International Journal of Chemical Engineering and Applications, Vol. 5, No.

3, June 2014

Body Composition Analysis of Staff members of College

Using Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis Method
Swaroopa Rani N. Gupta

AbstractAims: In this analysis of body composition such

as body weight, BMI, body fat percentage, segmental
subcutaneous fat & skeletal muscle percentage (whole body,
trunk, legs and arms), resting metabolism, visceral fat level
and body age is done by bioelectrical impedance technique
and results are interpreted and corresponding instructions for
better health improvement is given.
Methods: Body composition analysis of teaching and nonteaching staff members of Brijlal Biyani Science College
Amravati Maharashtra India using bioelectrical impedance
analysis method is done. For ideal weight management and for
a more accurate and precise body composition analysis full
body sensing technology karada scan body composition
monitor HBF-375 is used. The general principle behind
bioelectrical impedance analysis is that two or more
conductors are attached to a person's body and a small electric
current is sent through the body. The resistance between the
conductors provides a measure of body fat between a pair of
electrodes, since the resistance to electricity varies between
adipose, muscular and skeletal tissue.
Result: Interpretation of body composition analysis report
of Teaching Staff members (Senior College) shows that
overweight person is 70.6 %; that of Junior College is 73.3 %;
that of non-teaching staff members (laboratory) is 52.4 %
while; that of office is 76.9 %; and that of library is 100 %.
Index TermsBody age, body fat, BMI, RM, skeletal muscle,
subcutaneous fat, visceral fat.

I. INTRODUCTION
Bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) is a commonly
used method for estimating body composition, and in
particular body fat. Since the advent of the first
commercially available devices in the mid-1980s the
method has become popular owing to its ease of use,
portability of the equipment and its relatively low cost
compared to some of the other methods of body
composition analysis. It is familiar in the consumer market
as a simple instrument for estimating body fat. BIA actually
determines the electrical impedance, or opposition to the
flow of an electric current through body tissues which can
then be used to calculate an estimate of total body water
(TBW). TBW can be used to estimate fat-free body mass
and, by difference with body weight, body fat [1].
Many of the early research studies showed that BIA was
quite variable and it was not regarded by many as providing
an accurate measure of body composition. In recent years
technological improvements have made BIA a more reliable
and therefore more acceptable way of measuring body
Manscript received November 15, 2013; revised January 19, 2014.
Swaroopa Rani N. Gupta is with the Department of Chemistry, Brijlal
Biyani Science College Amravati, Maharashtra, India (email:
swargupta@yahoo.com).

DOI: 10.7763/IJCEA.2014.V5.390

259

composition. Nevertheless it is not a gold standard or

reference method. Like all assessment tools, the result is
only as good as the test done. Although the instruments are
straightforward to use, careful attention to the method of use
(as described by the manufacturer) should be given.
Simple devices to estimate body fat, often using BIA, are
available to consumers as body fat meters. These
instruments are generally regarded as being less accurate
than those used clinically or in nutritional and medical
practice. They tend to under-read body fat percentage [2].
Dehydration is a recognized factor affecting BIA
measurements as it causes an increase in the
body's electrical resistance, so has been measured to cause a
5 kg underestimation of fat-free mass i.e. an overestimation
of body fat [3].
Body fat measurements are lower when measurements
are taken shortly after consumption of a meal, causing a
variation between highest and lowest readings of body fat
percentage taken throughout the day of up to 9.9% [4].
Moderate exercise before BIA measurements lead to an
overestimation of fat-free mass and an underestimation of
body fat percentage due to reduced impedance [5]. For
example moderate intensity exercise for 90120 minutes
before BIA measurements causes nearly a 12 kg
overestimation of fat-free mass, i.e. body fat is significantly
underestimated [6]. Therefore it's recommended not to
perform BIA for several hours after moderate or high
intensity exercise [7].
BIA is considered reasonably accurate for measuring
groups, or for tracking body composition in an individual
over a period of time, but is not considered sufficiently
accurate for recording of single measurements of
individuals [8].
The accuracy of consumer grade devices for measuring
BIA has not been found to be sufficiently accurate for single
measurement use and is better suited for use to measure
changes in body composition over time for individuals [9].
Bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) is widely used in
clinics and research to measure body composition. However,
the results of BIA validation with reference methods are
contradictory, and few data are available on the influence of
adiposity on the measurement of body composition by BIA.
BIA is a good alternative for estimating %BF when subjects
are within a normal body fat range. BIA tends to
overestimate %BF in lean subjects and underestimate %BF
in obese subjects [10].
Bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) is a promising
tool in the evaluation of body composition in large
population studies because it is fast, is inexpensive, and
does not require extensive operator training or crossvalidation. The empiric nature of the relation between

