized
to provide the body composition measurement.
The BOD POD, which derives body density by
way of air-displacement plethysmography, provides clientele with body composition information, specifically, pounds of lean body mass and
pounds of fat mass. Compared to other body
composition assessment tools, such as hydrostatic weighing and skinfolds, the BOD POD provides a comfortable, convenient, quick and easy
alternative means of assessing body composition.

ing were obtained on the second and third visits.

BOD POD S/T significantly overestimated %BF
when compared to hydrostatic weighing and 7site skinfolds. There was no statistical dierence
between 7-site skinfolds and hydrostatic weighing values. BOD POD S/T reliability within-day
and between-days were high. While the BOD
POD S/T body composition tracking system is
deemed reliable both within-day and betweendays, it did significantly overestimate %BF in
comparison to hydrostatic weighing and skinfolds. Future research should be aimed at deriving a correction factor for this body composition
assessment tool.

Although the BOD POD has been tested for reliability and for validity against several criterion
assessment tools [3, 4, 8, 14, 15, 19, 20, 21, 23], an
oshoot of the original BOD POD, the BOD POD
self-testing (S/T) body composition tracking system, has received little research attention. The
BOD POD S/T, which utilizes identical air displacement technology as the BOD POD, is an
assessment tool primarily used within commercial and/or health and fitness venues. The distinct
advantage of the BOD POD S/T compared to the
original BOD POD is a self-testing capability.
Specifically, individuals are able to conduct their
own body composition assessment without the
aid of a trained operator. A computer-generated
voice provides detailed, step-by-step verbal
instructions to the individual sitting within the
egg-shaped chamber throughout the assessment.
Moreover, Life Measurement Incorporated has
designed a user-friendly handle within the interior of the chamber to allow individuals to easily
and comfortably open and close the door to the
chamber when instructed to do so. From a technical standpoint, the BOD POD S/T system predicts participants thoracic gas volumes once age

Tseh W et al. Validity and Reliability of the BOD POD S/T Tracking Int J Sports Med 2010; 31: 704708

Downloaded by: University College Chester. Copyrighted material.

percent body fat

overestimation

bod pod

Health and Applied Human Sciences, University of North Carolina Wilmington, United States
Department of Health and Human Performance, Middle Tennessee State University, Murfreesboro, United States
3
Department of Wellness and Sport Sciences, Millersville University, Millersville, United States
2

Training & Testing 705

Methods

Experimental approach to the problem

The study protocol involved having each participant complete 3
testing sessions within a 7-day period. In an eort to minimize
intra-individual variability, participants were asked to wear the
same clothing (i. e., form-fitting bathing suit for men and 1-piece
or 2-piece bathing suit for women) for each testing session.
Additionally, to minimize circadian variation, participants were
scheduled approximately the same time of day for each of the 3
testing sessions. All testing appointments were made daily
between 8 am and 10 am. Furthermore, subjects were asked to
fast for 12 h and void prior to testing in order to attenuate the
potential influence of food and/or liquid. Details of each testing
session are presented in the following sections.

Day 1: Equipment and testing accommodation

The purpose of this session was to collect baseline anthropometric data and to familiarize and accommodate participants with
testing instructions, equipment, and procedures. Upon arrival,
body mass and height were collected and recorded by a technician. Because body moisture has been shown to underestimate
percent body fat ( %BF) from the BOD POD [9], subjects data
were collected in the following order within each of the 3 testing
days: 7-site skinfolds, BOD POD S/T, 7-site skinfolds, BOD POD
S/T, and finally, hydrostatic weighing. In essence, 2 complete 7site skinfolds assessments and 2 complete BOD POD S/T measures were collected, followed by hydrostatic weighing. Lastly,
upon completion of the 2 7-site skinfolds and 2 BOD POD S/T
assessments, participants were provided with detailed instructions, familiarization, and aorded several practice trials of the
hydrostatic weighing testing procedures in the universitys natatorium.

Days 2 and 3: Collection of body composition values

The primary aim of Days 2 and 3 were to collect and record participants body composition via 7-site skinfolds, BOD POD S/T,
and hydrostatic weighing. Procedures for the second and third
sessions were identical to that of Day 1. More specifically, after
body mass was recorded, subjects body composition was
assessed by way of 7-site skinfolds, BOD POD S/T, 7-site skinfold, and finally, BOD POD S/T again. Upon completion of the
aforementioned testing modes, participants underwater weight
was quantified and recorded via hydrostatic weighing.

