Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-mp689 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T00:34:17.788Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Evaluation of a foot-to-foot bioelectrical impedance analyser in highly active, moderately active and less active young men

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

M. Jeremy Evans
Affiliation:
Department of Exercise Science and Sport Management, The University of Tennessee, Knoxville TN, USA
George A. King
Affiliation:
Department of Exercise Science and Sport Management, The University of Tennessee, Knoxville TN, USA
Dixie L. Thompson
Affiliation:
Department of Exercise Science and Sport Management, The University of Tennessee, Knoxville TN, USA
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The Tanita TBF-305 (Tanita Corp., Tokyo, Japan) is a commercially available foot-to-foot bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) system. The manufacturer-supplied equations incorporate gender, mass, height, activity category and a measured impedance value to determine % body fat (BF). The purpose of the present study was to determine whether the manufacturer-supplied ‘adult’ and ‘athlete’ equations provided an accurate estimate of % BF for a group of young men with varying activity levels. Fifty-seven men (18–35 years old) were categorized into the following groups: (1) highly active (HA) (≥10·0 h aerobic activity/week); (2) moderately active (MA) (2·5–10·0 h aerobic activity/week); (3) less active (LA) (<2·5 h aerobic activity/week). The % BF was measured using the BIA ‘athlete’ and ‘adult’ modes. After BIA measurements, residual volume was measured and hydrostatic weighing (HW) was performed. The amount of activity performed by each group was significantly different (P<0·001). No significant differences were found between the % BF determined by the ‘athlete’ mode and HW for HA (P=0·309) and MA (P=0·091). However, a significant difference was found for LA (P=0·001). The % BF determined by the ‘adult’ mode and HW was not different for LA (P=0·395), but was significantly different for MA (P<0·001) and HA (P<0·001). The choice of activity mode on the foot-to-foot BIA significantly alters prediction of % BF. With careful selection of activity mode, there was no statistical difference between % BF determined by HW and the BIA, but the range of individual error scores was large.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 2002

References

Akers, R & Buskirk, E (1969) An underwater weighing system utilizing "force cube" transducers. Journal of Applied Physiology 26, 649652.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ballor, D & Keesey, R (1991) A meta-analysis of the factors affecting exercise-induced changes in body mass, fat mass and fat-free mass in males and females. International Journal of Obesity 15, 717726.Google ScholarPubMed
Bland, J & Altman, D (1986) Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 8, 307310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ching, P, Willett, W, Rimm, E, Colditz, G, Gortmaker, S & Stampfer, MJ (1996) Activity level and risk of overweight in male health professionals. American Journal of Public Health 86, 2530.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
DiPietro, L (1995) Physical activity, body weight, and adiposity: an epidemiologic perspective. Exercise and Sport Science Reviews 23, 275303.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Franckowiak, S, Cotton, R, Ritter, M, Walston, J, Beamer, B, Fritsch, L & Andersen, R (2000) Accuracy of a low-cost, commercially available Tanita bioelectrical impedance analyzer to estimate body composition. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 32, 113S.Google Scholar
Goldman, R & Buskirk, E (1961) Body volume measurement by underwater weighing: Description of method. In Techniques for Measuring Body Composition, pp. 7889 [Brozek, J and Henschel, A, editors]. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council.Google Scholar
Harris, G (1998) Skinfold thickness and measurement technique. In Anthropometric Standardization Reference Manual, pp. 5570 [Lohman, T, Roche, A and Martorell, R, editors]. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics Publishers.Google Scholar
Jebb, SA, Cole, TJ, Doman, D, Murgatroyd, PR & Prentice, AM (2000) Evaluation of the novel Tanita body-fat analyser to measure body composition by comparison with a four-compartment model. British Journal of Nutrition 83, 115122.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nunez, C, Gallagher, D, Visser, M, Pi-Sunyer, FX, Wang, Z & Heymsfield, SB (1997) Bioimpedance analysis: evaluation of leg-to-leg system based on pressure contact foot-pad electrodes. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 29, 524531.Google ScholarPubMed
Segal, K, Van Loan, M, Fitzgerald, P, Hodgdon, J & Van Itallie, T (1988) Lean body mass estimation by bioelectrical impedance analysis: a four-site cross-validation study. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 47, 714.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Siri, W (1961) Body composition from fluid spaces and density: Analysis of methods. In Techniques for Measuring Body Composition, pp. 223224 [Brozek, J and Henschel, A, editors]. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council.Google Scholar
Utter, A, Nieman, D, Ward, A & Butterworth, D (1999) Use of the leg-to-leg bioelectrical impedance method in assessing body-composition change in obese women. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 69, 603607.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ward, A, Pollock, M, Jackson, A, Ayres, J & Pape, G (1978) A comparison of body fat determined by underwater weighing and volume displacement. American Journal of Physiology 234, E94E96.Google ScholarPubMed
Wilmore, J (1969) A simplified method for determination of residual lung volume. Journal of Applied Physiology 27, 96100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar