Back to all available

Comparison of air displacement plethysmography and octopolar multifrequency bioelectrical impedance analysis in NCAA Division I male lacrosse athletes

nutrition
sports-medicine

Abstract

Background. Body composition is an important determinant of general health and, in athletes, is often associated with sports performance and injury risk. The purpose of this investigation was to compare body composition measurements gathered through octopolar multifrequency bioelectrical impedance analysis (O-MF-BIA) and air displacement plethysmography (ADP) in Division I lacrosse athletes.
Methods. Fifty-four male lacrosse players underwent body composition testing using O-MF-BIA and ADP during preseason. Measures of percent body fat (PBF), total fat mass (FM), and total fat-free mass (FFM) were collected using both devices.
Results. There was no statistical difference between O-MF-BIA and ADP for mean values of FFM (M = 0.365 kgs., p = .164), FM (M = -0.204 kgs., p = .291), and PBF (M = -0.222%., p = .302). There was a statistically significant, strong correlation between the O-MF-BIA and ADP for FFM (r(52) = .92, p < .001), FM (r(52) = .75, p < .001) and PBF (r(52) = .70, p < .001). Limits of agreement (LOA) between O-MF-BIA and ADP were determined using Bland-Altman plots for FFM (LOA 5.675 to – 4.946), FM (LOA 5.092 to –5.499), and PBF (LOA 5.899 to –6.343).
Conclusion. Body composition measurements obtained by O-MF-BIA and ADP were similar; however, the wide LOA indicates caution should be used when using the devices interchangeably.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.
  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].