# Body Composition in Karate: A Dual-Energy X-ray Absortiometry Study
## 3 Results
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Variable**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Males**} & \multicolumn{10}{c}{**Females**} \\  & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**(n = 43)**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**(n = 19)**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**(n = 15)**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**} \\ \hline  & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Left**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Right**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**\(t\)-Value**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**\(p\)-Value**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**ES**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Left**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Right**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**\(t\)-Value**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**\(p\)-Value**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**ES**} \\ \hline  & mean & SD & mean & SD & & & & & & & & & \\ \hline Arm BMC (g) & 207.5 & 30.7 & 220.4 & 32.0 & \(-\)8.166 & \(<\)0.001 & 0.41 & 140.6 & 21.8 & 152.6 & 24.6 & \(-\)5.703 & \(<\)0.001 & 0.51 \\ \hline Arm aBMD (g/cm\({}^{2}\)) & 0.879 & 0.065 & 0.904 & 0.068 & \(-\)6.114 & \(<\)0.001 & 0.10 & 0.751 & 0.059 & 0.781 & 0.071 & \(-\)3.659 & 0.003 & 0.46 \\ \hline Leg BMC (g) & 539.2 & 71.6 & 543.7 & 77.6 & \(-\)1.342 & 0.187 & 0.06 & 400.5 & 61.6 & 408.1 & 64.5 & \(-\)2.572 & 0.022 & 0.12 \\ \hline Leg aBMD (g/cm\({}^{2}\)) & 1.356 & 0.084 & 1.367 & 0.090 & \(-\)1.777 & 0.083 & 0.12 & 1.203 & 0.090 & 1.201 & 0.092 & 0.129 & 0.900 & 0.02 \\ \hline Arm FM (g) & 609.3 & 221.3 & 547.3 & 221.0 & 6.988 & \(<\)0.001 & 0.28 & 696.3 & 250.0 & 643.2 & 218.9 & 3.509 & 0.003 & 0.22 \\ \hline Arm FrSTM (g) & 3660.7 & 542.6 & 3865.0 & 543.8 & \(-\)8.376 & \(<\)0.001 & 0.39 & 2023.3 & 379.2 & 2179.1 & 407.8 & \(-\)5.776 & \(<\)0.001 & 0.32 \\ \hline Leg PM (g) & 2123.2 & 843.3 & 2141.4 & 1147.7 & \(-\)0.919 & 0.363 & 0.018 & 2905.4 & 982.7 & 2967.5 & 1003.9 & \(-\)1.555 & 0.101 \\ \hline Leg FrSTM (g) & 9643.5 & 1147.7 & 9837.9 & 1225.1 & \(-\)3.654 & 0.001 & 0.16 & 6639.5 & 907.4 & 6805.7 & 945.0 & \(-\)3.425 & 0.004 & 0.28 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} ES, effect size; BMC, born mineral content; aBMD, areal bone mineral density; FM, fat mass; FrSTM, lean soft tissue mass.  
\end{table} 
Table 6: Asymmetry in limb body composition for the whole sample of karatekas (n = 58). Student’s f-test. When the relationship between the bone mineral variables and FFSTM was investigated (Figures 1-3), a very large correlation was found between TBLH BMC and TBLH FFSTM (r = 0.866) as well as Legs BMC and Legs FFSTM (r = 0.879), and almost perfect for Arms BMC and Arms FFSTM (r = 0.911). Figure 1: Relationship between fat-free soft tissue mass and bone mineral content in the arms assessed in 58 black belt karatekas competing at the national and international level. FFSTM, fat-free soft tissue mass; BMC, bone mineral content. Figure 2: Relationship between fat-free soft tissue mass and bone mineral content in the legs assessed in 58 black belt karatekas competing at the national and international level. FFSTM, fat-free soft tissue mass; BMC, bone mineral content. The correlation between FFSTM and BMD was very high for all skeletal sites (r, 0.742-0.844). The results of the regression analysis using FFSTM as the predictor variable of BMC and aBMD are reported in Table 7. All models were statistically significant (\(p<0.001\) for all). The R\({}^{2}\) was higher for the BMC (range: 0.745-0.827) than the aBMD (range: 0.542-0.707) prediction equations. SEE was 5.28-9.45% of the mean value of the predicted variable. Forcing sex into the equations as a predictor variable did not change the F value to any statistically significant extent. Figure 3: Relationship between appendicular fat-free soft tissue mass and bone mineral content at the total body less head region assessed in 58 black belt karatekas competing at the national and international level. FFSTM, fat-free soft tissue mass; TBLH, total body less head; BMC, bone mineral content.