Chouinard Laura E, Schoeller Dale A, Watras Abigail C, Clark R Randall, Close Rachel N, Buchholz Andrea C
Department of Family Relations and Applied Nutrition, University of Guelph, 50 Stone Road E, Guelph, Ontario, Canada N1G 2W1.
Obesity (Silver Spring). 2007 Jan;15(1):85-92. doi: 10.1038/oby.2007.510.
The Tanita TBF-305 body fat analyzer is marketed for home and clinical use and is based on the principles of leg-to-leg bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA). Few studies have investigated the ability of leg-to-leg BIA to detect change in percentage fat mass (%FM) over time. Our objective was to determine the ability of leg-to-leg BIA vs. the four-compartment (4C) model to detect small changes in %FM in overweight adults.
Thirty-eight overweight adults (BMI, 25.0 to 29.9 kg/m2; age, 18 to 44 years; 31 women) participated in a 6-month, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of a nutritional supplement. Body composition was measured at 0 and 6 months using the Tanita TBF-305 body fat analyzer [using equations derived by the manufacturer (%FM(T-Man)) and by Jebb et al. (%FM(T-Jebb))] and the 4C model (%FM(4C)).
Subjects in the experimental group lost 0.9%FM(4C) (p = 0.03), a loss that did not reach significance using leg-to-leg BIA (0.6%FM(T-Man), p = 0.151; 0.6%FM(T-Jebb), p = 0.144). We observed large standard deviations (SDs) in the mean difference in %FM between the 4C model and the Tanita(Manufacturer) (2.5%) and Tanita(Jebb) (2.2%). Ten subjects fell outside +/-1 SD of the mean differences at 0 and 6 months; those individuals were younger and shorter than those within +/-1 SD.
Leg-to-leg BIA performed reasonably well in predicting decreases in %FM in this group of overweight adults but resulted in wide SDs vs. %FM(4C) in individuals. Cross-sectional determinations of %FM of overweight individuals using leg-to-leg BIA should be interpreted with caution.
百利达TBF - 305人体脂肪分析仪用于家庭和临床,基于双腿生物电阻抗分析(BIA)原理。很少有研究调查双腿BIA检测脂肪量百分比(%FM)随时间变化的能力。我们的目的是确定双腿BIA与四成分(4C)模型检测超重成年人%FM微小变化的能力。
38名超重成年人(体重指数,25.0至29.9kg/m²;年龄,18至44岁;31名女性)参与了一项为期6个月的营养补充剂随机、双盲、安慰剂对照研究。在0个月和6个月时使用百利达TBF - 305人体脂肪分析仪[使用制造商推导的公式(%FM(T - Man))和杰布等人推导的公式(%FM(T - Jebb))]以及4C模型(%FM(4C))测量身体成分。
实验组受试者的%FM(4C)下降了0.9%(p = 0.03),使用双腿BIA时该下降未达到显著水平(%FM(T - Man)为0.6%,p = 0.151;%FM(T - Jebb)为0.6%,p = 0.144)。我们观察到4C模型与百利达(制造商)(2.5%)和百利达(杰布)(2.2%)之间%FM平均差异的标准差(SD)很大。10名受试者在0个月和6个月时的平均差异超出±1个标准差;这些个体比在±1个标准差范围内的个体更年轻、更矮。
在这组超重成年人中,双腿BIA在预测%FM下降方面表现相当不错,但与个体的%FM(4C)相比导致了较大的标准差。使用双腿BIA对超重个体进行%FM的横断面测定时应谨慎解释。