Is muscle localized phase angle an indicator of muscle power and strength in young women?

Objective. This study aimed to investigate the capacity of the bioelectrical muscle localized phase angle (ML-PhA) as an indicator of muscle power and strength compared to whole body PhA (WB-PhA).Approach. This study assessed 30 young women (22.1 ± 3.2 years) for muscle power and strength using the Wingate test and isokinetic dynamometer, respectively. Bioimpedance analysis at 50 kHz was employed to assess WB-PhA and ML-PhA. Lean soft tissue (LST) and fat mass (FM) were quantified using dual x-ray absorptiometry. Performance values were stratified into tertiles for comparisons. Regression and mediation analysis were used to test WB-PhA and ML-PhA as performance predictors.Main results. Women in the second tertile of maximum muscle power demonstrated higher ML-PhA values than those in first tertile (13.6° ± 1.5° versus 11.5° ± 1.5°,p= 0.031). WB-PhA was a predictor of maximum muscle power even after adjusting for LST and FM (ß= 0.40,p= 0.039). ML-PhA alone predicted average muscle power (ß= 0.47,p= 0.008). FM percentage was negatively related to ML-PhA and average muscle power, and it mediated their relationship (b= 0.14; bias-corrected and accelerated 95% confidence interval: 0.007-0.269).Significance. PhA values among tertiles demonstrated no differences and no correlation for strength variables. The results revealed that both WB and ML-PhA may be markers of muscle power in active young women.

Higher Body Fat but Similar Phase Angle Values in Patients with the Classical Form of Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia in Comparison to a Control Group.

This study aimed to compare phase angle (PhA) and bioelectrical impedance vector analysis (BIVA) values between adult patients with congenital adrenal hyperplasia caused by 21-hydroxylase deficiency (CAH21OHD) and a control group. A total of 22 patients (15 women, 22.9 ± 3.7 years) were compared with 17 controls (11 women, 27.0 ± 2.5 years). Body composition was determined by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. Bioelectrical impedance was used to calculate PhA, and BIVA was performed using specific software. Student's t-test and analysis of covariance were used to compare groups. Hedges' G and partial n2 were calculated for the effect estimates. Hotelling's t2 test was used to compare the mean impedance vectors between the groups. The Mahalanobis test was used to determine the distance between confidence ellipses. Patients with CAH21OHD had a higher fat mass percentage than that of the control group (both sexes). There was no significant difference in PhA values between groups (CAH21OHD vs. control) in females (6.9° vs. 6.3°, p = 0.092) and males (8.2° vs. 8.1°, p = 0.849), after adjusting for covariates (age and height). BIVA analysis showed a significant difference in the mean impedance vectors between the female groups (T2 = 15.9, D = 1.58, p = 0.003) owing to the higher reactance/height (Δ = 8.5; p < 0.001) of the patients. The PhA did not significantly differ between the groups. Female patients had significantly higher reactance values. However, further studies are needed to determine the usefulness of bioimpedance parameters in evaluating the hydration status and cellular integrity of patients with CAH21OHD.

Association between Phase Angle from Bioelectric Impedance and Muscular Strength and Power in Physically Active Adults.

This study aimed to compare muscle strength and power indicators according to bioimpedance spectroscopy's phase angle (PhA) values, in resistance-trained (RT) men, while exploring associations between PhA and performance. Forty-four men aged 18−45 years, engaged in RT, were allocated according to PhA tertiles. Lean soft tissue (LST) and fat mass (%FM) were assessed using dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry; dynamic muscle strength using 1 repetition maximum (1RM) of bench press (BP) and back squat (BS) and muscle power using Wingate test (WT) and countermovement jump (CMJ). For WT and CMJ, the 3rd tertile was significantly higher than the 1st tertile (p = 0.027 and p = 0.018, respectively). Regarding BP 1RM, the 3rd tertile was significantly higher than the 2nd tertile (p = 0.037). LST better explained the variability in the WT, BS and BP (p =< 0.001), while %FM better accounted for jump height in CMJ (p =< 0.001). PhA was a predictor of performance in both CMJ (p = 0.040) and BP (p = 0.012), independently of LST and %FM. Participants with higher PhA also displayed superior muscle strength of the upper limbs and greater muscle power of the lower limbs. PhA displayed significant moderate associations with performance in CMJ and BP, even after controlling for body composition. Still, LST was the most important predictor of muscle strength and power.

Bioelectrical Impedance Phase Angle and Its Determinants in Patients with Classic Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia.

BACKGROUND: Patients with congenital adrenal hyperplasia due to 21-hydroxylase deficiency (CAH21OHD) have increased fat mass and metabolic alterations. The bioelectrical impedance phase angle (PhA) is an indicator of cellular integrity in several diseases. This study aimed to determine the influence of adiposity levels, sex, CAH21OHD, pubertal development, body composition, and treatment on the PhA of patients with CAH21OHD. METHODS: Forty girls and 30 boys with CAH21OHD aged 15.3 ± 5.8 years were evaluated. Sexual maturation was assessed by a pediatrician. The PhA was assessed using bioelectrical impedance, percentage of fat mass (% FM), and lean soft tissue (LST) with dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. Adiposity levels were compared using % FM tertiles and body mass index (BMI). Glucocorticoid dosage was converted using hydrocortisone dose equivalent (HDE). RESULTS: No differences were found in the PhA values among the clinical form (p = 0.103), BMI (p = 0.498), and % FM (p = 0.654) groups. High PhA values were observed in boys (p = 0.011) and postpubertal (p < 0.001) patients. LST, HDE, and height in girls (r2 = 0.68, p < 0.001) and age, HDE, and FM in boys (r2 = 0.82, p < 0.001) determined the PhA variations. BMI explained 14% (p = 0.032) of the PhA variations, whereas LST, height, HDE, and FM (kg) explained 66% (p < 0.001) in the prepubertal, pubertal, and postpubertal groups, respectively. CONCLUSION: LST determined the PhA variations in girls and the postpubertal group. Age and BMI were determinants in boys and the pre- and pubertal groups, respectively.