Search

Background & Aims: Bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) for body composition estimation is increasingly used in clinical and field settings to guide nutrition and training programs. Due to variations among BIA devices and the proprietary prediction equations used, studies have recommended the use of raw measures of resistance (R) and reactance (X c ) within population-specific equations to predict body composition., Objective: We compared raw measures from three BIA devices to assess inter-device variation and the impact of differences on body composition estimations., Methods: Raw R, X c , impedance (Z) parameters were measured on a calibrated phantom and athletes using tetrapolar supine (BIA SUP4 ), octapolar supine (BIA SUP8 ), and octapolar standing (BIA STA8 ) devices. Measures of R and Xc were compared across devices and graphed using BIA vector analysis (BIVA) and raw parameters were entered into recommended athlete-specific equations for predicting fat-free mass (FFM) and appendicular lean soft tissue (ALST). Whole-body FFM and regional ALST were compared across devices and to a criterion five-compartment (5C) model and dual energy X-ray absorptiometry for ALST., Results: Data from 73 (23.2 ± 4.8 y) athletes were included in the analyses. Technical differences were observed between Z (range 12.2-50.1Ω) measures on the calibrated phantom. Differences in whole-body impedance were apparent due to posture (technological) and electrode placement (biological) factors. This resulted in raw measures for all three devices showing greater dehydration on BIVA compared to published norms for athletes using a separate BIA device. Compared to the 5C FFM, significant differences (p < 0.05) were observed on all three equations for BIA SUP8 and BIA STA8 , with constant error (CE) from -2.7 to -4.6 kg; no difference was observed for BIA SUP4 or when device-specific algorithms were used. Published equations resulted in differences as large as 8.8 kg FFM among BIA devices. For ALST, even after a correction in the error of the published empirical equation, all three devices showed significant (p < 0.01) CE from -1.6 to -2.9 kg., Conclusions: Raw bioimpedance measurements differ among devices due to technical, technological, and biological factors, limiting interchangeability of data across BIA systems. Professionals should be aware of these factors when purchasing systems, comparing data to published reference ranges, or when applying published empirical body composition prediction equations., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: John Shepherd reports financial support was provided by Hologic Inc. Steven Heymsfield reports a relationship with Tanita Corporation that includes: board membership. If there are other authors, they declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Background & Aims: The multicompartment approach to body composition modeling provides a more precise quantification of body compartments in healthy and clinical populations. We sought to develop and validate a simplified and accessible multicompartment body composition model using 3-dimensional optical (3DO) imaging and bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA)., Methods: Samples of adults and collegiate-aged student-athletes were recruited for model calibration. For the criterion multicompartment model (Wang-5C), participants received measures of scale weight, body volume (BV) via air displacement, total body water (TBW) via deuterium dilution, and bone mineral content (BMC) via dual energy x-ray absorptiometry. The candidate model (3DO-5C) used stepwise linear regression to derive surrogate measures of BV using 3DO, TBW using BIA, and BMC using demographics. Test-retest precision of the candidate model was assessed via root mean square error (RMSE). The 3DO-5C model was compared to criterion via mean difference, concordance correlation coefficient (CCC), and Bland-Altman analysis. This model was then validated using a separate dataset of 20 adults., Results: 67 (31 female) participants were used to build the 3DO-5C model. Fat-free mass (FFM) estimates from Wang-5C (60.1 ± 13.4 kg) and 3DO-5C (60.3 ± 13.4 kg) showed no significant mean difference (-0.2 ± 2.0 kg; 95 % limits of agreement [LOA] -4.3 to +3.8) and the CCC was 0.99 with a similar effect in fat mass that reflected the difference in FFM measures. In the validation dataset, the 3DO-5C model showed no significant mean difference (0.0 ± 2.5 kg; 95 % LOA -3.6 to +3.7) for FFM with almost perfect equivalence (CCC = 0.99) compared to the criterion Wang-5C. Test-retest precision (RMSE = 0.73 kg FFM) supports the use of this model for more frequent testing in order to monitor body composition change over time., Conclusions: Body composition estimates provided by the 3DO-5C model are precise and accurate to criterion methods when correcting for field calibrations. The 3DO-5C approach offers a rapid, cost-effective, and accessible method of body composition assessment that can be used broadly to guide nutrition and exercise recommendations in athletic settings and clinical practice., Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest TK is an employee of Hologic, Inc. however, the sponsors had no role in the in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data, in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results., (Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Background: Athletes vary in hydration