International Journal of Chemical Engineering and Applications, Vol. 5, No. 3, June 2014

resistance and reactance measured by BIA and body

composition has led to the development of equations that
translate the raw data into liters of body water or kilograms
of fat-free mass (FFM) or fat mass. These equations may
not be easily transferred from one population to another if
the populations differ significantly in important
determinants of body composition such as age, obesity, and
illness. Review of two recent studies from the Framingham
Heart Study in which BIA was first compared with dualenergy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) as a validation
technique, and then compared with the body mass index
(BMI, in kg/m2) as an alternative estimate of body fat. BIA
was a good predictor of DXA-derived FFM (r = 0.85-0.88,
P < 0.001) and was superior to BMI as an estimator of body
fat [11].
Over the past decade, considerable attention has been
paid to accurately measuring body composition in diverse
populations. Recently, the use of air-displacement
plethysmography (AP) was proposed as an accurate,
comfortable, and accessible method of body-composition
analysis. AP is an accurate method for assessing body
composition in healthy adults. Future studies should assess
further the cause of the individual variations with this new
method [12].
Obesity continues increasing at epidemic levels
worldwide, as does the number of genetic studies that focus
on obesity. Body mass index (BMI) is often used to
characterize weight phenotypes and obesity status due to its
simplicity. Refined measurements of body composition may
be needed to understand variations in gene expression. This
study explores gene expression when individuals are
characterized as overweight based on BMI versus body fat
percent. Individuals were recruited to a natural history
protocol at the National Institutes of Health. Twelve
Caucasian participants with the highest and lowest BMI
were
included.
Whole-body
air
displacement
plethysmography was performed to calculate body fat
percent, and BMI was calculated. Fasting whole blood was
collected and RNA extracted. Quantitative real time PCR
array was used to determine expression of 96 obesity related
genes. The PCR array from participants with high BMI
compared to low BMI showed dysregulation of four genes:
peroxisome
proliferator-activated
receptor
gamma
coactivator 1-alpha (PPARGC1A), pro-opiomelanocortin
(POMC), growth hormone secretagogue receptor (GHSR),
and leptin (LEP), whereas participants with high body fat
compared to low body fat showed dysregulation of one gene:
PPARGC1A. This research showed differential gene
expression and clinical indices depending on method of
weight Classification [13].
The study aims to improve accuracy of Bioelectrical
Impedance Analysis (BIA) prediction equations for
estimating fat free mass (FFM) of the elderly by using nonlinear Back Propagation Artificial Neural Network (BPANN) model and to compare the predictive accuracy with
the linear regression model by using energy dual X-ray
absorptiometry (DXA) as reference method. When
compared the performance of developed prediction
equations for estimating reference FFMDXA, the linear model
has lower r2 with a larger SD in predictive results than that
of BP-ANN model, which indicated ANN model is more
260

suitable for estimating FFM [14].

Although international interest in classifying subject
health status according to adiposity is increasing, no
accepted published ranges of percentage body fat currently
exist. Empirically identified limits, population percentiles,
and scores have all been suggested as means of setting
percentage body fat guidelines, although each has major
limitations. A convenient sample of 1626 adults with BMIs
35 was evaluated. Independent percentage body fat
predictor variables in multiple regression models included
1/BMI, sex, age, and ethnic group (R values from 0.74 to
0.92 and SEEs from 2.8 to 5.4% fat). The prediction
formulas were then used to prepare provisional healthy
percentage body fat ranges based on published BMI limits
for underweight (<18.5), overweight (25), and obesity
(30). This proposed approach and initial findings provide
the groundwork and stimulus for establishing international
healthy body fat ranges [15].
Several studies have raised the suspicion that the body
mass index (BMI) cut-off for overweight as defined by the
WHO may not adequately reflect the actual overweight
status. The present study looked at the relationship between
BMI and body fat per cent (BF %) / health risks
(hypertension and type 2 diabetes) in male residents of
Lucknow city, north India to evaluate the validity of BMI
cut-off points for overweight. The study subjects showed
higher body fat percentage and risk factors like hypertension
and type 2 diabetes at normal BMI range proposed by the
WHO. The cut-off for BMI was proposed to be 24.5
kg/m2 for our study population. If overweight is regarded as
an excess of body fat and not as an excess of weight
(increased BMI), the cut-off points for overweight based on
BMI would need to be lowered. However, the confidence of
estimate of the BMI cut-off in the present study may be
considered with the limitations of BI analysis studies [16].
Body composition assessment in patients with chronic
renal failure is of paramount importance since studies have
demonstrated the association of protein-energy malnutrition
with an increased morbidity and mortality in this population.
However, practical and sensible indicators of body
compartments are still needed for clinical purposes. Thus,
we aimed to evaluate the simple methods of skinfold
thicknesses (SKF) and bioelectrical impedance analysis
(BIA), using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) as
a reference method, for the assessment of body fat in
patients on long-term haemodialysis therapy [17].
In this analysis of body composition such as Body
Weight, BMI, Body Fat Percentage, Segmental
Subcutaneous Fat & Skeletal Muscle Percentage (Whole
Body, Trunk, Legs and Arms), Resting Metabolism,
Visceral Fat Level and Body Age is done by Bioelectrical
impedance technique and results are interpreted and
corresponding instructions for better health improvement is
given.

II. MATERIALS AND METHODS

Body Composition Analysis of Teaching and Non
Teaching Staff members of Brijlal Biyani Science College
Amravati Maharashtra India Using Bioelectrical Impedance
Analysis method is done. For ideal weight management and

