Bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA): a proposal for standardization of the classical method in adults

Abstract

Abstract:The accuracy of BIA measurements is limited by different sources of error such as physical model, cross sectional area, ethnicity, body hydration, age and level of body fat among other variables. Equation for each population is required as they can produce overestimation when manufacturer's equations are used. The classical measurements hand to foot has shown better correlation against hydrodensitometry than foot to foot or hand to hand. However there is a lack for an accepted standard of BIA procedures. This is compounded when there is not a good report of the BIA study's methodology; hence the comparability between the results is poor and reduces the reliability of the method. Perhaps, standardization of methods would be the first step for BIA studies to move forward and subsequently improve its accuracy. Standardized procedures could also minimize the impact of these variables on studies results. The aim of this study was to propose a protocol as a checklist to standardize BIA procedures and produce comparable results from future studies performed with the classic hand-foot configuration in adults.

No differences in the body fat after violating core bioelectrical impedance measurement assumptions

“…Although, the consumption of 1L of water did increase body mass it was not enough to statistically increase %FM. In this study, 1 kg difference in body mass is theoretically associated with a 0.68% higher FM which is in line with a previous study that suggests a non-voided bladder could affect BIA measurements by up to 1% [20]. Thus, non-voided bladder is likely to have minimal effects on %FM estimates.…”

Comparison of the Body Composition of Caucasian Young Normal Body Mass Women, Measured in the Follicular Phase, Depending on the Carbohydrate Diet Level

“…Above and beyond, the study of Slinde and Rossander-Hulthén [9] showed that not only the change of the measured impedance values lasts 2–4 h after each meal, but also during the day, the observed change is additive. However, González-Correa & Caicedo-Eraso [10], based on the study of Gonzalez et al [11], showed that conducting the measurement 2 h after a meal contributes to 2.9% of the measurement error only, which corresponds with the recommendations of Kyle et al [6], indicating the shorter periods of fasting as acceptable in clinical practice.…”

“…The main factors that may influence the results of body composition assessment are not only those factors that are included into equations to calculate the body composition, such as anthropometric measurements, gender, age, and ethnic group [33], but also the measurement procedure, used electrodes, and measurement errors [10,33]. However, for many additional factors, such as dietary intake of specific nutrients on the day leading up the day of measurement, the influence so far was not fully analyzed and precisely defined yet.…”

“…However, for many additional factors, such as dietary intake of specific nutrients on the day leading up the day of measurement, the influence so far was not fully analyzed and precisely defined yet. Also, the number of recommendations for the bioelectrical impedance measurement associated with food and drink consumption is limited—they are mainly concerned about the fasting state and the intake of products such as alcoholic beverages, coffee, tea, or chocolate [6,10].…”

Effect of continuous aerobic vs. interval training on selected anthropometrical, physiological and functional parameters of adults with Down syndrome

“…Subjects were in the supine position for exactly 5 min. All procedures were carried out according to the standardised procedures as outlined in Gonzalez-Correa & Caicedo-Eraso (2012). Previous experimental studies also used BIA as a measurement of fat mass and fat-free mass in individuals with ID (Salaun & Berthouze-Aranda 2012;Boer et al 2014) and DS (Mendonca et al 2011).…”