The Influence Of Posture On Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis In Adults

PURPOSE: To examine whether pre-testing posture influences percent body fat measurements determined by bioelectrical impedance analysis. METHODS: One-hundred thirty-one adults (67 females; 64 males) volunteered to participate in this study (age = 21.6 ± 3.5 years; body mass index = 25.4 ± 4.7 kg/m2). Body mass and percent body fat (%BF) were measured using leg-to-leg bioelectrical impedance analysis (LBIA; Tanita 300-A), segmental bioelectrical impedance analysis (SBIA; Tanita BC-418) and multifrequency bioelectrical impedance analysis (MFBIA; InBody 770) during two separate conditions (seated and standing) within a 7-day period. After an initial baseline measurement of body mass and %BF on each device, subjects were instructed to sit or stand for 15 minutes. Additional body composition measurements were recorded, in the standing position, at the 5 and 15-minute timepoints of each experimental trial. Body mass and %BF data from the three devices was assessed using two-way repeated measures ANOVA with Bonferroni-adjusted post-hoc tests. Alpha level was set a priori to p < 0.05. RESULTS: Body mass was not influenced by posture for either condition (seated or standing) or across any BIA device. Standing significantly (p < 0.05) reduced SBIA %BF at the 5-minute (23.4 ± 9.1%) and 15-minute (23.2 ± 9.0%) timepoints when compared to baseline (23.7 ± 9.1%). LBIA measured %BF was also significantly reduced after 5-minutes of standing when compared to baseline (24.3 ± 8.6% vs. 24.6 ± 8.6%; p < 0.05). No differences were observed in MFBIA assessed %BF during the standing condition. In addition, no differences were observed during the seated condition for any of the bioelectric impedance analyzers over time. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings demonstrate that prolonged standing (up to 15 minutes) prior to body composition assessment reduces %BF values when using LBIA and SBIA technology. However, the magnitude of change was relatively small (≤ 0.5%BF) and therefore expected to have little practical significance when making health recommendations.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise
Published
2024-09-16
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1249/01.mss.0001059612.16069.51
Primary Topic
Body Composition Measurement Techniques
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

The Influence Of Posture On Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis In Adults

Joseph L. Andreacci, Anthony Bisignano, Curt B. Dixon, Bailey Corrigan
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise
Body Composition Measurement Techniques
article

The Influence Of Posture On Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis In Adults

Joseph L. Andreacci, Anthony Bisignano, Curt B. Dixon, Bailey Corrigan
article en

Abstract

PURPOSE: To examine whether pre-testing posture influences percent body fat measurements determined by bioelectrical impedance analysis. METHODS: One-hundred thirty-one adults (67 females; 64 males) volunteered to participate in this study (age = 21.6 ± 3.5 years; body mass index = 25.4 ± 4.7 kg/m2). Body mass and percent body fat (%BF) were measured using leg-to-leg bioelectrical impedance analysis (LBIA; Tanita 300-A), segmental bioelectrical impedance analysis (SBIA; Tanita BC-418) and multifrequency bioelectrical impedance analysis (MFBIA; InBody 770) during two separate conditions (seated and standing) within a 7-day period. After an initial baseline measurement of body mass and %BF on each device, subjects were instructed to sit or stand for 15 minutes. Additional body composition measurements were recorded, in the standing position, at the 5 and 15-minute timepoints of each experimental trial. Body mass and %BF data from the three devices was assessed using two-way repeated measures ANOVA with Bonferroni-adjusted post-hoc tests. Alpha level was set a priori to p < 0.05. RESULTS: Body mass was not influenced by posture for either condition (seated or standing) or across any BIA device. Standing significantly (p < 0.05) reduced SBIA %BF at the 5-minute (23.4 ± 9.1%) and 15-minute (23.2 ± 9.0%) timepoints when compared to baseline (23.7 ± 9.1%). LBIA measured %BF was also significantly reduced after 5-minutes of standing when compared to baseline (24.3 ± 8.6% vs. 24.6 ± 8.6%; p < 0.05). No differences were observed in MFBIA assessed %BF during the standing condition. In addition, no differences were observed during the seated condition for any of the bioelectric impedance analyzers over time. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings demonstrate that prolonged standing (up to 15 minutes) prior to body composition assessment reduces %BF values when using LBIA and SBIA technology. However, the magnitude of change was relatively small (≤ 0.5%BF) and therefore expected to have little practical significance when making health recommendations.

Medicine & Science in Sports & ExerciseVol. 56(10S)
Bloomsburg University (US), Lock Haven University (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 78%
Body Composition Measurement Techniques
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.