Body weight and height was measured using portable electronic scales (SECA, Germany) and stadiometer (Holtain, UK). BMI (kg/m2) was categorized according to the WHO guidelines36 into underweight (BMI <18.5), normal weight (18.5≤ BMI <25), overweight (25 ≤ BMI <30) and obese (BMI ≥30). WC was measured at the smallest site between the lowest rib and the superior border of the iliac crest with flexible, non-stretchable measurement tape37 (link). WC was categorized as ‘normal’, ‘increased’ and ‘strongly increased’ according to international guidelines38 .
Portable electronic scale
Manufactured by Seca
Sourced in Germany
The Portable Electronic Scale is a compact and versatile weighing device designed for accurate measurements. It features a digital display and can measure weights up to a specified capacity.
Automatically generated - may contain errors
Lab products found in correlation
6 protocols using portable electronic scale
1
Anthropometric Measurements and Classifications
2
Body Composition Measurement Protocol
Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
+ Expand
Upon waking and following a voided bladder, participants were then asked to change into only their underwear or tight-fitting sport shorts. Body mass measurement was obtained using a set of portable electronic scales (SECA, Birmingham, UK) to 0.1 kg accuracy. Thereafter, height was assessed using a portable stadiometer (SECA, Birmingham, UK) to 0.5 cm accuracy. The sum of eight site skinfold measurements were then carried out by the same Level 1 International Society for the Advancement of Kinanthropometry (ISAK) accredited anthropometrist, using Harpenden callipers (British Indicators, Hertfordshire, UK) to 0.1 mm accuracy. Skinfold measurements were made on the right side of the body using ISAK techniques previously described [24 ], with a sum of eight skinfolds calculated from the measures of the; biceps, triceps, subscapular, abdominal, supraspinale, iliac crest, mid-thigh and medial calf skinfold sites. Duplicate measures were carried out for all sites to determine re-test reliability, in which a third measure was recorded if the difference between duplicate measures was greater than 4% for a single skinfold [11 (link)]. Anthropometrical technical errors of measurement were below the recommended limits [25 (link)], and all anthropometric equipment was calibrated as per the manufacturers’ guidelines.
3
Measuring BMI Percentiles in Youth
Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
+ Expand
Due to an established correlation between BMI and carotenoids [39 (link)], height and weight data were collected at all time points from consented and assented youth and used to calculate body mass index (BMI) percentile-for-age. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines were followed [40 ,41 (link)]. Briefly, height was measured to the nearest 0.1 cm using a stadiometer (Seca, Chino, CA, USA) and body weight to the nearest 0.1 kg using a portable electronic scale (Seca, Chino, CA, USA). Measurements were taken twice, in the event of more than a 0.3 cm difference in height or 0.1 kg difference in weight between measures, a third measurement was conducted. Along with date of birth, these values were used to calculate BMI percentile-for-age [20 (link)].
4
Assessing Weight Status and Fat Mass
Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
+ Expand
Weight status and fat mass index (FMI) were the primary outcome variables of interest for this study. To determine weight status, trained data collectors measured standing height to the nearest 0.1 cm using a portable stadiometer (SECA, Hamburg, Germany) and weight to the nearest 0.1 kg using a portable electronic scale (SECA, Hamburg, Germany). BMI was then calculated using the average of two measurements of height and weight via the standardized equation (kg/m2). Weight status was determined using age- and sex-specific body mass index (BMI) percentiles from the 2000 CDC growth charts and expressed as underweight/normal weight (<85th percentile) vs. overweight/obese (≥85th percentile) [27 ]. Due to small sample size, underweight (n = 8) was combined with normal weight BMI percentile category for all analyses. To calculate FMI, fat-free mass (i.e., resistance) was measured using total bioelectrical impedance (RJL QuantumIIBIA Systems, Clinton Township, MI, USA) in accordance with manufacturer protocol on the right side (hand and foot) [28 (link)]. Then fat mass was determined by subtracting fat-free mass from weight using the following equation: Fat Mass = Weight − [(3.474 + (0.459·Height2/Resistance) + (0.064·Weight)) ÷ (0.769 − (0.009·Age) − 0.016·Sex)], where 1 = male and 0 = female [28 (link)]. Finally, FMI was calculated by dividing fat mass by height (m2).
5
Measuring Adolescent Anthropometrics
Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
+ Expand
Participants reported their age, gender, and race/ethnicity via a student survey. Race and ethnicity groups were collapsed into four categories: non-Hispanic white, non-Hispanic black, Hispanic, and other (including multiracial). As part of the parent survey, a parent or guardian reported their highest level of education. For the present analyses, parent education was used as a proxy for family socioeconomic status and categorized into two groups (≤high school education; >high school education). Height and weight were measured at each measurement period by trained data collectors. Standing height was measured to the nearest 0.1 cm using a portable stadiometer (SECA, Hamburg Germany). Weight was measured to the nearest 0.1 kg using a portable electronic scale (SECA, Hamburg, Germany). Weight status was determined using age- and sex-specific body mass index (BMI) percentiles from 2000 CDC growth charts: underweight/normal weight (<85th percentile), overweight (85th percentile to <95th percentile), and obese (≥95th percentile) [42 ].
6
Detailed Body Composition and Physical Activity Assessment
Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
+ Expand
Body composition was measured using a duo frequency Bioelectrical Impedance Machine (Tanita DC-430 MA TANITA Corporation, Tokyo, Japan). Bodyweight was measured on a Seca portable electronic scale to the nearest 0.1 kg and height to the nearest 0.1 cm. Bodyweight (kg) and height (cm) were measured with the subjects wearing light garments and standing erect, respectively.
Waist and hip circumferences were measured in the midline between the lower rib margin and the iliac crest and the widest diameter over the greater trochanters. Mid upper arm circumference was measured at the mid-point between the tip of the shoulder and the tip of the elbow. All measurements were taken using standard equipment’s and protocol.
Physical activity was measured using the World Health Organisation Global Physical Activity Questionnaire.11 (link) Data collection involving body composition and glucose measurements was done in the morning after an overnight fast. All data collection tools and equipment were pretested and calibrated before data collection. A team of well-trained health workers undertook measurements.
Waist and hip circumferences were measured in the midline between the lower rib margin and the iliac crest and the widest diameter over the greater trochanters. Mid upper arm circumference was measured at the mid-point between the tip of the shoulder and the tip of the elbow. All measurements were taken using standard equipment’s and protocol.
Physical activity was measured using the World Health Organisation Global Physical Activity Questionnaire.11 (link) Data collection involving body composition and glucose measurements was done in the morning after an overnight fast. All data collection tools and equipment were pretested and calibrated before data collection. A team of well-trained health workers undertook measurements.
About PubCompare
Our mission is to provide scientists with the largest repository of trustworthy protocols and intelligent analytical tools, thereby offering them extensive information to design robust protocols aimed at minimizing the risk of failures.
We believe that the most crucial aspect is to grant scientists access to a wide range of reliable sources and new useful tools that surpass human capabilities.
However, we trust in allowing scientists to determine how to construct their own protocols based on this information, as they are the experts in their field.
Ready to get started?
Sign up for free.
Registration takes 20 seconds.
Available from any computer
No download required
Revolutionizing how scientists
search and build protocols!