Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

The influence of fat free mass on prediction of densitometric body composition by bioelectrical impedance analysis and by anthropometry.
Eur J Clin Nutr. 1996 Aug; 50(8):542-8.EJ

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To examine the effect of varying size of fat free mass (FFM) on the precision and bias of body composition prediction by bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) from four equations of Segal et al (BIA-Segal), Gray et al (BIA-Gray, Lukaski et al (BIA-Lukaski) and those from a manufacturer (BIA-EZC), by body mass index (BMI), and by skinfold methods with reference to estimation by densitometry.

SUBJECTS

73 men and 77 women aged 17-71 years, were measured for height, weight, FFM, bioelectrical impedance and age.

RESULTS

BIA-Segal gave the highest precision (men: R2 = 83%, women: R2 = 75%) and the least bias (men: slope = 0.88; women: slope = 0.81) of all BIA methods. There were poorer precision (R2 < or = 50%) and more bias (slope < 0.70) by BIA-Lukaski and BIA-EZC in both sexes, which were comparable to the simpler BMI method. The skinfold method gave R2 = 83% and slope = 0.84 in men and R2 = 61% and slope = 0.86 in women. Bland and Altman analysis showed BIA-Segal gave prediction of FFM within +/-6 kg of 95% confidence interval limit of agreement of that estimated by UWW in most subjects. Other BIA methods presented unacceptably large underestimates of up to 15-17 kg in FFM.

CONCLUSIONS

The BIA-Segal provide the best predictions of the methods tested, but using BMI-or waist-specific equations may be more practical than the original BIA-Segal method, which BIA methods are affected by large FFM, and not better than anthropometric methods in predicting FFM.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Department of Human Nutrition, University of Glasgow, Glasgow Royal Infirmary.No affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info available

Pub Type(s)

Comparative Study
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Language

eng

PubMed ID

8863015

Citation

Han, T S., et al. "The Influence of Fat Free Mass On Prediction of Densitometric Body Composition By Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis and By Anthropometry." European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, vol. 50, no. 8, 1996, pp. 542-8.
Han TS, Carter R, Currall JE, et al. The influence of fat free mass on prediction of densitometric body composition by bioelectrical impedance analysis and by anthropometry. Eur J Clin Nutr. 1996;50(8):542-8.
Han, T. S., Carter, R., Currall, J. E., & Lean, M. E. (1996). The influence of fat free mass on prediction of densitometric body composition by bioelectrical impedance analysis and by anthropometry. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 50(8), 542-8.
Han TS, et al. The Influence of Fat Free Mass On Prediction of Densitometric Body Composition By Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis and By Anthropometry. Eur J Clin Nutr. 1996;50(8):542-8. PubMed PMID: 8863015.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - The influence of fat free mass on prediction of densitometric body composition by bioelectrical impedance analysis and by anthropometry. AU - Han,T S, AU - Carter,R, AU - Currall,J E, AU - Lean,M E, PY - 1996/8/1/pubmed PY - 1996/8/1/medline PY - 1996/8/1/entrez SP - 542 EP - 8 JF - European journal of clinical nutrition JO - Eur J Clin Nutr VL - 50 IS - 8 N2 - OBJECTIVE: To examine the effect of varying size of fat free mass (FFM) on the precision and bias of body composition prediction by bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) from four equations of Segal et al (BIA-Segal), Gray et al (BIA-Gray, Lukaski et al (BIA-Lukaski) and those from a manufacturer (BIA-EZC), by body mass index (BMI), and by skinfold methods with reference to estimation by densitometry. SUBJECTS: 73 men and 77 women aged 17-71 years, were measured for height, weight, FFM, bioelectrical impedance and age. RESULTS: BIA-Segal gave the highest precision (men: R2 = 83%, women: R2 = 75%) and the least bias (men: slope = 0.88; women: slope = 0.81) of all BIA methods. There were poorer precision (R2 < or = 50%) and more bias (slope < 0.70) by BIA-Lukaski and BIA-EZC in both sexes, which were comparable to the simpler BMI method. The skinfold method gave R2 = 83% and slope = 0.84 in men and R2 = 61% and slope = 0.86 in women. Bland and Altman analysis showed BIA-Segal gave prediction of FFM within +/-6 kg of 95% confidence interval limit of agreement of that estimated by UWW in most subjects. Other BIA methods presented unacceptably large underestimates of up to 15-17 kg in FFM. CONCLUSIONS: The BIA-Segal provide the best predictions of the methods tested, but using BMI-or waist-specific equations may be more practical than the original BIA-Segal method, which BIA methods are affected by large FFM, and not better than anthropometric methods in predicting FFM. SN - 0954-3007 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/8863015/The_influence_of_fat_free_mass_on_prediction_of_densitometric_body_composition_by_bioelectrical_impedance_analysis_and_by_anthropometry_ L2 - https://antibodies.cancer.gov/detail/CPTC-RRM2-2 DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -