Quantcast

Comparison of Multifrequency Bioelectrical Impedance vs. Dual-Energy X-ray Absorptiometry for Assessing Body Composition Changes After Participation in a 10-Week Resistance Training Program.

Research paper by Brad J BJ Schoenfeld, Brett S BS Nickerson, Colin D CD Wilborn, Stacie L SL Urbina, Sara B SB Hayward, James J Krieger, Alan A AA Aragon, Grant M GM Tinsley

Indexed on: 22 Jun '18Published on: 22 Jun '18Published in: Journal of strength and conditioning research / National Strength & Conditioning Association



Abstract

Schoenfeld, BJ, Nickerson, BS, Wilborn, CD, Urbina, SL, Hayward, SB, Krieger, J, Aragon, AA, and Tinsley, G. Comparison of multifrequency bioelectrical impedance vs. dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry for assessing body composition changes after participation in a 10-week resistance training program. J Strength Cond Res XX(X): 000-000, 2018-The purpose of this study was to assess the ability of multifrequency bioelectrical impedance analysis (MF-BIA) to determine alterations in total and segmental body composition across a 10-week resistance training (RT) program in comparison with the criterion reference dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA). Twenty-one young male volunteers (mean ± SD; age = 22.9 ± 3.0 years; height = 175.5 ± 5.9 cm; body mass = 82.9 ± 13.6 kg; body mass index = 26.9 ± 3.6) performed an RT program that included exercises for all major muscle groups. Body composition was assessed using both methods before and after the intervention; change scores were determined by subtracting pre-test values from post-test values for percent body fat ([INCREMENT]%BF), fat mass ([INCREMENT]FM), and fat-free mass ([INCREMENT]FFM). Mean changes were not significantly different when comparing MF-BIA with DXA for [INCREMENT]%BF (-1.05 vs. -1.28%), [INCREMENT]FM (-1.13 vs. -1.19 kg), and FFM (0.10 vs. 0.37 kg, respectively). Both methods showed strong agreement for [INCREMENT]%BF (r = 0.75; standard error of the estimate [SEE] = 1.15%), [INCREMENT]FM (r = 0.84; SEE 1.0 kg), and [INCREMENT]FFM (r = 0.71; SEE of 1.5 kg). The 2 methods were poor predictors of each other in regards to changes in segmental measurements. Our data indicate that MF-BIA is an acceptable alternative for tracking changes in FM and FFM during a combined diet and exercise program in young, athletic men, but segmental lean mass measurements must be interpreted with circumspection.

More like this: