Search

A bivariate mathematical model termed the "HAT" model for defining body frame size is presented for young males and females (mean age 22 yr). The HAT model is based on the relationship between stature and the sum of the biacromial and bitrochanteric diameter measurements. Small, medium, and large frame sizes were calculated for individuals and percentile rankings for the corresponding body weights, percentage fats, and lean body weights were given. For males, it was observed that differences in body weight between frame size groups was primarily due to differences in lean body weight. That is, lean body weight increased per frame size, while fat weight per frame size remained constant. For females in contrast, there was a small but statistically significant increase in fat weight per frame size and no increase in lean body weight per frame size. Am J Clin Nutr 1982;36:669-675.

The validity of self-appraisal of body frame size was investigated in 72 college-aged subjects (39 males and 33 females). Validity was assessed by comparing self-appraised frame size versus the quantitative "HAT" formulation, which includes stature and two trunk diameters. Frame size was also assessed separately, for each subject by an expert rater. Results showed that the expert rater was in error 28% in comparison to the criterion frame size estimation, while 41% of the subjects were in error in assessing their own frame size, in comparison to the HAT criterion. The expert rater and self-appraisal differed by 33%. When analyzed by sex, it was revealed that the females were more inaccurate in assessing their frame size, in comparison to the criterion, than were the males. The consequences of inaccurate frame size assessment, in terms of ideal weight from the Metropolitan tables was discussed. Also, data were presented on a different sample of 103 females classified into percentage fat categories of less than 20%, 20 to 30%, and more than 30% which illustrated no statistical differences in skeletal dimensions, including frame size.