Cited by 59Body Composition Measurement TechniquesSports Performance and TrainingMuscle metabolism and nutrition

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

Schoenfeld, Brad J., Nickerson, Brett S., Wilborn, Colin D., Urbina, Stacie L., Hayward, Sara B., Krieger, James, Aragon, Alan A., Tinsley, Grant M.·2020·Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Abstract

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 34(3): 678–688, 2020—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 (∆%BF), fat mass (∆FM), and fat-free mass (∆FFM). Mean changes were not significantly different when comparing MF-BIA with DXA for ∆%BF (−1.05 vs. −1.28%), ∆FM (−1.13 vs. −1.19 kg), and FFM (0.10 vs. 0.37 kg, respectively). Both methods showed strong agreement for ∆%BF ( r = 0.75; standard error of the estimate [SEE] = 1.15%), ∆FM ( r = 0.84; SEE 1.0 kg), and ∆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.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1519/jsc.0000000000002708

Cites

37 of 37 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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

1 of the 38 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Schoenfeld, B. J., Nickerson, B. S., Wilborn, C. D., Urbina, S. L., Hayward, S. B., Krieger, J., Aragon, A. A., & Tinsley, G. M.
Affiliations
  • Lehman College (US)
  • Texas A&M International University (US)
  • University of Mary Hardin–Baylor (US)
  • Weightology, LLC, Issaquah, Washington;
  • California State University, Northridge (US)
  • Texas Tech University (US)
Corresponding author
Schoenfeld, Brad J.
Venue
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Published
2020-03
Volume
34
Issue
3
Pages
678-688
ISSN
1064-8011 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2809256024
Cited by
59
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 2
FWCI
3.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Body Composition Measurement Techniques
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Orthopedics and Sports Medicine › Sports Performance and Training
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cell Biology › Muscle metabolism and nutrition
Keywords
multifrequency bioelectrical impedance analysis, dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry, body composition assessment, resistance training, fat-free mass, fat mass, body fat percentage, measurement agreement, young men, diet and exercise intervention, measurement error correlation, measurement error covariance, measurement error variance, measurement error bias
MeSH terms
Adult, Body Composition, Exercise Therapy, Humans, Male, Sports, Absorptiometry, Photon, Body Mass Index, Electric Impedance, Adiposity, Resistance Training, 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