Analiza M Silva1, Catarina N Matias2, Catarina L Nunes2, Diana A Santos2, Elisabetta Marini3, Henry C Lukaski4, Luís B Sardinha2. 1. Exercise and Health Laboratory, CIPER, Faculdade Motricidade Humana, Universidade Lisboa, Estrada da Costa, 1499-002, Cruz-Quebrada, Portugal. analiza@fmh.ulisboa.pt. 2. Exercise and Health Laboratory, CIPER, Faculdade Motricidade Humana, Universidade Lisboa, Estrada da Costa, 1499-002, Cruz-Quebrada, Portugal. 3. Department of Environmental and Life Sciences, University of Cagliari, via Università, 40, 09124, Cagliari, Italy. 4. Department of Kinesiology and Public Health Education, Hyslop Sports Center, University of North Dakota, Grand Forks, 58202, ND, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It is important for highly active individuals to accurately assess their hydration level. Bioelectrical impedance (BIA) can potentially meet these needs but its validity in active individuals is not well established. METHODS: We compared whole-body bioimpedance measurements obtained from multi-frequency bioelectrical impedance spectroscopy (BIS, Xitron 4200) at a 50 kHz frequency with those determined by a phase-sensitive single-frequency device (SF-BIA, BIA-101, RJL/Akern Systems) in two populations: active adults and elite athletes. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-six participants, including active males involved in recreational sports (N = 25, 20-39 yr) and elite athletes (females: N = 26, 18-35 yr; males: N = 75, 18-38 yr) participated in this study. Reactance (Xc), Resistance (R), Impedance (Z), and phase angle (PhA) were obtained by BIS and SF-BIA. Small but significant differences (R: -9.91 ± 15.09 Ω; Xc: -0.97 ± 2.56 Ω; Z: -9.96 ± 15.18 Ω; PhA: 0.12 ± 0.2°) were observed between the bioimpedance equipment in all measured variables (p < 0.05) though differences were within the devices' technical error of measurements. Device-specific values were highly (p < 0.0001) correlated [R2 ranged from 0.881 (Xc) to 0.833 (R)], but slopes and intercepts were different (p < 0.0001) from 1 and 0, respectively. Relatively large limits of agreement were observed for R (-40 to 21 Ω), Xc (-6 to 4 Ω), PhA (-0.4 to 0.5°), and impedance (-40 to 20 Ω). CONCLUSION: Bioimpedance measurements from the current single- and multi-frequency devices should not be used interchangeably. The of lack of agreement between devices was observed in determining individual values of R, Xc, Z and PhA of highly active populations possibly due to methodological and biological factors.
BACKGROUND: It is important for highly active individuals to accurately assess their hydration level. Bioelectrical impedance (BIA) can potentially meet these needs but its validity in active individuals is not well established. METHODS: We compared whole-body bioimpedance measurements obtained from multi-frequency bioelectrical impedance spectroscopy (BIS, Xitron 4200) at a 50 kHz frequency with those determined by a phase-sensitive single-frequency device (SF-BIA, BIA-101, RJL/Akern Systems) in two populations: active adults and elite athletes. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-six participants, including active males involved in recreational sports (N = 25, 20-39 yr) and elite athletes (females: N = 26, 18-35 yr; males: N = 75, 18-38 yr) participated in this study. Reactance (Xc), Resistance (R), Impedance (Z), and phase angle (PhA) were obtained by BIS and SF-BIA. Small but significant differences (R: -9.91 ± 15.09 Ω; Xc: -0.97 ± 2.56 Ω; Z: -9.96 ± 15.18 Ω; PhA: 0.12 ± 0.2°) were observed between the bioimpedance equipment in all measured variables (p < 0.05) though differences were within the devices' technical error of measurements. Device-specific values were highly (p < 0.0001) correlated [R2 ranged from 0.881 (Xc) to 0.833 (R)], but slopes and intercepts were different (p < 0.0001) from 1 and 0, respectively. Relatively large limits of agreement were observed for R (-40 to 21 Ω), Xc (-6 to 4 Ω), PhA (-0.4 to 0.5°), and impedance (-40 to 20 Ω). CONCLUSION: Bioimpedance measurements from the current single- and multi-frequency devices should not be used interchangeably. The of lack of agreement between devices was observed in determining individual values of R, Xc, Z and PhA of highly active populations possibly due to methodological and biological factors.
Authors: Sergey Rudnev; Jane S Burns; Paige L Williams; Mary M Lee; Susan A Korrick; Tatiana Denisova; Yuri Dikov; Gennady Kozupitsa; Russ Hauser; Oleg Sergeyev Journal: Clin Nutr ESPEN Date: 2019-11-16
Authors: Matthew T Stratton; Robert W Smith; Patrick S Harty; Christian Rodriguez; Baylor A Johnson; Jacob R Dellinger; Abegale D Williams; Sarah J White; Marqui L Benavides; Grant M Tinsley Journal: Eur J Clin Nutr Date: 2021-03-16 Impact factor: 4.016
Authors: Rúben Francisco; Catarina L Nunes; João Breda; Filipe Jesus; Henry Lukaski; Luís B Sardinha; Analiza M Silva Journal: Biology (Basel) Date: 2022-06-10
Authors: Camila E Orsso; Maria Cristina Gonzalez; Michael Johannes Maisch; Andrea M Haqq; Carla M Prado Journal: Eur J Clin Nutr Date: 2021-10-07 Impact factor: 4.884
Authors: David Naranjo-Hernández; Javier Reina-Tosina; Laura M Roa; Gerardo Barbarov-Rostán; Nuria Aresté-Fosalba; Alfonso Lara-Ruiz; Pilar Cejudo-Ramos; Francisco Ortega-Ruiz Journal: Sensors (Basel) Date: 2019-12-21 Impact factor: 3.576
Authors: Francesco Campa; Catarina N Matias; Pantelis T Nikolaidis; Henry Lukaski; Jacopo Talluri; Stefania Toselli Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-11-05 Impact factor: 3.390