Normal
0

false
false
false

EN-GB
ZH-CN
X-NONE

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:””;
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0cm;
mso-para-margin-right:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:8.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0cm;
line-height:107%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:”Calibri”,sans-serif;
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:”Times New Roman”;
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;
mso-ansi-language:EN-GB;}

Nutrition and Exercise Physiology Unit – Nutrition BSc

 

Practical Lab write up

Title

         The accuracy of body composition measurement from different assessment methods

 

There are 2 research Questions required to answer

         Is there any difference in body composition scores gained using different methods or instruments?

         Is there any difference in the body composition scores from skinfold measures with different assessors?

 

Introduction (Why collect data!)

Based on:

•Relevance to sport/exercise

•Physiological theory

·     Establish the practical or clinical relevance of the topic

·     Identify studies that have addressed the same topic and establish the need for further study

•Past studies

•Aim

 

 

Method (How collected data!)

Method – 3 different body composition tests were carried out

Participants – 12 physically active participants between the ages of 18-25 gave consent to participate

Design – This study was carried out in a general science laboratory. All participants did all three tests and were measured repeatedly. 2 assessors were allocated to measure each participant for the SF test.

Protocol – Body fat composition (bfc) was measured by 2 different assessors using a Harpenden skinfold calliper on 4 different sites of the body; biceps, triceps, subscapularis, suprailiac. See appendix for method. Then bfc was measured using an Omron bioelectrical Impedance monitor which required entering participants height, weight, age and sex into it. See (BF500 Body Composition Monitor, 2006) for method. Thirdly, bfc was measured using the SECA scales which required entering height and waist size.

Data analysis – All data was collected and reported as mean+/-SD % body fat scores. Mean differences between each method were calculated and a correlation co-efficient was used to identify the strength of the relationship between methods.

 

 

 

 

Results (see table below for lab results)

•Data is all relevant to the original aim

•All data is means ± SD

•Integrate graphs, stats and text – graphs could show 1 with means comparison and another showing correlation between.

 

Discussion (Explanation of data!)

•Key findings – strength of the relationship between methods

•Comparison to previous studies

•Physiological explanation for

findings

•How can this be applied to the ‘real

world’

If there is difference in our findings to those in other similar studies why might this be?

•Is it due to the different population groups used, slightly different methods, variation in the principles underpinning the prediction methods or the experience of the assessor?

•Might limitation be part of this?