Accesso libero

Assessing the consistency between the anthropometric method and bioelectrical impedance analysis when calculating the Heath-Carter somatotype in people without obesity: a cross-sectional study

Kyialbek Sakibaev

Kyialbek Sakibaev

  • Department of Natural Sciences and Humanities, Osh International Medical UniversityOsh, Kyrgyzstan
  • Department of Normal and Topographical Anatomy, Medical Faculty, Osh State UniversityOsh, Kyrgyzstan
  • Scientific Research Institute of Biomedical Problems of the Southern Branch of the National Academy of SciencesOsh, Kyrgyzstan
Cerca questo autore su
Sciendo|Google Scholar
Sakibaev, Kyialbek
, 
Alexander Meshtel

Alexander Meshtel

Department of Anatomy and Biological Anthropology, Russian University of SportsMoscow, Russian Federation
Cerca questo autore su
Sciendo|Google Scholar
Meshtel, Alexander
, 
Tatyana Grichanova

Tatyana Grichanova

Department of Anatomy and Biological Anthropology, Russian University of SportsMoscow, Russian Federation
Cerca questo autore su
Sciendo|Google Scholar
Grichanova, Tatyana
, 
Kylychbek Suiunov

Kylychbek Suiunov

CARDIO ASIA-PLUS Medical CenterOsh, Kyrgyzstan
Cerca questo autore su
Sciendo|Google Scholar
Suiunov, Kylychbek
, 
Abdyrakhman Eshiev

Abdyrakhman Eshiev

  • Department of Normal and Topographical Anatomy, Medical Faculty, Osh State UniversityOsh, Kyrgyzstan
  • Scientific Research Institute of Biomedical Problems of the Southern Branch of the National Academy of SciencesOsh, Kyrgyzstan
Cerca questo autore su
Sciendo|Google Scholar
Eshiev, Abdyrakhman
, 
Sagynbek Dzholdubaev

Sagynbek Dzholdubaev

  • Department of Natural Sciences and Humanities, Osh International Medical UniversityOsh, Kyrgyzstan
  • Department of Anatomy, Histology and Normal Physiology, International Medical Faculty, Osh State UniversityOsh, Kyrgyzstan
Cerca questo autore su
Sciendo|Google Scholar
Dzholdubaev, Sagynbek
, 
Nazgul Tashmatova

Nazgul Tashmatova

  • Department of Natural Sciences and Humanities, Osh International Medical UniversityOsh, Kyrgyzstan
  • Department of Anatomy, Histology and Normal Physiology, International Medical Faculty, Osh State UniversityOsh, Kyrgyzstan
Cerca questo autore su
Sciendo|Google Scholar
Tashmatova, Nazgul
, 
Mirlan Nuruev

Mirlan Nuruev

Department of Anatomy, Histology and Normal Physiology, International Medical Faculty, Osh State UniversityOsh, Kyrgyzstan
Cerca questo autore su
Sciendo|Google Scholar
Nuruev, Mirlan
, 
Aiperi Alimbekova

Aiperi Alimbekova

Department of Anatomy, Histology and Normal Physiology, International Medical Faculty, Osh State UniversityOsh, Kyrgyzstan
Cerca questo autore su
Sciendo|Google Scholar
Alimbekova, Aiperi
, 
Akmaral Argynbaeva

Akmaral Argynbaeva

  • Department of Anatomy, Histology and Normal Physiology, International Medical Faculty, Osh State UniversityOsh, Kyrgyzstan
  • Scientific Research Institute of Biomedical Problems of the Southern Branch of the National Academy of SciencesOsh, Kyrgyzstan
Cerca questo autore su
Sciendo|Google Scholar
Argynbaeva, Akmaral
, 
Uulkan Manas Kyzy

Uulkan Manas Kyzy

Department of Anatomy, Histology and Normal Physiology, International Medical Faculty, Osh State UniversityOsh, Kyrgyzstan
Cerca questo autore su
Sciendo|Google Scholar
Kyzy, Uulkan Manas
, 
Bekbolot Keneshbaev

Bekbolot Keneshbaev

Department of Normal and Topographical Anatomy, Medical Faculty, Osh State UniversityOsh, Kyrgyzstan
Cerca questo autore su
Sciendo|Google Scholar
Keneshbaev, Bekbolot
 e 
Kulpunai Karimova