International Journal of Chemical Engineering and Applications, Vol. 5, No. 3, June 2014

closely related resting metabolic rate (RMR), is the amount

of energy expended daily by humans and other animals at
rest.
Rest
is
defined
as
existing
in
a
neutrally temperate environment while in the postabsorptive state.
Skeletal muscle: Skeletal muscle is a form of striated
muscle tissue existing throughout the human body, and
which is under control of the somatic nervous system; that is
to say, it is voluntarily controlled. It is one of three major
muscle types, the others being cardiac and smooth muscle.
As their name suggests, most skeletal muscles are attached
to bones by bundles of collagen fibers known as tendons.
Biological (Real) Age: Biological age is how time and
lifestyle have affected organs and cells compared to other
people of chronological age. Factors of biological aging
include changes in the physical structure of the body as well
as changes in the performance of motor skills and sensory
awareness. Chronological age is current age in years,
calculated from birth date. Interpretation of Bioelectrical
Impedance Analysis report is shown in Table I.
Body composition analysis of Teaching Staff members
(Senior College & Junior College) & Non Teaching Staff
members (Laboratory, Office & Library) is shown in Table
II

for a more accurate and precise body composition analysis

full Body Sensing Technology
Karada Scan Body
Composition Monitor HBF-375 as shown in figure 1 is
used which measures body composition- weight, body fat
percentage, visceral fat level, subcutaneous fat and skeletal
muscle percentage, RM, BMI and Body age. The general
principle behind bioelectrical impedance analysis is that two
or more conductors are attached to a person's body and a
small electric current is sent through the body. The
resistance between the conductors will provide a measure of
body fat between a pair of electrodes, since the resistance to
electricity varies between adipose, muscular and skeletal
tissue. Fat-free mass (muscle) is a good conductor as it
contains a large amount of water (approximately 73%) and
electrolytes, while fat is anhydrous and a poor conductor of
electric current. Each (bare) foot may be placed on an
electrode, with the current sent up one leg, across the
abdomen and down the other leg. There is little scope for
technician error as such, but factors such as eating, drinking
and exercising must be controlled since hydration level is an
important source of error in determining the flow of the
electric current to estimate body fat. The instructions for use
of instruments typically recommended not making
measurements soon after drinking or eating or exercising, or
when dehydrated. Instruments require details such as sex
and age to be entered, and use formulae taking these into
account; for example, men and women store fat differently
around the abdomen and thigh region.
BMI: Body mass index is defined as the individual's
body mass divided by the square of his or her height. The
formulae universally used in medicine produce a unit of
measure of kg/m2.
BMI = Weight (Kg) / [height (m)] 2
Body fat percentage:
Body fat percentage = [Body fat Mass (Kg) / Body
weight (Kg) ] 100
Visceral Fat: Adipose tissue is one of the main types
of connective tissue. In biology, adipose tissue or body
fat or fat
depot or
just fat is
loose connective
tissue composed of adipocytes.
BMR (RMR): Basal metabolic rate (BMR), and the

Body
Fat %

TABLE I: INTERPRETATION OF BIOELECTRICAL IMPEDANCE ANALYSIS

Interpretation of Body Composition Report
Gender
Low
Normal
High
Very High
Up to 19.9
20-29.9
30-34.9
35 & more
Female
Up to 9.9

Male
Trunk Fat
%

Visceral Fat %

Skeletal
Muscle
%

Fig 1. Omron Body Composition Scale Karada Scan HBF-375.

10-19.9
Normal
<15
0 (Normal)

20-24.9
High
16-18
+ (High)

25 & more
Very high
18+
++ (Very High)

0.5-9.5
0 (Normal)
24.3-30.3

10.0-14.5
+ (High)
30.4-35.3

15.0-30.0
++ (Very High)
35.4

Gender

Age
18-39

-(Low)
< 24.3

Female

40-59

< 24.1

24.1-30.1

30.2-35.1

35.2

60-80

< 23.9

23.9-29.9

30.0-34.9

35.0

18-39

< 33.3

33.3-39.3

39.4-44.0

44.1

40-59

< 33.1

33.1-39.1

39.2-43.8

43.9

60-80

< 32.9

32.9-38.9

39.0-43.6

43.7

Under wt
Up to18.4

Normal
18.5-24.9

Over wt
25-29.9

Obese
30 & more

Male

BMI

261

International Journal of Chemical Engineering and Applications, Vol. 5, No. 3, June 2014

19
24.9
37.7
32.0
35.9
41.3
33.3
34.7
26.5
33.3
24.4
37.1
34.3
31.5
30.0

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

Male
Male
Male
Male
Male
Male
Male
Male
Male
Male
Male
Male
Male
Male
Male
Male
Male
Male
Male
Male
Male

25
25
27
29
29
30
33
33
34
35
37
39
41
43
43
44
48
51
53
56
57

168
158
177
167
174
171
163
157.5
155.5
169
166
158.5
171.5
168
162.5
162
165.8
169
172
167.5
171

62.4
55.1
56.9
58.4
65.5
57.6
51.8
68.6
64.3
91.7
68.7
45.9
72.0
63.0
78.7
49.7
65.8
103
71.4
72.2
66.3

23.9
29.2
17.6
22.6
22.8
18.7
19.5
29.8
26.1
30.6
27.8
20.1
26.0
24.5
25.4
26.7
24.6
38.6
27.7
30.1
26.8

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

Female
Male
Male
Male
Male
Male
Male
Male
Male
Male
Male
Male

32
32
32
35
38
39
39
40
42
43
43
54

153.5
172.5
170
162.5
166
162
157.5
164
170
159
169.2
169.5

62.9
62.0
64.2
59.3
78.5
55.0
65.8
66.8
68.8
62.8
82.9
75.7

40.4
23.2
23.8
30.3
28.9
31.4
28.0
29.7
26.7
29.8
30.8
31.7

262

Body Age

35.2
64.5
56.5
66.2
65.8
72.6
53.2
54.5
43.7
82.8
60.0
48.6
66.1
73.6
64.6

BMI

151
169
144.5
165
154
159
156
152
158
172.5
159
145
166.5
160.5
175

RM Kcal

25
27
31
36
37
39
39
39
39
40
44
44
45
51
56

Legs

Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Female
Female
Female
Female
Male
Male
Female
Female
Male
Male

