Nazeem Ishrat Siddiqui1, Sarfaraz Alam Khan2, Mohammad Shoeb3, Sukhwant Bose4. 1. Professor, Department of Physiology, Sri Aurobindo Medical College and Post Graduate Institute , Indore, Madhya Pradesh, India . 2. Associate Professor, Department of Pharmacology, CIMS Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, India . 3. Assistant Professor, Department of Biotechnology, SSMV , Bhilai, Chhattisgarh, India . 4. Director Professor, Department of Physiology and Director Medical Education, Sri Aurobindo Medical College and Post Graduate Institute , Indore, Madhya Pradesh, India .
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Phase Angle (PhA) is a ratio of whole body reactance and resistance obtained from Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis (BIA). It indicates cellular health and integrity and is considered as prognostic tool in medical disorders. In spite of prognostic potentials of PhA, it has limited usefulness in clinical practice and in population studies because of non-availability of normal population reference limits for comparison. Moreover, it is influenced by various factors like age, sex, race and body composition (i.e. body fat, muscle mass, visceral fat, body cell mass, total body water, etc). AIM: The aim of this study was to evaluate predictors of phase angle which will be useful in formulation of reference values for Indian population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: BIA was performed by Tanita Body Composition Analyser on healthy adults aged 17-24 years. The inbuilt software measured the phase angle by the formula: Phase angle (PhA) = Reactance (xc)/Resistance (R)* (180/π). Phase angle values were compared across categories of age, sex, weight, height, Body Mass Index (BMI), total fat, visceral fat and muscle mass. RESULTS: Mean value of phase angle was found to be 5.65. Phase angle was significantly (p< 0.001) higher in male than in female. Phase angle was significantly predicted from height (p< 0.001), weight (p< 0.002), muscle mass (p< 0.002) and visceral fat (p< 0.02) in multiple regression models. CONCLUSION: Phase angle differs across anthropometric and body composition categories. Thus height, weight and muscle mass should also be taken into consideration while deriving population specific reference limits of phase angle.
INTRODUCTION: Phase Angle (PhA) is a ratio of whole body reactance and resistance obtained from Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis (BIA). It indicates cellular health and integrity and is considered as prognostic tool in medical disorders. In spite of prognostic potentials of PhA, it has limited usefulness in clinical practice and in population studies because of non-availability of normal population reference limits for comparison. Moreover, it is influenced by various factors like age, sex, race and body composition (i.e. body fat, muscle mass, visceral fat, body cell mass, total body water, etc). AIM: The aim of this study was to evaluate predictors of phase angle which will be useful in formulation of reference values for Indian population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: BIA was performed by Tanita Body Composition Analyser on healthy adults aged 17-24 years. The inbuilt software measured the phase angle by the formula: Phase angle (PhA) = Reactance (xc)/Resistance (R)* (180/π). Phase angle values were compared across categories of age, sex, weight, height, Body Mass Index (BMI), total fat, visceral fat and muscle mass. RESULTS: Mean value of phase angle was found to be 5.65. Phase angle was significantly (p< 0.001) higher in male than in female. Phase angle was significantly predicted from height (p< 0.001), weight (p< 0.002), muscle mass (p< 0.002) and visceral fat (p< 0.02) in multiple regression models. CONCLUSION: Phase angle differs across anthropometric and body composition categories. Thus height, weight and muscle mass should also be taken into consideration while deriving population specific reference limits of phase angle.
Keywords:
Anthropometric predictors; Bio-Impedance Analysis; Body composition analysis; Phase angle; Reactance and resistance
Authors: Maria Cristina G Barbosa-Silva; Aluísio J D Barros; Cora L A Post; Dan L Waitzberg; Steven B Heymsfield Journal: Nutrition Date: 2003-05 Impact factor: 4.008
Authors: Ursula G Kyle; Ingvar Bosaeus; Antonio D De Lorenzo; Paul Deurenberg; Marinos Elia; José Manuel Gómez; Berit Lilienthal Heitmann; Luisa Kent-Smith; Jean-Claude Melchior; Matthias Pirlich; Hermann Scharfetter; Annemie M W J Schols; Claude Pichard Journal: Clin Nutr Date: 2004-10 Impact factor: 7.324
Authors: M Marra; A Caldara; C Montagnese; E De Filippo; F Pasanisi; F Contaldo; L Scalfi Journal: Eur J Clin Nutr Date: 2008-11-12 Impact factor: 4.016
Authors: Ching S Wan; Leigh C Ward; Jocelyn Halim; Megan L Gow; Mandy Ho; Julie N Briody; Kelvin Leung; Chris T Cowell; Sarah P Garnett Journal: BMC Pediatr Date: 2014-10-03 Impact factor: 2.125
Authors: Paweł Więch; Filip Wołoszyn; Patrycja Trojnar; Mateusz Skórka; Dariusz Bazaliński Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-08-11 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: Anastassia Löser; Kerstin Ramke; Maximilian Grohmann; Linda Krause; Pia Roser; Franziska Greinert; Anna Finger; Margaret Sommer; Eva Culmann; Tessa Lorenz; Saskia Becker; Marvin Henze; Daniel Schodrok; Julia von Grundherr; Silke Tribius; Andreas Krüll; Cordula Petersen Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2021-11-01 Impact factor: 3.621