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.

Bioelectrical impedance changes of the trunk are opposite the limbs following acute hydration change

Influence of Acute Water Ingestion and Prolonged Standing on Raw Bioimpedance and Subsequent Body Fluid and Composition Estimates

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

Evaluating of altered hydration status on effectiveness of body composition analysis using bioelectric impedance analysis

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

Effects of skin blood flow and temperature on bioelectric impedance after exercise

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

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

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

Influence of Bladder Filling on Parameters of Body Composition by Bioimpedance Electrical Analysis: Observational Study

Total body water and percentage fat mass measurements using bioelectrical impedance analysis and anthropometry in spinal cord-injured patients

Sex Differences in Hydration Biomarkers and Test–Retest Reliability Following Passive Dehydration

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

Validity of using direct segmental multi-frequency bioimpedance analysis method for estimating body volume status change in maintenance hemodialysis patients

Bioelectrical impedance analysis during deresuscitation: correlation and agreement with cumulative fluid balance in ICU patients

Utility of Body Weight, Urine Color, and Thirst Perception (WUT) in Determining Hydration in Young Adults

Use of bioelectric impedance analysis (BIA) in children with alterations of body water distribution

BIA-assessed cellular hydration and strength in healthy older adults

Effect of exercise-induced body fluid redistribution on body composition in males using dual energy X-ray absorptiometry

The effects of tissue proportions on blood volume change-induced variations using bio-impedance analysis: a simulation study

Comparison of Bioimpedance and Clinical Methods for Dry Weight Prediction in Maintenance Hemodialysis Patients.