A comparison of dual energy X-ray absorptiometry and bioelectrical impedance analysis to measure total and segmental body composition in healthy young adults

2011 ◽  
Vol 112 (2) ◽  
pp. 589-595 ◽  
Author(s):  
Siobhan Leahy ◽  
Cian O’Neill ◽  
Rhoda Sohun ◽  
Philip Jakeman
Keyword(s):  
Young Adults ◽  
Body Composition ◽  
Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis ◽  
Bioelectrical Impedance ◽  
Impedance Analysis ◽  
Dual Energy ◽  
X Ray ◽  
Segmental Body ◽  
Segmental Body Composition

Segmental body composition assessed by bioelectrical impedance analysis and DEXA in humans

1996 ◽  
Vol 81 (6) ◽  
pp. 2580-2587 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Bracco ◽  
Daniel Thiébaud ◽  
René L. Chioléro ◽  
Michel Landry ◽  
Peter Burckhardt ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Body Composition ◽  
Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis ◽  
Bioelectrical Impedance ◽  
Impedance Analysis ◽  
Whole Body ◽  
Tissue Composition ◽  
X Ray ◽  
Overweight Women ◽  
Segmental Body ◽  
Segmental Body Composition

Bracco, David, Daniel Thiébaud, René L. Chioléro, Michel Landry, Peter Burckhardt, and Yves Schutz.Segmental body composition assessed by bioelectrical impedance analysis and DEXA in humans. J. Appl. Physiol. 81(6): 2580–2587, 1996.—The present study assessed the relative contribution of each body segment to whole body fat-free mass (FFM) and impedance and explored the use of segmental bioelectrical impedance analysis to estimate segmental tissue composition. Multiple frequencies of whole body and segmental impedances were measured in 51 normal and overweight women. Segmental tissue composition was independently assessed by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. The sum of the segmental impedance values corresponded to the whole body value (100.5 ± 1.9% at 50 kHz). The arms and legs contributed to 47.6 and 43.0%, respectively, of whole body impedance at 50 kHz, whereas they represented only 10.6 and 34.8% of total FFM, as determined by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. The trunk averaged 10.0% of total impedance but represented 48.2% of FFM. For each segment, there was an excellent correlation between the specific impedance index (length2/impedance) and FFM ( r = 0.55, 0.62, and 0.64 for arm, trunk, and leg, respectively). The specific resistivity was in a similar range for the limbs (159 ± 23 cm for the arm and 193 ± 39 cm for the leg at 50 kHz) but was higher for the trunk (457 ± 71 cm). This study shows the potential interest of segmental body composition by bioelectrical impedance analysis and provides specific segmental body composition equations for use in normal and overweight women.

Letters to the Editor

1998 ◽  
Vol 84 (1) ◽  
pp. 396-397 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard B. Mazess
Keyword(s):  
Body Composition ◽  
Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis ◽  
Bioelectrical Impedance ◽  
Impedance Analysis ◽  
Dual Energy ◽  
Whole Body ◽  
Tissue Composition ◽  
X Ray ◽  
Overweight Women ◽  
Segmental Body Composition

The following is the abstract of the article discussed in the subsequent letter: Bracco, David, Daniel Thiébaud, René L. Chioléro, Michel Landry, Peter Burckhardt, and Yves Schutz.Segmental body composition assessed by bioelectrical impedance analysis and DEXA in humans. J. Appl. Physiol. 81(6): 2580–2587, 1996.—The present study assessed the relative contribution of each body segment to whole body fat-free mass (FFM) and impedance and explored the use of segmental bioelectrical impedance analysis to estimate segmental tissue composition. Multiple frequencies of whole body and segmental impedances were measured in 51 normal and overweight women. Segmental tissue composition was independently assessed by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. The sum of the segmental impedance values corresponded to the whole body value (100.5 ± 1.9% at 50 kHz). The arms and legs contributed to 47.6 and 43.0%, respectively, of whole body impedance at 50 kHz, whereas they represented only 10.6 and 34.8% of total FFM, as determined by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. The trunk averaged 10.0% of total impedance but represented 48.2% of FFM. For each segment, there was an excellent correlation between the specific impedance index (length2/impedance) and FFM ( r = 0.55, 0.62, and 0.64 for arm, trunk, and leg, respectively). The specific resistivity was in a similar range for the limbs (159 ± 23 cm for the arm and 193 ± 39 cm for the leg at 50 kHz) but was higher for the trunk (457 ± 71 cm). This study shows the potential interest of segmental body composition by bioelectrical impedance analysis and provides specific segmental body composition equations for use in normal and overweight women.

Techniques For Assessment Of Body Composition In Health

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carla M Prado ◽  
Camila LP Oliveira ◽  
M Cristina Gonzalez ◽  
Steven B Heymsfield
Keyword(s):  
Body Composition ◽  
Nutritional Status ◽  
Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis ◽  
Bioelectrical Impedance ◽  
Impedance Analysis ◽  
Dual Energy ◽  
Composition Analysis ◽  
Body Composition Assessment ◽  
Air Displacement Plethysmography ◽  
X Ray

Body composition assessment is an important tool in both clinical and research settings able to characterize the nutritional status of individuals in various physiologic and pathologic conditions. Health care professionals can use the information acquired by body composition analysis for the prevention and treatment of diseases, ultimately improving health status. Here we describe commonly used techniques to assess body composition in healthy individuals, including dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry, bioelectrical impedance analysis, air displacement plethysmography, and ultrasonography. Understanding the key underlying concept(s) of each assessment method, as well as its advantages and limitations, facilitates selection of the method of choice and the method of the compartment of interest. This review contains 5 figures, 3 tables and 52 references Key words: air displacement plethysmography, bioelectrical impedance analysis, body composition, disease, dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry, health, muscle mass, nutritional status, obesity, sarcopenia, ultrasound fat mass

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document