Arms

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

9.9
8.2
16.5
15.5
1.5
37.6
20.9
17.0
37.0
32.2
2.0
26.7
20.5
17.1
37.7
31.9
15
26.6
21.0
19.2
30.5
30.7
12.5
29.5
33.8
29.9
51.8
48.7
9.5
22.5
15.2
12.9
22.5
22.3
2.5
33.5
33.5
29.7
51.6
47.8
9.0
23.0
20.5
18.4
29.2
29.5
11.0
29.1
22.4
20.6
30.7
31.3
16.5
28.3
18.4
16.4
25.5
25.6
9.5
30.0
22.9
20.6
42.2
32.4
2.0
22.8
21.2
19.1
29.9
30.4
11.5
28.5
23.5
21.1
33.2
34.0
12.5
25.6
33.1
29.2
48.7
43.9
10
24.5
23.3
21.3
32.1
32.8
17.5
25.8
20.1
18.1
26.3
26.7
13.5
28.5
22.6
20.5
30.6
31.3
15.0
25.8
Teaching Staff members (Junior College)
15.0
10.9
29.8
25.3
0.5
28.4
23.1
18.3
35.2
31.9
3.5
29.7
32.8
29.3
51.9
47.9
8.5
21.5
28.0
24.1
43.9
39.2
6.0
25.5
32.4
28.3
48.6
44.8
9.5
23.2
35.8
32.5
56.8
53.0
10.5
21.1
26.9
23.8
45.7
39.1
4.0
23.8
28.8
25.6
47.4
41.3
5.5
23.0
20.3
17.0
37.5
30.5
1.5
26.2
31.1
26.6
43.6
39.4
8.5
26.9
16.8
14.9
23.2
23.2
9.5
29.6
29.6
27.0
49.7
42.2
6.0
21.2
28.8
25.4
46.6
40.7
5.5
24.3
21.9
20.1
29.7
30.3
17.0
26.8
19.9
17.4
27.5
28.0
7.0
28.9
Non Teaching Staff members (Laboratory)
16.2
14.2
24.4
24.1
6.0
32.6
19.5
17.2
29.0
29.2
6.0
30.5
11.7
9.7
18.4
17.7
2.0
35.9
15.2
13.2
22.8
22.5
5.0
32.8
15.5
13.5
23.0
22.7
5.5
33.1
12.6
10.8
19.2
18.6
3.5
34.4
13.0
11.1
19.5
19.0
4.0
33.1
20.8
18.9
29.9
30.2
13.0
28.3
18.3
16.6
25.9
25.9
12.0
29.3
22.0
20.5
29.2
29.6
18.5
29.0
19.1
17.1
27.2
27.4
10.0
29.7
13.0
10.8
18.7
18.4
1.5
32.1
17.9
16.0
24.9
25.0
10.0
30.6
16.6
14.6
23.4
23.4
7.5
30.8
18.4
17.0
22.7
22.9
16.5
30.5
17.4
15.0
24.2
24.5
40
29.9
17.0
15.1
23.0
23.0
10.0
30.1
27.6
26.0
38.5
39.4
28.0
24.7
18.9
16.9
25.6
25.9
10.5
29.3
20.6
18.6
27.8
28.3
13.5
27.7
18.1
16.0
24.4
24.7
9.0
29.2
Non Teaching Staff members (Office)
33.9
30.9
55.9
51.3
8.0
21.3
15.6
13.5
23.1
22.8
5.0
32.8
16.2
14.2
23.7
23.5
6.5
32.2
20.3
17.9
29.4
29.8
7.5
29.4
20.4
18.7
28.0
28.2
14.5
29.1
20.7
18.1
29.4
30.0
6.0
29.0
19.4
17.6
27.3
27.5
12.5
28.5
20.3
18.2
28.9
29.2
10.5
28.7
18.2
16.2
25.6
25.7
9.0
30.2
20.3
18.2
28.7
29.1
11.0
27.9
21.6
19.8
29.5
30.0
16.0
28.4
21.7
19.7
29.8
30.4
13.5
27.5

Trunk

14.9
25.4
26.1
30.1
37.6
23.3
37.8
29.9
31.9
26.8
31.6
31.2
34.8
36.9
33.5
29.1
33.0

Whole
body

Fat %

61
44.2
43.3
79.6
67.5
54.3
74.7
72.7
89.2
70.5
38.7
74.8
61.3
87.1
73.0
77.4
70.3

Visceral
Fat
%

Weight Kg

185
152
154.5
168.6
154
173
163.5
169
173.5
171
148
173
155
176
159
172.5
162.5

Legs

Height cm

24
25
27
28
30
33
36
40
43
45
48
48
48
49
52
59
60

Arms

Age

Male
Female
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Male
Male
Female
Male
Male
Male
Male
Male
Male

Trunk

Male /
Female

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

Whole
Body

Case No

TABLE II: BODY COMPOSITION ANALYSIS OF TEACHING STAFF & NON-TEACHING STAFF MEMBERS
Teaching Staff members (Senior College)
Subcutaneous Fat
Skeletal Muscle %

31.8
22.4
22.5
21.3
16.9
26.3
16.9
21.0
19.9
22.6
18.5
20.2
17.0
16.8
17.5
20.8
17.7

