Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Sports Med Int Open 2017; 1(04): E141-E146
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-113999
Training & Testing
Eigentümer und Copyright ©Georg Thieme Verlag KG 2017

Intra- and Inter-Day Reliability of Body Composition Assessed by a Commercial Multifrequency Bioelectrical Impedance Meter

Laurent Bosquet
1   Université de Poitiers, Faculté des sciences du sport, Poitiers, France
,
Thomas Niort
2   Universite de Poitiers, Sport sciences, Poitiers, France
,
Maxime Poirault
2   Universite de Poitiers, Sport sciences, Poitiers, France
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

received 19 February 2017
revised 27 April 2017

accepted 09 June 2017

Publication Date:
14 July 2017 (online)

   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine the intra- and inter-day reliability of body composition measurements provided by a commercial multifrequency bioelectrical impedance meter. Eighteen healthy, well-trained students in physical education from the same ethnic group were assessed on four consecutive days, both in the morning and in the evening. Indexes provided by the device were gathered in four categories: tissular, metabolic, hydric and ionic blocks. There was no systematic bias between repeated measures, regardless of time of day. Relative reliability was high to very high in the morning (0.72<ICC<0.99) and moderate to very high in the afternoon (0.61<ICC<0.99). Absolute reliability varied substantially between indexes (1.5%<SEM<15%). The minimum difference considered as real was proportionally altered, since it ranged from 4.2 to 41.5%. In conclusion, body composition assessed with a multifrequency bioelectrical impedance meter requires a highly standardized protocol and adjusting the cut-off value for each parameter to ascertain during athlete follow-up that a real change has occurred. This assessment should preferably be scheduled in the morning in order to decrease these cut-off values.

Key words

hydration - fat mass - fat-free mass - relative reliability - absolute reliability
 

  • References

  • 1 Atkinson G, Nevill AM. Statistical methods for assessing measurement error (reliability) in variables relevant to sports medicine. Sports Med 1998; 26: 217-238
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Australian Sports Commission. Physiological Tests for Elite Athletes. Champaign (ILL): Human Kinetics; 2000
    Google Scholar
  • 3 Bosquet L, Maquet D, Forthomme B, Nowak N, Lehance C, Croisier JL. Effect of the lengthening of the protocol on the reliability of muscle fatigue indicators. Int J Sports Med 2010; 31: 82-88
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Currier D. Elements of Research in Physical Therapy. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins; 1990
    Google Scholar
  • 5 Deurenberg P, Yap M, van Staveren WA. Body mass index and percent body fat: A meta analysis among different ethnic groups. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 1998; 22: 1164-1171
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Dvir Z. Difference, significant difference and clinically meaningful difference: The meaning of change in rehabilitation. J Exerc Rehabil 2015; 11: 67-73
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Fornetti WC, Pivarnik JM, Foley JM, Fiechtner JJ. Reliability and validity of body composition measures in female athletes. J Appl Physiol (1985) 1999; 87: 1114-1122
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Graves J, Pollock M, Colvin A, Van Loan M, Lohman T. Comparison of different bioelectrical impedance analyzers in the prediction of body composition. Am J Hum Biol 1989; 1: 603-611
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Harriss DJ, Atkinson G. Ethical standards in sport and exercise science research: 2016 update. Int J Sports Med 2015; 36: 1121-1124
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Heyward V. Advanced fitness assessment and exercise prescription. Champaign (ILL): Human Kinetics; 2006: 1-425
    Google Scholar
  • 11 Jackson AS, Pollock ML, Graves JE, Mahar MT. Reliability and validity of bioelectrical impedance in determining body composition. J Appl Physiol (1985) 1988; 64: 529-534
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Kilduff LP, Lewis S, Kingsley MI, Owen NJ, Dietzig RE. Reliability and detecting change following short-term creatine supplementation: Comparison of two-component body composition methods. J Strength Cond Res 2007; 21: 378-384
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Kyle UG, Bosaeus I, De Lorenzo AD, Deurenberg P, Elia M, Gomez JM, Heitmann BL, Kent-Smith L, Melchior JC, Pirlich M, Scharfetter H, Schols AM, Pichard C. Composition of the EWG. Bioelectrical impedance analysis–part I: Review of principles and methods. Clin Nutr 2004; 23: 1226-1243
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Kyle UG, Bosaeus I, De Lorenzo AD, Deurenberg P, Elia M, Manuel Gomez J, Lilienthal Heitmann B, Kent-Smith L, Melchior JC, Pirlich M, Scharfetter H, MWJS A, Pichard C. Espen Group. Bioelectrical impedance analysis-part II: Utilization in clinical practice. Clin Nutr 2004; 23: 1430-1453
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Martin AD, Ross WD, Drinkwater DT, Clarys JP. Prediction of body fat by skinfold caliper: assumptions and cadaver evidence. Int J Obes 1985; 9 (Suppl. 01) 31-39
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Micozzi M, Harris T. Age variations in the relation of body mass index to estimates of body fat and muscle mass. Am J Phys Anthropol 1990; 3: 375-379
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Munro B. Statistical methods for health care research. 3rd ed. New York: Lippincott; 1997: 1-444
    Google Scholar
  • 18 Roubenoff R, Baumgartner RN, Harris TB, Dallal GE, Hannan MT, Economos CD, Stauber PM, Wilson PW, Kiel DP. Application of bioelectrical impedance analysis to elderly populations. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 1997; 52: M129-M136
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Smye SW, Sutcliffe J, Pitt E. A comparison of four commercial systems used to measure whole-body electrical impedance. Physiol Meas 1993; 14: 473-478
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Talma H, Chinapaw MJ, Bakker B, HiraSing RA, Terwee CB, Altenburg TM. Bioelectrical impedance analysis to estimate body composition in children and adolescents: A systematic review and evidence appraisal of validity, responsiveness, reliability and measurement error. Obes Rev 2013; 14: 895-905
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Weir JP. Quantifying test-retest reliability using the intraclass correlation coefficient and the SEM. J Strength Cond Res 2005; 19: 231-240
    Google Scholar