Laboratory of Integrative Human Physiology, School of Kinesiology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Department of Pediatrics, University of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
J Strength Cond Res. 2018 Mar;32(3):772-782. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000002320.
Raymond, CJ, Dengel, DR, and Bosch, TA. Total and segmental body composition examination in collegiate football players using multifrequency bioelectrical impedance analysis and dual X-ray absorptiometry. J Strength Cond Res 32(3): 772-782, 2018-The current study examined the influence of player position on the agreement between multifrequency bioelectrical impedance analysis (MfBIA) and dual X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) when assessing total and segmental percent body fat (BF%), fat mass (FM), and fat-free mass (FFM) in National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I collegiate football athletes. Forty-four male collegiate athletes (age = 19 ± 1 year; height = 1.9 ± 1.0 m; and body mass = 106.4 ± 18.8 kg) participated. Player positions included: offensive linemen (OL; n = 7), tight ends (TE; n = 4), wide receivers (WR; n = 9), defensive linemen (DL; n = 6), defensive backs (DB; n = 8), linebackers (LB; n = 6), and running backs (RB; n = 4). Total and segmental body composition measured using MfBIA were compared with values obtained using DXA. Compared with DXA, MfBIA underestimated BF% (3.0 ± 3.8%), total FM (2.5 ± 4.3 kg), arm FM (0.4 ± 0.8 kg), arm FFM (1.4 ± 0.9 kg), leg FM (2.8 ± 2.0 kg), and leg FFM (5.4 ± 2.4 kg) (all p < 0.001; arm FM p = 0.002) and overestimated total FFM (-2.4 ± 4.5 kg) (p < 0.001). Limits of agreement (LOAs) were: ±7.39% (BF%), ±8.50 kg (total FM), ±1.50 kg (arm FM), ±1.83 kg (arm FFM), ±3.83 kg (leg FM), ±4.62 kg (leg FFM), and ±8.83 kg (total FFM). No significant differences were observed between devices for trunk FM (-0.3 ± 3.0 kg; p = 0.565) and trunk FFM (0.4 ± 2.4 kg; p = 0.278), with LOAs of ±5.92 and ±4.69 kg, respectively. Player position significantly affected all between-device mean body composition measurement differences (adjusted p ≤ 0.05), with OL demonstrating the greatest effect on each variable. Therefore, MfBIA does not seem accurate in examining between-player body composition in college football players.
雷蒙德、CJ、登格尔、DR 和博世 TA。使用多频生物电阻抗分析和双能 X 射线吸收法对大学生足球运动员进行全身和节段体成分检查。J 力量与调理研究 32(3):772-782,2018-本研究探讨了运动员位置对多频生物电阻抗分析(MfBIA)和双能 X 射线吸收法(DXA)评估美国全国大学体育协会一级大学生足球运动员总脂肪百分比(BF%)、脂肪量(FM)和去脂肪量(FFM)时的一致性的影响。44 名男性大学生运动员(年龄=19±1 岁;身高=1.9±1.0 米;体重=106.4±18.8 千克)参加了研究。运动员位置包括:进攻线锋(OL;n=7)、紧身端锋(TE;n=4)、外接手(WR;n=9)、防守线锋(DL;n=6)、防守后卫(DB;n=8)、线卫(LB;n=6)和跑卫(RB;n=4)。使用 MfBIA 测量的全身和节段体成分与使用 DXA 获得的值进行了比较。与 DXA 相比,MfBIA 低估了 BF%(3.0±3.8%)、总 FM(2.5±4.3 千克)、臂 FM(0.4±0.8 千克)、臂 FFM(1.4±0.9 千克)、腿 FM(2.8±2.0 千克)和腿 FFM(5.4±2.4 千克)(均 p<0.001;臂 FM p=0.002),高估了总 FFM(-2.4±4.5 千克)(p<0.001)。协议范围(LOAs)为:±7.39%(BF%)、±8.50 千克(总 FM)、±1.50 千克(臂 FM)、±1.83 千克(臂 FFM)、±3.83 千克(腿 FM)、±4.62 千克(腿 FFM)和±8.83 千克(总 FFM)。设备之间的躯干 FM(-0.3±3.0 千克;p=0.565)和躯干 FFM(0.4±2.4 千克;p=0.278)没有观察到显著差异,LOAs 分别为±5.92 和±4.69 千克。运动员位置显著影响了设备之间的所有平均体成分测量差异(调整后的 p≤0.05),OL 对每个变量的影响最大。因此,MfBIA 似乎无法准确检查大学生足球运动员之间的球员体成分。