Come Back Skinfolds, All Is Forgiven: A Narrative Review of the Efficacy of Common Body Composition Methods in Applied Sports Practice

Whilst the assessment of body composition is routine practice in sport, there remains considerable debate on the best tools available, with the chosen technique often based upon convenience rather than understanding the method and its limitations. The aim of this manuscript was threefold: (1) provide an overview of the common methodologies used within sport to measure body composition, specifically hydro-densitometry, air displacement plethysmography, bioelectrical impedance analysis and spectroscopy, ultra-sound, three-dimensional scanning, dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) and skinfold thickness; (2) compare the efficacy of what are widely believed to be the most accurate (DXA) and practical (skinfold thickness) assessment tools and (3) provide a framework to help select the most appropriate assessment in applied sports practice including insights from the authors’ experiences working in elite sport. Traditionally, skinfold thickness has been the most popular method of body composition but the use of DXA has increased in recent years, with a wide held belief that it is the criterion standard. When bone mineral content needs to be assessed, and/or when it is necessary to take limb-specific estimations of fat and fat-free mass, then DXA appears to be the preferred method, although it is crucial to be aware of the logistical constraints required to produce reliable data, including controlling food intake, prior exercise and hydration status. However, given the need for simplicity and after considering the evidence across all assessment methods, skinfolds appear to be the least affected by day-to-day variability, leading to the conclusion ‘come back skinfolds, all is forgiven’

The prevalence of disordered eating in elite male and female soccer players

Purpose To examine the prevalence of disordered eating (DE) in elite male and female soccer players and the influence of perfectionism. Methods Using a cross-sectional design, elite male (n = 137) and female (n = 70) soccer players and non-athlete controls (n = 179) completed the clinical perfectionism questionnaire (CPQ-12) and the eating attitudes test (EAT-26) to assess perfectionism and DE risk, respectively. Results Male soccer players had higher EAT-26 scores than controls (10.4 ± 9.9 vs. 6.8 ± 6.7; P=0.001) but there were no differences in the prevalence of clinical levels of DE (EAT-26 score ≥20) (15 vs. 5%, respectively; X2 = 0.079) The proportion of females with DE risk was higher in controls (EAT-26: 13.9 ± 11.6 (25% of population)) than female players (EAT-26: 10.0 ± 9.0% (11% of population)) (X2 = 0.001). With linear regression, perfectionism explained 20% of the variation in DE risk in males (P=0.001); in females, athletic status (player vs. control) and perfectionism were significant predictors of DE risk, explaining 21% of the variation (P=0.001). Male reserve team players had higher EAT-26 (+3.5) and perfectionism (+2.7) scores than first-team players (P<0.05). There were no differences in the prevalence of DE risk between the male and female soccer players (X2 = 0.595). Conclusions The prevalence of DE risk was not different in elite male and female soccer players; in fact, the prevalence was greatest in non-athlete female controls. Perfectionism is a significant predictor of DE risk in males and females

The effect of health literacy on knowledge and receipt of colorectal cancer screening: a survey study

BACKGROUND: An estimated one-half of Americans have limited health literacy skills. Low literacy has been associated with less receipt of preventive services, but its impact on colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is unclear. We sought to determine whether low literacy affects patients' knowledge or receipt of CRC screening. METHODS: Pilot survey study of patients aged 50 years and older at a large, university-affiliated internal medicine practice. We assessed patients' knowledge and receipt of CRC screening, basic sociodemographic information, and health literacy level. We defined limited literacy as reading below the ninth grade level as determined by the Rapid Estimate of Adult Literacy in Medicine. Bivariate analyses and exact logistic regression were used to determine the association of limited health literacy with knowledge and receipt of CRC screening. RESULTS: We approached 105 patients to yield our target sample of 50 completing the survey (recruitment rate 48%). Most subjects were female (72%), African-American (58%), and had household incomes less than $25,000 (87%). Overall, 48% of patients had limited literacy skills (95% CI 35% to 61%). Limited literacy patients were less likely than adequate literacy patients to be able to name or describe any CRC screening test (50% vs. 96%, p < 0.01). In the multivariable model, limited literacy patients were 44% less likely to be knowledgeable of CRC screening (RR 0.56, p < 0.01). Self-reported screening rates were similar (54% vs. 58%, p = 0.88). CONCLUSION: Patients with limited literacy skills are less likely to be knowledgeable of CRC screening compared to adequate literacy patients. Primary care providers should ensure patients' understanding of CRC screening when discussing screening options. Further research is needed to determine if educating low literacy patients about CRC screening can increase screening rates

Assessing treatment outcomes in multiple sclerosis trials and in the clinical setting

Increasing numbers of drugs are being developed for the treatment of multiple sclerosis (MS). Measurement of relevant outcomes is key for assessing the efficacy of new drugs in clinical trials and for monitoring responses to disease-modifying drugs in individual patients. Most outcomes used in trial and clinical settings reflect either clinical or neuroimaging aspects of MS (such as relapse and accrual of disability or the presence of visible inflammation and brain tissue loss, respectively). However, most measures employed in clinical trials to assess treatment effects are not used in routine practice. In clinical trials, the appropriate choice of outcome measures is crucial because the results determine whether a drug is considered effective and therefore worthy of further development; in the clinic, outcome measures can guide treatment decisions, such as choosing a first-line disease-modifying drug or escalating to second-line treatment. This Review discusses clinical, neuroimaging and composite outcome measures for MS, including patient-reported outcome measures, used in both trials and the clinical setting. Its aim is to help clinicians and researchers navigate through the multiple options encountered when choosing an outcome measure. Barriers and limitations that need to be overcome to translate trial outcome measures into the clinical setting are also discussed