Comparación de la composición corporal de mujeres jóvenes obtenida por hidrodensitometría y tres técnicas de bioimpedancia

ABSTRACT: Bioimpedance measurement allows quick and safe estimation of the body composition. However, it remains controversial which bioimpedance measurement technique is more exact for calculating the fat mass percentage (%FM). Objective: To compare the %FM obtained with three bioimpedance techniqu...

Full description

Autores:
Aristizábal Rivera, Juan Carlos
Giraldo García, Argenis
Tipo de recurso:
Article of investigation
Fecha de publicación:
2017
Institución:
Universidad de Antioquia
Repositorio:
Repositorio UdeA
Idioma:
spa
OAI Identifier:
oai:bibliotecadigital.udea.edu.co:10495/11701
Acceso en línea:
http://hdl.handle.net/10495/11701
Palabra clave:
Bioimpedancia de ocho electrodos
Eight Electrodes Bioimpedance
Composición corporal
Body Composition
Hidrodensitometría
Hydrodensitometry
Impedancia bioeléctrica
Bioelectrical Impedance
Masa grasa
Fat Mass
Porcentaje de grasa
Fat Mass Percentage
Rights
openAccess
License
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
Description
Summary:ABSTRACT: Bioimpedance measurement allows quick and safe estimation of the body composition. However, it remains controversial which bioimpedance measurement technique is more exact for calculating the fat mass percentage (%FM). Objective: To compare the %FM obtained with three bioimpedance techniques with hydrodensitometry, as a reference method. Materials and methods: In 31 women, the %FM was assessed by hydrodensitometry with simultaneous lung residual volume measurement and three bioimpedance techniques: hands-to-feet (8-electrodes), hand-to-foot (4-electrodes) and foot-to-foot (4-electrodes). Results: Average age and body mass index were 22.4 ± 2.8 years and 23.6 ± 3.3 kg/m2, respectively. There were no significant differences (p > 0.05) between the %FM obtained by hydrodensitometry (31.4 ± 6.6) and hands-to-feet technique (31.9 ± 5.9). However, hand-to-foot and foot to-foot techniques showed differences (p < 0.05) with the reference method of +1.4 % and -4.9%, respectively. There was a fair agreement between hydrodensitometry and the results obtained with hands-to-feet (Bland-Altman: IC95 %: -6.6; 5.6) and hand-to-foot (Bland-Altman: IC95 %: -8.0; 5.2) techniques. The foot-to-foot measurement showed poor agreement with the reference method (Bland-Altman: IC95 %: -4.7; 14.4). Conclusions: In this group of young women with healthy body weight, the hands-to-feet bioimpedance technique generates body composition values closer to the hydrodensitometry results as compared with the hand-to-foot and foot-to-foot techniques. Additionally, the hands-to-feet technique shows a slightly better agreement with hydrodensitometry than the hand-to-foot and foot-to-foot techniques.