Rabelo Ismael Figueiredo, Farrell Shannon, Reid Kieran F, Dos Santos Vanessa Ribeiro, Antunes Melissa, Batista Vitor Cabrera, Bauermann-Vieira Andreia, Gobbo Luís Alberto
Skeletal Muscle Assessment Laboratory, Department of Physical Education, School of Technology and Science, São Paulo State University (UNESP), Presidente Prudente, Brazil.
Laboratory of Exercise Physiology and Physical Performance, Boston Claude D. Pepper Older Americans Independence Center for Function Promoting Therapies, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States.
Front Aging. 2025 May 27;6:1535876. doi: 10.3389/fragi.2025.1535876. eCollection 2025.
Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis (BIA) is a widely used method to assess body composition. Traditional BIA models use predictive equations without considering individual characteristics such as age, sex, and activity level. Classic Bioelectrical Impedance Vector Analysis (BIVA) standardizes raw BIA data by height, while specific BIVA (spBIVA) normalizes by body segment areas and lengths, offering a potentially more accurate assessment. With aging populations, there is growing interest in assessing age-related body composition changes - especially sarcopenia, characterized by reduced muscle mass and function. While BIVA is promising for such assessments, limited studies compare classic and specific BIVA approaches in older adults based on physical activity and muscle strength. Thus, the objective of the study is to compare classic and specific BIVA values in older adults according to their physical activity level and muscle strength.
This cross-sectional study involved 187 community-dwelling older adults (143 women and 44 men, ≥60 years), recruited via public advertisements. Exclusion criteria included medical conditions affecting muscle mass. The Assessments included: Anthropometry (weight, height, BMI, waist, arm and calf circumferences); BIA (resistance - R, reactance - Xc, and phase angle - PhA), measured using a 50 kHz analyzer (classic BIVA was normalized by height and specific BIVA by segmental area/length using upper arm); physical activity (measured using the Baecke Habitual Physical Activity Questionnaire); muscle strength (measured by handgrip dynamometry, cut-off values <27 kg for men and <16 kg for women indicated low strength). For the statistical analyses, differences in BIVA parameters were evaluated using Hotelling's T test and Mahalanobis D distances (p < 0.05).
Men had significantly higher body weight, height, waist circumference, and handgrip strength (p < 0.05). Classic BIVA consistently showed higher values of R and Xc than specific BIVA (differences up to 30%). PhA was higher in men, especially due to lower resistance values. Among women, those with higher physical activity levels had significantly higher PhA, indicating better cellular health. Among men, no significant differences in PhA were observed between activity levels. For muscle strength, stronger men had higher PhA values and significant vector displacement in both models; women did not show significant differences by strength level.
Both classic and specific BIVA approaches identified differences in impedance parameters related to physical activity and strength. Classic BIVA tends to overestimate resistance and reactance due to height normalization, while specific BIVA, using body segments, may better reflect individual morphological characteristics.
生物电阻抗分析(BIA)是一种广泛用于评估身体成分的方法。传统的BIA模型使用预测方程,而不考虑年龄、性别和活动水平等个体特征。经典生物电阻抗矢量分析(BIVA)通过身高对原始BIA数据进行标准化,而特定BIVA(spBIVA)则通过身体各部位的面积和长度进行标准化,从而提供可能更准确的评估。随着人口老龄化,人们越来越关注评估与年龄相关的身体成分变化——尤其是肌肉减少症,其特征是肌肉质量和功能下降。虽然BIVA在这种评估中很有前景,但基于身体活动和肌肉力量,比较老年人中经典和特定BIVA方法的研究有限。因此,本研究的目的是根据老年人的身体活动水平和肌肉力量比较经典和特定BIVA值。
这项横断面研究纳入了187名社区居住的老年人(143名女性和44名男性,年龄≥60岁),通过公开广告招募。排除标准包括影响肌肉质量的疾病。评估内容包括:人体测量学指标(体重、身高、体重指数、腰围、上臂围和小腿围);使用50 kHz分析仪测量的BIA(电阻-R、电抗-Xc和相位角-PhA)(经典BIVA通过身高进行标准化,特定BIVA通过上臂的节段面积/长度进行标准化);身体活动(使用贝克习惯性身体活动问卷进行测量);肌肉力量(通过握力计测量,男性临界值<27 kg,女性临界值<16 kg表示力量低)。对于统计分析,使用霍特林T检验和马氏距离评估BIVA参数的差异(p<0.05)。
男性的体重、身高、腰围和握力显著更高(p<0.05)。经典BIVA始终显示出比特定BIVA更高的R和Xc值(差异高达30%)。男性的PhA更高,尤其是由于电阻值较低。在女性中,身体活动水平较高的女性PhA显著更高,表明细胞健康状况更好。在男性中,不同活动水平之间的PhA没有显著差异。对于肌肉力量,强壮的男性在两种模型中PhA值更高且矢量位移显著;女性在力量水平上没有显示出显著差异。
经典和特定BIVA方法都识别出了与身体活动和力量相关的阻抗参数差异。由于通过身高进行标准化,经典BIVA往往会高估电阻和电抗,而使用身体节段的特定BIVA可能更好地反映个体形态特征。