status due to ongoing training regimes, diet demands, and extreme exertion. With water being one of the largest body composition compartments, its variation can cause misinterpretation of body composition assessments meant to monitor strength and training progress. In this study, we asked what accessible body composition approach could best quantify body composition in athletes with a variety of hydration levels., Methods: The Da Kine Study recruited collegiate and intramural athletes to undergo a variety of body composition assessments including air-displacement plethysmography (ADP), deuterium-oxide dilution (D 2 O), dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), underwater-weighing (UWW), 3D-optical (3DO) imaging, and bioelectrical impedance (BIA). Each of these methods generated 2- or 3-compartment body composition estimates of fat mass (FM) and fat-free mass (FFM) and was compared to equivalent measures of the criterion 6-compartment model (6CM) that accounts for variance in hydration. Body composition by each method was used to predict abdominal and thigh strength, assessed by isokinetic/isometric dynamometry., Results: In total, 70 (35 female) athletes with a mean age of 21.8 ± 4.2 years were recruited. Percent hydration (Body Water 6CM /FFM 6CM ) had substantial variation in both males (63-73 %) and females (58-78 %). ADP and DXA FM and FF M had moderate to substantial agreement with the 6C model (Lin's Concordance Coefficient [CCC] = 0.90-0.95) whereas the other measures had lesser agreement (CCC <0.90) with one exception of 3DO FFM in females (CCC = 0.91). All measures of FFM produced excellent precision with %CV < 1.0 %. However, FM measures in general had worse precision (% CV < 2.0 %). Increasing quartiles (significant p < 0.001 trend) of 6CM FFM resulted in increasing strength measures in males and females. Moreover, the stronger the agreement between the alternative methods to the 6CM, the more robust their correlation with strength, irrespective of hydration status., Conclusion: The criterion 6CM showed the best association to strength regardless of the hydration status of the athletes for both males and females. Simpler methods showed high precision for both FM and FFM and those with the strongest agreement to the 6CM had the highest strength associations., Summary Box: This study compared various body composition analysis methods in 70 athletes with varying states of hydration to the criterion 6-compartment model and assessed their relationship to muscle strength. The results showed that accurate and precise estimates of body composition can be determined in athletes, and a more accurate body composition measurement produces better strength estimates. The best laboratory-based techniques were air displacement plethysmography and dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry, while the commercial methods had moderate-poor agreement. Prioritizing accurate body composition assessment ensures better strength estimates in athletes., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest JS received an investigator-initiated grant from Hologic, Inc. to fund the larger study and other grants on body composition from Hologic and GE Healthcare. SH is on the Medical Advisory Board for Tanita Corporation. TK is a current employee at Hologic. The remaining authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Deuterium oxide (D2O) dilution is the criterion method for total body water (TBW) measurement, but results may vary depending on the specimen type, analysis method, and analyzing laboratory. Bioelectrical impedance (BIA) estimates TBW, but results may vary by device make and model., Objectives: We investigated the accuracy and precision of TBW estimates and how measurement conditions affected the accuracy of body composition using multicompartment body composition models., Methods: Eighty collegiate athletes received duplicate TBW measures acquired from 3 BIA devices (S10, SFB7, and SOZO) and from unique D2O combinations of specimen type (saliva, urine), analysis methodology [Fourier transform infrared spectrophotometry (FTIR), isotope-ratio mass spectrometry (IRMS)], and 3 different laboratories. TBW measures were substituted into 2-compartment (2C) and 5-compartment (5C) body composition models. Criterion measures were compared using Lin's concordance correlation coefficient cutoff of poor (<0.90), moderate (0.90-0.95), substantial (0.95-0.99), and almost perfect (>0.99)., Results: Fifty-one participants (26 female) completed the protocol. Using IRMS saliva as the criterion TBW, all other measures produced a substantial or almost perfect agreement, except for SFB7 (poor) and SOZO (moderate). The 2C body composition measures using D2O and BIA produced poor agreement except for moderate agreement for lab 3 FTIR saliva. The 5C body composition measures using D2O produced a substantial agreement, whereas the BIA device S10 and SOZO had a moderate agreement, while the SFB7 had a poor agreement to the criterion. Test-retest precision varied between techniques from 0.3% to 1.2% for TBW., Conclusions: Small differences in TBW measurement led to significant differences in 2C models. The 5C models partially mitigate differences seen in 2C models when different TBW measures are used. Interchanging TBW measures in multicompartment models can be problematic and should be performed with these considerations., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Society for Nutrition.)