Arshdeep K Randhawa1, Veronica Jamnik1, Michael D T Fung1, Adam S Fogel1, Jennifer L Kuk2. 1. Sherman Health Science Research Centre, School of Kinesiology and Health Science, York University, Rm 2002, 4700 Keele Street, Toronto, ON, M3J 1P3, Canada. 2. Sherman Health Science Research Centre, School of Kinesiology and Health Science, York University, Rm 2002, 4700 Keele Street, Toronto, ON, M3J 1P3, Canada. jennkuk@yorku.ca.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: It is unclear to what degree acutely violating bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) measurement assumptions will alter the predicted percent fat mass (%FM) and whether this differs by sex or body mass index (BMI). METHODS: %FM was assessed under control, dehydration, exercise, water, food intake and non-voided bladder conditions with three BIA devices (Tanita: BC-418, TBF-314, & Omron HBF-306CN) for men (n = 23, age: 24.0 ± 5.2 years old) and women (n = 17, age: 22.5 ± 3.4 years old) separately. RESULTS: For all BIA devices, there were no differences in the %FM values between the control and the other conditions in men or women (- 1.9 to 0.4%, p > 0.05). Across the three devices and five conditions, 97% of %FM tests returned values within 5% of control (2 tests), and 86% of tests were within 2% of control despite violating an assumption. The errors were greatest with dehydration and women were more likely to have a %FM difference greater than 2% than men with dehydration using the hand-to-foot device (Tanita TBF-314: 59% versus 9%). There were no differences in %FM between control and the conditions when examined by BMI (overweight/obesity: - 2.8 to 0.1% and normal weight: - 1.7 to 0.5%; BMI*trial, p = 0.99). CONCLUSION: %FM estimates were similar despite acutely violating the preliminary measurement BIA assumptions across a range of different BMIs. The minor variations in %FM are smaller than what would be expected with day-to-day variability or weight loss intervention but may be larger in women than men.
OBJECTIVE: It is unclear to what degree acutely violating bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) measurement assumptions will alter the predicted percent fat mass (%FM) and whether this differs by sex or body mass index (BMI). METHODS:%FM was assessed under control, dehydration, exercise, water, food intake and non-voided bladder conditions with three BIA devices (Tanita: BC-418, TBF-314, & Omron HBF-306CN) for men (n = 23, age: 24.0 ± 5.2 years old) and women (n = 17, age: 22.5 ± 3.4 years old) separately. RESULTS: For all BIA devices, there were no differences in the %FM values between the control and the other conditions in men or women (- 1.9 to 0.4%, p > 0.05). Across the three devices and five conditions, 97% of %FM tests returned values within 5% of control (2 tests), and 86% of tests were within 2% of control despite violating an assumption. The errors were greatest with dehydration and women were more likely to have a %FM difference greater than 2% than men with dehydration using the hand-to-foot device (Tanita TBF-314: 59% versus 9%). There were no differences in %FM between control and the conditions when examined by BMI (overweight/obesity: - 2.8 to 0.1% and normal weight: - 1.7 to 0.5%; BMI*trial, p = 0.99). CONCLUSION:%FM estimates were similar despite acutely violating the preliminary measurement BIA assumptions across a range of different BMIs. The minor variations in %FM are smaller than what would be expected with day-to-day variability or weight loss intervention but may be larger in women than men.
Entities:
Keywords:
BIA assumptions; BMI; Bioelectrical impedance; Body fat; Impedance; Obesity
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: Kerri L Vasold; Andrew C Parks; Deanna M L Phelan; Matthew B Pontifex; James M Pivarnik Journal: Int J Sport Nutr Exerc Metab Date: 2019-07-01 Impact factor: 4.599
Authors: Raquel D Langer; Catarina N Matias; Juliano H Borges; Vagner X Cirolini; Mauro A Páscoa; Gil Guerra-Júnior; Ezequiel M Gonçalves Journal: Mil Med Date: 2018-07-01 Impact factor: 1.437
Authors: Raquel D Langer; Juliano H Borges; Mauro A Pascoa; Vagner X Cirolini; Gil Guerra-Júnior; Ezequiel M Gonçalves Journal: Nutrients Date: 2016-03-11 Impact factor: 5.717
Authors: Elizabeth M Widen; Natalie Burns; Michael Daniels; Grant Backlund; Rachel Rickman; Saralyn Foster; Amy R Nichols; Lori A Hoepner; Eliza W Kinsey; Judyth Ramirez-Carvey; Abeer Hassoun; Frederica P Perera; Radek Bukowski; Andrew G Rundle Journal: Obesity (Silver Spring) Date: 2022-02-09 Impact factor: 9.298