Authors' reply: estimate of body composition not anaerobic performance.

We appreciate the authors’ interest in our published article [, but we do not necessarily see the significance of our work as it relates to theirs [. The authors state that they were particularly interested in our conclusions that stated;

‘The BIA (bioelectrical impedance analysis) device investigated in this study did not provide a valid estimate of fat free mass index (FFMI) in male and female collegiate athletes. Although there was a general tendency for the BIA to underestimate FFMI compared to DEXA (dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry), 98% of the estimates were within plus or minus 2 kg/ m2. Therefore, while slightly biased, BIA may provide a reasonable (± 2 kg/ m2) estimate of nutritional status for practitioners who are unable to afford more expensive equipment’.

The authors then go on to discuss differing methods of determining resistive force selection during anaerobic exercise [. While interesting, it does not relate well to the purpose of our study which was to investigate whether or not BIA offered a valid estimate of a DEXA derived FFMI [. Therefore, we do not believe that the results of our study should be used to accept or reject any hypotheses related to anaerobic performance.