## 3 Results
### Assessment of Accuracy and Agreement for %BF, WC, and WHR
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c} \hline  & **MAD** & **Lower** & **Upper** & **Number of** & **Bland–** & & & **Distribution** \\  & **LOA** & **LOA** & **Individuals** & **Altman** & **Intercept** & **Slope** & **of Errors** \\  & & & & **Beyond the LOA** & **Index (\%)** & & & **(\$ Value)** \\ \hline \%BF & & & & & & & & & \\ Total & 0.600 & \(-6.222\) & 7.422 & 190 out of 203 & 6.4 & \(-0.5367\) & 0.0517 & 0.113 \\ Males & 1.237 & \(-5.295\) & 7.769 & 71 out of 76 & 6.6 & \(-1.9646\) & 0.1996 & 0.372 \\ Females & 0.219 & \(-6.688\) & 7.125 & 120 out of 127 & 5.5 & \(-2.5376\) & 0.1079 & 0.183 \\ \hline \%BF and BMI \(<\) 25 & 0.398 & \(-6.289\) & 7.086 & 157 out of 168 & 6.5 & \(-1.2419\) & 0.0751 & 0.159 \\ \%BF and BMI \(\geq\) 25 & 1.569 & \(-5.664\) & 8.801 & 35 out of 35 & 0 & 2.1188 & \(-0.0243\) & \(-0.062\) \\ \hline WC & & & & & & & & & \\ Total & \(-1.886\) & \(-13.400\) & 9.627 & 190 out of 203 & 6.4 & \(-13.0283\) & 0.1387 & 0.191 \\ Males & 0.874 & \(-9.911\) & 11.660 & 73 out of 76 & 3.9 & 13.3724 & 0.1459 & \(-0.195\) \\ Females & \(-3.537\) & \(-14.260\) & 7.190 & 118 out of 127 & 7.1 & \(-12.2034\) & 0.1123 & 0.138 \\ \hline WHR & & & & & & & & & \\ Total & \(-0.034\) & \(-0.176\) & 0.108 & 191 out of 203 & 5.9 & \(-0.3935\) & 0.4346 & 0.291 \\ Males & 0.017 & \(-0.117\) & 0.152 & 73 out of 76 & 3.9 & 0.1032 & \(-0.0997\) & \(-0.071\) \\ Females & \(-0.065\) & \(-0.173\) & 0.044 & 119 out of 127 & 6.3 & \(-0.199\) & 0.1659 & 0.112 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Results of accuracy and agreement for %BF (ADP as reference), WC, and WHR (manual measurements as reference). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline  & & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Total**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Males**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Females**} \\  & & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**n = 203**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**n = 76**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**n = 127**} & \\ \hline  & \(\mathbf{R^{2}}\) & **SEE** & **MAPE** & **RMSE** & \(\mathbf{R^{2}}\) & **SEE** & **MAPE** & **RMSE** & \(\mathbf{R^{2}}\) & **SEE** & **MAPE** & **RMSE** \\ \hline \%BF\({}_{\text{ADP}}\) & 0.8 & 2.8 & 15 & 3.5 & 0.8 & 3.2 & 22 & 3.5 & 0.7 & 3.3 & 7.4 & 2.8 \\ \%BF\({}_{\text{BIA}}\) & 0.6 & 5.4 & 6.1 & 6.2 & 0.6 & 5.3 & 5.0 & 5.5 & 0.5 & 5.8 & 6.7 & 6.5 \\ \hline WHR\({}_{\text{manual}}\) & 0.1 & 0.1 & 7.8 & 0.1 & 0.1 & 0.1 & 6.7 & 0.1 & 0.1 & 0.1 & 5.2 & 0.1 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Summary of accuracy %BF from ADP and BIA device; WC measured manually and by BIA; and calculated WHR and WHR estimated by BIA. was 6.4%. Insightful results of the Bland-Altman index for females and males were 7.1% and 3.9%, respectively. In consequence, WHR estimated by the BIA method is statistically different from manual measurement for the total group, for males and females (Table 4, Figure S3). The Bland-Altman plots revealed that InBody 770 overestimated WHR for the total group, and for females, the bias is 0.034 and 0.065, respectively. The mean difference in WHR for the manual and BIA method was 0.034 cm. LOA was from \(-\)0.176 to 0.108 cm, and the Bland-Altman index was 5.9%. Results of the Bland-Altman index for females and males were 6.3% and 3.9%, respectively. CCC analysis confirmed that the agreement for %BF and WC of the tested methods is poor for the total group of males and females (Table 5). Inbody 770 demonstrates systematic %BF (Estimates not including 0) and proportionate (Slope not including 1) bias according to OLP for the total group, males and females. For WC Inbody 770, demonstrate systematic (Estimates not including 0) and proportionate (Slope not including 1) bias according to OLP for the total group and females. According to CCC, agreement magnitudes with calculated WHR were poor for BIA estimation (Table 5). Inbody 770 demonstrates systematic and proportionate bias, according to OLP.