Comparative analysis of body fat measurement using two bioelectric impedance devices and three household scales (with the function of determining body composition) with dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry

• Alexander V. Meshtel
• Alexey G. Antonov
• Andrey N. Zhilkin
• Polina D. Rybakova
• Alexander B. Miroshnikov
• Andrey V. Smolenskiy

Abstract

Body composition assessment is often used in clinical practice to assess and monitor nutritional status. For example, body fat mass is a predictor of metabolic diseases, and for an athlete it is a criterion of performance. “Gold standard” – the method of dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry – in contrast to bioelectrical impedance analysis, is difficult to apply in everyday clinical practice. Therefore, it becomes relevant to compare the consistency of measured body fat mass using densitometry and bioimpedanceometry.

The aim of the study was to perform a comparative analysis of body fat mass estimated by bioimpedanceometry (two bioelectric impedance devices and three household scales with a function of determining body composition) and dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry.

Material and methods. Sixteen healthy, physically active adults aged 25 [23; 26] years, male (n=7) and female (n=9), participated in the cross-sectional study. Body composition was assessed under standard conditions in the morning, after a 12-hour fast, using densitometry (Stratos Dr X-ray densitometer) and bioimpedanceometry [bioelectric impedance devices: Medass ABC-01, Diamant AIST (with manufacturer’s predictive equations); household scales with a function of determining body composition: Tanita BC-718, Picooc Mini, Scarlett SC-216]. Statistical analysis was performed using Statistica 10 package (StatSoft, USA), and included Friedman’s chi-criterion, Lin’s correlation concordance coefficient, Bland–Altman method, Spearman’s correlation coefficient, and Wilcoxon’s criterion with Bonferroni correction for multiple studies.

Results. None of the bioimpedanceometry devices studied showed a relationship (Bland-Altman coefficient >0.2) or consistency (Lin’s correlation concordance coefficient <0.9) when compared to densitometry, although Spearman correlation was moderate for Tanita BC-718 (r=0.603, p<0.05), Diamant AIST (r=0.641, p<0.01) and Scarlett SC-216 (r=0.609, p<0.05), and notable for Medass ABC-01 (r=0.841, p<0.01) and Picooc Mini (r=0.718, p<0.01).

Conclusion. This study found that no bioelectrical impedance device has consistency with dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry in assessing body fat mass. Since the accuracy of body fat mass measurement is critical in body composition diagnosis, the assessment results obtained by bioimpedanceometry should be interpreted with caution.

Keywords:body composition; body fat mass; dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry; bioelectrical impedance analysis; healthy adults

References

1. Silveira E.A., Barbosa L.S., Rodrigues A.P.S., Noll M., De Oliveira C. Body fat percentage assessment by skinfold equation, bioimpedance and densitometry in older adults. Arch Public Health. 2020; 78: 65. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13690-020-00449-4

2. Benito P.J., Gómez-Candela C., Cabañas M.D., Szendrei B., Castro E.A. Comparison between different methods for measuring body fat after a weight loss program. Rev Bras Med Esporte. 2019; 25: 474–9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/1517-869220192506149743

3. Achamrah N., Colange G., Delay J., Rimbert A., Folope V., Petit A., et al. Comparison of body composition assessment by DXA and BIA according to the body mass index: a retrospective study on 3655 measures. PLoS One. 2018; 13 (7): e0200465. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0200465

4. Ackland T.R., Lohman T.G., Sundgot-Borgen J., Maughan R.J., Meyer N.L., Stewart A.D., et al. Current status of body composition assessment in sport. Sports Med. 2012; 42 (3): 227–49. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/11597140-000000000-00000

5. Meier N.F., Bai Y., Wang C., Lee D.C. Validation of a multielectrode bioelectrical impedance analyzer with a dual-energy x-ray absorptiometer for the assessment of body composition in older adults. J Aging Phys Act. 2020; 28: 598–604. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1123/japa.2019-0211

