Literature DB >> 29633017

Influence of subject presentation on interpretation of body composition change after 6 months of self-selected training and diet in athletic males.

Ava D Kerr1,2, Gary J Slater3, Nuala M Byrne4.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: High precision body composition assessment methods accurately monitor physique traits in athletes. The acute impact of subject presentation (ad libitum food and fluid intake plus physical activity) on body composition estimation using field and laboratory methods has been quantified, but the impact on interpretation of longitudinal change is unknown. This study evaluated the impact of athlete presentation (standardised versus non-standardised) on interpretation of change in physique traits over time. Thirty athletic males (31.2 ± 7.5 years; 182.2 ± 6.5 cm; 91.7 ± 10.3 kg; 27.6 ± 2.6 kg/m2) underwent two testing sessions on 1 day including surface anthropometry, dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), bioelectrical impedance spectroscopy (BIS) and air displacement plethysmography (via the BOD POD), with combinations of these used to establish three-compartment (3C) and four-compartment (4C) models.
METHODS: Tests were conducted after an overnight fast (BASEam) and ~ 7 h later after ad libitum food/fluid and physical activity (BASEpm). This procedure was repeated 6 months later (POSTam and POSTpm). Magnitude of changes in the mean was assessed by standardisation.
RESULTS: After 6 months of self-selected training and diet, standardised presentation testing (BASEam to POSTam) identified trivial changes from the smallest worthwhile effect (SWE) in fat-free mass (FFM) and fat mass (FM) for all methods except for BIS (FM) where there was a large change (7.2%) from the SWE. Non-standardised follow-up testing (BASEam to POSTpm) showed trivial changes from the SWE except for small changes in FFM (BOD POD) of 1.1%, and in FM (3C and 4C models) of 6.4 and 3.5%. Large changes from the SWE were found in FFM (BIS, 3C and 4C models) of 2.2, 1.8 and 1.8% and in FM (BIS) of 6.4%. Non-standardised presentation testing (BASEpm to POSTpm) identified trivial changes from the SWE in FFM except for BIS which was small (1.1%). A moderate change from the SWE was found for BOD POD (3.3%) and large for BIS (9.4%) in FM estimations.
CONCLUSIONS: Changes in body composition utilising non-standardised presentation were more substantial and often in the opposite direction to those identified using standardised presentation, causing misinterpretation of change in physique traits. Standardised presentation prior to body composition assessment for athletic populations should be advocated to enhance interpretation of true change.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Air-displacement plethysmography; Bioelectrical impedance spectroscopy; Body composition; Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry; Surface anthropometry

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29633017     DOI: 10.1007/s00421-018-3861-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Appl Physiol        ISSN: 1439-6319            Impact factor:   3.078


  39 in total

1.  Evaluation of air displacement for assessing body composition of collegiate wrestlers.

Authors:  Alan C Utter; Frederic L Goss; Pamela D Swan; Gregory S Harris; Robert J Robertson; Gregory A Trone
Journal:  Med Sci Sports Exerc       Date:  2003-03       Impact factor: 5.411

Review 2.  Hydration testing of athletes.

Authors:  Robert A Oppliger; Cynthia Bartok
Journal:  Sports Med       Date:  2002       Impact factor: 11.136

3.  Bioelectrical impedance to estimate changes in hydration status.

Authors:  C O'Brien; A J Young; M N Sawka
Journal:  Int J Sports Med       Date:  2002-07       Impact factor: 3.118

Review 4.  Current status of body composition assessment in sport: review and position statement on behalf of the ad hoc research working group on body composition health and performance, under the auspices of the I.O.C. Medical Commission.

Authors:  Timothy R Ackland; Timothy G Lohman; Jorunn Sundgot-Borgen; Ronald J Maughan; Nanna L Meyer; Arthur D Stewart; Wolfram Müller
Journal:  Sports Med       Date:  2012-03-01       Impact factor: 11.136

5.  Three-compartment body composition changes in elite rugby league players during a super league season, measured by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry.

Authors:  Jamie A Harley; Karen Hind; John P O'hara
Journal:  J Strength Cond Res       Date:  2011-04       Impact factor: 3.775

6.  Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry: fat estimation errors due to variation in soft tissue hydration.

Authors:  A Pietrobelli; Z Wang; C Formica; S B Heymsfield
Journal:  Am J Physiol       Date:  1998-05

Review 7.  The impact of recent technological advances on the trueness and precision of DXA to assess body composition.

Authors:  Rebecca J Toombs; Gaele Ducher; John A Shepherd; Mary Jane De Souza
Journal:  Obesity (Silver Spring)       Date:  2011-07-14       Impact factor: 5.002

8.  Effect of an Acute High Carbohydrate Diet on Body Composition Using DXA in Young Men.

Authors:  Marc-Antoine Rouillier; Sarah David-Riel; Anne-Sophie Brazeau; David H St-Pierre; Antony D Karelis
Journal:  Ann Nutr Metab       Date:  2015-07-11       Impact factor: 3.374

9.  Body composition from fluid spaces and density: analysis of methods. 1961.

Authors:  W E Siri
Journal:  Nutrition       Date:  1993 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 4.008

10.  Lung volumes in healthy nonsmoking adults.

Authors:  R O Crapo; A H Morris; P D Clayton; C R Nixon
Journal:  Bull Eur Physiopathol Respir       Date:  1982 May-Jun
View more
  2 in total

1.  Influence of Acute Water Ingestion and Prolonged Standing on Raw Bioimpedance and Subsequent Body Fluid and Composition Estimates.

Authors:  Grant M Tinsley; Matthew T Stratton; Patrick S Harty; Abegale D Williams; Sarah J White; Christian Rodriguez; Jacob R Dellinger; Baylor A Johnson; Robert W Smith; Eric T Trexler
Journal:  J Electr Bioimpedance       Date:  2022-05-20

2.  Whole-body dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry demonstrates better reliability than segmental body composition analysis in college-aged students.

Authors:  Petr Kutáč; Václav Bunc; Martin Sigmund
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-04-22       Impact factor: 3.240

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.