Abstract:Background & aims: Bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) for body composition estimation is increasingly used in clinical and field settings to guide nutrition and training programs. Due to variations among BIA devices and the proprietary prediction equations used, studies have recommended the use of raw measures of resistance (R) and reactance (Xc) within population-specific equations to predict body composition. Objective: We compared raw measures from three BIA devices to assess inter-device variation and the impact of differences on body composition estimations. Methods: Raw R, Xc, impedance (Z) parameters were measured on a calibrated phantom and athletes using tetrapolar supine (BIASUP4), octapolar supine (BIASUP8), and octapolar standing (BIASTA8) devices. Measures of R and Xc were compared across devices and graphed using BIA vector analysis (BIVA) and raw parameters were entered into recommended athlete-specific equations for predicting fat-free mass (FFM) and appendicular lean soft tissue (ALST). Whole-body FFM and regional ALST were compared across devices and to a criterion five-compartment (5C) model and dual energy X-ray absorptiometry for ALST. Results: Data from 73 (23.2 ± 4.8 y) athletes were included in the analyses. Technical differences were observed between Z (range 12.2-50.1Ω) measures on the calibrated phantom. Differences in whole-body impedance were apparent due to posture (technological) and electrode placement (biological) factors. This resulted in raw measures for all three devices showing greater dehydration on BIVA compared to published norms for athletes using a separate BIA device. Compared to the 5C FFM, significant differences (p < 0.05) were observed on all three equations for BIASUP8 and BIASTA8, with constant error (CE) from -2.7 to -4.6 kg; no difference was observed for BIASUP4 or when device-specific algorithms were used. Published equations resulted in differences as large as 8.8 kg FFM among BIA devices. For ALST, even after a correction in the error of the published empirical equation, all three devices showed significant (p < 0.01) CE from -1.6 to -2.9 kg. Conclusions: Raw bioimpedance measurements differ among devices due to technical, technological, and biological factors, limiting interchangeability of data across BIA systems. Professionals should be aware of these factors when purchasing systems, comparing data to published reference ranges, or when applying published empirical body composition prediction equations.

A comparison of series and parallel reactance to identify changes in intracellular water in response to physical training during a sports season in athletes

Bioimpedance Vector Patterns Changes in Response to Swimming Training: An Ecological Approach

Body Water Content and Morphological Characteristics Modify Bioimpedance Vector Patterns in Volleyball, Soccer, and Rugby Players

Bioelectrical impedance analysis versus reference methods in the assessment of body composition in athletes

Sprint and jump performance are determined by localized BIA - an ecological study in track and field adolescent athletes

[Bioimpedance analysis of body composition and rest energy expenditure in highly trained cross-country skiers]

Bioelectrical Impedance Vector Analysis (BIVA) for Assessment of Hydration Status: A Comparison between Endurance and Strength University Athletes

Assessment of Body Composition in Athletes: A Narrative Review of Available Methods with Special Reference to Quantitative and Qualitative Bioimpedance Analysis

Impedance Spectroscopy Measures of Whole and Segmental Skeletal Muscle Quantity Associated With Strength and Power in Collegiate Ice Hockey Players

Bioimpedance spectrometry in the determination of body water compartments: accuracy and clinical significance

Whole body and regional phase angle as indicators of muscular performance in athletes

Use of phase angle as an indicator of overtraining in sport and physical training

Comparison between Measured and Predicted Resting Metabolic Rate Equations in Cross-Training Practitioners

Acute Fluid Intake Impacts Assessment of Body Composition via Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis. A Randomized, Controlled Crossover Pilot Trial

Single- and multifrequency models for bioelectrical impedance analysis of body water compartments

Effects of post-exercise cold-water immersion on performance and perceptive outcomes of competitive adolescent swimmers

Variations in bioelectrical impedance devices impact raw measures comparisons and subsequent prediction of body composition using recommended estimation equations

Assessment of bioimpedance spectroscopy devices: a comparative study and error analysis of gold-plated copper electrodes

Comparison of Bioimpedance Methods for Estimating Total Body Water and Intracellular Water Changes During Hemodialysis

Analysis of Velocity, Power and Skin Temperature in Paralympic Powerlifting Athletes with Fixed and Variable Resistance

The evolution of bioimpedance analysis: From traditional methods to wearable technology