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. Issue 3 (March 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Schoenfeld, Brad J.; Nickerson, Brett S.; Wilborn, Colin D.; Urbina, Stacie L.; Hayward, Sara B.; Krieger, James; Aragon, Alan A.; Tinsley, Grant M.
• Is Part Of: Journal of strength and conditioning research. Volume 34:Issue 3(2020)
• Publication Date: 2020-03
• Subjects: assessment -- measurement -- fat-free mass -- fat mass; Physical education and training -- Periodicals; Weight training -- Physiological aspects -- Periodicals; Physical fitness -- Periodicals; 613.7
• DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000002708
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1064-8011

Abstract

Abstract : 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 34(3): 678–688, 2020—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.