4.7 Article

Total body water changes after an exercise intervention tracked using bioimpedance spectroscopy: A deuterium oxide comparison

Journal

CLINICAL NUTRITION
Volume 28, Issue 5, Pages 516-525

Publisher

CHURCHILL LIVINGSTONE
DOI: 10.1016/j.clnu.2009.04.025

Keywords

Deuterium oxide; Exercise intervention; Body composition; Extracellular water; Overfat; Body fat

Funding

  1. ImpediMed Limited (Queensland, Australia)
  2. Celsius, Inc. (Delray Beach, Florida)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background & aims: Bioimpedance spectroscopy (BIS) for the estimation of total body water (TBW) has advantages over isotope dilution techniques, including cost, portability, and ease of use. The aim of the current study was to determine the validity of a BIS device (Imp (TM) SFB7) for tracking changes in overfat and obese individuals. Methods: Sixty overfat and obese men and women (27 +/- 8 yr, 33.41 +/- 3.81%fat) participated in the study. TBW was estimated using BIS and deuterium oxide (D2O) before and after the ten-week intervention. Results: Pre-and post-intervention BIS TBW estimations errors increased as body mass index (BMI), fat mass (FM), and fat-free mass (FFM) increased (p < 0.05). Delta values were more accurate than pre- and post-TBW estimations (total error = 1.45 L). Age significantly influenced pre- and post-TBW errors (p < 0.05). Therefore, a regression equation was developed to correct for the pre- and post-BIS-estimated TBW errors: D2O TBW = 11.478 + 0.743(BIS TBW)-2.429(Gender), (Men = 1, Women = 2). Conclusions: BIS can be considered an accurate tool for tracking changes in TBW regardless of variations in BMI, FM, FFM, or age in both overfat and obese men and women (BMI > 24). Employing a BIS TBW equation is suggested over the development of resistivity coefficients based on BMI, FM, FFM or age. (C) 2009 Elsevier Ltd and European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available