肢体成分分析：生物电阻抗分析与双能 X 射线吸收法在一级大学生运动员中的比较。
Appendicular Body Composition Analysis: Validity of Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis Compared With Dual-Energy X-Ray Absorptiometry in Division I College Athletes.
机构信息
Applied Physiology Laboratory, Department of Exercise and Sport Science, The University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Human Movement Science Curriculum, Department of Allied Health Science, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
出版信息
J Strength Cond Res. 2019 Nov;33(11):2920-2925. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000003374.
Brewer, GJ, Blue, MNM, Hirsch, KR, Peterjohn, AM, and Smith-Ryan, AE. Appendicular body composition analysis: Validity of bioelectrical impedance analysis compared with dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry in Division I college athletes. J Strength Cond Res 33(11): 2920-2925, 2019-The purpose of this study was to evaluate validity of appendicular body composition measurements measured from a multifrequency bioelectrical impedance analysis (MF-BIA) compared with a dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) criterion in Division I athletes. One hundred sixty male (n = 44) and female (n = 116) collegiate athletes were enrolled: Men's Cross Country (n = 15), football linemen (n = 29), Women's Soccer (n = 27), Women's Field Hockey (n = 27), Women's Cross Country (n = 13), Women's Gymnastics (n = 16), and Women's Lacrosse (n = 33). Appendicular fat mass (FM) of the arms (AFM, right AFM, left AFM) and legs (LFM, right LFM, left LFM), appendicular fat-free mass (FFM) of the arms (AFFM, RAFFM, LAFFM) and legs (LFFM, RLFFM, LLFFM), total body FM and FFM, and total body %fat were collected from both devices. MF-BIA significantly underestimated appendicular FFM of the arms (AFFM mean difference [MD]: -0.7 kg; RAFFM: -0.4 kg; LAFFM: -0.4 kg, p < 0.001) and legs (LFFM MD: -3.8 kg; RLFFM: -1.9 kg; LLFFM: -1.9 kg, p < 0.001), and FM of the legs (LFM MD: -2.5 kg; RLFM: -1.3 kg; LLFM: -1.3 kg, p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in appendicular FM measures of the arms (p = 0.174). All measures held true for male subjects and female subjects. Female subjects produced smaller differences compared with male subjects. The lack of validity, from raw and relative error, between the devices for most appendicular measures (FFM of arms and FFM and FM legs) and all total body measures (FM, FFM, and %fat) suggest that this MF-BIA may not be accurate in measuring a lean, athletic, population compared with DXA.
布鲁尔，GJ，布卢，MNM，赫希，KR，彼得约翰，AM 和史密斯 - 瑞安，AE。四肢身体成分分析：在 I 级大学运动员中，多频生物电阻抗分析（MF-BIA）与双能 X 射线吸收法（DXA）的比较的有效性。本研究的目的是评估从多频生物电阻抗分析（MF-BIA）测量的四肢身体成分测量与 DXA 标准在 I 级运动员中的有效性。共招募了 160 名男性（n = 44）和女性（n = 116）大学生运动员：男子越野（n = 15），足球前锋（n = 29），女子足球（n = 27），女子曲棍球（n = 27），女子越野（n = 13），女子体操（n = 16）和女子长曲棍球（n = 33）。手臂的四肢脂肪量（FM）（AFM，右 AFM，左 AFM）和腿部（FM，LFM，右 LFM，左 LFM），手臂的四肢无脂肪量（FFM）（AFFM，RAFFM，LAFFM）和腿部（LFFM，RLFFM，LLFFM），全身 FM 和 FFM，以及全身脂肪百分比。两种设备都收集了全身 FM 和 FFM。MF-BIA 显着低估了手臂的四肢 FFM（AFFM 平均差异[MD]：-0.7 公斤; RAFFM：-0.4 公斤; LAFFM：-0.4 公斤，p <0.001）和腿部（LFFM MD：-3.8 公斤; RLFFM：-1.9 公斤; LLFFM：-1.9 公斤，p <0.001），以及腿部的 FM（LFM MD：-2.5 公斤; RLFM：-1.3 公斤; LLFM：-1.3 公斤，p <0.001）。手臂的四肢 FM 测量值没有显着差异（p = 0.174）。所有措施均适用于男性和女性受试者。与男性受试者相比，女性受试者产生的差异较小。由于设备的原始和相对误差，大多数四肢测量值（手臂 FFM 和 FFM 和腿部 FM）和所有全身测量值（FM，FFM 和 %脂肪）均无效，这表明与 DXA 相比，这种 MF-BIA 可能无法准确测量瘦，运动型人群。
Zotero 插件