| Literature DB >> 31979187 |
Stefania Toselli1, Elisabetta Marini2, Pasqualino Maietta Latessa3, Luca Benedetti4, Francesco Campa1,3.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to analyze the efficiency of classic and specific bioelectrical impedance vector analysis (BIVA) in the assessment of maturity related differences in body composition among male elite youth soccer players, and to provide bioelectrical impedance reference data for this category. A group of 178 players (aged 12.1 ± 1.6 years) were registered in a professional Italian soccer team participating in the first division (Serie A). They were divided into three groups according to their maturity status while bioelectrical resistance and reactance were obtained. The classic and specific BIVA procedures were applied, which correct bioelectrical values for body height and body geometry, respectively. Percentage of fat mass (FM%) and total body water (TBW (L)) were estimated from bioelectrical values. Age-specific z-scores of the predicted age at peak height velocity identified 29 players as earlier-, 126 as on time-, and 23 as later-maturing. TBW was higher (p < 0.01) in adolescents classified as "early" maturity status compared to the other two groups and classic BIVA confirmed these results. Conversely, no differences in FM% were found among the groups. Specific vector length showed a higher correlation (r = 0.748) with FM% compared with the classic approach (r = 0.493). Classic vector length showed a stronger association (r = -0.955) with TBW compared with specific (r = -0.263). Specific BIVA turns out to be accurate for the analysis of FM% in athletes, while classic BIVA shows to be a valid approach to evaluate TBW. An original data set of bioelectric impedance reference values of male elite youth soccer players was provided.Entities:
Keywords: BIVA; R-Xc graph; age at peak height velocity; phase angle
Year: 2020 PMID: 31979187 PMCID: PMC7036791 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17030729
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Results of ANOVA analyses and descriptive statistics of anthropometric features, according to maturity status.
| Variable | Early-Maturing, | On-Time | Late-Maturing | F |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age, y | 12.3 (1.6) | 12.4 (1.6) | 12.4 (1.7) | 0.37 | 0.69 |
| Height, cm | 161.5 (24.8) # § | 157.7 (35.8) * | 149.6 (13.4) * | 8.33 | <0.001 |
| Sitting height, cm | 80.7 (13.2) # § | 77.8 (16.9) * | 76.7 (7.4) * | 16.29 | <0.001 |
| Weight, kg | 52.4 (27.6) # § | 41.4 (28.5) * | 37.2 (10.1) * | 14.06 | <0.001 |
| BMI, kg/m2 | 19.5 (4.6) # § | 19.2 (2.7) * | 18.1 (1.7) * | 9.41 | <0.001 |
| Predicted APHV, y | 12.9 (0.3) # § | 13.7 (0.1) * § | 14.5 (0.3) * # | 143.63 | <0.001 |
Note: Data are presented as mean (SD). Abbreviations: ANOVA, analysis of variance; BMI, body mass index; APHV, age at peak height velocity. * Differences (p < 0.025) compared with the early-maturing group. # Differences compared with the on-time group. § Differences compared with the late-maturing group.
Results of ANOVA analyses examining the differences in body composition and physical performance, according to maturity status.
| Variable | Early-Maturing, | On-Time, | Late-Maturing, | F |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TBW (L) | 32.4 (8.3) # § | 25.7 (6.8) * | 22.9 (5.8) * | 12.46 | <0.001 |
| FFM (kg) | 45.1 (12.1) # § | 35.6 (10.9) * | 32.1 (9.4) * | 11.06 | <0.001 |
| FM (kg) | 7.3 (2.4) # § | 5.8 (2.1) * | 5.1 (1.7) * | 7.52 | 0.001 |
| FFM (%) | 86.7 (4.1) | 86.9 (3.8) | 87.3 (2.9) | 0.17 | 0.84 |
| FM (%) | 13.3 (4.1) | 13.1 (3.8) | 12.7 (2.9) | 0.17 | 0.84 |
| R/H (ohm/m) | 325.3 (76.4) # § | 387.4 (77.7) * | 423.1 (75.3) * | 9.99 | <0.001 |
| Xc/H (ohm/m) | 35.7 (6.1) # § | 41.9 (7.9) * | 45.1 (6.2) * | 10.22 | <0.001 |
| Rsp (ohm ∗ cm) | 294.4 (34.3) | 302.5 (37.7) | 300.8 (28.8) | 0.5 | 0.604 |
| Xcsp (ohm ∗ cm) | 32.7 (3.4) | 32.9 (5.6) | 32.4 (4.3) | 0.11 | 0.889 |
| PA (degrees) | 6.4 (0.8) | 6.3 (0.9) | 6.2 (0.5) | 0.46 | 0.631 |
Note: Data are presented as mean (SD). Abbreviations: ANOVA, analysis of variance; TBW, total body water; FFM, fat-free mass; FM, fat mass; R/H, resistance standardized for height; Xc/H, reactance standardized for height; Rsp, resistance standardized for height and transverse areas; Xcsp, reactance standardized for height and transverse areas; PA, phase angle. * Differences (p < 0.025) compared with the early-maturing group. # Differences compared with the on-time group. § Differences compared with the late-maturing group.
Figure 1Main graph with 95% confidence ellipses plotted on the new reference ellipses; Hotelling’s T2 test results are included.
Figure 2Correlation between classic or specific impedance vectors with TBW (L) or FM%.
Figure 3Mean and single impedance vectors plotted on the adult soccer players’ classic BIVA tolerance ellipses [29].