Kulpunai Karimova

Department of Normal and Topographical Anatomy, Medical Faculty, Osh State UniversityOsh, Kyrgyzstan
Cerca questo autore su
Sciendo|Google Scholar
Karimova, Kulpunai
  
04 ago 2025
Assessing the consistency between the anthropometric method and bioelectrical impedance analysis when calculating the Heath-Carter somatotype in people without obesity: a cross-sectional study's Cover Image
INFORMAZIONI SU QUESTO ARTICOLO
Articolo precedente
Articolo Successivo
Cita
Scarica la copertina
Pubblicato online: 04 ago 2025
Pagine: 99 - 106
Ricevuto: 15 gen 2025
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/joeb-2025-0013
Parole chiave
© 2025 Kyialbek Sakibaev et al., published by Sciendo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Fig. 1:

Diagram of the location of measuring (potential) and current electrodes on the patient's hand and foot.
Diagram of the location of measuring (potential) and current electrodes on the patient's hand and foot.

Fig. 2:

Comparative analysis of endomorphy scores in female. A – assessment of bias using the Bland-Altman method, the Y-axis shows the “BIA-Anthro” difference in endomorphy scores, B – scatter plot between two methods for assessing somatotype. BIA – bioelectrical impedance analysis, SD (standard deviation), r – Pearson correlation coefficient, pc – Lin correlation concordance coefficient.
Comparative analysis of endomorphy scores in female. A – assessment of bias using the Bland-Altman method, the Y-axis shows the “BIA-Anthro” difference in endomorphy scores, B – scatter plot between two methods for assessing somatotype. BIA – bioelectrical impedance analysis, SD (standard deviation), r – Pearson correlation coefficient, pc – Lin correlation concordance coefficient.

Fig. 3:

Comparative analysis of mesomorphy scores in females. A– assessment of bias using the Bland-Altman method, the Y-axis shows the “BIA-Anthro” difference in mesomorphy scores, B – scatter plot between two methods for assessing somatotype. BIA – bioelectrical impedance analysis, SD (standard deviation), r – Pearson correlation coefficient, pc – Lin correlation concordance coefficient.
Comparative analysis of mesomorphy scores in females. A– assessment of bias using the Bland-Altman method, the Y-axis shows the “BIA-Anthro” difference in mesomorphy scores, B – scatter plot between two methods for assessing somatotype. BIA – bioelectrical impedance analysis, SD (standard deviation), r – Pearson correlation coefficient, pc – Lin correlation concordance coefficient.

Fig. 4:

Comparative analysis of ectomorphy scores in females. A – assessment of bias using the Bland-Altman method, the Y-axis shows the “BIA-Anthro” difference in ectomorphy scores, B – scatter plot between two methods for assessing somatotype. BIA – bioelectrical impedance analysis, SD (standard deviation), r – Pearson correlation coefficient, pc – Lin correlation concordance coefficient.
Comparative analysis of ectomorphy scores in females. A – assessment of bias using the Bland-Altman method, the Y-axis shows the “BIA-Anthro” difference in ectomorphy scores, B – scatter plot between two methods for assessing somatotype. BIA – bioelectrical impedance analysis, SD (standard deviation), r – Pearson correlation coefficient, pc – Lin correlation concordance coefficient.

Fig. 5:

Comparison of female somatotyping results by the Heath-Carter method using BIA and anthropometry. BIA – bioelectrical impedance analysis.
Comparison of female somatotyping results by the Heath-Carter method using BIA and anthropometry. BIA – bioelectrical impedance analysis.

Fig. 6:

Comparative analysis of endomorphy scores in young men. A – assessment of bias using the Bland-Altman method, the Y-axis shows the “BIA-Anthro” difference in endomorphy scores, B – scatter plot between two methods for assessing somatotype. BIA – bioelectrical impedance analysis, SD (standard deviation), r – Pearson correlation coefficient, pc – Lin correlation concordance coefficient.
Comparative analysis of endomorphy scores in young men. A – assessment of bias using the Bland-Altman method, the Y-axis shows the “BIA-Anthro” difference in endomorphy scores, B – scatter plot between two methods for assessing somatotype. BIA – bioelectrical impedance analysis, SD (standard deviation), r – Pearson correlation coefficient, pc – Lin correlation concordance coefficient.

