Agreement between supine and standing bioimpedance spectroscopy devices and dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry for body composition determination.

BACKGROUND: Research comparing bioimpedance spectroscopy (BIS) to dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) is limited, especially with newer BIS devices that take measures in a standing position instead of the traditional supine position. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare a standing BIS device (BISSTA ) and a supine BIS device (BISSUP ) to DXA for measuring body fat percentage (BF%), fat mass (FM) and fat-free mass (FFM) in a cohort of male and female subjects displaying a wide range of ages and BMI levels. METHODS: Ninety-five subjects (30 ± 15 years, 170 ± 8·0 cm, 72·6 ± 14·8 kg) participated in the study. Body composition measures were taken from BISSTA , BISSUP and DXA during a single visit to the laboratory following an 8- to 12-h fast in a euhydration state. RESULTS: Supine BIS device and BISSTA produced r-values >0·91 and low SEE values for all measurements compared to DXA. Effect sizes were 'trivial' for FFM comparing both BISSUP and BISSTA to DXA (<0·1) and 'small' for FM and BF% (<0·39). Compared to DXA, BISSTA resulted in lower total (TE) and constant errors/mean differences (CE) (TE < 3·6 kg, CE < -1·82 kg) versus BISSUP (TE < 4·35 kg, CE < -3·10 kg) for FFM. CONCLUSION: Fat-free mass values for BISSTA resulted in the most comparable measurements to DXA with no mean differences and the lowest total error and effect size. However, the findings indicated both BIS devices may be acceptable alternatives to DXA for BF%, FM and FFM in clinical practice.

Effects of Heat Exposure on Body Water Assessed using Single-Frequency Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis and Bioimpedance Spectroscopy.

The purpose of this study was to determine if heat exposure alters the measures of total body water (TBW), extracellular water (ECW), and intracellular water (ICW) in both single-frequency bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) and bioimpedance spectroscopy (BIS). Additionally, we sought to determine if any differences exist between the BIA and BIS techniques before and after brief exposure to heat. Body water was evaluated for twenty men (age=24±4 years) in a thermoneutral environment (22°C) before (PRE) and immediately after (POST) 15 min of passive heating (35°C) in an environmental chamber. The mean difference and 95% limits of agreement at PRE demonstrated that BIS yielded significantly higher body water values than BIA (all p<0.05; TBW=1.8kg; ECW=0.6±1.3kg; ICW=1.2±3.7kg). However, the effect size (ES) of the mean differences at PRE were small and the r-values were high (r≥0.97). TBW and ICW remained significantly higher at POST for BIS (both p<0.05; 1.4±3.2kg and 1.1±3.7kg, respectively) whereas ECW was not different (p>0.05; 0.2±1.5kg). Additionally, the ES of the mean differences at POST were trivial to small and the r-values were high (r≥0.96). When analyzing the changes in body water before and after heat exposure, POST values for BIS were significantly higher than PRE (all p<0.001; TBW=0.6±0.8kg; ECW=0.4±0.3kg; ICW=0.3±0.6kg). Similarly, POST values for BIA were significantly higher than PRE (all p<0.001; TBW=1.0±0.6kg; ECW=0.7±0.4kg; ICW=0.4±0.4kg). BIA and BIS provide similar body water estimates. However, the increase in POST body water values indicate more research is needed before either method can be used for estimating body water after heat exposure.

Validity of Selected Bioimpedance Equations for Estimating Body Composition in Men and Women: A Four-Compartment Model Comparison.

Nickerson, BS, Esco, MR, Bishop, PA, Schumacker, RE, Richardson, MT, Fedewa, MV, Wingo, JE, and Welborn, BA. Validity of selected bioimpedance equations for estimating body composition in men and women: a four-compartment model comparison. J Strength Cond Res 31(7): 1963-1972, 2017-The purpose of this study was to compare body fat percentage (BF%) and fat-free mass (FFM) values from bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) equations to values determined from a 4-compartment (4C) model. Eighty-two adults (42 men and 40 women) volunteered to participate (age = 23 ± 5 years). Body fat percentage and FFM were estimated from previously developed BIA equations by Chumlea et al. (BIACH), Deurenberg et al. (BIADE), Kyle et al. (BIAKYLE), and Sun et al. (BIASUN). Four-compartment model body composition was derived from underwater weighing for body density, dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry for bone mineral content, and bioimpedance spectroscopy for total body water. The standard error of estimate (SEE) for group BF% and FFM ranged from 3.0 to 3.8% and 2.1 to 2.7 kg, respectively. The constant error (CE) was significantly higher and lower for BF% and FFM (p < 0.001), respectively, for 3 BIA equations (BIACH, CE = 3.1% and -2.2 kg; BIADE, CE = 3.7% and -2.9 kg; BIAKYLE, CE = 2.3% and -1.9 kg), but was not significant for BF% (p = 0.702) and FFM (p = 0.677) for BIASUN (CE = -0.1% and 0.1 kg). The 95% limits of agreement were narrowest for BIACH (±5.9%; ±4.2 kg) and largest for BIADE (±7.4%; ±6.2 kg). The significant CE yielded by BIACH, BIADE, and BIAKYLE indicates these equations tend to overpredict group BF% and underestimate group FFM. However, all BIA equations produced low SEEs and fairly narrow limits of agreement. When the use of a 4C model is not available, practitioners might consider using one of the selected BIA equations, but should consider the associated CE.

Impact of Measured vs. Predicted Residual Lung Volume on Body Fat Percentage Using Underwater Weighing and 4-Compartment Model.

Nickerson, BS, Esco, MR, Bishop, PA, Schumacker, RE, Richardson, MT, Fedewa, MV, Wingo, JE, and Welborn, BA. Impact of measured vs. predicted residual lung volume on body fat percentage using underwater weighing and 4-compartment model. J Strength Cond Res 31(9): 2519-2527, 2017-The purpose of this study was to compare underwater weighing (UWW) and 4-compartment (4C) model body fat percentage (BF%) for predicted vs. simultaneously measured residual lung volume (RLV). Forty-seven women and 33 men (age = 22 ± 5 years) had UWW and 4C model BF% determined using Boren et al. (RLVBOREN), Goldman and Becklake (RLVGB), and Miller et al. (RLVMILLER) RLV prediction equations. Criterion UWW BF% included body density (BD) values with simultaneous RLV. Criterion 4C model BF% included BD through UWW with simultaneous RLV, total body water through bioimpedance spectroscopy, and bone mineral content through dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry. The standard error of estimate (SEE) for UWW and 4C model BF% determined through RLV prediction equations varied from 2.0 to 2.6% and from 1.3 to 1.5%, respectively. The constant error (CE) was significantly different for UWW BF% when using RLVBOREN, RLVGB, and RLVMILLER (all p < 0.016; CE = 0.7, -2.0, 1.0%, respectively). However, the CEs for RLVBOREN and RLVMILLER were not significant in the 4C model (p = 0.73 and 0.11; CE = 0.1 and 0.2%, respectively), whereas RLVGB remained significantly different (p < 0.001; CE = -1.5%). The 95% limits of agreement were less than ±5.2% for UWW BF% and less than ±3.1% for the 4C model when using the 3 RLV equations. When used in a 4C model, the RLV equations yielded a smaller CE, SEE, and 95% limits of agreement than UWW BF% results. However, because of the range of individual error shown in the current study, caution should be employed when using the 4C model as a criterion method with predicted RLV.