Subjects
Participants included 25 male (age = 26.5 6.8 yrs; height
= 178.6 7.6 cm; body mass = 78.9 9.7 kg) and 25 female
(age = 21.4 2.3 yrs; height = 162.5 7.5 cm; body mass = 59.4

8.6 kg) volunteers. All volunteers signed an informed consent

form, approved by the Universitys Institutional Review Board
for human subject use, prior to participation. Moreover, the
study protocol conformed to the ethical principles set forth by
the Declaration of Helsinki [12]. Volunteers were free from any
known cardiovascular and/or metabolic diseases. Subjects also
met the minimum exercise guidelines with respect to cardiovascular fitness set forth by the American College of Sports Medicine [1].

Equipment and procedures

Body mass and height
Body mass was measured to the nearest tenth of a kilogram
using an electronic scale (Tanita Corporation, Japan) and height
was assessed in centimeters while participants stood barefoot,
with both legs together, against a wall-mounted measuring tape.
Both body mass and height measurements were recorded in
duplicate values. Measurements were then averaged to produce
a single value of each participants body mass and height.

7-site skinfolds assessment

A Harpenden skinfold caliper (Baty International, England), calibrated daily with a 15.9 mm dowel, was used to measure 7-site
skinfold thicknesses. Participants 7-site skinfolds were assessed
a minimum of 2 times. If measurements were not within 1 mm,
a third measure was taken. Anatomical locations of the 7-site
skinfold, specific measurement techniques, sex-specific 7-site
body density formulas [male body density = 1.1120.00043499
(sum of 7 skinfolds) + 0.00000055 (sum of 7 skinfolds)2
0.00028826 (age); female body density = 1.097 0.00046971
(sum of 7 skinfolds) + 0.00000056 (sum of 7 skinfolds)2
0.00012828 (age)], and Siris [(495body density) 450] percent
body fat formula was used in accordance with the guidelines set
forth by the American College of Sports Medicine [1].

BOD POD S/T assessment

BOD POD S/T body composition tracking system (Life Measurement Incorporated, USA) was calibrated daily according to manufacturers instructions with a 49.368 L cylindrical volume
provided by Life Measurement Incorporated. Specific details
illustrating the technicalities of the calibration mechanism are
published elsewhere [4, 7]. Because dierent clothing schemes
have been shown to underestimate %BF results from the BOD
POD [10], subjects were instructed to wear the same 1-piece or
2-piece bathing suit for women and the same form-fitted bathing suit for men throughout the study. Additionally, facial hair
has been shown to significantly underestimate %BF results from
the BOD POD [13]. Therefore, if present, subjects were told by a
technician to maintain the facial hair throughout the course of
the investigation. All participants wore a swim cap provided by
Life Measurement Incorporated. After race, height, and age were
inputted by a technician into the BOD POD S/Ts kiosk, subjects
were asked to step on an electronic scale to determine body
weight to the nearest 0.045 kg. Once body mass was recorded by
the BOD POD S/T system, participants were instructed to sit
comfortably and breathe normally within the BOD POD S/T
chamber for 3 trials lasting 50 s per trial. Once the third trial was
recorded, results via Siris percent body fat formula were immediately displayed on the kiosk viewer and recorded by a technician. This procedure was performed twice on each day.

Tseh W et al. Validity and Reliability of the BOD POD S/T Tracking Int J Sports Med 2010; 31: 704708

Downloaded by: University College Chester. Copyrighted material.

and height are entered into the computer systems kiosk. As

such, participants do not have to breathe into a tube to obtain a
direct measure of thoracic gas volumes, which makes the BOD
POD S/T system more attractive to a larger population.
Against this backdrop, the primary objectives of this study were
twofold. The first was to determine the validity of the BOD POD
S/T body composition tracking system against the well known
and commonly used assessment tools of hydrostatic weighing
and 7-site skinfold assessment. The secondary purpose of this
study was to determine the within-day and between-day reliability of the BOD POD S/T body composition tracking system.

