Literature DB >> 32874111

How Length Sizes Affect Body Composition Estimation in Adolescent Athletes Using Bioelectrical Impedance.

Katinka Utczás1, Zsófia Tróznai1, Gergely Pálinkás1, Irina Kalabiska1, Leonidas Petridis1.   

Abstract

Bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) is a common practice to assess body composition in athletes, however, when measuring athletes with specific body geometry, its accuracy may decrease. In this study we examined how length dimensions affect body composition estimation and we compared BIA and dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) assessments in three sports. 738 male adolescent athletes (15.8 ± 1.4 years) from three sports (soccer, basketball, and handball) were measured. Body composition was estimated by BIA (InBody 720) and by DXA (Lunar Prodigy). Differences between the two methods were tested by Bland-Altman analysis and by paired t-test. ANOVA was used for inter-group comparisons. Pearson correlation and multivariate linear regression was used to look for the relationship between segmental lean body mass and length dimensions. BIAInBody 720 consistently underestimated percent body fat (PBF) and overestimated lean body mass (LBM) than DXA. The magnitude of the differences between the two methods varied among the examined sports. Handball (PBF = 8.3 ± 2.4 %; LBM = -5.0 ± 2.1 kg) and basketball players (PBF = 8.8 ± 2.3 %; LBM = -5.3 ± 1.8 kg) had significantly larger differences between the two methods than soccer players (PBF = 6.4 ± 2.2 %; LBM = -3.1 ± 1.4 kg). There was a negative correlation between differences in segmental LBM estimation and length sizes (trunk length, upper extremity length, lower extremity length). The highest correlation was found for lower extremity (r = -0.4). Longer lower extremity resulted in greater difference in LBM estimation. The differences between the sport disciplines are most probably attributed to body height differences. Length dimensions result in overestimation of LBM with BIA, thus body composition assessment with BIAInBody 720 needs to be carefully interpreted in athletes with extreme length sizes, especially, with basketball players. © Journal of Sports Science and Medicine.

Keywords:  DXA; Young athletes; bioimpedance method; body fat; lean mass

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32874111      PMCID: PMC7429426     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Sports Sci Med        ISSN: 1303-2968            Impact factor:   2.988


  24 in total

1.  Percentage of total body fat as estimated by three automatic bioelectrical impedance analyzers.

Authors:  Shinichi Demura; Susumu Sato; Tamotsu Kitabayashi
Journal:  J Physiol Anthropol Appl Human Sci       Date:  2004-05

Review 2.  Bioelectrical impedance analysis: a review of principles and applications.

Authors:  R F Kushner
Journal:  J Am Coll Nutr       Date:  1992-04       Impact factor: 3.169

3.  Anthropometric and performance measures for the development of a talent detection and identification model in youth handball.

Authors:  Hasan Mohamed; Roel Vaeyens; Stijn Matthys; Marc Multael; Johan Lefevre; Matthieu Lenoir; Renaat Philppaerts
Journal:  J Sports Sci       Date:  2009-02-01       Impact factor: 3.337

4.  Anthropometric, physiological and maturational characteristics in selected elite and non-elite male adolescent basketball players.

Authors:  Jon Torres-Unda; Idoia Zarrazquin; Javier Gil; Fátima Ruiz; Amaia Irazusta; Maider Kortajarena; Jesus Seco; Jon Irazusta
Journal:  J Sports Sci       Date:  2012-10-09       Impact factor: 3.337

5.  A comparison of dual energy X-ray absorptiometry and bioelectrical impedance analysis to measure total and segmental body composition in healthy young adults.

Authors:  Siobhan Leahy; Cian O'Neill; Rhoda Sohun; Philip Jakeman
Journal:  Eur J Appl Physiol       Date:  2011-05-26       Impact factor: 3.078

6.  Accuracy of an eight-point tactile-electrode impedance method in the assessment of total body water.

Authors:  G Bedogni; M Malavolti; S Severi; M Poli; C Mussi; A L Fantuzzi; N Battistini
Journal:  Eur J Clin Nutr       Date:  2002-11       Impact factor: 4.016

7.  Comparison of methods to assess body composition changes during a period of weight loss.

Authors:  Madlyn I Frisard; Frank L Greenway; James P Delany
Journal:  Obes Res       Date:  2005-05

8.  Assessing body composition with DXA and bioimpedance: effects of obesity, physical activity, and age.

Authors:  Eszter Völgyi; Frances A Tylavsky; Arja Lyytikäinen; Harri Suominen; Markku Alén; Sulin Cheng
Journal:  Obesity (Silver Spring)       Date:  2008-01-17       Impact factor: 5.002

9.  A 4-compartment model based validation of air displacement plethysmography, dual energy X-ray absorptiometry, skinfold technique & bio-electrical impedance for measuring body fat in Indian adults.

Authors:  Rebecca Kuriyan; Tinku Thomas; Sangeetha Ashok; J Jayakumar; Anura V Kurpad
Journal:  Indian J Med Res       Date:  2014-05       Impact factor: 2.375

10.  Comparison of body composition assessment by DXA and BIA according to the body mass index: A retrospective study on 3655 measures.

Authors:  Najate Achamrah; Guillaume Colange; Julie Delay; Agnès Rimbert; Vanessa Folope; André Petit; Sébastien Grigioni; Pierre Déchelotte; Moïse Coëffier
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-07-12       Impact factor: 3.240

View more
  1 in total

Review 1.  Assessment of Body Composition in Athletes: A Narrative Review of Available Methods with Special Reference to Quantitative and Qualitative Bioimpedance Analysis.

Authors:  Francesco Campa; Stefania Toselli; Massimiliano Mazzilli; Luís Alberto Gobbo; Giuseppe Coratella
Journal:  Nutrients       Date:  2021-05-12       Impact factor: 6.706

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.