Home > Riviste > The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness > Fascicoli precedenti > The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness 2002 June;42(2) > The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness 2002 June;42(2):186-9

ULTIMO FASCICOLO
 

JOURNAL TOOLS

eTOC
Per abbonarsi PROMO
Sottometti un articolo
Segnala alla tua biblioteca
 

ARTICLE TOOLS

Estratti
Permessi

 

Technical notes  BODY COMPOSITION, SPORT NUTRITION AND SUPPLEMENTATION 

The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness 2002 June;42(2):186-9

Copyright © 2009 EDIZIONI MINERVA MEDICA

lingua: Inglese

Bioelectrical impedance measures in different position and vs dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA)

Andreoli A., Melchiorri G. *, De Lorenzo A., Caruso I. *, Sinibaldi Salimei P. **, Guerrisi M. ***

From the Human Nutrition Unit University “Tor Vergata”, Rome, Italy and Don Gnocchi Foundation, Rome, Italy *Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation **General Pathology ***Medical Physics University “Tor Vergata”, Rome, Italy


PDF


Background. Bioelectrical impe­dance anal­y­sis (BIA) is a ­safe, low-­cost, non-invasi­ve, rap­id meth­od for the assess­ment of ­body com­po­si­tion. It has there­fore a ­great poten­tial to be ­employed for epi­dem­i­olog­i­cal and clin­i­cal stud­ies. However, ­many devic­es are avail­able to esti­mate total body water (TBW), fat-free mass (FFM) and fat mass (FM) by bio­electri­cal impe­dance meas­ure­ments. Moreover, ­bipedal devic­es allow­ing meas­ure­ments in the ­only stand­ing posi­tion are recent­ly devel­oped. They are ­easy and prac­ti­cal to use with­out oper­a­tor, so a ­large dif­fu­sion can be fore­cast­ed in ­fields as ­sport and ­diet pro­grams. Comparison of ­body com­po­si­tion esti­ma­tion by a ­bipedal ­device ­with bio­im­pe­dance devic­es cur­rent­ly ­used, ­using dual-ener­gy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) as ref­er­ence meth­od.
Methods. The ­study was per­formed on 18 ­healthy wom­en vol­un­teers, age 32.0±10.7 ­years divid­ed in two ­groups at dif­fer­ent lev­els of ­body fat­ness. A Xitron 4000 impedance analyser, a BIA-101 RJL System, and the ­bipedal ­device Tanita ­were ­used for com­par­i­son. The meas­ure­ments ­were per­formed in stand­ing and ­supine posi­tion for Xitron and RJL devic­es. DXA meas­ure­ments ­were per­formed ­with a ­total ­body scan­ner DPX, Lunar.
Results. FM and FFM ­were not sta­tis­ti­cal­ly dif­fer­ent ­when meas­ured ­with Xitron and RJL in com­par­i­son ­with DXA, ­while ­these var­i­ables ­were sig­nif­i­cant­ly dif­fer­ent ­between Tanita and DXA meas­ure­ments. No sig­nif­i­cant dif­fer­ence ­were ­found ­between meas­ure­ments in the ­supine and stand­ing posi­tion ­with the Xitron and RJL ­system.
Conclusions. Our ­results sug­gest ­that FM and FFM eval­u­at­ed by ­bipedal ­device Tanita are sig­nif­i­cant­ly dif­fer­ent ­from FM and FFM meas­ured by DXA in ­both nor­mal and ­obese pop­u­la­tion.

inizio pagina