Fig. 7:

Comparative analysis of mesomorphy scores in male. A – assessment of bias using the Bland-Altman method, the Y-axis shows the “BIA-Anthro” difference in mesomorphy scores, B – scatter plot between two methods for assessing somatotype. BIA – bioelectrical impedance analysis, SD (standard deviation), r – Pearson correlation coefficient, pc – Lin correlation concordance coefficient.
Comparative analysis of mesomorphy scores in male. A – assessment of bias using the Bland-Altman method, the Y-axis shows the “BIA-Anthro” difference in mesomorphy scores, B – scatter plot between two methods for assessing somatotype. BIA – bioelectrical impedance analysis, SD (standard deviation), r – Pearson correlation coefficient, pc – Lin correlation concordance coefficient.

Fig. 8:

Comparative analysis of ectomorphy scores in male. A – assessment of bias using the Bland-Altman method, the Y-axis shows the “BIA-Anthro” difference in ectomorphy scores, B – scatter plot between two methods for assessing somatotype. BIA – bioelectrical impedance analysis, SD (standard deviation), r – Pearson correlation coefficient, pc – Lin correlation concordance coefficient.
Comparative analysis of ectomorphy scores in male. A – assessment of bias using the Bland-Altman method, the Y-axis shows the “BIA-Anthro” difference in ectomorphy scores, B – scatter plot between two methods for assessing somatotype. BIA – bioelectrical impedance analysis, SD (standard deviation), r – Pearson correlation coefficient, pc – Lin correlation concordance coefficient.

Fig. 9:

Comparison of somatotyping results of male by Heath-Carter method using BIA and anthropometry.
Comparison of somatotyping results of male by Heath-Carter method using BIA and anthropometry.

Results of a comparative analysis of somatotype assessment using anthropometric measurements and bioelectrical impedance analysis_

Female
Somatotype BIA Anthropometry p pc r
M ± SD M ± SD
Endo 4.2±1.1 4.6±1,3 0.028* 0.84 (0.62; 0.94) 0.89
Meso 4.9±1.0 4.1±0.3 0.001* 0.31 (0.12; 0.48) 0.81
Ekto 2.3±1.2 2.3±1.4 0.886 0.96 (0.90; 0.99) 0.97
Male
Somatotype BIA Anthropometry p pc r
M ± SD M ± SD
Endo 2.1±1.3 3.1±1.1 0.432 0.21 (−0.40; 0.69) 0.23
Meso 5.6±1.6 3.8±1.4 0.001* 0.42 (0.10; 0.66) 0.84
Ecto 2.4±1.3 2.4±1.2 0.167 0.98 (0.94; 0.99) 0.99

Study participant data_

Parameters M M ± SD F M ± SD
Height, cm 182 ± 12 164 ± 6
Body mass, kg 61.4 ± 11.7 78.9 ± 15.5
BMI, kg/m2 22.3 ± 2.8 24.2 ± 3.9
Age, years 18.1 ± 1.3 18.4 ± 0.9
Shoulder girth, cm 27.3 ± 3.26 34.6 ± 3.7
Calf circumference, cm 34.8 ± 2.3 36.6 ± 3.3
Hip circumference, cm 69.7 ± 8.5 78.6 ± 7.9
Diameter of the distal epiphysis of the humerus, cm 5.3 ± 0.5 6.7 ± 0.6
Diameter of the distal femoral epiphysis, cm 8.1 ± 1.0 9.4 ± 0.8
Subscapular, mm 16.3 ± 7.0 14.3 ± 8.8
Triceps, mm 16.0 ± 5.6 9.9 ± 4.6
Iliac crest, mm 16.1 ± 8.0 13.8 ± 10.3
Medial calf, mm 19.5 ± 8.3 11.9 ± 5.4
Lingua:
Inglese
Frequenza di pubblicazione:
1 volte all'anno
Argomenti della rivista:
Ingegneria, Bioingegneria ed ingegneria biomedicale, Elettronica biomedicale, Scienze biologiche, Biofisica, Medicina, Ingegneria biomedica, Fisica, Spettroscopia e metrologia
Feed RSS della rivista