42.5
32.0
32.1
35.9
22.0
40.2
21.0
35.7
34.5
36.4
28.7
35.2
34.3
20.2
33.7
34.7
33.4

54.7
37.6
37.1
46.9
35.8
50.7
36.1
46.5
45.7
47.4
32.4
45.9
43.2
38.0
43.3
45.9
43.4

1506
1040
1024
1719
1349
1354
1459
1608
1855
1588
931
1633
1398
1659
1582
1681
1542

17.8
19.1
18.1
28.0
28.5
18.1
27.9
25.5
29.6
24.1
17.7
25.0
25.5
28.1
28.9
26.0
26.6

18
21
20
47
49
23
54
49
59
48
36
54
53
63
62
60
63

24.8
23.3
16.6
19.5
17.4
15.4
18.8
18.0
21.8
18.9
23.0
16.5
18.3
18.9
20.8

36.0
31.2
23.2
25.9
23.2
19.3
26.7
25.4
31.5
23.9
36.2
24.6
24.4
33.8
36.1

38.2
42.9
33.7
38.0
36.5
33.8
36.2
35.5
36.3
40.9
47.0
33.0
36.9
44.3
46.3

913
1377
1180
1362
1332
1406
1151
1164
1028
1623
1424
1064
1347
1603
1479

15.4
22.6
27.1
24.3
27.7
28.7
21.9
23.6
17.5
27.8
23.7
23.1
23.8
28.6
21.1

18
31
45
45
52
58
43
46
28
53
44
49
52
60
48

25.4
22.3
29.7
25.9
26.1
28.3
27.0
20.5
22.3
20.8
22.1
26.1
23.3
23.9
23.4
22.6
23.3
15.2
21.8
20.0
22.0

39.0
38.0
41.7
39.3
39.5
40.5
39.8
35.3
36.4
34.4
36.6
39.4
36.4
37.0
35.7
37.8
36.0
31.1
35.6
34.4
35.9

49.9
47.8
53.0
50.1
50.4
51.7
50.4
45.8
46.7
46.4
47.1
49.4
48.0
48.2
47.8
47.3
47.5
42.3
46.7
45.2
46.6

1480
1339
1421
1419
1536
1432
1318
1539
1487
1904
1555
1167
1618
1478
1726
1256
1519
2008
1595
1591
1516

22.1
22.1
18.2
20.9
21.6
19.7
19.5
27.7
26.6
32.1
24.9
17.1
24.5
22.3
29.8
18.9
23.9
36.0
24.1
25.7
22.7

30
30
18
28
32
24
25
47
44
56
45
19
46
41
54
32
47
73
53
58
51

16.3
25.7
25.1
21.2
21.3
20.5
21.2
20.8
22.8
20.2
20.3
19.3

21.6
39.0
38.3
36.7
35.5
37.0
35.4
35.9
36.6
35.4
34.7
34.7

33.8
50.1
49.5
46.8
46.5
46.4
46.0
46.2
47.6
45.4
45.9
45.0

1267
1476
1507
1398
1703
1326
1501
1514
1562
1446
1761
1640

26.7
20.8
22.2
22.5
28.5
21.0
26.5
24.8
23.8
24.8
29.0
26.3

49
31
35
39
52
37
47
47
45
48
57
59

International Journal of Chemical Engineering and Applications, Vol. 5, No. 3, June 2014

1
2
3
4

Male
Male
Male
Male

36
40
44
50

168.5
161
163.5
167

70.3
63.3
68.6
74.4

26.9
25.8
30.3
27.8

Non Teaching Staff members (Library)

18.5
16.6
26.4
26.5
9.5
30.4
17.8
15.9
24.9
25.0
10.0
29.7
28.1
23.5
40.1
35.6
7.0
27.3
19.4
17.6
25.7
26.0
13.5
29.0

22.9
22.7
20.3
21.5

37.3
36.6
27.5
35.4

47.7
47.1
41.1
46.4

1587
1474
1414
1640

24.8
24.4
25.7
26.7

44
44
50
55

on a diet instead of doing exercise and neglecting nutrition

balance, even if our weight is reduced, resting metabolism
will decrease as muscle (Skeletal muscle) decreases and we
are more likely to become fatter. We should build up non-fat
physique by increasing skeletal muscle and improving
resting metabolism.
Interpretation of body composition analysis report of
teaching Staff members (Senior College & Junior College)
& Non Teaching Staff members (Laboratory, Office &
Library) is shown in Table III.

III. RESULT AND DISCUSSION

The ideal BMI is 22. Maintaining an ideal weight can
help prevent obesity or weight loss and other diseases, and
lead a longer life. The ideal weight for BMI of 22 is
calculated as follows.
Ideal Weight (Kg) = 22 [height (m)]2
However this method of ideal weight calculation may not
be applicable for professional athletes and body builders,
who have higher muscles ratio in their bodies.
Correct Weight Reduction: If we lose weight by going

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

50.2
66.8
45.9
59.9
52.2
55.6
53.5
50.8
54.9
65.5
55.6
46.3
61.0
56.7
67.4

15 Kg Under wt
1.7 Kg Over wt
10.6 Kg Over wt
6.3 Kg Over wt
13.6 Kg Over wt
17 Kg Over wt
0.3 Kg Under wt
3.7 Kg Over wt
11.2 Kg Under wt
17.3 Kg Over wt
4.4 Kg Over wt
2.3 Kg Over wt
5.1 Kg Over wt
16.9 Kg Over wt
2.8 Kg Under wt