6. Lee S.Y., Ahn S., Kim Y.J., Ji M.J., Kim K.M., Choi S.H., et al. Comparison between dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry and bioelectrical impedance analyses for accuracy in measuring whole body muscle mass and appendicular skeletal muscle mass. Nutrients. 2018; 10: 738. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/nu10060738

7. Wingo B.C., Barry V.G., Ellis A.C., Gower B.A. Comparison of segmental body composition estimated by bioelectrical impedance analysis and dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. Clin Nutr ESPEN. 2018; 28: 141–7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clnesp.2018.08.013

8. Ward L.C., Müller M.J. Bioelectrical impedance analysis. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2013; 67 (suppl 1): S1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/ejcn.2012.148

9. Harriss D.J., MacSween A., Atkinson G. Ethical standards in sport and exercise science research: 2020 update. Int J Sports Med. 2019; 40: 813–7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1055/a-1015-3123

10. Obesity: preventing and managing the global epidemic. Report of a WHO consultation. World Health Organ Tech Rep Ser. 2000; 894: 1–253, i–xii. PMID: 11234459.

11. Rudnev S.G., Soboleva N.P., Sterlikov S.A., Nikolaev D.V., Starunova O.A., Chernykh S.P., et al. Bioimpedance study of body composition of the Russian population. Moscow: Tsentral’niy nauchno-issledovatel’skiy institut organizatsii i informatizatsii zdravookhraneniya, 2014: 493 p. ISBN: 5-94116-018-6. (in Russian)

12. Loucks A.B., Kiens B., Wright H.H. Energy availability in athletes. J Sports Sci. 2011; 29 (suppl 1): S7–15. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2011.588958

13. Mountjoy M., Sundgot-Borgen J., Burke L., Carter S., Constantini N., Lebrun C., et al. The IOC consensus statement: beyond the Female Athlete Triad – Relative Energy Deficiency in Sport (RED-S). Br J Sports Med. 2014; 48 (7): 491–7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2014-093502

14. Brel’ Y.I., Medvedeva G.A. Characteristics of functional status and body composition parameters in athletes with reduced fat mass. Problemy zdorov’ya i ekologii [Problems of Health and Ecology]. 2022; 19 (3): 73–8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.51523/2708-6011.2022-19-3-10 (in Russian)

15. Holmes C.J., Racette S.B. The utility of body composition assessment in nutrition and clinical practice: an overview of current methodology. Nutrients. 2021; 13 (8): 2493. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/nu13082493

16. Potter A.W., Nindl L.J., Soto L.D., Pazmino A., Looney D.P., Tharion W.J., et al. High precision but systematic offset in a standing bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) compared with dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA). BMJ Nutr Prev Health. 2022; 5 (2): 254–62. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjnph-2022-000512

17. Rockamann R.A., Dalton E.K., Arabas J.L., Jorn L., Mayhew J.L. Validity of arm-to-arm BIA devices compared to DXA for estimating % fat in college men and women. Int J Exerc Sci. 2017; 10 (7): 977–88. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1249/01.mss.0000495338.91690.a4

18. Dimitrijevic M., Paunovic V., Zivkovic V., Bolevich S., Jakovljevic V. Body fat evaluation in male athletes from combat sports by comparing anthropometric, bioimpedance, and dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry measurements. Biomed Res Int. 2022; 5: 3456958. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/3456958

19. Sansone P., Makivic B., Csapo R., Hume P., Martínez-Rodríguez A., Bauer P. Body fat of basketball players: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Med Open. 2022; 8 (1): 26. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40798-022-00418-x

20. Sebastiá-Rico J., Soriano J.M., González-Gálvez N., MartínezSanz J.M. Body composition of male professional soccer players using different measurement methods: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Nutrients. 2023; 15 (5): 1160. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/nu15051160

All articles in our journal are distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0 license)