4.2 Article

Importance of Standardized DXA Protocol for Assessing Physique Changes in Athletes

Publisher

HUMAN KINETICS PUBL INC
DOI: 10.1123/ijsnem.2013-0111

Keywords

cold water immersion; body composition; cyclists; reliability; dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: The implications of undertaking DXA scans using best practice protocols (subjects fasted and rested) or a less precise but more practical protocol in assessing chronic changes in body composition following training and a specialized recovery technique were investigated. Methods: Twenty-one male cyclists completed an overload training program, in which they were randomized to four sessions per week of either cold water immersion therapy or control groups. Whole-body DXA scans were undertaken with best practice protocol (Best) or random activity protocol (Random) at baseline, after 3 weeks of overload training, and after a 2-week taper. Magnitudes of changes in total, lean and fat mass from baseline-overload, overload-taper and baseline taper were assessed by standardization (Delta mean/SD). Results: The standard deviations of change scores for total and fat-free soft tissue mass (FFST) from Random scans (2-3%) were approximately double those observed in the Best (1-2%), owing to extra random errors associated with Random scans at baseline. There was little difference in change scores for fat mass. The effect of cold water immersion therapy on baseline-taper changes in FFST was possibly harmful (-0.7%; 90% confidence limits +/- 1.2%) with Best scans but unclear with Random scans (0.9%; +/- 2.0%). Both protocols gave similar possibly harmful effects of cold water immersion therapy on changes in fat mass (6.9%; +/- 13.5% and 5.5%; +/- 14.3%, respectively). Conclusions: An interesting effect of cold water immersion therapy on training-induced changes in body composition might have been missed with a less precise scanning protocol. DXA scans should be undertaken with Best.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available