OBJECTIVE: To compare body composition parameters estimated by air displacement plethysmography (ADP) to dual X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) in body mass index (BMI) classifications that include extremely obese (BMI ≥ 40.0 kg/m(2) ), and to examine if differences between analyses were influenced by BMI. METHODS: Fat-free mass (FFM, kg), fat mass (FM, kg), and body fat (BF, %) were analyzed with both technologies. RESULTS: All outcome measures of ADP and DXA were highly correlated (r ≥ 0.95, P < 0.001 for FFM, FM, and BF), but Bland-Altman analyses revealed significant bias (P < 0.01 for all). ADP estimated greater FFM and lower FM and BF (P < 0.01 for all). BMI explained 27% of the variance in differences between FFM measurements (P < 0.001), and 37 and 33% of the variances in differences between FM and BF measurements, respectively (P < 0.001 for both). Within normal weight and overweight classifications, ADP estimated greater FFM and lower FM and BF (P < 0.001 for all), but the opposite occurred within the extremely obese classification; ADP estimated lower FFM and greater FM and BF (P < 0.05 for all). CONCLUSIONS: Body composition analyses by the two technologies were strongly congruent, but systematically different and influenced by BMI. Caution should be taken when utilizing ADP to estimate body composition parameters over a wide range of BMI classifications that include extremely obese.
OBJECTIVE: To compare body composition parameters estimated by air displacement plethysmography (ADP) to dual X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) in body mass index (BMI) classifications that include extremely obese (BMI ≥ 40.0 kg/m(2) ), and to examine if differences between analyses were influenced by BMI. METHODS:Fat-free mass (FFM, kg), fat mass (FM, kg), and body fat (BF, %) were analyzed with both technologies. RESULTS: All outcome measures of ADP and DXA were highly correlated (r ≥ 0.95, P < 0.001 for FFM, FM, and BF), but Bland-Altman analyses revealed significant bias (P < 0.01 for all). ADP estimated greater FFM and lower FM and BF (P < 0.01 for all). BMI explained 27% of the variance in differences between FFM measurements (P < 0.001), and 37 and 33% of the variances in differences between FM and BF measurements, respectively (P < 0.001 for both). Within normal weight and overweight classifications, ADP estimated greater FFM and lower FM and BF (P < 0.001 for all), but the opposite occurred within the extremely obese classification; ADP estimated lower FFM and greater FM and BF (P < 0.05 for all). CONCLUSIONS: Body composition analyses by the two technologies were strongly congruent, but systematically different and influenced by BMI. Caution should be taken when utilizing ADP to estimate body composition parameters over a wide range of BMI classifications that include extremely obese.
Authors: Anna M Weyers; Scott A Mazzetti; Dawn M Love; Ana L Gómez; William J Kraemer; Jeff S Volek Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2002-03 Impact factor: 5.411
Authors: Bret H Goodpaster; James P Delany; Amy D Otto; Lewis Kuller; Jerry Vockley; Jeannette E South-Paul; Stephen B Thomas; Jolene Brown; Kathleen McTigue; Kazanna C Hames; Wei Lang; John M Jakicic Journal: JAMA Date: 2010-10-09 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Samir R Ginde; Allan Geliebter; Frederick Rubiano; Analiza M Silva; Jack Wang; Stanley Heshka; Steven B Heymsfield Journal: Obes Res Date: 2005-07
Authors: Giliane Belarmino; Lilian Mika Horie; Priscila Campos Sala; Raquel S Torrinhas; Steven B Heymsfield; Dan L Waitzberg Journal: Nutr J Date: 2015-12-30 Impact factor: 3.271
Authors: Giliane Belarmino; Raquel S Torrinhas; Priscila Sala; Lilian M Horie; Lucas Damiani; Natalia C Lopes; Steven B Heymsfield; Dan L Waitzberg Journal: BMC Obes Date: 2018-10-01