4.5 Article

Validation of a portable bioelectrical impedance analyzer for the assessment of body composition

Publisher

CANADIAN SCIENCE PUBLISHING, NRC RESEARCH PRESS
DOI: 10.1139/apnm-2012-0129

Keywords

Inbody 230; dual X-ray absorptiometry; % body fat; fat free mass

Funding

  1. Canadian Institute of Health Research New Emerging Team in Aging and Mobility
  2. Fond de la Recherche en Sante du Quebec (FRSQ)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

One of the major challenges in field research has been the difficulty to adequately measure body composition, such as % body fat and fat-free mass (FFM). Therefore, the purpose of the present study was to investigate the convergent validity of the portable bioelectrical impedance body composition analyzer, the Inbody 230, with dual X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) (General Electric Lunar Prodigy). The study population consisted of 145 men and women (age, 44.6 +/- 20 years; BMI, 24.5 +/- 3.8 kg.m(-2)). We measured body composition (fat mass, % body fat, total FFM, trunk FFM, and appendicular FFM) using DXA and the Inbody 230. Results show strong significant correlations between both methods for fat mass, % body fat, total FFM, and trunk FFM (r = 0.94-0.99). Furthermore, we showed a modest significant correlation between both methods for appendicular FFM (r = 0.63). Finally, as shown by Bland-Altman analysis, no significant biases were observed between Inbody 230 and DXA for fat mass, % body fat, and total FFM. However, trunk and appendicular FFM were shown to have significant biases between the Inbody 230 and DXA. In conclusion, the present study indicated that the portable Inbody 230 may be an acceptable device to measure fat mass, % body fat, and total FFM (except for women) in healthy adults. In addition, there appears to be a systematic bias for the estimation of trunk and appendicular FFM with the Inbody 230 in men and women.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available