Nickerson Brett S, Esco Michael R, Kliszczewicz Brian M, Freeborn Todd J
1Department of Curriculum and Pedagogy, Texas A&M International University, Laredo, Texas;2Department of Kinesiology, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama;3Department of Exercise Science and Sport Management, Kennesaw State University, Kennesaw, Georgia; and4Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama.
J Strength Cond Res. 2017 May;31(5):1395-1402. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000001716.
Nickerson, BS, Esco, MR, Kliszczewicz, BM, and Freeborn, TJ. Comparison of bioimpedance and underwater weighing body fat percentage before and acutely after exercise at varying intensities. J Strength Cond Res 31(5): 1395-1402, 2017-The purpose of this study was to compare single-frequency bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) and bioimpedance spectroscopy (BIS) with underwater weighing (UWW) body fat percentage (BF%) before (PRE), immediately post (IP), and 60 minutes post (60P) an acute bout of moderate and vigorous aerobic exercise. Nine men (age = 24.6 ± 3.7 years) volunteered for this study. Subjects visited the laboratory on 3 separate occasions. Testing included two 30-minute exercise sessions at 60 and 80% heart rate reserve (HRR) and a 30-minute control (CON) trial. The constant error (CE) was significantly higher for BIA at each time point and exercise session (CE = 3.0-4.9% for 60% HRR; 2.5-4.7% for 80% HRR). Conversely, BIS yielded a nonsignificant CE at each time point and exercise session (CE = -0.9 to 1.1% for 60% HRR; -0.3 to 1.2% for 80% HRR). The standard error of estimate (SEE) for both exercise sessions ranged from 2.7 to 3.1% and 3.8-4.3% for BIA and BIS, respectively. The 95% limits of agreement were narrower for BIA (60% HRR = ±5.5 to 7.8%; 80% HRR = ±6.6 to 8.5%) than BIS (60% HRR = ±8.4 to 9.4%; 80% HRR = ±8.1 to 10.2%). Results indicate that BIS can be used for mean group BF% in men at PRE, IP, and 60P time periods. However, BIA yielded a lower SEE and 95% limits of agreement than BIS. Therefore, BIA provides better individual estimates of BF% in men, but the CE should be taken into consideration.
尼克森,理学学士;埃斯科,理学硕士;克利什切维茨,理学学士;弗里伯恩,理学硕士。不同强度运动前及运动后即刻生物电阻抗与水下称重法测定体脂百分比的比较。《力量与体能研究杂志》31(5): 1395 - 1402,2017年——本研究的目的是比较单频生物电阻抗分析(BIA)和生物电阻抗光谱法(BIS)与水下称重法(UWW)在一次急性中高强度有氧运动前(PRE)、运动后即刻(IP)和运动后60分钟(60P)的体脂百分比(BF%)。九名男性(年龄 = 24.6 ± 3.7岁)自愿参与本研究。受试者分三次前往实验室。测试包括两次30分钟的运动,运动强度分别为心率储备(HRR)的60%和80%,以及一次30分钟的对照(CON)试验。在每个时间点和运动时段,BIA的恒定误差(CE)显著更高(60% HRR时CE = 3.0 - 4.9%;80% HRR时CE = 2.5 - 4.7%)。相反,BIS在每个时间点和运动时段的CE不显著(60% HRR时CE = -0.9至1.1%;80% HRR时CE = -0.3至1.2%)。两次运动时段中,BIA和BIS的估计标准误差(SEE)分别为2.7至3.1%和3.8 - 4.3%。BIA的95%一致性界限更窄(60% HRR时 = ±5.5至7.8%;80% HRR时 = ±6.6至8.5%),而BIS的为(60% HRR时 = ±8.4至9.4%;80% HRR时 = ±8.1至10.2%)。结果表明,BIS可用于男性在PRE、IP和60P时间段的平均组BF%。然而,BIA的SEE和95%一致性界限比BIS更低。因此,BIA能更好地对男性个体的BF%进行估计,但应考虑其CE。