706 Training & Testing

Hydrostatic weighing assessment

Validity

Participants were hydrostatically weighed in the Universitys

natatorium. While in the natatorium, a technician provided the
volunteers both verbal instructions and a visual demonstration
of the hydrostatic weighing technique. Participants entered the
pool and removed all air bubbles from the swimsuit and body
hair and were aorded several practice trials by submerging
themselves and maximally exhaling all the air out of their lungs
while grasping onto the side of the pool deck. Once subjects
were comfortable with the technique, volunteers sat in a submerged chair suspended by a Chatillon autopsy scale (Kew Gardens, USA). At the discretion of the participant, subjects
completely submerged under water, maximally exhaled all the
air from the lungs, and held as still as possible for approximately
57 s. Once complete stillness was established and no further air
bubbles were exhaled, a technician collected and recorded participants underwater weights to the nearest 0.025 kg until a
minimum of 3 values were all within a tenth of a kilogram. The
heaviest underwater body mass, calculated residual volume [RV
for men = (0.017 age) + (0.06858 height in inches) 3.447; RV
for women = (0.009 age) + (0.08128 height in inches) 3.9],
and water temperature were subsequently placed into a formula
to calculate body density, then placed into Siris equation to
derive percent body fat values [1, 17].

Dierences in mean %BF values among the 7-site skinfolds, BOD

POD S/T, and hydrostatic weighing techniques were analyzed
using repeated-measures ANOVA. If dierences existed, a Tukey
Honestly Significant Dierence (HSD) post-hoc test was used to
specifically locate the dierence(s) amongst the 3 assessment
modes. Moreover, if dierences were detected, eect size (ES)
was calculated to determine meaningfulness of dierence(s).

Because Day 1 was used solely to familiarize and accommodate

participants to testing instructions, equipment, and procedures,
data collected and recorded from this particular session were
not used in any of the statistical analyses. Within Days 2 and 3,
there were two 7-site skinfold measurements, 2 BOD POD S/T
assessments, and 1 hydrostatic weighing value, thereby providing a total of four 7-site skinfold measurements, 4 BOD POD S/T
assessments, and 2 hydrostatic weighing values for each participant. Within-day dierences in %BF values between Trial 1 and
Trial 2 within Day 2 and Day 3 amongst the 2 body composition
assessment techniques (7-site skinfold and BOD POD S/T) were
determined by way of repeated-measures analysis of variance
(ANOVA). Because there was no statistical significance between
Trials 1 and 2 within Days 2 and 3, respectively, Trials 1 and 2
values were averaged to provide a single value for each day.
Between-day dierences in %BF values between Day 2 and Day 3
amongst the 3 body composition assessment modes (7-site skinfold, BOD POD S/T, and hydrostatic weighing) were determined
via repeated-measures ANOVA. Data analyses revealed no dierences in %BF between Day 2 and Day 3 for each modality;
therefore, %BF values for each mode were collapsed and placed
into subsequent analyses. All statistical analyses were performed
separately for males and females. For all data analyses, statistical
significance was established at p < 0.05.

Within-day reliability of %BF values between Trial 1 and Trial 2

within Day 2 and Day 3, respectively, amongst the 3 body composition techniques were determined using intra-class correlation (R1) coecient values. Lastly, Pearson product-moment
correlation coecients (r) were calculated to determine the
relationships among the 7-site skinfolds, BOD POD S/T, and
hydrostatic weighing.

Results

Validity
Results of the repeated-measures ANOVA for both males and
Table 1. Statistical analyses revealed
females are displayed in
significant dierence in %BF values amongst the 3 modes of
body composition techniques. Tukey HSD revealed that mean
BOD POD S/T %BF values were significantly higher than both
mean 7-site skinfolds and mean hydrostatic weighing %BF values. There were, however, no statistical dierences between
mean 7-site skinfolds and mean hydrostatic weighing %BF values. The eect size calculated between BOD POD S/T and hydrostatic weighing was 0.62, whereas the ES calculated between
BOD POD S/T and 7-site skinfolds assessment was 0.52.

