Muscle mass index estimated by anthropometry vs bioelectrical impedance: Study in athletes competing by weight categories

IF 1.1 Q3 SPORT SCIENCES
Alicia S. Canda
{"title":"Muscle mass index estimated by anthropometry vs bioelectrical impedance: Study in athletes competing by weight categories","authors":"Alicia S. Canda","doi":"10.1016/j.apunsm.2021.100360","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p><span>The aim of the study was to compare the muscle mass obtained by anthropometry<span> and bioelectrical impedance, in athletes competing by weight categories. 109 (42 women y 67 men), age 21.4 ± 3.5 years, boxing (32), weightlifting (16), judo (28), karate (12), fighting (14) and taekwondo (7) practitioners were selected. The protocol included nineteen anthropometrics variables and a bioelectrical impedance analysis (akern®), estimating the muscle mass by anthropometry by the Lee's equation (2000) and by bioimpedance by Janssen's equation (2000), calculating the muscle mass index (IMM, kg/m</span></span><sup>2</sup><span>). In ten athletes it was examined whether in a second exploration the changes over time were similar by both techniques. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and the Bland-Altman analysis were applied to assess the concordance. Results: The IMM estimated by Lee vs Janssen, was in the female sample, 9.01 ± 1.01 kg/m</span><sup>2</sup> vs 8.68 ± 1.1 kg/m<sup>2</sup>; and in the male sample, 11.17 ± 1.34 kg/m<sup>2</sup> vs 11.04 ± 1.13 kg/m<sup>2</sup> .The ICC was 0.945 [95%IC; 0.915-0.964]. The difference in the IMM between both techniques was 0.21; with a confidence range of 95% between +1.60 a -1.18. In the longitudinal study, five of the athletes controlled (50%), gave differences in the assessment of their IMM's changes. We concluded that even though in a statistical sense there is a high concordance between both equations being valid for epidemiological studies, the differences found cannot be assumed as interchangeable for the individual assessment of each athlete nor in comparative studies.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":100113,"journal":{"name":"Apunts Sports Medicine","volume":"56 211","pages":"Article 100360"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.apunsm.2021.100360","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Apunts Sports Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S266650692100016X","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SPORT SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

The aim of the study was to compare the muscle mass obtained by anthropometry and bioelectrical impedance, in athletes competing by weight categories. 109 (42 women y 67 men), age 21.4 ± 3.5 years, boxing (32), weightlifting (16), judo (28), karate (12), fighting (14) and taekwondo (7) practitioners were selected. The protocol included nineteen anthropometrics variables and a bioelectrical impedance analysis (akern®), estimating the muscle mass by anthropometry by the Lee's equation (2000) and by bioimpedance by Janssen's equation (2000), calculating the muscle mass index (IMM, kg/m2). In ten athletes it was examined whether in a second exploration the changes over time were similar by both techniques. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and the Bland-Altman analysis were applied to assess the concordance. Results: The IMM estimated by Lee vs Janssen, was in the female sample, 9.01 ± 1.01 kg/m2 vs 8.68 ± 1.1 kg/m2; and in the male sample, 11.17 ± 1.34 kg/m2 vs 11.04 ± 1.13 kg/m2 .The ICC was 0.945 [95%IC; 0.915-0.964]. The difference in the IMM between both techniques was 0.21; with a confidence range of 95% between +1.60 a -1.18. In the longitudinal study, five of the athletes controlled (50%), gave differences in the assessment of their IMM's changes. We concluded that even though in a statistical sense there is a high concordance between both equations being valid for epidemiological studies, the differences found cannot be assumed as interchangeable for the individual assessment of each athlete nor in comparative studies.

用人体测量法估计肌肉质量指数与生物电阻抗:按体重类别比赛的运动员的研究
这项研究的目的是比较通过人体测量和生物电阻抗获得的肌肉质量,在按体重类别比赛的运动员中。109人(女42人,男67人),年龄21.4±3.5岁,拳击32人,举重16人,柔道28人,空手道12人,格斗14人,跆拳道7人。该方案包括19个人体测量变量和生物电阻抗分析(akern®),通过Lee’s方程(2000)和Janssen’s方程(2000)通过生物阻抗估计肌肉质量,计算肌肉质量指数(IMM, kg/m2)。在10名运动员中,研究人员检查了在第二次探索中,两种技术的变化是否相似。采用类内相关系数(ICC)和Bland-Altman分析评价一致性。结果:Lee和Janssen估算的女性IMM分别为9.01±1.01 kg/m2和8.68±1.1 kg/m2;男性为11.17±1.34 kg/m2 vs 11.04±1.13 kg/m2, ICC为0.945 [95%IC];0.915 - -0.964)。两种方法的IMM差异为0.21;95%的置信范围在+1.60到-1.18之间。在纵向研究中,对照的5名运动员(50%)在评估其IMM变化时给出了差异。我们得出的结论是,尽管在统计意义上,这两个方程在流行病学研究中具有高度的一致性,但所发现的差异不能被假设为每个运动员的个人评估或比较研究中的可互换。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信