Comparison of mono- and multifrequency BIA devices in the assessment of hydration status in elite athletes.
•
1 like•575 views
Zubero J., Irurtia A., Chaverri D., Barrero A., Nebot V., Štrumbelj B., Qiu J., Iglesias X., Rodríguez F.A. Comparison of mono- and multifrequency BIA devices in the assessment of hydration status in elite athletes. In: Balagué N., Torrents C., Vilanova A., Cadefau J., Tarragó R., Tsolakidis E. (eds.) Book of Abstracts of the 18th Annual Congress of the European College of Sport Science, p. 540. Barcelona: Open Print (ISBN 978-84-695-7786-8), 2013
![Aim
Hydration status assessment can be a useful tool for monitoring training,
nutrition and environmental health-related factors. Bioelectrical impedance
analysis (BIA) is an easy non-invasive method for clinical and field studies
(Armstrong, 2007).
BIA device comparisons typically conclude that they are accurate (Wang et
al., 2013), but it seems to fail in some studies on athletic and non-athletic
populations (Moon, 2013).
We compared two (mono- and multi-frequency) BIA devices in the
assessment of total body water content (TBW) in a large group of
male and female elite swimmers.
Methods
Subjects. 48 well-trained elite swimmers participated (Table 1).
TBW estimation. Measures were taken at rest, during the same session,
according to the manufacturers’ instructions, first thing in the morning and
at fasting state. Two BIA devices were used:
MONO: a foot-to-foot mono-frequency (50 Hz) BIA device (Tanita BC-
420MA, Japan)
MULTI: a multi-frequency wrist-to-ankle device (Z-Metrix®, BioparHom Co,
France)
Statistics. Mean, SD and typical error of measurement (TEM) were
calculated. TBW estimates were compared and inter-method agreement
was assessed by two-tailed paired t-test, Pearson’a correlation (r), and
Bland-Altman plot analysis.
COMPARISON OF MONO- AND MULTIFREQUENCY BIA DEVICES IN THE ASSESSMENT OF HYDRATION STATUS IN ELITE ATHLETES
Zubero J. 1,2, Irurtia F. 1, Chaverri D.1, Barrero A.1, Nebot V.3, Štrumbel, B.4, Qiu, J.5, Iglesias X.1, Rodríguez FA.1
1 GRCE, Institut Nacional d’Educació Física de Catalunya, Universitat de Barcelona (Spain), 2 Nursing Dep. II, UPV/ EHU University of the Basque Country (Donostia, Spain)
3 Universitat de València (Spain), 4 University of Ljubljana (Slovenia) , 5 Shanghai Institute of Sports Science (China)
Results
A summary is presented in Table 1.
TBW measured by MULTI was greater than by MONO in all subjects.
TBW estimates by both methods were highly correlated in all subjects
(r=0.87) and in males (r=0.86), but moderately in females (r=0.61)
(p≤0.001).
Discussion
Both BIA methods were not in good agreement in estimating TBW
content. The multi-frequency impedanciometer systematically measured
greater TBW values, particularly in males.
More important, measured values were highly correlated in males but not
so in females.
Even if none of the two devices can be considered a ‘gold standard’, it
seems reasonable to assume that the multi-frequency device would
provide more valid estimations of TBW content because of its more
advanced technical design and fewer sources of error (e.g. electrode vs.
foot plant).
Conclusion
•A considerable discrepancy was found between both BIA devices,
their results not being comparable, particularly in females
•Adequate validation studies are warranted before BIA can be
considered a valid tool in monitoring athletes’ hydration status
References
Armstrong LE (2007). J Am Coll Nutr, 25(5 suppl.), 575-584S.
Moon JR (2013), Eur J Cli Nutr, 67 (Suppl1), S54-59.
Wang JG, Zhang Y, Chen HE, Li Y, Chen XG, Xu L, Guo Z, Zhao XS, et
al. (2013), J Strength Cond Res 27(1): 236-243.
Table 1. Subjects characteristics (mean±SD).
n Age (yr) Height (cm) Mass (kg) BMI (kg·m-2)
Female 25 21,0 ± 3,8 173,3 ± 5,6 62,9 ± 4,7 20,9 ± 0,8
Male 23 23,0 ± 3,6 186,3 ± 5,6 79,3 ± 6,6 22,8 ± 1,3
Table 1. TBW content (L) measured by MONO and MULTI
n MONO MULTI % Difference TEM
Female 25 35.4 ± 2.8 41.8 ± 5.4** 18.0 1.1
Male 23 50.3 ± 3.8 53.5 ± 7.9* 6.4 1.6
* p=0.006, ** p<0.001
Mean difference : -4,81 [ -5,96 to -3,65 ]
Difference plot N = 47
30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65
Mean
-30
-20
-10
0
10 Difference
Figure 1. Bland-Altman difference plot between TBW as estimated by
MULTI (reference method) and MONO
jaimezuberolinaza@gmail.com]()
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Similar to Comparison of mono- and multifrequency BIA devices in the assessment of hydration status in elite athletes.
Similar to Comparison of mono- and multifrequency BIA devices in the assessment of hydration status in elite athletes. (20)
More from Sports Sciences Research Group INEFC Barcelona
More from Sports Sciences Research Group INEFC Barcelona (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Comparison of mono- and multifrequency BIA devices in the assessment of hydration status in elite athletes.