Reliability
Table 2 illustrates within-day reliability %BF values between

Trial 1 and Trial 2 for Day 2 and Day 3, respectively, for both men
Table 2, there were no significant
and women. As shown in
Table 1 Mean percent body fat values for BOD POD S/T, 7-site skinfolds,
and hydrostatic weighing for males and females.
Mode
BOD POD S/T ( %)
7-site skinfolds ( %)
hydrostatic weighing ( %)
a

Mode

Day 3
R1

Trial 1

Trial 2

R1

17.4 6.8
13.1 4.5

17.2 6.9a
13.0 4.5a

0.992
0.999

17.2 6.7
13.3 4.7

17.8 6.7b
13.1 4.3b

0.994
0.998

27.3 6.5
22.5 4.1

27.7 6.5a
22.3 4.6a

0.998
0.998

27.1 6.6
22.4 4.5

27.5 6.7b
22.2 4.8b

0.991
0.999

p > 0.05; Day 2 Trial 2 not statistically dierent from Day 2 Trial 1
p > 0.05; Day 3 Trial 2 not statistically dierent from Day 3 Trial 1

27.9 6.5a
22.5 4.5b
21.8 5.0

p > 0.05; 7-site skinfolds not statistically dierent from hydrostatic weighing

Trial 2

17.6 6.7a
13.1 4.5b
11.6 5.4

weighing
b

Trial 1

Females
(Mean SD)

p < 0.05; BOD POD S/T statistically dierent from 7-site skinfolds and hydrostatic

Day 2
males
BOD POD S/T ( %)
7-site skinfolds ( %)
females
BOD POD S/T ( %)
7-site skinfolds ( %)

Males
(Mean SD)

Tseh W et al. Validity and Reliability of the BOD POD S/T Tracking Int J Sports Med 2010; 31: 704708

Table 2 Within-day comparison

of percent body fat and reliability
values obtained from the BOD
POD S/T and 7-site skinfolds
technique for males and females.

Downloaded by: University College Chester. Copyrighted material.

Statistical analyses

Reliability

Males

Females

BOD POD S/T

BOD POD S/T

folds, respectively. The BOD POD S/T, however, provided

reliable %BF values within- and between-days amongst the sample male and female subjects.
Generally, findings from the current study both contrast [3, 4]
and concur [14, 20, 21] with the literature examining the validity
and reliability values between the BOD POD and other forms of
body composition assessment tools (e. g., hydrodensitometry
and skinfolds). While the authors of this paper could specifically
reiterate the vast comparative BOD POD literature [2, 5,
6, 11, 16, 22], this would, however, not serve to support the impetus of the investigation, which was to determine the validity and
reliability of the BOD POD S/T assessment tool, not its parentcounterpart, the BOD POD. Moreover, while both BOD POD S/T
and BOD POD are fairly similar principally and mechanistically,
there are distinct dierences (e. g., self-testing capabilities and
estimated thoracic gas volumes) that make each model inherently unique, therefore would provide ineective conclusions if
the findings from the current study were compared with the
multitude of findings with previously-conducted BOD POD
investigations.

0.87a
0.93a

Validity

Table 3 Between-day comparison of mean percent body fat and reliability

values obtained from the BOD POD S/T, 7-site skinfolds, and hydrostatic
weighing techniques for males and females.
Mode
males
BOD POD S/T ( %)
7-site skinfolds ( %)
hydrostatic weighing ( %)
females
BOD POD S/T ( %)
7-site skinfolds ( %)
hydrostatic weighing ( %)
a

Day 2

Day 3

R1

17.3 6.9
13.1 4.2
11.6 5.4

17.5 6.7a
13.2 4.5a
11.5 6.0a

0.996
0.991
0.993

27.5 6.5
22.6 4.5
22.1 5.3

27.3 6.7a
22.4 4.7a
21.7 5.0a

0.995
0.997
0.987

p > 0.05; Day 3 not statistically dierent from Day 2

Table 4 Pearson product-moment correlation coecients between mean

percent body fat values for BOD POD S/T and mean 7-site skinfolds and
hydrostatic weighing techniques for males and females.

Variable
7-site skinfolds
hydrostatic weighing
a

0.89
0.81a

p < 0.05

within-day dierences for 7-site skinfolds and the BOD POD S/T
assessment. Additionally, intra-class correlation coecient values for the 7-site skinfolds and BOD POD S/T within Day 2 and
Table 2). Consequently, given no sigDay 3 were reliable (see
nificant dierences and the high degree of reliability between
Trials 1 and 2, all %BF values were collapsed to produce a respective mean %BF value for the 7-site skinfolds and BOD POD S/T
modes and placed into further analysis to calculate between-day
dierences and reliability between Days 2 and 3.
There were no significant between-day %BF dierences for Day
2 and Day 3 for each of the 3 body composition modes, respec Table 3), for both males and females. Between-day
tively (see
intra-class correlation coecient value for Days 2 and 3 for 7site skinfolds, BOD POD S/T, and hydrostatic weighing were
reliable. Subsequently, %BF values for Day 2 and Day 3 were
averaged to produce a mean %BF value for each body composition modality.
Table 4, Pearson product-moment correlation
As illustrated in
coecients revealed a strong, positive relationship between
mean BOD POD S/T %BF values and both mean 7-site skinfolds
and mean hydrostatic weighing %BF values, respectively, for
both men and women.

