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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Nikolaidis, Pantelis T., Vancini, Rodrigo Luiz, Andrade, Marília dos Santos, de Lira, Claudio Andre Barbosa, Knechtle, Beat
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