Grant M Tinsley1, M Lane Moore2, Analiza M Silva3, Luis B Sardinha3. 1. Department of Kinesiology & Sport Management, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX, USA. grant.tinsley@ttu.edu. 2. Department of Kinesiology & Sport Management, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX, USA. 3. Exercise and Health Laboratory, CIPER, Faculdade Motricidade Humana, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The use of raw bioelectrical variables, such as resistance (R), reactance (Xc), and phase angle (φ), has been advocated for evaluating physiological changes. METHODS: Before and after 8 weeks of resistance training, adult females were assessed via multifrequency bioelectrical impedance analysis (MFBIA; Seca® mBCA 515/514) and bioimpedance spectroscopy (BIS; ImpediMed® SFB7). Data were analyzed to determine whether cross-sectional estimates and changes (i.e., Δ scores) of R, Xc, and φ differed between devices at 16 shared measurement frequencies ranging from 3 to 1000 kHz. RESULTS: Cross-sectionally, strong correlations (r ≥ 0.96) were observed for R across all frequencies, although MFBIA produced values 9-14% greater than BIS. Strong correlations (r ≥ 0.92) for Xc and φ were observed up to frequencies of ~150 kHz. BIS produced greater Xc and φ values at lower frequencies, while MFBIA produced greater values at higher frequencies. In general, proportional bias was not observed, with the exception of Xc at high frequencies and φ at low frequencies. ΔR did not differ between devices at any frequency and was correlated at all frequencies. ΔXc and Δφ did not differ at any frequency and were correlated between devices for frequencies up to ~300 kHz. Proportional bias was generally not observed longitudinally. While individual-level errors were potentially acceptable cross-sectionally, they were concerningly high longitudinally. CONCLUSION: Despite notable differences in the characteristics of the bioimpedance devices and cross-sectional disagreement, strong group-level agreement for detecting changes in R, Xc, and φ was generally observed. However, large errors were observed at the individual level.
BACKGROUND: The use of raw bioelectrical variables, such as resistance (R), reactance (Xc), and phase angle (φ), has been advocated for evaluating physiological changes. METHODS: Before and after 8 weeks of resistance training, adult females were assessed via multifrequency bioelectrical impedance analysis (MFBIA; Seca® mBCA 515/514) and bioimpedance spectroscopy (BIS; ImpediMed® SFB7). Data were analyzed to determine whether cross-sectional estimates and changes (i.e., Δ scores) of R, Xc, and φ differed between devices at 16 shared measurement frequencies ranging from 3 to 1000 kHz. RESULTS: Cross-sectionally, strong correlations (r ≥ 0.96) were observed for R across all frequencies, although MFBIA produced values 9-14% greater than BIS. Strong correlations (r ≥ 0.92) for Xc and φ were observed up to frequencies of ~150 kHz. BIS produced greater Xc and φ values at lower frequencies, while MFBIA produced greater values at higher frequencies. In general, proportional bias was not observed, with the exception of Xc at high frequencies and φ at low frequencies. ΔR did not differ between devices at any frequency and was correlated at all frequencies. ΔXc and Δφ did not differ at any frequency and were correlated between devices for frequencies up to ~300 kHz. Proportional bias was generally not observed longitudinally. While individual-level errors were potentially acceptable cross-sectionally, they were concerningly high longitudinally. CONCLUSION: Despite notable differences in the characteristics of the bioimpedance devices and cross-sectional disagreement, strong group-level agreement for detecting changes in R, Xc, and φ was generally observed. However, large errors were observed at the individual level.
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: L Nescolarde; H Lukaski; A De Lorenzo; B de-Mateo-Silleras; M P Redondo-Del-Río; M A Camina-Martín Journal: Eur J Clin Nutr Date: 2016-07-06 Impact factor: 4.016
Authors: Maria Cristina G Barbosa-Silva; Aluísio J D Barros; Jack Wang; Steven B Heymsfield; Richard N Pierson Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: A S Ribeiro; A Avelar; L Dos Santos; A M Silva; L A Gobbo; B J Schoenfeld; L B Sardinha; E S Cyrino Journal: Int J Sports Med Date: 2016-10-28 Impact factor: 3.118
Authors: Ralf Jäger; Chad M Kerksick; Bill I Campbell; Paul J Cribb; Shawn D Wells; Tim M Skwiat; Martin Purpura; Tim N Ziegenfuss; Arny A Ferrando; Shawn M Arent; Abbie E Smith-Ryan; Jeffrey R Stout; Paul J Arciero; Michael J Ormsbee; Lem W Taylor; Colin D Wilborn; Doug S Kalman; Richard B Kreider; Darryn S Willoughby; Jay R Hoffman; Jamie L Krzykowski; Jose Antonio Journal: J Int Soc Sports Nutr Date: 2017-06-20 Impact factor: 5.150
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
Authors: Roberto Fernandes da Costa; Analiza M Silva; Kalina Veruska da Silva Bezerra Masset; Tatianny de Macêdo Cesário; Breno Guilherme de Araújo Tinoco Cabral; Gerson Ferrari; Paulo Moreira Silva Dantas Journal: Front Nutr Date: 2022-03-17
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