Publish in this journal
Journal Information
Vol. 56. Issue 211. (In progress)
(July - September 2021)
Share
Share
More article options
ePub
Vol. 56. Issue 211. (In progress)
(July - September 2021)
Original Article
DOI: 10.1016/j.apunsm.2021.100360
Muscle mass index estimated by anthropometry vs bioelectrical impedance: Study in athletes competing by weight categories
Visits
...
Alicia S. Canda
Agencia Española de Protección de la salud en el Deporte (AEPSAD), Madrid, Spain
Article information
Abstract
Full Text
Bibliography
Statistics
Figures (2)
Tables (4)
Table 1. Distribution by weight categories.
Table 2. Anthropometric characteristics (mean ± SD).
Table 3. Bioimpedance analysis (mean ± SD).
Table 4. Most representative variables of the 10 athletes included in the longitudinal study.
Show moreShow less
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.

Keywords:
Muscle mass
Anthropometry
Bioelectrical impedance analysis

Article

These are the options to access the full texts of the publication Apunts Sports Medicine
Subscriber
Subscriber

If you already have your login data, please click here .

If you have forgotten your password you can you can recover it by clicking here and selecting the option “I have forgotten my password”
Subscribe
Subscribe to

Apunts Sports Medicine

Contact
Phone for subscriptions and reporting of errors
From Monday to Friday from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. (GMT + 1) except for the months of July and August which will be from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m.
Calls from Spain
932 415 960
Calls from outside Spain
+34 932 415 960
Email
Apunts Sports Medicine

Subscribe to our newsletter

Article options
Tools

Are you a health professional able to prescribe or dispense drugs?