Send to

Choose Destination
J Strength Cond Res. 2018 Jun 20. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000002708. [Epub ahead of print]

Comparison of Multifrequency Bioelectrical Impedance vs. Dual-Energy X-ray Absorptiometry for Assessing Body Composition Changes After Participation in a 10-Week Resistance Training Program.

Author information

Department of Health Science, Lehman College, Bronx, New York.
Department of Professional Programs, Texas A&M International University, Laredo, Texas.
Exercise and Sport Science Department, University of Mary Hardin-Baylor, Belton, Texas.
Weightology, LLC, Issaquah, Washington.
California State University, Northridge, California.
Department of Kinesiology and Sport Management, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas.


Schoenfeld, BJ, Nickerson, BS, Wilborn, CD, Urbina, SL, Hayward, SB, Krieger, J, Aragon, AA, and Tinsley, G. Comparison of multifrequency bioelectrical impedance vs. dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry for assessing body composition changes after participation in a 10-week resistance training program. J Strength Cond Res XX(X): 000-000, 2018-The purpose of this study was to assess the ability of multifrequency bioelectrical impedance analysis (MF-BIA) to determine alterations in total and segmental body composition across a 10-week resistance training (RT) program in comparison with the criterion reference dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA). Twenty-one young male volunteers (mean ± SD; age = 22.9 ± 3.0 years; height = 175.5 ± 5.9 cm; body mass = 82.9 ± 13.6 kg; body mass index = 26.9 ± 3.6) performed an RT program that included exercises for all major muscle groups. Body composition was assessed using both methods before and after the intervention; change scores were determined by subtracting pre-test values from post-test values for percent body fat ([INCREMENT]%BF), fat mass ([INCREMENT]FM), and fat-free mass ([INCREMENT]FFM). Mean changes were not significantly different when comparing MF-BIA with DXA for [INCREMENT]%BF (-1.05 vs. -1.28%), [INCREMENT]FM (-1.13 vs. -1.19 kg), and FFM (0.10 vs. 0.37 kg, respectively). Both methods showed strong agreement for [INCREMENT]%BF (r = 0.75; standard error of the estimate [SEE] = 1.15%), [INCREMENT]FM (r = 0.84; SEE 1.0 kg), and [INCREMENT]FFM (r = 0.71; SEE of 1.5 kg). The 2 methods were poor predictors of each other in regards to changes in segmental measurements. Our data indicate that MF-BIA is an acceptable alternative for tracking changes in FM and FFM during a combined diet and exercise program in young, athletic men, but segmental lean mass measurements must be interpreted with circumspection.

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Wolters Kluwer
Loading ...
Support Center