Energy Balance & Body Composition Laboratory; Department of Kinesiology & Sport Management, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX, USA.
Energy Balance & Body Composition Laboratory; Department of Kinesiology & Sport Management, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX, USA; Mayo Clinic Alix School of Medicine, Scottsdale, AZ, USA.
Nutr Res. 2020 Mar;75:44-55. doi: 10.1016/j.nutres.2019.12.006. Epub 2019 Dec 12.
The validity of dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) and multifrequency bioelectrical impedance analysis (MFBIA) for detecting changes in fat mass (FM), fat-free mass (FFM), and body fat percentage (BF%) was evaluated, as compared to a rapid 4-component (4C) model, in 31 females completing 8 weeks of resistance training. Analyses were performed in all participants (ALL) and in subgroups that gained FFM but lost FM (R subgroup) or gained both FFM and FM (G subgroup). It was hypothesized that methods would comparably detect changes in ALL, but discrepancies would occur in subgroup analysis. Changes in body composition did not significantly differ between 4C, DXA, and MFBIA. Equivalence testing indicated that similar changes were detected by DXA and MFBIA, compared to 4C, for ΔFFM in all analyses and ΔBF% in ALL and R subgroup. ΔFM was equivalent to 4C only in R subgroup for DXA and G subgroup for MFBIA. For ΔFM and ΔBF%, DXA and MFBIA produced similar magnitude errors in ALL. However, DXA exhibited lower error in R subgroup, whereas MFBIA exhibited lower error in G subgroup. For ΔFFM, DXA and MFBIA exhibited relatively similar errors in ALL and R subgroup, although MFBIA displayed proportional bias and weaker correlations with 4C than DXA. In G subgroup, MFBIA exhibited lower errors and a higher correlation with 4C ΔFFM than DXA. Although both DXA and MFBIA may have utility for estimating body composition changes during FFM accretion, DXA may be superior during simultaneous FM loss, whereas MFBIA may produce lower error during simultaneous FM gain.
双能 X 射线吸收法(DXA)和多频生物电阻抗分析(MFBIA)检测脂肪量(FM)、去脂体重(FFM)和体脂百分比(BF%)变化的有效性,与快速 4 成分(4C)模型进行了比较,共纳入 31 名完成 8 周抗阻训练的女性。所有参与者(ALL)和增加 FFM 但减少 FM(R 亚组)或增加 FFM 和 FM(G 亚组)的亚组中均进行了分析。假设方法在 ALL 中可比较地检测到变化,但亚组分析中会出现差异。4C、DXA 和 MFBIA 之间的身体成分变化没有显著差异。等效性检验表明,DXA 和 MFBIA 与 4C 相比,在所有分析中均检测到 ΔFFM 相似的变化,在 ALL 和 R 亚组中检测到 ΔBF%相似的变化。对于 DXA,只有在 R 亚组中 ΔFM 与 4C 等效,对于 MFBIA,只有在 G 亚组中 ΔFM 与 4C 等效。对于 ΔFM 和 ΔBF%,在 ALL 中,DXA 和 MFBIA 产生的误差幅度相似。然而,在 R 亚组中,DXA 的误差较低,而在 G 亚组中,MFBIA 的误差较低。对于 ΔFFM,在 ALL 和 R 亚组中,DXA 和 MFBIA 表现出相对相似的误差,尽管 MFBIA 与 4C 相比显示出比例偏差和较弱的相关性。在 G 亚组中,MFBIA 显示出较低的误差,与 4C ΔFFM 的相关性较高。尽管 DXA 和 MFBIA 都可用于估计 FFM 增加期间的身体成分变化,但在同时发生 FM 损失时,DXA 可能更具优势,而在同时发生 FM 增加时,MFBIA 可能产生较低的误差。