L Ellegård1, F Bertz1, A Winkvist1, I Bosaeus1, H K Brekke1,2. 1. Department of Internal Medicine and Clinical Nutrition, Sahlgrenska Academy at the University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden. 2. Department of Nutrition, Institute of Basic Medical Sciences, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/ OBJECTIVES:Obesity, pregnancy and lactation all affect body composition. Simple methods to estimate body composition are useful in clinical practice and to evaluate interventions. In overweight and obese lactating women, such methods are not fully validated. The objective of this study was to validate the accuracy and precision of bioimpedance spectroscopy (BIS) by Xitron 4200 and 8-electrode multifrequency impedance (multifrequency bioimpedance analysis, MFBIA) by Tanita MC180MA with the reference methods dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) and doubly labeled water (DLW) for the assessment of body composition in 70 overweight and obese women postpartum. SUBJECTS/ METHODS: The LEVA-study (Lifestyle for Effective Weight loss during lactation) consisted of an intervention and follow-up with three assessments at 3, 6 and 15 months postpartum, which made possible the validation of both accuracy and precision. Mean differences between methods were tested by a paired t-test and Bland-Altman plots for systematic bias. RESULTS: At baseline, BIS and MFBIA underestimated fat mass (FM) by 2.6±2.8 and 8.0±4.2 kg compared with DXA (P<0.001) but without systematic bias. BIS and MFBIA overestimated total body water (TBW) by 2.4±2.2 and 4.4±3.2 kg (P<0.001) compared with DLW, with slight systematic bias by BIS. BIS correctly estimated muscle mass without systematic bias (P>0.05). BIS overestimated changes in TBW (P=0.01) without systematic bias, whereas MFBIA varied greatly and with systematic bias. CONCLUSIONS: BIS underestimates mean FM compared with DXA but can detect mean changes in body composition, although with large limits of agreement. BIS both accurately and precisely estimates muscle mass in overweight and obese women postpartum. MFBIA underestimates FM and overestimates TBW by proprietary equations compared with DXA and DLW.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND/ OBJECTIVES: Obesity, pregnancy and lactation all affect body composition. Simple methods to estimate body composition are useful in clinical practice and to evaluate interventions. In overweight and obese lactating women, such methods are not fully validated. The objective of this study was to validate the accuracy and precision of bioimpedance spectroscopy (BIS) by Xitron 4200 and 8-electrode multifrequency impedance (multifrequency bioimpedance analysis, MFBIA) by Tanita MC180MA with the reference methods dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) and doubly labeled water (DLW) for the assessment of body composition in 70 overweight and obesewomen postpartum. SUBJECTS/ METHODS: The LEVA-study (Lifestyle for Effective Weight loss during lactation) consisted of an intervention and follow-up with three assessments at 3, 6 and 15 months postpartum, which made possible the validation of both accuracy and precision. Mean differences between methods were tested by a paired t-test and Bland-Altman plots for systematic bias. RESULTS: At baseline, BIS and MFBIA underestimated fat mass (FM) by 2.6±2.8 and 8.0±4.2 kg compared with DXA (P<0.001) but without systematic bias. BIS and MFBIA overestimated total body water (TBW) by 2.4±2.2 and 4.4±3.2 kg (P<0.001) compared with DLW, with slight systematic bias by BIS. BIS correctly estimated muscle mass without systematic bias (P>0.05). BIS overestimated changes in TBW (P=0.01) without systematic bias, whereas MFBIA varied greatly and with systematic bias. CONCLUSIONS: BIS underestimates mean FM compared with DXA but can detect mean changes in body composition, although with large limits of agreement. BIS both accurately and precisely estimates muscle mass in overweight and obesewomen postpartum. MFBIA underestimates FM and overestimates TBW by proprietary equations compared with DXA and DLW.
Authors: Rebecca Thomson; Grant D Brinkworth; Jonathan D Buckley; Manny Noakes; Peter M Clifton Journal: Clin Nutr Date: 2007-10-23 Impact factor: 7.324
Authors: Fredrik Bertz; Hilde K Brekke; Lars Ellegård; Kathleen M Rasmussen; Margareta Wennergren; Anna Winkvist Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2012-09-05 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: Lisa J Ware; Robert Hurling; Ogi Bataveljic; Bruce W Fairley; Tina L Hurst; Peter Murray; Kirsten L Rennie; Chris E Tomkins; Anne Finn; Mark R Cobain; Dympna A Pearson; John P Foreyt Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2008-12-31 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Abraham Yair Lujano-Negrete; Martha Cecilia Rodríguez-Ruiz; Cassandra Michele Skinner-Taylor; Lorena Perez-Barbosa; Jesus Alberto Cardenas de la Garza; Pedro Alberto García-Hernández; Luis Gerardo Espinosa-Banuelos; Luz Fernanda Gutierrez-Leal; Sofia Jezzini-Martínez; Dionicio Ángel Galarza-Delgado Journal: Arch Osteoporos Date: 2022-02-19 Impact factor: 2.617
Authors: Eline Vermeiren; Marijke Ysebaert; Kim Van Hoorenbeeck; Luc Bruyndonckx; Kristof Van Dessel; Maria Van Helvoirt; Ann De Guchtenaere; Benedicte De Winter; Stijn Verhulst; Annelies Van Eyck Journal: Eur J Clin Nutr Date: 2020-09-11 Impact factor: 4.016
Authors: Margriet Bijlholt; Lieveke Ameye; Hanne van Uytsel; Roland Devlieger; Annick Bogaerts Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-06-11 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Jee-Young Moon; Tao Wang; Tamar Sofer; Kari E North; Carmen R Isasi; Jianwen Cai; Marc D Gellman; Ashley E Moncrieft; Daniela Sotres-Alvarez; Maria Argos; Robert C Kaplan; Qibin Qi Journal: Diabetes Date: 2017-10-06 Impact factor: 9.461