Mechanical scale and load cell underwater weighing: Acomparison of simultaneous measurements and the reliability of methods

Jordan R. Moon, Jeffrey R. Stout, Ashley A. Walter, Abbie E. Smith, Matt S. Stock, Trent J. Herda, Vanessa D. Sherk, Kaelin C. Young, Christopher M. Lockwood, Kristina L. Kendall, David H. Fukuda, Jennifer L. Graef, Joel T. Cramer, Travis W. Beck, Enrico N. Esposito

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

4 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Both load cell and mechanical scale-based hydrostatic weighing (HW) systems are used for the measurement of underwater weight. However, there has been no direct comparison of the 2 methods. The purpose of the current investigation was to simultaneously compare a load cell and mechanical scale for use in HW. Twenty-seven men and women (mean ± SD, age: 22 ± 2 years) participated in the 2-day investigation. Each subject completed 2 HW assessments 24 hours apart. Singleday comparisons of all trials for both days revealed no significant difference between the mechanical scale and the load cell (mean difference <0.016 kg, p >0.05). True underwater weight values were not significantly different between methods for either days (mean difference <0.014 kg, p >0.05) and accounted for a mean difference in percent fat (%FAT) of <0.108%. The 95% limits of agreement indicated a maximum difference between methods of 0.53% FAT. Both methods produced similar reliability SEM values (mechanical SEM <0.72%FAT, load cell SEM <0.75%FAT). In conclusion, there was no difference between mechanical scale and load cell measurements of underwater weights and the added precision of the load cell only marginally (<0.16%FAT) improved day-to-day reliability. Either a mechanical scale or load cell can be used for HW with similar accuracy and reliability in young adults with a body mass index of 18.7-34.4 (5-25%FAT).

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)652-661
Number of pages10
JournalJournal of strength and conditioning research
Volume25
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 1 2011

Fingerprint

Weights and Measures
Young Adult
Body Mass Index
Fats

Keywords

  • Body composition
  • Hydrodensitometry
  • Hydrostatic weighing
  • Reproducibility

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Orthopedics and Sports Medicine
  • Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation

Cite this

Mechanical scale and load cell underwater weighing : Acomparison of simultaneous measurements and the reliability of methods. / Moon, Jordan R.; Stout, Jeffrey R.; Walter, Ashley A.; Smith, Abbie E.; Stock, Matt S.; Herda, Trent J.; Sherk, Vanessa D.; Young, Kaelin C.; Lockwood, Christopher M.; Kendall, Kristina L.; Fukuda, David H.; Graef, Jennifer L.; Cramer, Joel T.; Beck, Travis W.; Esposito, Enrico N.

In: Journal of strength and conditioning research, Vol. 25, No. 3, 01.03.2011, p. 652-661.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Moon, JR, Stout, JR, Walter, AA, Smith, AE, Stock, MS, Herda, TJ, Sherk, VD, Young, KC, Lockwood, CM, Kendall, KL, Fukuda, DH, Graef, JL, Cramer, JT, Beck, TW & Esposito, EN 2011, 'Mechanical scale and load cell underwater weighing: Acomparison of simultaneous measurements and the reliability of methods', Journal of strength and conditioning research, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 652-661. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181e99c2d
Moon, Jordan R. ; Stout, Jeffrey R. ; Walter, Ashley A. ; Smith, Abbie E. ; Stock, Matt S. ; Herda, Trent J. ; Sherk, Vanessa D. ; Young, Kaelin C. ; Lockwood, Christopher M. ; Kendall, Kristina L. ; Fukuda, David H. ; Graef, Jennifer L. ; Cramer, Joel T. ; Beck, Travis W. ; Esposito, Enrico N. / Mechanical scale and load cell underwater weighing : Acomparison of simultaneous measurements and the reliability of methods. In: Journal of strength and conditioning research. 2011 ; Vol. 25, No. 3. pp. 652-661.
@article{6b714d58292d40f8857f8108b3bf6b4a,
title = "Mechanical scale and load cell underwater weighing: Acomparison of simultaneous measurements and the reliability of methods",
abstract = "Both load cell and mechanical scale-based hydrostatic weighing (HW) systems are used for the measurement of underwater weight. However, there has been no direct comparison of the 2 methods. The purpose of the current investigation was to simultaneously compare a load cell and mechanical scale for use in HW. Twenty-seven men and women (mean ± SD, age: 22 ± 2 years) participated in the 2-day investigation. Each subject completed 2 HW assessments 24 hours apart. Singleday comparisons of all trials for both days revealed no significant difference between the mechanical scale and the load cell (mean difference <0.016 kg, p >0.05). True underwater weight values were not significantly different between methods for either days (mean difference <0.014 kg, p >0.05) and accounted for a mean difference in percent fat ({\%}FAT) of <0.108{\%}. The 95{\%} limits of agreement indicated a maximum difference between methods of 0.53{\%} FAT. Both methods produced similar reliability SEM values (mechanical SEM <0.72{\%}FAT, load cell SEM <0.75{\%}FAT). In conclusion, there was no difference between mechanical scale and load cell measurements of underwater weights and the added precision of the load cell only marginally (<0.16{\%}FAT) improved day-to-day reliability. Either a mechanical scale or load cell can be used for HW with similar accuracy and reliability in young adults with a body mass index of 18.7-34.4 (5-25{\%}FAT).",
keywords = "Body composition, Hydrodensitometry, Hydrostatic weighing, Reproducibility",
author = "Moon, {Jordan R.} and Stout, {Jeffrey R.} and Walter, {Ashley A.} and Smith, {Abbie E.} and Stock, {Matt S.} and Herda, {Trent J.} and Sherk, {Vanessa D.} and Young, {Kaelin C.} and Lockwood, {Christopher M.} and Kendall, {Kristina L.} and Fukuda, {David H.} and Graef, {Jennifer L.} and Cramer, {Joel T.} and Beck, {Travis W.} and Esposito, {Enrico N.}",
year = "2011",
month = "3",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181e99c2d",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "25",
pages = "652--661",
journal = "Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research",
issn = "1064-8011",
publisher = "NSCA National Strength and Conditioning Association",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Mechanical scale and load cell underwater weighing