Discussion

The primary purpose of this investigation was to determine the

validity of the BOD POD S/T body composition tracking system
against 2 well-known, commonly used assessment tools, while
the secondary purpose was to determine the within-day and
between-day reliability of the BOD POD S/T body composition
tracking system. Overall, with respect to men, the BOD POD S/T
statistically overestimated participants %BF values by + 6.0 %
and + 4.5 % compared to the hydrostatic weighing and 7-site
skinfolds, respectively. Similarly, in regards to women, the BOD
POD S/T statistically overestimated participants %BF by + 6.1 %
and + 5.4 % compared to hydrostatic weighing and 7-site skin-

Table 1, the BOD POD S/T significantly

As displayed in
overestimated %BF values when compared to both hydrostatic
weighing and 7-site skinfolds techniques. There was, however,
no dierence in %BF values between the hydrostatic weighing
and 7-site skinfolds techniques for both men and women. As
mentioned in the previous sections, the ES was calculated to
determine the meaningfulness of the dierences found within
the current study. The eect size calculated between BOD POD
S/T and hydrostatic weighing was 0.62, whereas the ES calculated between BOD POD S/T and 7-site skinfolds assessment
was 0.52. According to Thomas and Nelson [18], an ES less than
0.20 is small, 0.50 is medium, and greater than 0.80 is large. In
the current study, with an ES ranging 0.520.62, this suggests
that the meaningfulness of the dierences between the BOD
POD S/T compared to hydrostatic weighing and 7-site skinfolds
are deemed medium to large. As such, because the BOD POD
S/T overestimated both men and women %BF values by approximately 46 %, the magnitude of this overestimation is quite
meaningful.

Reliability
Table 2, the reliability of the BOD POD S/T
As displayed in
within Days 2 and 3 yielded a reliability coecient of 0.992 and
0.994, respectively, for men, whereas for women, 0.998 and
0.991, respectively, for Days 2 and 3. Similarly, the reliability
coecient between Days 2 and 3 for men and women was 0.996
Table 3. With that stated,
and 0.995, respectively, as shown in
these data suggest that the BOD POD S/T is a reliable assessment tool both within- and between-days.

Practical Applications

Viewed in concert, the BOD POD S/T body composition tracking

system, an oshoot of the BOD POD, is an assessment tool that
is practicably and feasibly designed for the health/fitness industry. Results of the study revealed that this particular BOD POD
S/T body composition tracking system is deemed reliable both
within-day and between-days, however, %BF was overestimated
in comparison to both hydrostatic weighing and skinfolds. Given

Tseh W et al. Validity and Reliability of the BOD POD S/T Tracking Int J Sports Med 2010; 31: 704708

Downloaded by: University College Chester. Copyrighted material.

Training & Testing 707

these aforementioned findings, caution should be warranted in

applying the results of this investigation. More specifically, the
findings from this study should not be generalized to suggest
that all BOD POD S/T systems are reliable and/or overestimate %BF
amongst individuals. In fact, it is highly recommended and prudent that fitness directors and/or owners of this particular model
conduct their own investigation to determine the extent to
which their specific model is valid and/or reliable. With all that
said, ongoing research is being conducted within our lab to
determine whether an overall correction factor or a sex-specific
correction factor is necessary to amend the overestimation
of %BF by the BOD POD S/T body composition tracking system.

