Cargando…
Assessment Methods of Body Fat in Recreational Marathon Runners: Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis versus Skinfold Thickness
The aim of the present study was to examine (a) the relationship of body fat (BF) assessed by bioimpedance analysis (BIA) and skinfold thickness (SKF) and (b) the variation of BF by age depending on the assessment method. Participants were 32 women and 134 men recreational marathon runners, who were...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Hindawi
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8494552/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34631880 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2021/3717562 |
_version_ | 1784579334399328256 |
---|---|
author | Nikolaidis, Pantelis T. Vancini, Rodrigo Luiz Andrade, Marília dos Santos de Lira, Claudio Andre Barbosa Knechtle, Beat |
author_facet | Nikolaidis, Pantelis T. Vancini, Rodrigo Luiz Andrade, Marília dos Santos de Lira, Claudio Andre Barbosa Knechtle, Beat |
author_sort | Nikolaidis, Pantelis T. |
collection | PubMed |
description | The aim of the present study was to examine (a) the relationship of body fat (BF) assessed by bioimpedance analysis (BIA) and skinfold thickness (SKF) and (b) the variation of BF by age depending on the assessment method. Participants were 32 women and 134 men recreational marathon runners, who were tested for BF using both assessment methods (BIA and SKF). Rc between BIA and SKF assessment methods was 0.803 (95% CI; 0.640, 0.897) in women and 0.568 (95% CI; 0.481, 0.644) in men. A large main effect of the assessment method on BF was observed (p < 0.001, η(2) = 0.156) with SKF presenting higher BF than BIA by 2.9%. The difference between SKF and BIA was 3.9 ± 2.7% (95% confidence intervals, CI; 3.4; 4.3, p < 0.001) in men, whereas no difference was found in women (−0.9 ± 2.9%; 95% CI; -1.9; -0.2, p = 0.101). BF correlated with age with small magnitude (BIA, r = 0.18, p = 0.036; SKF, r = 0.23, p = 0.007) in men, i.e., the older the age, the higher the BF. A similar trend of moderate magnitude was observed in women for BIA (r = 0.45, p = 0.011), but not for SKF (r = 0.33, p = 0.067). In conclusion, practitioners involved in the training of recreational runners would be advised to consider that BIA elicits a lower BF value than the SKF method in men. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8494552 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | Hindawi |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-84945522021-10-07 Assessment Methods of Body Fat in Recreational Marathon Runners: Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis versus Skinfold Thickness Nikolaidis, Pantelis T. Vancini, Rodrigo Luiz Andrade, Marília dos Santos de Lira, Claudio Andre Barbosa Knechtle, Beat Biomed Res Int Research Article The aim of the present study was to examine (a) the relationship of body fat (BF) assessed by bioimpedance analysis (BIA) and skinfold thickness (SKF) and (b) the variation of BF by age depending on the assessment method. Participants were 32 women and 134 men recreational marathon runners, who were tested for BF using both assessment methods (BIA and SKF). Rc between BIA and SKF assessment methods was 0.803 (95% CI; 0.640, 0.897) in women and 0.568 (95% CI; 0.481, 0.644) in men. A large main effect of the assessment method on BF was observed (p < 0.001, η(2) = 0.156) with SKF presenting higher BF than BIA by 2.9%. The difference between SKF and BIA was 3.9 ± 2.7% (95% confidence intervals, CI; 3.4; 4.3, p < 0.001) in men, whereas no difference was found in women (−0.9 ± 2.9%; 95% CI; -1.9; -0.2, p = 0.101). BF correlated with age with small magnitude (BIA, r = 0.18, p = 0.036; SKF, r = 0.23, p = 0.007) in men, i.e., the older the age, the higher the BF. A similar trend of moderate magnitude was observed in women for BIA (r = 0.45, p = 0.011), but not for SKF (r = 0.33, p = 0.067). In conclusion, practitioners involved in the training of recreational runners would be advised to consider that BIA elicits a lower BF value than the SKF method in men. Hindawi 2021-09-29 /pmc/articles/PMC8494552/ /pubmed/34631880 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2021/3717562 Text en Copyright © 2021 Pantelis T. Nikolaidis et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Nikolaidis, Pantelis T. Vancini, Rodrigo Luiz Andrade, Marília dos Santos de Lira, Claudio Andre Barbosa Knechtle, Beat Assessment Methods of Body Fat in Recreational Marathon Runners: Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis versus Skinfold Thickness |
title | Assessment Methods of Body Fat in Recreational Marathon Runners: Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis versus Skinfold Thickness |
title_full | Assessment Methods of Body Fat in Recreational Marathon Runners: Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis versus Skinfold Thickness |
title_fullStr | Assessment Methods of Body Fat in Recreational Marathon Runners: Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis versus Skinfold Thickness |
title_full_unstemmed | Assessment Methods of Body Fat in Recreational Marathon Runners: Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis versus Skinfold Thickness |
title_short | Assessment Methods of Body Fat in Recreational Marathon Runners: Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis versus Skinfold Thickness |
title_sort | assessment methods of body fat in recreational marathon runners: bioelectrical impedance analysis versus skinfold thickness |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8494552/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34631880 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2021/3717562 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT nikolaidispantelist assessmentmethodsofbodyfatinrecreationalmarathonrunnersbioelectricalimpedanceanalysisversusskinfoldthickness AT vancinirodrigoluiz assessmentmethodsofbodyfatinrecreationalmarathonrunnersbioelectricalimpedanceanalysisversusskinfoldthickness AT andrademariliadossantos assessmentmethodsofbodyfatinrecreationalmarathonrunnersbioelectricalimpedanceanalysisversusskinfoldthickness AT deliraclaudioandrebarbosa assessmentmethodsofbodyfatinrecreationalmarathonrunnersbioelectricalimpedanceanalysisversusskinfoldthickness AT knechtlebeat assessmentmethodsofbodyfatinrecreationalmarathonrunnersbioelectricalimpedanceanalysisversusskinfoldthickness |