Comparison of bioelectrical impedance analysis and anthropometry for body composition monitoring in athletes: a comprehensive longitudinal assessment of agreement and dynamics

Abstract

Introduction. The degree of comparability of body composition assessment results using bioimpedance analysis and anthropometry, their combined use, and their interchangeability remain controversial. The aim of this study was to evaluate the relationships, level of bias, and consistency of time courses of body composition indices obtained repeatedly using bioimpedance analysis and anthropometry in elite athletes.

Materials and Methods. Study participants included 18 athletes (12 males, 6 females) aged 19–23 years, specializing in fire and rescue sports. The following were used: an ABC-01 Medass body water sector analyzer (Russia); an anthropometer, medical scales, a measuring tape, and a Lange caliper (Cambridge, Maryland). Muscle and fat mass were calculated using the ABC-03612 basic body composition assessment program and the Matiegka scheme (1921). Five repeated measurements were taken at intervals of 35–40 days; absolute and relative muscle and fat mass were estimated. The paired Wilcoxon test, Spearman's rank coefficients, intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC2), Bland–Altman analysis for levels and interassay changes, and linear mixed-effects models (LMM) were used.

Results and discussion. In the athlete group, BIA muscle mass values were systematically lower and fat mass values were systematically higher compared to anthropometric results. Differences were significant at all points (p = 0.002 in male, p = 0.028 in female). A strong correlation (0.63–0.93) was found between absolute values; ICC2, which takes into account systematic bias and intermethod variance, was significantly lower (0.05–0.65). Proportional and significant systematic bias was found for most parameters. The methods consistently reflect group time trends; their interchangeability is limited in individual longitudinal monitoring.

Conclusion. The results highlight the need to assess intermethod agreement by taking into account intermethod bias, its robustness, the possible proportional component, and differences between group and individual levels of analysis.

Funding. The study was carried out within the framework of the state assignment of the Federal Scientific Center of Physical Culture No. 777-00021-26 (topic No. 001-25/3).

References

Abramova T.F., Nikitina T.M., Kochetkova N.I. 2013. Labile components of body mass as criteria of general physical fitness and control of current and long-term adaptation to training loads: Methodological guidelines. Moscow: Skyprint. 132 p. (In Russ.)

Abreu B., Henriques R., Figueiredo J. P. & Loureiro, H.. Body Composition Assessment of University Athletes: Comparison Between the Data Obtained by Bioelectrical Impedance and by Anthropometry. International Journal of Kinanthropometry, 2022, 2 (2),
pp. 1–12. https://doi.org/10.34256/ijk2221

Ackland T.R., Lohman T.G., Sundgot-Borgen J. et al. Current status of body composition assessment in sport: review and position statement on behalf of the ad hoc research working group on body composition health and performance, under the auspices of the I.O.C. Medical Commission. Sports Med., 2012, 42 (3), pp. 227–249. https://doi.org/10.2165/11597140-000000000-00000

Baglietto N., Vaquero-Cristóbal R., Albaladejo-Saura M., Mecherques-Carini M. and Esparza-Ros F. Assessing skeletal muscle mass and lean body mass: an analysis of the agreement among dual X-ray absorptiometry, anthropometry, and bioelectrical impedance. Front. Nutr., 2024, 11, 1445892. https://doi.org/ 10.3389/fnut.2024.1445892

Foote D.M., Berkelhammer M., Marone J., Horswill C.A. Combining Anthropometry and Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis to Predict Body Fat in Female Athletes. Journal of Athletic Training, 2022, 57 (4), pp. 393-401. https://doi.org/10.4085/1062-6050-0747.20

Fügedi B., Szakály Z., Suszter L. Comparison of the results of bioelectric impedance analysis (BIA) and the anthropometry (Drinkwater-Ross & Parizkova) method in young elite athletes. Journal of Physical Education and Sport, 2023, 23 (1), pp. 247–254. https://doi.org/10.7752/jpes.2023.01030

Knechtle B., Wirth A., Knechtle P., Rosemann T., Rüst C.A., Bescós R. A comparison of fat mass and skeletal muscle mass estimation in male ultra-endurance athletes using bioelectrical impedance analysis and different anthropometric methods. Nutrición Hospitalaria. 2011, 26 (6), pp. 1420–1427. https://doi.org/ 10.1590/S0212-16112011000600032

Lee R.C., Wang Z., Heo M., Ross R., Janssen I., Heymsfield S.B. Total-body skeletal muscle mass: development and cross-validation of anthropometric prediction models. Am. J. Clin. Nutr., 2000, 72 (3), pp.796-803. https://doi.org/ 10.1093/ajcn/72.3.796

Martirosov E.G., Nikolaev D.V., Rudnev S.G. 2006. Technologies and methods for determining human body composition. Moscow: Nauka. 248 p. (In Russ.)

Matiegka J. The testing of physical efficiency. Am. J. Phys. Anthrop., 1921, 4, рр.223–230.

Nikolaev D.V., Shchelykalina S.P. 2016. Lectures on bioimpedance analysis of human body composition. Moscow: RIO TsNIIOIZ. 152 p. (In Russ.)

Núñez F.J., Munguía-Izquierdo D.,. Suárez-Arrones L Validity of Field Methods to Estimate Fat-Free Mass Changes Throughout the Season in Elite Youth Soccer Players. Front. Physiol., 2020, 11 (16). https://doi.org/ 10.3389/fphys.2020.00016

Pérez-Castillo Í.M., Valiño-Marques A., López-Chicharro J., Segura-Ortiz F., Rueda R., Bouzamondo H. Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis in Professional and Semi-Professional Football: A Scoping Review. Sports (Basel), 2025, 3 (10), art. 348. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/sports13100348

Pluncevic Gligoroska J., Manchevska S., Kostovski Z., Dejanova B., Maleska V. et al. Comparison of selected body composition parameters in karate athletes: Matiegka and bioelectrical impedance analysis International Journal of Sport Culture and Science, 2016, 4 (4), pp. 443–452. https://doi.org/ 10.14486/IntJSCS598

Rudnev S.G., Anisimova A.V., Godina E.Z., Zadorozhnaya L.V., Permyakova E.Yu., