Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Purpose: The purpose of this investigation was to compare a practical measurement of fat free mass index (FFMI) from bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) to the dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) value in collegiate athletes.
Methods: Thirty-three male baseball players and 16 female gymnasts volunteered to participate in this study during their respective pre-season. Subjects visited the laboratory once and had their measurements taken in the following order: weight, height, DEXA, and Omron HBF-500.
Results: The BIA device investigated was not a valid estimate of FFMI when compared to the DEXA. The TE was 0.93 kg/ m(2) for males and 0.78 kg/ m(2) for females. There were also significant mean differences between the BIA prediction and the DEXA value for males (BIA=20.6 kg/m(2) vs. DEXA=21.1 kg/m(2), P=0.007) and females (BIA=16.2 kg/m(2) vs. DEXA=17.5 kg/m(2), P=0.001).
Conclusions: The BIA device investigated in this study did not provide a valid estimate of FFMI in male and female collegiate athletes. Although there was a general tendency for the BIA to underestimate FFMI compared to DEXA, 98% of the estimates were within plus or minus 2 kg/ m(2). Therefore, while slightly biased, BIA may provide a reasonable (± 2 kg/ m(2)) estimate of nutritional status for practitioners who are unable able to afford more expensive equipment.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3445648 | PMC |
http://dx.doi.org/10.5812/asjsm.34691 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!