BACKGROUND: 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. OBJECTIVE: The goal was to determine the effects of sex and adiposity on the difference in percentage body fat (%BF) predicted by BIA compared with dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA). DESIGN: A total of 591 healthy subjects were recruited in Newfoundland and Labrador. %BF was predicted by using BIA and was compared with that measured by DXA. Methods agreement was assessed by Pearson's correlation and Bland and Altman analysis. Differences in %BF among groups based on sex and adiposity were analyzed by using one-factor analysis of variance with Bonferroni correction. RESULTS: Correlations between BIA and DXA were 0.88 for the whole population, 0.78 for men, and 0.85 for women. The mean %BF determined by BIA (32.89 +/- 8.00%) was significantly lower than that measured by DXA (34.72 +/- 8.66%). The cutoffs were sex specific. BIA overestimated %BF by 3.03% and 4.40% when %BF was <15% in men and <25% in women, respectively, and underestimated %BF by 4.32% and 2.71% when %BF was >25% in men and >33% in women, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: 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.
BACKGROUND: 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. OBJECTIVE: The goal was to determine the effects of sex and adiposity on the difference in percentage body fat (%BF) predicted by BIA compared with dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA). DESIGN: A total of 591 healthy subjects were recruited in Newfoundland and Labrador. %BF was predicted by using BIA and was compared with that measured by DXA. Methods agreement was assessed by Pearson's correlation and Bland and Altman analysis. Differences in %BF among groups based on sex and adiposity were analyzed by using one-factor analysis of variance with Bonferroni correction. RESULTS: Correlations between BIA and DXA were 0.88 for the whole population, 0.78 for men, and 0.85 for women. The mean %BF determined by BIA (32.89 +/- 8.00%) was significantly lower than that measured by DXA (34.72 +/- 8.66%). The cutoffs were sex specific. BIA overestimated %BF by 3.03% and 4.40% when %BF was <15% in men and <25% in women, respectively, and underestimated %BF by 4.32% and 2.71% when %BF was >25% in men and >33% in women, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: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.
Authors: Kim S Stote; David J Baer; Karen Spears; David R Paul; G Keith Harris; William V Rumpler; Pilar Strycula; Samer S Najjar; Luigi Ferrucci; Donald K Ingram; Dan L Longo; Mark P Mattson Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2007-04 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: K H C Vilaça; F J A Paula; E Ferriolli; N K C Lima; J S Marchini; J C Moriguti Journal: J Nutr Health Aging Date: 2011-06 Impact factor: 4.075
Authors: Mikaela Willmer; Daniel Berglind; Anders Thorell; Magnus Sundbom; Joanna Uddén; Mustafa Raoof; Jakob Hedberg; Per Tynelius; Ata Ghaderi; Erik Näslund; Finn Rasmussen Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2015-02 Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: M B Schulze; B Thorand; A Fritsche; H U Häring; F Schick; A Zierer; W Rathmann; J Kröger; A Peters; H Boeing; N Stefan Journal: Diabetologia Date: 2012-02-17 Impact factor: 10.122