scholarly journals Tracking fat-free mass changes in elderly men and women using single-frequency bioimpedance and dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry: a four-compartment model comparison

2013 ◽  
Vol 67 (S1) ◽  
pp. S40-S46 ◽  
Author(s):  
J R Moon ◽  
J R Stout ◽  
A E Smith-Ryan ◽  
K L Kendall ◽  
D H Fukuda ◽  
...  
2003 ◽  
Vol 94 (3) ◽  
pp. 959-965 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frances Tylavsky ◽  
Timothy Lohman ◽  
Barbara A. Blunt ◽  
Dale A. Schoeller ◽  
Thomas Fuerst ◽  
...  

This study evaluated the accuracy with which the dual-energy X-ray absorptiometer (Hologic QDR 4500A) measured fat-free mass (FFM), fat mass (FM), and hydration of FFM. In a study of 58 men and women (ages 70–79 yr), the QDR 4500A was found to provide a systematically higher estimate of FFM and lower estimate of FM than a four-component model of body composition. A correction factor from this study was developed and applied to two other samples ( n = 13 and 37). We found mean corrected levels of FFM and FM to be equivalent to that obtained by the four-component model or total body water. In addition, the hydration of the corrected FFM was closer to the established hydration level in adult samples and that obtained from the four-component model. These findings suggest that the current calibration of the fan-beam system of the Hologic QDR 4500A provides an overestimate of FFM and underestimate of FM compared with reference methods.


2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 23 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antonio ◽  
Kenyon ◽  
Ellerbroek ◽  
Carson ◽  
Burgess ◽  
...  

The purpose of this investigation was to compare two different methods of assessing body composition (i.e., a multi-frequency bioelectrical impedance analysis (MF-BIA) and dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA)) over a four-week treatment period in exercise-trained men and women. Subjects were instructed to reduce their energy intake while maintaining the same exercise regimen for a period of four weeks. Pre and post assessments for body composition (i.e., fat-free mass, fat mass, percent body fat) were determined via the MF-BIA and DXA. On average, subjects reduced their energy intake by ~18 percent. The MF-BIA underestimated fat mass and percentage body fat and overestimated fat-free mass in comparison to the DXA. However, when assessing the change in fat mass, fat-free mass or percent body fat, there were no statistically significant differences between the MF-BIA vs. DXA. Overall, the change in percent body fat using the DXA vs. the MF-BIA was −1.3 ± 0.9 and −1.4 ± 1.8, respectively. Our data suggest that when tracking body composition over a period of four weeks, the MF-BIA may be a viable alternative to the DXA in exercise-trained men and women.


2021 ◽  
pp. 1-39
Author(s):  
Abbie E. Smith-Ryan ◽  
Gabrielle J. Brewer ◽  
Lacey M. Gould ◽  
Malia N.M. Blue ◽  
Katie R. Hirsch ◽  
...  

Abstract Understanding the effects of acute feeding on body composition and metabolic measures is essential to the translational component and practical application of measurement and clinical use. To investigate the influence of acute feeding on the validity of dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA), a four-compartment model (4C), and indirect calorimetry metabolic outcomes, 39 healthy young adults (n=19 females; age: 21.8± 3.1 yrs, weight; 71.5 ± 10.0 kg) participated in a randomized cross-over study. Subjects were provided one of four randomized meals on separate occasions (high carbohydrate, high protein, ad libitum or fasted baseline) prior to body composition and metabolic assessments. Regardless of macronutrient content, acute feeding increased DXA percent body fat (%fat) for the total sample and females [average constant error (CE):-0.30%; total error (TE): 2.34%), although not significant (p=0.062); the error in males was minimal (CE: 0.11%; TE: 0.86%). DXA fat mass (CE: 0.26 kg; TE: 0.75 kg), lean mass (CE: 0.83 kg; TE: 1.23 kg) were not altered beyond measurement error for the total sample. 4C %fat was significantly impacted from all acute feedings (avg CE: 0.46%; TE: 3.7%). 4C fat mass (CE: 0.71 kg; TE: 3.38 kg) and fat-free mass (CE: 0.55 kg; TE: 3.05 kg) exceeded measurement error for the total sample. Resting metabolic rate was increased for each feeding condition (TE: 398.4 kcal/d). Standard pre-testing fasting guidelines may be important when evaluating DXA and 4C %fat, whereas additional DXA variables (FM, LM) may not be significantly impacted by an acute meal. Measuring body composition via DXA under less stringent pre-testing guidelines may be valid and increase feasibility of testing in clinical settings.


1999 ◽  
Vol 70 (2) ◽  
pp. 228-233 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ross D Hansen ◽  
Chand Raja ◽  
Ali Aslani ◽  
Ross C Smith ◽  
Barry J Allen

Author(s):  
Jordan Moon ◽  
Jordan R Moon ◽  
Abbie E Smith ◽  
Kristina L Kendall ◽  
Jennifer L Graef ◽  
...  

1998 ◽  
Vol 27 (3) ◽  
pp. 363-367 ◽  
Author(s):  
NICOLA C. CHAPMAN ◽  
ELAINE BANNERMAN ◽  
STEPHEN COWEN ◽  
WILLIAM J. MACLENNAN

2003 ◽  
Vol 94 (2) ◽  
pp. 499-506 ◽  
Author(s):  
Grant E. van der Ploeg ◽  
Robert T. Withers ◽  
Joe Laforgia

This study compared body composition by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA; Lunar DPX-L) with that via a four-compartment (4C; water, bone mineral mass, fat, and residual) model. Relative body fat was determined for 152 healthy adults [30.0 ± 11.1 (SD) yr; 75.10 ± 14.88 kg; 176.3 ± 8.7 cm] aged from 18 to 59 yr. The 4C approach [20.7% body fat (%BF)] resulted in a significantly ( P < 0.001) higher mean %BF compared with DEXA (18.9% BF), with intraindividual variations ranging from −2.6 to 7.3% BF. Linear regression and a Bland and Altman plot demonstrated the tendency for DEXA to progressively underestimate the %BF of leaner individuals compared with the criterion 4C model (4C %BF = 0.862 × DEXA %BF + 4.417; r 2 = 0.952, standard error of estimate = 1.6% BF). This bias was not attributable to variations in fat-free mass hydration but may have been due to beam-hardening errors that resulted from differences in anterior-posterior tissue thickness.


2020 ◽  
Vol 23 (3) ◽  
pp. 443-450 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cherilyn N. McLester ◽  
Brett S. Nickerson ◽  
Brian M. Kliszczewicz ◽  
John R. McLester

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document