Cited by 9Body Composition Measurement TechniquesSports Performance and TrainingElectrical and Bioimpedance Tomography

Comparison of generalized and athletic bioimpedance-based predictive equations for estimating fat-free mass in resistance-trained exercisers

Campa, Francesco, Matias, Catarina N., Teixeira, Filipe J., Reis, Joana F., Valamatos, Maria J., Coratella, Giuseppe, Monteiro, Cristina P.·2022·Nutrition

Abstract

Objectives This study aimed to test whether athlete-specific, bioelectrical, impedance-based equations to estimate fat-free mass (FFM) could be more accurate than generalized equations when testing resistance-trained exercisers.Methods A total of 50 resistance-trained men (age 30.9 ± 7.4 y; body mass index: 25.3 ± 2.2 kg/m 2) and 20 men from the general population (age 29.9 ± 9.1 y; body mass index: 22.8 ± 2.4 kg/m 2) underwent bioelectrical impedance and dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) evaluations. FFM was derived by one bioelectrical impedance-based equation specific for athletes and three generalized equations, all developed with foot-to-hand bioimpedance technologies at a 50 kHz frequency. DXA was the reference method for the FFM assessment.Results Compared with DXA, when assessing the resistance-trained participants, the athletic-specific equation had neither mean (-0.89 kg; P = 0.789) or proportional bias (r = -0.104; P = 0.474) with a coefficient of determination equal to R 2 = 0.91. In contrast, the three generalized predictive equations overestimated FFM (range, 4.11-5.37 kg; P < 0.05) with R 2 ranging from 0.84 to 0.90. The athletic-specific equation underestimated FFM in the general population participants (-2.93 kg; P < 0.05).Conclusions When assessing body composition in resistance-trained exercisers, specific equations for athletes should be preferred to generalized ones to avoid an overestimation in FFM. Furthermore, athlete-specific and generalized formulas cannot be used interchangeably, even when assessing body composition in the general population.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.nut.2022.111694

Cites

36 of 36 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Campa, F., Matias, C. N., Teixeira, F. J., Reis, J. F., Valamatos, M. J., Coratella, G., & Monteiro, C. P.
Affiliations
  • University of Bologna (IT)
  • Centro de Investigação em Desporto Educação Física Exercício e Saúde (PT)
  • University of Lisbon (PT)
  • University of Milan (IT)
Corresponding author
Coratella, Giuseppe
Venue
Nutrition
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2022-10
Volume
102
Pages
111694
ISSN
0899-9007 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4224291110
Cited by
9
References
36
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3
FWCI
1.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Nutrition (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Padua Research Archive (University of Padova) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Body Composition Measurement Techniques
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Orthopedics and Sports Medicine › Sports Performance and Training
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Electrical and Electronic Engineering › Electrical and Bioimpedance Tomography
Keywords
fat-free mass, bioimpedance, resistance-trained athletes, body composition assessment, dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry
MeSH terms
Adult, Body Composition, Humans, Male, Sports, Reproducibility of Results, Absorptiometry, Photon, Body Mass Index, Electric Impedance, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review