We have located links that may give you full text access.
JOURNAL ARTICLE
RESEARCH SUPPORT, NON-U.S. GOV'T
Good agreement between bioelectrical impedance and dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry for estimating changes in body composition during weight loss in overweight young women.
Clinical Nutrition 2007 December
AIMS: To compare estimations of body composition using two different methods of bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) with dual X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) for estimating body composition during weight loss in overweight and obese young females.
METHODS: Twenty-four overweight or obese females (age 29.5+/-6.1 years, BMI 36.4+/-4.3 kg/m(2)) had body composition assessed using single-frequency (Tanita Ultimate Scale; SF-BIA) and multi-frequency (Impedimed SFB7; MF-BIA) BIA and DXA before and after a 10-week weight loss intervention.
RESULTS: MF-BIA estimates of body composition showed good absolute agreement with DXA, as evidenced by the small biases in the estimation of fat free mass (FFM), fat mass (FM) and percentage body fat (BF%); however, the limits of agreement for each variable were wide (bias +/-1.96 standard deviation; FFM -1.6+/-6.5 kg, FM 1.6+/-6.5 kg, BF% 1.4+/-6.3%). SF-BIA exhibited a larger bias with wide limits of agreement (FFM 3.8+/-9.1 kg, FM -3.8+/-9.1 kg, BF% -4.37+/-10.3%). During weight loss the values provided by MF-BIA and SF-BIA were not significantly different from DXA (p> or =0.89) due to small bias and the limits of agreement were narrow (MF-BIA: FFM -0.01+/-3.74 kg, FM 0.01+/-3.74 kg, BF% 0.22+/-3.40%; SF-BIA: FFM 0.40+/-3.92 kg, FM -0.40+/-3.92 kg, BF% 0.25+/-3.40%).
CONCLUSION: Compared with DXA, both the MF-BIA and SF-BIA accurately assessed changes in body composition with weight loss but, compared with SF-BIA, MF-BIA provided superior cross-sectional estimates of body composition.
METHODS: Twenty-four overweight or obese females (age 29.5+/-6.1 years, BMI 36.4+/-4.3 kg/m(2)) had body composition assessed using single-frequency (Tanita Ultimate Scale; SF-BIA) and multi-frequency (Impedimed SFB7; MF-BIA) BIA and DXA before and after a 10-week weight loss intervention.
RESULTS: MF-BIA estimates of body composition showed good absolute agreement with DXA, as evidenced by the small biases in the estimation of fat free mass (FFM), fat mass (FM) and percentage body fat (BF%); however, the limits of agreement for each variable were wide (bias +/-1.96 standard deviation; FFM -1.6+/-6.5 kg, FM 1.6+/-6.5 kg, BF% 1.4+/-6.3%). SF-BIA exhibited a larger bias with wide limits of agreement (FFM 3.8+/-9.1 kg, FM -3.8+/-9.1 kg, BF% -4.37+/-10.3%). During weight loss the values provided by MF-BIA and SF-BIA were not significantly different from DXA (p> or =0.89) due to small bias and the limits of agreement were narrow (MF-BIA: FFM -0.01+/-3.74 kg, FM 0.01+/-3.74 kg, BF% 0.22+/-3.40%; SF-BIA: FFM 0.40+/-3.92 kg, FM -0.40+/-3.92 kg, BF% 0.25+/-3.40%).
CONCLUSION: Compared with DXA, both the MF-BIA and SF-BIA accurately assessed changes in body composition with weight loss but, compared with SF-BIA, MF-BIA provided superior cross-sectional estimates of body composition.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app