- 1. Zubero J., Irurtia A., Chaverri D., Barrero A., Nebot V., Štrumbelj B., Qiu J., Iglesias X., Rodríguez F.A. Comparison of mono- and multifrequency BIA devices in the assessment of hydration status in elite athletes. In: Balagué N., Torrents C., Vilanova A., Cadefau J., Tarragó R., Tsolakidis E. (eds.) Book of Abstracts of the 18th Annual Congress of the European College of Sport Science, p. 540. Barcelona: Open Print (ISBN 978-84-695-7786-8), 2013 xiglesias@gmail.com Sport Sciences Research Group INEFC Barcelona Grup de Recerca en Ciències de l'Esport INEFC Barcelona Grup Consolidat (SGR 2014–1665 GRC) Institut Nacional d’Educació Física de Catalunya Av. de l’Estadi, 12-22 08038 Barcelona (Spain) +34 93 425 54 45 http://inefcresearch.wordpress.com/ http://www.slideshare.net/ResearchINEFC gruprecercainefc@gmail.com @Recerca_INEFC
- 2. Aim Hydration status assessment can be a useful tool for monitoring training, nutrition and environmental health-related factors. Bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) is an easy non-invasive method for clinical and field studies (Armstrong, 2007). BIA device comparisons typically conclude that they are accurate (Wang et al., 2013), but it seems to fail in some studies on athletic and non-athletic populations (Moon, 2013). We compared two (mono- and multi-frequency) BIA devices in the assessment of total body water content (TBW) in a large group of male and female elite swimmers. Methods Subjects. 48 well-trained elite swimmers participated (Table 1). TBW estimation. Measures were taken at rest, during the same session, according to the manufacturers’ instructions, first thing in the morning and at fasting state. Two BIA devices were used: MONO: a foot-to-foot mono-frequency (50 Hz) BIA device (Tanita BC- 420MA, Japan) MULTI: a multi-frequency wrist-to-ankle device (Z-Metrix®, BioparHom Co, France) Statistics. Mean, SD and typical error of measurement (TEM) were calculated. TBW estimates were compared and inter-method agreement was assessed by two-tailed paired t-test, Pearson’a correlation (r), and Bland-Altman plot analysis. COMPARISON OF MONO- AND MULTIFREQUENCY BIA DEVICES IN THE ASSESSMENT OF HYDRATION STATUS IN ELITE ATHLETES Zubero J. 1,2, Irurtia F. 1, Chaverri D.1, Barrero A.1, Nebot V.3, Štrumbel, B.4, Qiu, J.5, Iglesias X.1, Rodríguez FA.1 1 GRCE, Institut Nacional d’Educació Física de Catalunya, Universitat de Barcelona (Spain), 2 Nursing Dep. II, UPV/ EHU University of the Basque Country (Donostia, Spain) 3 Universitat de València (Spain), 4 University of Ljubljana (Slovenia) , 5 Shanghai Institute of Sports Science (China) Results A summary is presented in Table 1. TBW measured by MULTI was greater than by MONO in all subjects. TBW estimates by both methods were highly correlated in all subjects (r=0.87) and in males (r=0.86), but moderately in females (r=0.61) (p≤0.001). Discussion Both BIA methods were not in good agreement in estimating TBW content. The multi-frequency impedanciometer systematically measured greater TBW values, particularly in males. More important, measured values were highly correlated in males but not so in females. Even if none of the two devices can be considered a ‘gold standard’, it seems reasonable to assume that the multi-frequency device would provide more valid estimations of TBW content because of its more advanced technical design and fewer sources of error (e.g. electrode vs. foot plant). Conclusion •A considerable discrepancy was found between both BIA devices, their results not being comparable, particularly in females •Adequate validation studies are warranted before BIA can be considered a valid tool in monitoring athletes’ hydration status References Armstrong LE (2007). J Am Coll Nutr, 25(5 suppl.), 575-584S. Moon JR (2013), Eur J Cli Nutr, 67 (Suppl1), S54-59. Wang JG, Zhang Y, Chen HE, Li Y, Chen XG, Xu L, Guo Z, Zhao XS, et al. (2013), J Strength Cond Res 27(1): 236-243. Table 1. Subjects characteristics (mean±SD). n Age (yr) Height (cm) Mass (kg) BMI (kg·m-2) Female 25 21,0 ± 3,8 173,3 ± 5,6 62,9 ± 4,7 20,9 ± 0,8 Male 23 23,0 ± 3,6 186,3 ± 5,6 79,3 ± 6,6 22,8 ± 1,3 Table 1. TBW content (L) measured by MONO and MULTI n MONO MULTI % Difference TEM Female 25 35.4 ± 2.8 41.8 ± 5.4** 18.0 1.1 Male 23 50.3 ± 3.8 53.5 ± 7.9* 6.4 1.6 * p=0.006, ** p<0.001 Mean difference : -4,81 [ -5,96 to -3,65 ] Difference plot N = 47 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 Mean -30 -20 -10 0 10 Difference Figure 1. Bland-Altman difference plot between TBW as estimated by MULTI (reference method) and MONO jaimezuberolinaza@gmail.com