T2 - Acomparison of simultaneous measurements and the reliability of methods

AU - Moon, Jordan R.

AU - Stout, Jeffrey R.

AU - Walter, Ashley A.

AU - Smith, Abbie E.

AU - Stock, Matt S.

AU - Herda, Trent J.

AU - Sherk, Vanessa D.

AU - Young, Kaelin C.

AU - Lockwood, Christopher M.

AU - Kendall, Kristina L.

AU - Fukuda, David H.

AU - Graef, Jennifer L.

AU - Cramer, Joel T.

AU - Beck, Travis W.

AU - Esposito, Enrico N.

PY - 2011/3/1

Y1 - 2011/3/1

N2 - Both load cell and mechanical scale-based hydrostatic weighing (HW) systems are used for the measurement of underwater weight. However, there has been no direct comparison of the 2 methods. The purpose of the current investigation was to simultaneously compare a load cell and mechanical scale for use in HW. Twenty-seven men and women (mean ± SD, age: 22 ± 2 years) participated in the 2-day investigation. Each subject completed 2 HW assessments 24 hours apart. Singleday comparisons of all trials for both days revealed no significant difference between the mechanical scale and the load cell (mean difference <0.016 kg, p >0.05). True underwater weight values were not significantly different between methods for either days (mean difference <0.014 kg, p >0.05) and accounted for a mean difference in percent fat (%FAT) of <0.108%. The 95% limits of agreement indicated a maximum difference between methods of 0.53% FAT. Both methods produced similar reliability SEM values (mechanical SEM <0.72%FAT, load cell SEM <0.75%FAT). In conclusion, there was no difference between mechanical scale and load cell measurements of underwater weights and the added precision of the load cell only marginally (<0.16%FAT) improved day-to-day reliability. Either a mechanical scale or load cell can be used for HW with similar accuracy and reliability in young adults with a body mass index of 18.7-34.4 (5-25%FAT).

AB - Both load cell and mechanical scale-based hydrostatic weighing (HW) systems are used for the measurement of underwater weight. However, there has been no direct comparison of the 2 methods. The purpose of the current investigation was to simultaneously compare a load cell and mechanical scale for use in HW. Twenty-seven men and women (mean ± SD, age: 22 ± 2 years) participated in the 2-day investigation. Each subject completed 2 HW assessments 24 hours apart. Singleday comparisons of all trials for both days revealed no significant difference between the mechanical scale and the load cell (mean difference <0.016 kg, p >0.05). True underwater weight values were not significantly different between methods for either days (mean difference <0.014 kg, p >0.05) and accounted for a mean difference in percent fat (%FAT) of <0.108%. The 95% limits of agreement indicated a maximum difference between methods of 0.53% FAT. Both methods produced similar reliability SEM values (mechanical SEM <0.72%FAT, load cell SEM <0.75%FAT). In conclusion, there was no difference between mechanical scale and load cell measurements of underwater weights and the added precision of the load cell only marginally (<0.16%FAT) improved day-to-day reliability. Either a mechanical scale or load cell can be used for HW with similar accuracy and reliability in young adults with a body mass index of 18.7-34.4 (5-25%FAT).

KW - Body composition

KW - Hydrodensitometry

KW - Hydrostatic weighing

KW - Reproducibility

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=79953905659&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=79953905659&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181e99c2d

DO - 10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181e99c2d

M3 - Article

C2 - 21273906

AN - SCOPUS:79953905659

VL - 25

SP - 652

EP - 661

JO - Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

JF - Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

SN - 1064-8011

IS - 3

ER -