Ling-Chun Lee1, Pi-Shan Hsu2,3, Kuen-Chang Hsieh4,5,6, Yu-Yawn Chen7, Lee-Ping Chu8, Hsueh-Kuan Lu9, Yen-Chen Chiu10, Lin Li11, Chung-Liang Lai12,13. 1. Department of Physical Education, Chinese Culture University, Taipei, Taiwan. 2. Department of Family Medicine, Taichung Veterans General Hospital, Taichung, Taiwan. 3. Graduate Institute of Microbiology and Public Health, National Chung-Hsing University, Taichung, Taiwan. 4. Fundamental Education Center, National Chin-Yi University of Technology, Taichung, Taiwan. 5. Big Data Center, National Chung-Hsing University, Taichung, Taiwan. 6. Office of Physical Education, Fu Jen Catholic University, New Taipei, Taiwan. 7. Division of Food Nutrition, National Taitung Junior College, Taitung, Taiwan. 8. Department of Orthopedics, China Medical University Hospital, Taichung, Taiwan. 9. General Education Center, National Taiwan University of Sport, Taichung, Taiwan. 10. Department of Exercise Health Science, National Taiwan University of Sport, Taichung, Taiwan. 11. Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Taichung Hospital, Ministry of Health and Welfare, Taichung, Taiwan. 12. Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Puzi Hospital, Ministry of Health and Welfare, Chiayi, Taiwan. 13. Department of Occupational Therapy, Asia University, Taichung, Taiwan.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate the potential of standing 8-electrode bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) for assessing visceral fat area (VFA) and body fat mass (BFM) in athletes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 95 subjects (50 males and 45 females) were recruited. VFA and BFM measurements were obtained using three standing 8-electrode BIA devices, InBody230, InBody770, and IOI353. These acquired VFA and BFM were expressed as VFAIOI353, VFAInBody230, VFAInBody770 V, BFMIOI353, BFMInBody230, and BFMInBody770, respectively. As reference measurement, the VFA acquired from computer tomography (CT) was expressed as VFACT, and the BFM measured by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) was denoted as BFMDXA. RESULTS: The coefficient of determination (r2) in regression analysis between the measurements by VFAIOI353, VFAInBody230, VFAInBody770 and VFACT were 0.425, 0.492, and 0.473, respectively. Also, the limits of agreement (LOA) obtained from Bland-Altman analysis were -25.18 to 56.62, -29.74 to 62.44, and -32.96 to 71.93 cm2. For BFM, r2 in regression analysis between the measurements by BFMIOI353, BFMInBody230, BFMInBody770 and BMFDXA were 0.894, 0.950, and 0.955, respectively; LOA were -7.21 to 5.75, -4.70 to 4.05, and -5.48 to 3.05 kg, respectively. CONCLUSION: The results showed when assessing BFM, these instruments delivered comparable measurements, and the degree of agreement ranged from excellent to moderate compared with the reference method. However, when assessing VFA, the agreements were weak. Therefore, the application of standing 8-electrode BIA devices for assessing athletes' VFA still needs improvement.
PURPOSE: To investigate the potential of standing 8-electrode bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) for assessing visceral fat area (VFA) and body fat mass (BFM) in athletes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 95 subjects (50 males and 45 females) were recruited. VFA and BFM measurements were obtained using three standing 8-electrode BIA devices, InBody230, InBody770, and IOI353. These acquired VFA and BFM were expressed as VFAIOI353, VFAInBody230, VFAInBody770 V, BFMIOI353, BFMInBody230, and BFMInBody770, respectively. As reference measurement, the VFA acquired from computer tomography (CT) was expressed as VFACT, and the BFM measured by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) was denoted as BFMDXA. RESULTS: The coefficient of determination (r2) in regression analysis between the measurements by VFAIOI353, VFAInBody230, VFAInBody770 and VFACT were 0.425, 0.492, and 0.473, respectively. Also, the limits of agreement (LOA) obtained from Bland-Altman analysis were -25.18 to 56.62, -29.74 to 62.44, and -32.96 to 71.93 cm2. For BFM, r2 in regression analysis between the measurements by BFMIOI353, BFMInBody230, BFMInBody770 and BMFDXA were 0.894, 0.950, and 0.955, respectively; LOA were -7.21 to 5.75, -4.70 to 4.05, and -5.48 to 3.05 kg, respectively. CONCLUSION: The results showed when assessing BFM, these instruments delivered comparable measurements, and the degree of agreement ranged from excellent to moderate compared with the reference method. However, when assessing VFA, the agreements were weak. Therefore, the application of standing 8-electrode BIA devices for assessing athletes' VFA still needs improvement.
Authors: L C Ward; B L Heitmann; P Craig; D Stroud; E C Azinge; S Jebb; B H Cornish; B Swinburn; K O'Dea; K Rowley; R McDermott; B J Thomas; D Leonard Journal: Ann N Y Acad Sci Date: 2000-05 Impact factor: 5.691
Authors: T Yoshizumi; T Nakamura; M Yamane; A H Islam; M Menju; K Yamasaki; T Arai; K Kotani; T Funahashi; S Yamashita; Y Matsuzawa Journal: Radiology Date: 1999-04 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Nathaniel S Nye; David H Carnahan; Jonathan C Jackson; Carlton J Covey; Lee A Zarzabal; Susan Y Chao; Archie D Bockhorst; Paul F Crawford Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2014-10 Impact factor: 5.411
Authors: S R Smith; J C Lovejoy; F Greenway; D Ryan; L deJonge; J de la Bretonne; J Volafova; G A Bray Journal: Metabolism Date: 2001-04 Impact factor: 8.694
Authors: James T Lane; Lynn R Mack-Shipman; Joseph C Anderson; Timothy E Moore; Judi M Erickson; Timothy C Ford; Julie A Stoner; Jennifer L Larsen Journal: Endocrine Date: 2005-08 Impact factor: 3.925
Authors: Filipe Rosa; Hugo Sarmento; João Pedro Duarte; Joel Barrera; Francisco Loureiro; Vasco Vaz; Nestor Saavedra; António José Figueiredo Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-04-15 Impact factor: 3.752