References
1 ACSMs Guidelines for Exercise Testing and Prescription. Philadelphia,
PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2007
2 Claros G, Hull HR, Fields DA. Comparison of air displacement plethysmography to hydrostatic weighing for estimating total body density
in children. BMC Pediatr 2005; 5: 3745
3 Collins MA, Millard-Staord ML, Evans EM, Snow TK, Rosskopf LB, Cureton KJ. Validation of air displacement plethysmography for examining
body fat in young adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1998; 30: S146
4 Collins MA, Millard-Staord ML, Sparling PB, Snow TK, Rosskopf LB,
Webb SA, Omer J. Evaluation of the BOD POD for assessing body fat in
collegiate football players. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1999; 31: 13501356
5 Collins AL, Saunders S, Mccarthy HD, Williams JE, Fuller NJ. Within- and
between-laboratory precision in the measurement of body volume
using air displacement plethysmography and its eect on body composition assessment. Int J Obes Metab Disord 2004; 28: 8090
6 Demerath EW, Guo SS, Chumlea WC, Towne B, Roche AF, Siervogel RM.
Comparison of percent body fat estimates using air displacement
plethysmography and hydrodensitometry in adults and children. Int
J Relat Metab Disord 2002; 26: 389397
7 Dempster P, Aitkens S. A new air displacement method for the determination of human body composition. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1995;
27: 16921697
8 Dixon CB, Deitrick RW, Pierce PT, Cutrufello PT, Drapeau LL. Evaluation
of the BOD POD and leg-to-leg bioelectrical impedance analysis for
estimating percent body fat in National Collegiate Athletic Association
Division III collegiate wrestlers. J Strength Cond Res 2005; 19: 8591
9 Fields DA, Higgins PB, Hunter GR. Assessment of body composition by
air-displacement plethysmography: influence of body temperature
and moisture. Dyn Med 2004; 3: 39

10 Fields DA, Hunter GR, Goran MI. Validation of the BOD POD with hydrostatic weighing: influence of body clothing. Int J Obes Relat Metab
Disord 2000; 24: 200205
11 Ginde SR, Geliebter A, Rubiano F, Silva AM, Wang J, Heshka S, Heymsfield
SB. Air displacement plethysmography: validation in overweight and
obese subjects. Obes Res 2005; 13: 12321237
12 Harriss DJ, Atkinson G. International Journal of Sports Medicine Ethical Standards in Sport and Exercise Science Research. Int J Sports Med
2009; 30: 701702
13 Higgins PB, Fields DA, Hunter GR, Gower BA. Eect of scalp and facial
hair on air displacement plethysmography estimates of percentage
body fat. Obes Res 2001; 9: 326330
14 Levenhagen DK, Borel MJ, Welch DC, Piasecki JH, Piasecki DP, Chen KY,
Flakoll PJ. A comparison of air displacement plethysmography with 3
other techniques to determine body fat in healthy adults. J Parent Ent
Nut 1999; 23: 293299
15 Mccrory MA, Gomez TD, Bernauer EM, Mole PA. Evaluation of a new
air displacement plethysmography for measuring human body composition. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1995; 27: 16861691
16 Miyatake N, Nonaka K, Fujii M. A new air displacement plethysmography for the determination of Japanese body composition. Diab Obes
Metab 1999; 1: 347351
17 Powers SK, Howley ET. Exercise Physiology: Theory and Application to
Fitness and Performance. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Companies;
2009
18 Thomas R, Nelson J. Research Methods in Physical Activity. Champaign,
IL: Human Kinetics; 1996
19 Utter AC, Goss FL, Swan PD, Harris GS, Robertson RJ, Trone GA. Evaluation of air displacement for assessing body composition of collegiate
wrestlers. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2003; 35: 500505
20 Vescovi JD, Hildebrandt L, Miller WC, Hammer RL, Spiller A. Evaluation
of the BOD POD for estimating percent fat in female college athletes.
J Strength Cond Res 2002; 16: 599605
21 Vescovi JD, Zimmerman SL, Miller WC, Hildebrandt L, Hammer RL, Fernhall B. Evaluation of the BOD POD for estimating percentage body fat
in a heterogeneous group of adult humans. Eur J Appl Physiol 2001;
85: 326332
22 Wagner DR, Heyward VH, Gibson AL. Validation of air displacement
plethysmography for assessing body composition. Med Sci Sports
Exerc 2000; 32: 13391344
23 Yee A, Kern M. Validation of the BOD POD: method for estimating
percent body fat in an elderly population. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1998;
30: S146

Tseh W et al. Validity and Reliability of the BOD POD S/T Tracking Int J Sports Med 2010; 31: 704708

Downloaded by: University College Chester. Copyrighted material.

708 Training & Testing