Validity of Foot-To-Foot Bioelectrical Impedance for Estimating Body Composition in NCAA Division I Male Athletes: A 3-Compartment Model Comparison

Comparisons between dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry and bioimpedance devices for appendicular lean mass and muscle quality in Hispanic adults

The purpose of this study was to compare single- and multi-frequency bioimpedance (BIA) devices against dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) for appendicular lean mass (ALM) and muscle quality index (MQI) metrics in Hispanic adults. One hundred thirty-one Hispanic adults (18-55 years) participated in this study. ALM was measured with single-frequency bioimpedance analysis (SFBIA), multi-frequency bioimpedance analysis (MFBIA) and DXA. ALMTOTAL (left arm + right arm + left leg + right leg) and ALMARMS (left arm + right arm) were computed for all three devices. Handgrip strength (HGS) was measured using a dynamometer. The average HGS was used for all MQI models (highest left hand + highest right hand)/2. MQIARMS was defined as the ratio between HGS and ALMARMS. MQITOTAL was established as the ratio between HGS and ALMTOTAL. SFBIA and MFBIA had strong correlations with DXA for all ALM and MQI metrics (Lin's concordance correlation coefficient values ranged from 0·86 (MQIMFBIA-ARMS) to 0·97 (Arms LMSFBIA); all P < 0·001). Equivalence testing varied between methods (e.g. SFBIA v. DXA) when examining the different metrics (i.e. ALMTOTAL, ALMARMS, MQITOTAL and MQIARMS). MQIARMS was the only metric that did not differ from the line of identity and had no proportional bias when comparing all the devices against each other. The current study findings demonstrate good overall agreement between SFBIA, MFBIA and DXA for ALMTOTAL and ALMARMS in a Hispanic population. However, SFBIA and MFBIA have better agreement with DXA when used to compute MQIARMS than MQITOTAL.

Effect of Cycle-Based High-Intensity Interval Training and Moderate to Moderate-Intensity Continuous Training in Adolescent Soccer Players

Cardiorespiratory fitness, anaerobic power, and lower extremity strength are essential for soccer players at all levels. An effective program should be developed to improve physical strength for adolescent soccer players who need to combine academic and technical training. This study analyzed the impact of short-term high intensity interval training (HIIT) training and traditional moderate intensity continuous training (MICT) on adolescent soccer players. Participants included 56 adolescent soccer players who were divided into HIIT and MICT groups. The training program was conducted 3 times a week for 4 weeks using cycle ergometer. Each session included the same resistance training program, and the characteristics of HIIT and MICT were applied to improve cardiorespiratory fitness and anaerobic power. Body composition analysis, graded exercise test for peak oxygen uptake (VO₂ peak), Wingate anaerobic power test, and isokinetic knee strength test were performed. VO₂ peak was improved in HIIT and MICT, but anaerobic threshold and heart rate recovery significantly improved in the HIIT group. Wingate anaerobic peak power had increased significantly in sets 1, 2, and 3 in the HIIT group, but showed significant improvement only in set 1 in the MICT group. The isokinetic strength improved significantly in the HIIT group at 60°/s and in the MICT group at 240°/s. There was no significant change in body composition in either group. In conclusion, short-term HIIT administered to adolescent soccer players effectively improved cardiorespiratory fitness in HIIT and MICT groups. While HIIT increased anaerobic threshold and power, MICT effectively improved muscle endurance. Short-term intensive training can be considered a time-efficient training strategy.

Agreement Between 2 Segmental Bioimpedance Devices, BOD POD, and DXA in Obese Adults

This study examined the agreement between 2 segmental bioimpedance analysis (BIA) devices, air displacement plethysmography (BOD POD), and dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) for estimating body composition in obese adults. Fifty obese adults (25 men and 25 women; age = 34.20 ± 11.19 years; BMI = 36.14 ± 5.33 kg/m²) had their body fat percentage (BF%) and fat-free mass (FFM) evaluated with 2 segmental BIA devices (InBody 230 and InBody 720), BOD POD, and DXA (Lunar iDXA). Body composition via the BOD POD was determined using the Siri equation whereas manufacturer-based equations generated metrics (ie, BF% and FFM) for the InBody devices. The effect size of the mean differences for all BF% and FFM comparisons were trivial (Cohen's d < 0.20). The standard error of estimate (SEE), total error (TE), and 95% limits of agreement (LOAs) were low for both segmental BIA devices when compared to DXA (SEE < 2.26% and 2.35 kg; TE < 2.58% and 2.66 kg; 95% LOAs < ± 4.94% and 4.86kg). The error for BOD POD was also low when compared to DXA (SEE = 2.39% and 2.57 kg; TE = 2.34% and 2.56 kg; 95% LOAs = 4.63% and 5.06 kg). Validity statistics were slightly higher, but considered acceptable, when comparing the segmental BIA devices against BOD POD (SEE < 3.37% and 3.63 kg; TE < 3.44% and 3.79 kg; 95% LOAs < ± 6.62% and 7.19 kg). Lastly, the 2 segmental BIA devices produced nearly identical validity statistics when compared to each other. However, both BIA devices revealed proportional bias for BF% and FFM when compared to the BOD POD and DXA (all p < 0.05). The current study's findings indicate the InBody 230 is interchangeable with the InBody 720 in obese adults. Also, the trivial effect size, when compared against the BOD POD and DXA, suggest the InBody devices could be used for estimating group BF% and FFM. In contrast, the significant proportional bias demonstrates the BIA devices are not acceptable for individual estimates of body composition in an obese clinical population.

Bias varies for bioimpedance analysis and skinfold technique when stratifying collegiate male athletes' fat-free mass hydration levels

This study evaluated the accuracy of bioimpedance analysis (BIA)- and skinfold (SF)-based body fat percentage estimates in collegiate athletes with varying fat-free mass (FFM) hydration levels. Subjects were evaluated as a whole (n = 63) and at FFM hydration levels of 64.00%-68.99% (FFM-Hydration_L1; n = 37) and 69.00%-74.00% (FFM-Hydration_L2; n = 26). Proportional bias was absent in the SF technique when stratifying FFM hydration levels. Contrarily, proportional bias was observed when using BIA for FFM-Hydration_L1, but not in FFM-Hydration_L2. Novelty Fat-free mass hydration levels impact BIA-based body fat estimates more than skinfold-based body fat.