10 Month
1 Month
7 Month
4 Month
9 Month
11 Month
8 Days
2.5 Month
7.5 Month
11.5 Month
3 Month
1.5 Month
3.5 Month
11 Month
2 Month

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

62.1
54.9
68.9
61.4
66.6
64.3
58.5
54.6
53.2
62.8

0.3 Kg Over wt
0.2 Kg Over wt
12 Kg Under wt
3 Kg Under wt
1.1 Kg Under wt
6.7 Kg Under wt
6.7 Kg Under wt
14 Kg Over wt
11.1 Kg Over wt
28.8 Kg Over wt

7 days
7 days
8 Month
2 Month
1 Month
4.5 Month
4.5 Month
9 Month
7.5 Month
19 Month

9.5 Month
Normal
Normal
4 Month
Normal
High
6 Month
Normal
High
11.5 Month
Very High
Very high
10 Month
Very High
Very High
8 Month
High
Normal
11 Month
Very High
Very High
6.5 Month
Very High
Very High
15 Month
Very High
Very High
4 Month
Very High
High
7 Month
Very High
Normal
6 Month
Very High
Very High
6 Month
Very High
Very High
13 Month
Very High
Very High
12 Month
Very High
Very High
8 Month
Normal
Very High
8 Month
Very High
Very High
Teaching Staff members (Junior College)
10 Month
Low
Normal
1 Month
High
Very High
7 Month
Very High
Very high
4 Month
Very High
Very high
9 Month
Very High
Very High
11 Month
Very High
Very High
8 Days
High
Very high
2.5 Month
High
Very High
7.5 Month
Normal
High
11.5 Month
Very High
Very High
3 Month
High
Normal
1.5 Month
Very High
Very High
3.5 Month
High
Very High
11 Month
Very High
Very High
2 Month
Very High
High
Non Teaching Staff members (Laboratory)
7 days
High
Normal
7 days
Very High
High
8 Month
Normal
Normal
2 Month
High
Normal
1 Month
High
Normal
4.5 Month
Low
Normal
4.5 Month
Normal
Normal
9 Month
Normal
Very High
7.5 Month
Normal
Very High
19 Month
Very High
Very High

Fat %

263

Body Age

Period required
for wt maintain

9.5 Month
4 Month
6 Month
11.5 Month
10 Month
8 Month
11 Month
6.5 Month
15 Month
4 Month
7 Month
6 Month
6 Month
13 Month
12 Month
8 Month
8 Month

BMI

Period required
for wt Loss /
Gain at the rate of
1.5 kg per month

14.3 Kg Under wt
6.6 Kg Under wt
9.2 Kg Under wt
17.1 Kg Over wt
15.3 Kg Over wt
11.5 Kg Under wt
15.9 Kg Over wt
9.9 Kg Over wt
23 Kg Over wt
6.2 Kg Over wt
9.5 Kg Under wt
9 Kg Over wt
8.4 Kg Over wt
19 Kg Over wt
17.4 Kg Over wt
11.9 Kg Over wt
12.2 Kg Over wt

Skeletal
Muscle
% (Whole
body)
RM Kcal

Over wt / Under
wt Kg

75.3
50.8
52.5
62.5
52.2
65.8
58.8
62.8
66.2
64.3
48.2
65.8
52.9
68.1
55.6
65.5
58.1

Visceral Fat %

Ideal wt (Kg) =
22 [ht (m)]2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

Subcutaneous
Fat % (Trunk)

Case No

TABLE III: INTERPRETATION OF BODY COMPOSITION ANALYSIS REPORT OF TEACHING & NON-TEACHING STAFF MEMBERS
Teaching Staff members (Senior College)

Normal
Normal
Very High
High
Normal
Normal
Normal
High
Very High
Normal
Normal
High
High
High
Very High
High
Very High

Normal
Normal
Normal
Low
Low
Normal
Low
Low
Low
Low
Normal
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low

Under wt
Normal
Under wt
Over wt
Over wt
Under wt
Over wt
Over wt
Over wt
Normal
Under wt
Over wt
Over wt
Over wt
Over wt
Over wt
Over wt

Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
High
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Very High
Normal

Normal
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Normal
Low
Low
Low
Normal
Low
Low

Under wt
Normal
Over wt
Normal
Over wt
Over wt
Normal
Normal
Under wt
Over wt
Normal
Normal
Normal
Over wt
Normal

Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
High
High
Very High

Low
Low
Normal
Low
Low
Normal
Low
Low
Low
Low

Normal
Normal
Under wt
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Over wt
Over wt
Obese

International Journal of Chemical Engineering and Applications, Vol. 5, No. 3, June 2014
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

60.6
55.3
64.7
62.1
58.1
57.7
60.5
62.8
65.1
61.7
64.3

8.1 Kg Over wt
12.4 Kg Under wt
7.3 Kg Over wt
0.9 Kg Over wt
20.6 Kg Over wt
8 Kg Under wt
5.3 Kg Over wt
40 Kg Over wt
6.3 Kg Over wt
10.5 Kg Over wt
2 Kg Over wt

5.5 Month
8 Month
5 Month
15 Days
14 Month
5 Month
3.5 Month
27 Month
4 Month
7 Month
1 Month

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

51.8
65.5
63.6
58.1
60.6
57.7
54.6
59.2
63.6
55.6
63.0
63.2

11.1 Kg Over wt
3.5 Kg Under wt
0.6 Kg Over wt
1.2 Kg Over wt
17.9 Kg Over wt
2.7 Kg Under wt
11.2 Kg Over wt
7.6 Kg Over wt
5.2 Kg Over wt
7.2 Kg Over wt
19.9 Kg Over wt
12.5 Kg Over wt

7.5 Month
2 Month
15 Days
1 Month
12 Month
2 Month
7.5 Month
5 Month
3.5 Month
5 Month
13 Month
8 Month

1
2
3
4

62.5
57.0
58.8
61.4

7.8 Kg Over wt
6.3 Kg Over wt
9.8 Kg Over wt
13 Kg Over wt

5 Month
4 Month
6.5 Month
9 Month

5.5 Month
Very High
High
8 Month
Normal
Normal
5 Month
Very High
High
15 Days
Very High
Normal
14 Month
Very High
High
5 Month
Very High
Normal
3.5 Month
High
Normal
27 Month
Very High
Very High
4 Month
Very High
High
7 Month
Very High
Very High
1 Month
Very High
High
Non Teaching Staff members (Office)
7.5 Month
Very High
Very High
2 Month
High
Normal
15 Days
High
Normal
1 Month
Very High
High
12 Month
Very High
Very High
2 Month
Very High
Very High
7.5 Month
Very High
Very High
5 Month
Very High
Very High
3.5 Month
Very High
High
5 Month
Very High
Very High
13 Month
High
Very High
8 Month
Very High
Very High
Non Teaching Staff members (Library)
5 Month
Very High
High
4 Month
Very High
Normal
6.5 Month
Very High
Very High
9 Month
Very High
High

In Table III sign indicates corresponding value should

increase and sign indicates corresponding value should
decrease during weight loss or weight gain programme.
Interpretation of body composition analysis report of
Teaching Staff members (Senior College) shows that
overweight person is 70.6 % while that of underweight
person is 29.4 % and normal person is 0 %.
Interpretation of body composition analysis report of
Teaching Staff members (Junior College) shows that
overweight person is 73.3 % while that of underweight
person is 20.0 % and normal person is 6.7 %.
Interpretation of body composition analysis report of Non
Teaching Staff members (Laboratory) shows that
overweight person is 52.4 % while that of underweight
person is 42.9 % and normal person is 4.8 %.
Interpretation of body composition analysis report of Non
Teaching Staff members (Office) shows that overweight
person is 76.9 % while that of underweight person is 16.7 %
and normal person is 0 %.
Interpretation of body composition analysis report of Non
Teaching Staff members (Library) shows that overweight
person is 100 % while that of underweight person is 0 % and
normal person is 0 %.

High
Normal
High
Normal
Very High
Very High
High
Very High
High
High
Normal

Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low

Normal
Under wt
Normal
Normal
Over wt
Normal
Normal
Obese
Normal
Over wt
Normal

Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
High
Normal
High
High
Normal
High
Very High
High

Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low

Over wt
Normal
Normal
Normal
Over wt
Normal
Over wt
Normal
Normal
Normal
Over wt
Over wt

Normal
High
Normal
High

Normal
Low
Low
Low

Normal
Normal
Over wt
Over wt

month weight maintain programme.

In case number 3 - Subcutaneous trunk Fat % and visceral
fat % has to be decreased and RM has to be increased so that
BMI and body age can be increased. And has to undergo 6
month weight gain programme to increase 9.2 Kg weight.
And has to undergo 6 month weight maintain programme.
In case number 4 Fat %, subcutaneous trunk Fat % and
visceral fat % has to be decreased and whole body skeletal
muscle % and RM has to be increased so that BMI and body
age can be decreased. And has to undergo 11.5 month
weight loss programme to decrease 17.1 Kg weight. And has
to undergo 11.5 month weight maintain programme.
In case number 5 Fat % and Subcutaneous trunk Fat %
has to be decreased and whole body skeletal muscle % and
RM has to be increased so that BMI and body age can be
decreased. And has to undergo 10 month weight loss
programme to decrease 15.3 Kg weight. And has to undergo
10 month weight maintain programme.
Likewise conclusion from other cases can be drawn.
REFERENCES
[1]

[2]
[3]

IV. CONCLUSION
In Teaching Staff members (Senior College) case number
1 - RM has to be increased so that BMI and body age can
be increased and has to undergo 9.5 month weight gain (at
the rate of 1.5 kg per month) programme to increase 14.3
kg weight. And has to undergo 9.5 month weight maintain
programme.
In case number 2 - Subcutaneous trunk Fat % has to be
decreased and RM has to be increased so that body age can
be increased. And has to undergo 4 month weight gain
programme to increase 6.6 Kg weight. And has to undergo 4

[4]

[5]

[6]

264

U. G. Kyle et al., Bioelectrical impedance analysispart I: review

of principles and methods, Clinical Nutrition, vol. 23, no. 5, pp.
1226 43, June 2004.
Body fat scales review and compare, January 2010.
H. C. Lukaski, W. W. Bolonchuk, C. B. Hall, and W. A.
Siders, Validation of tetrapolar bioelectrical impedance method to
assess human body composition, J. Appl. Physiol., vol. 60, no. 4, pp.
132732, April 1986.
F. Slinde and L. Rossander-Hulthn, Bioelectrical impedance: Effect
of 3 identical meals on diurnal impedance variation and calculation of
body composition, Am. J. Clin. Nutr., vol. 74, no. 4, pp. 4748,
October, 2001.
R. F. Kushner, R. Gudivaka, and D. A. Schoeller, Clinical
characteristics influencing bioelectrical impedance analysis
measurements, Am. J. Clin. Nutr., vol. 64, 3 suppl, pp. 423S427S,
September 1996.
M. Abu Khaled, M. J. McCutcheon, S. Reddy, P. L. Pearman, G. R.
Hunter, and R. L. Weinsier, Electrical impedance in assessing human
body composition: the BIA method, Am. J. Clin. Nutr., vol. 47, no. 5,
pp. 78992, May 1988.

International Journal of Chemical Engineering and Applications, Vol. 5, No. 3, June 2014
[7]
[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

M. Dehghan and A. T. Merchant, Is bioelectrical impedance accurate

for use in large epidemiological studies? Nutr J, vol. 7, pp. 26, 2008.
A. C. Buchholz, C. Bartok, and D. A. Schoeller, The validity of
bioelectrical impedance models in clinical populations, Nutr Clin
Pract, vol. 19, no. 5, pp. 43346, October 2004.
J. T. Peterson, W. E. S. Repovich, and C. R. Parascand, Accuracy
of consumer grade bioelectrical impedance analysis devices compared
to air displacement plethysmography, Int J Exerc Sci, vol. 4, no. 3,
pp. 176184, 2011.
G. Sun, C. R. French, G. R. Martin, B. Younghusband, R. C. Green,
Y. G. Xie, M. Mathews, J. R. Barron, D. G. Fitzpatrick, W. Gulliver,
and H. Zhang, Comparison of multifrequency bioelectrical
impedance analysis with dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry for
assessment of percentage body fat in a large, healthy population, Am
J Clin Nutr., vol. 81, no. 1, pp. 74-8, Jan. 2005.
R. Roubenoff, Applications of bioelectrical impedance analysis for
body composition to epidemiologic studies, Am J Clin Nutr., vol. 64 ,
3 supp, pp. 459S-462S, Sep. 1996.
R. R. Biaggi, M. W. Vollman, M. A. Nies, C. E. Brener, P. J.
Flakoll, D. K. Levenhagen, M. Sun, Z. Karabulut, and K. Y. Chen,
Comparison of air-displacement plethysmography with hydrostatic
weighing and bioelectrical impedance analysis for the assessment of
body composition in healthy adults, Am J Clin Nutr., vol. 69, no. 5,
pp. 898-903, May 1999.
V. L. Peterson1, A. C. Martino, A. Y. Del Valle-Pinero1, N. S. Patel,
X. Zhao, and W. A. Henderson, Bentham weight phenotype
diagnostic test method: body mass index or body fat percent for gene
expression, The Open Obesity Journal, 2012, vol. 4, 18-2218768237/12, 2012.
K. C. Hsieh, Y. J. Chen, H. K. Lu, L. C. Lee, Y. C. Huang, and Y. Y.
Chen, The novel application of artificial neural network on
bioelectrical impedance analysis to assess the body composition in
elderly, Nutrition Journal, vol. 12, pp. 21, 2013.
D. Gallagher, S. B. Heymsfield, M. Heo, S. A. Jebb, P. R.
Murgatroyd, and Y. Sakamoto, Healthy percentage body fat ranges:

265

an approach for developing guidelines based on body mass index1,2,3,

The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Am J Clin Nutr, vol. 72,
no. 3, pp. 694-70, September 2000.
[16] C. N. Kesavachandran, V. Bihari, and N. Mathur, The normal range
of body mass index with high body fat percentage among male
residents of Lucknow city in north India, Indian J Med Res., vol. 135,
no. 1, pp. 7277, January 2012.
[17] M. A. Kamimura, C. M. Avesani, M. Cendoroglo, M. E. Canziani, S.
A. Draibe, and L. Cuppari, Comparison of skinfold thicknesses and
bioelectrical impedance analysis with dual-energy X-ray
absorptiometry for the assessment of body fat in patients on long-term
haemodialysis therapy, Nephrol Dial Transplant, vol. 18, no. 1, pp.
101-5, Jan. 2003.
Swaroopa Rani N. Gupta was born on February 28,
1965 in Nagpur, Maharashtra, India. She got her
S.S.C. in Somalwar High School, Khamla, Nagpur,
Maharashtra, India. Maths, science, social science in
1981; H.S.S.C. in Hislop College, Nagpur,
Maharashtra, India. Maths & statistics, chemistry,
biology in 1983; B.Sc. in Shivaji Science College,
Nagpur, Maharashtra, India. Chemistry, zoology,
microbiology in 1986; M.Sc. in Post Graduate
Teaching Department of Chemistry, Nagpur, Maharashtra, India.
Chemistry Specialization: Analytical Chemistry in 1988; M.Phil. Post
Graduate Teaching Department of Chemistry, Nagpur, Maharashtra, India.
Coordination Chemistry, Polymer Chemistry in 1989; Ph.D. in Post
Graduate Teaching Department of Chemistry, Nagpur, Maharashtra, IndiaChemistry in 1993.
She was now an associate professor in the Department of Chemistry,
Brijlal Biyani Science College, Amravati, Maharashtra, India
Her research interests are in the field of chemistry especially analytical
chemistry, environmental science and recent technologies connected to
different field. Want to explore world through great research interest in all
aspect of world problem.