M J Delmonico1, M C Kostek, J Johns, B F Hurley, J M Conway. 1. Department of Kinesiology, College of Health and Human Performance, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA. delmonicom@edc.pitt.edu
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine how dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) compares to computed tomography (CT) for measuring changes in total thigh skeletal muscle (SM) mass with strength training (ST) in older adults. SUBJECTS: Fifty previously sedentary, relatively healthy older men (n=23, 60 (s.d.=7.5) years) and women (n=27, 60 (s.d.=9.3) years). RESULTS: Results indicate that there was a significant increase in thigh SM mass with ST measured by both CT (3.9+/-0.4%) and DXA (2.9+/-0.6%) methods (both P<0.001), and there was not a significant difference in percent change between the two methods, although there was a substantial absolute difference ( approximately 2 kg) at baseline between the two methods. Although Bland-Altman plots indicate overall agreement between the percent thigh SM mass changes of DXA vs CT methods, the 3.4% error associated with DXA was greater than the thigh SM mass change from DXA. However, the CT measured change in thigh SM mass was greater than its error (0.6%). CONCLUSIONS: DXA overestimates baseline and after ST thigh SM mass, and may not be able to detect small changes in thigh SM mass with ST due to its higher error. Although DXA has certain advantages that warrant is used in epidemiologic and intervention studies, improvements to DXA are needed for the accurate assessment of small changes in thigh SM mass.
OBJECTIVE: To determine how dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) compares to computed tomography (CT) for measuring changes in total thigh skeletal muscle (SM) mass with strength training (ST) in older adults. SUBJECTS: Fifty previously sedentary, relatively healthy older men (n=23, 60 (s.d.=7.5) years) and women (n=27, 60 (s.d.=9.3) years). RESULTS: Results indicate that there was a significant increase in thigh SM mass with ST measured by both CT (3.9+/-0.4%) and DXA (2.9+/-0.6%) methods (both P<0.001), and there was not a significant difference in percent change between the two methods, although there was a substantial absolute difference ( approximately 2 kg) at baseline between the two methods. Although Bland-Altman plots indicate overall agreement between the percent thigh SM mass changes of DXA vs CT methods, the 3.4% error associated with DXA was greater than the thigh SM mass change from DXA. However, the CT measured change in thigh SM mass was greater than its error (0.6%). CONCLUSIONS: DXA overestimates baseline and after ST thigh SM mass, and may not be able to detect small changes in thigh SM mass with ST due to its higher error. Although DXA has certain advantages that warrant is used in epidemiologic and intervention studies, improvements to DXA are needed for the accurate assessment of small changes in thigh SM mass.
Authors: Mark S Miller; Damien M Callahan; Timothy W Tourville; James R Slauterbeck; Anna Kaplan; Brad R Fiske; Patrick D Savage; Philip A Ades; Bruce D Beynnon; Michael J Toth Journal: J Appl Physiol (1985) Date: 2017-01-12
Authors: Damien M Callahan; Timothy W Tourville; Mark S Miller; Sarah B Hackett; Himani Sharma; Nicholas C Cruickshank; James R Slauterbeck; Patrick D Savage; Philip A Ades; David W Maughan; Bruce D Beynnon; Michael J Toth Journal: Am J Physiol Cell Physiol Date: 2015-03-25 Impact factor: 4.249
Authors: Edward P Weiss; Richard C Jordan; Ethel M Frese; Stewart G Albert; Dennis T Villareal Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2017-01 Impact factor: 5.411
Authors: C Cooper; R Fielding; M Visser; L J van Loon; Y Rolland; E Orwoll; K Reid; S Boonen; W Dere; S Epstein; B Mitlak; Y Tsouderos; A A Sayer; R Rizzoli; J Y Reginster; J A Kanis Journal: Calcif Tissue Int Date: 2013-07-11 Impact factor: 4.333