Comparison of generalized and athletic bioimpedance-based predictive equations for estimating fat-free mass in resistance-trained exercisers

•Resistance-trained exercisers show similar bioelectrical and body composition characteristics to the athletic population.•Generalized bioelectrical impedance-based equations overestimate fat-free mass in resistance-trained exercisers.•Bioelectrical impedance-based equations for athletes should be p...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Nutrition (Burbank, Los Angeles County, Calif.) Los Angeles County, Calif.), 2022-10, Vol.102, p.111694-111694, Article 111694
Hauptverfasser: Campa, Francesco, Matias, Catarina N., Teixeira, Filipe J., Reis, Joana F., Valamatos, Maria J., Coratella, Giuseppe, Monteiro, Cristina P.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:•Resistance-trained exercisers show similar bioelectrical and body composition characteristics to the athletic population.•Generalized bioelectrical impedance-based equations overestimate fat-free mass in resistance-trained exercisers.•Bioelectrical impedance-based equations for athletes should be preferred when assessing fat-free mass in resistance-trained men. This study aimed to test whether athlete-specific, bioelectrical, impedance-based equations to estimate fat-free mass (FFM) could be more accurate than generalized equations when testing resistance-trained exercisers. A total of 50 resistance-trained men (age 30.9 ± 7.4 y; body mass index: 25.3 ± 2.2 kg/m2) and 20 men from the general population (age 29.9 ± 9.1 y; body mass index: 22.8 ± 2.4 kg/m2) underwent bioelectrical impedance and dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) evaluations. FFM was derived by one bioelectrical impedance-based equation specific for athletes and three generalized equations, all developed with foot-to-hand bioimpedance technologies at a 50 kHz frequency. DXA was the reference method for the FFM assessment. Compared with DXA, when assessing the resistance-trained participants, the athletic-specific equation had neither mean (–0.89 kg; P = 0.789) or proportional bias (r = –0.104; P = 0.474) with a coefficient of determination equal to R2 = 0.91. In contrast, the three generalized predictive equations overestimated FFM (range, 4.11–5.37 kg; P < 0.05) with R2 ranging from 0.84 to 0.90. The athletic-specific equation underestimated FFM in the general population participants (–2.93 kg; P < 0.05). When assessing body composition in resistance-trained exercisers, specific equations for athletes should be preferred to generalized ones to avoid an overestimation in FFM. Furthermore, athlete-specific and generalized formulas cannot be used interchangeably, even when assessing body composition in the general population.
ISSN:0899-9007
1873-1244
DOI:10.1016/j.nut.2022.111694