Utility of multifrequency bioelectrical impedance compared with dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry for assessment of total and regional body composition varies between men and women

Abstract

Multifrequency bioelectrical impedance analysis of body composition may be an appropriate alternative to dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry. We hypothesized that there would be no significant differences between dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry and either the Biospace (Los Angeles, CA, USA) InBody 520 or 720 multifrequency bioelectrical impedance analysis devices for total lean body mass (LBM), appendicular lean mass (ALM), trunk lean mass (TM), and total fat mass (FM) in 25 men and 25 women (including lean, healthy, and obese individuals according to body mass index), age 18 to 49 years, weight of 73.6 ± 15.4 kg. Both devices overestimated LBM in women (~2.5 kg, P < .001) and underestimated ALM in men (~3.0 kg, P < .05) and women (~1.0 kg, P < .05). The 720 overestimated FM in men (1.6 kg, P < .05) and underestimated TM in women (0.6 kg, P ≤ .05). Regression analyses in men revealed R² (0.87-0.91), standard error of the estimate (SEE; 2.3-2.8 kg), and limits of agreement (LOAs; 4.5-5.7 kg) for LBM; R(2) (0.62-0.87), SEE (1.5-2.6 kg), and LOA (3.2-6.0 kg) for ALM; R² (0.52-0.71), SEE (2.4-3.0 kg), and LOA (4.6-6.1 kg) for TM; and R(2) (0.87-0.93), SEE (1.9-2.6 kg), and LOA (5.9-6.2 kg) for FM. Regression analyses in women revealed R² (0.87-0.88), SEE (1.8-1.9 kg), and LOA (4.1-4.2 kg) for LBM; R² (0.78-0.79), SEE (1.4-1.5 kg), and LOA (2.7-2.9 kg) for ALM; R² (0.76-0.77), SEE (1.0 kg), and LOA (2.2-2.3 kg) for TM; and R² (0.95), SEE (2.2 kg), and LOA (4.3-4.4 kg) for FM. The InBody 520 and 720 are valid estimators of LBM and FM in men and of LBM, ALM, and FM in women; the 720 and 520 are valid estimators of TM in men and women, respectively.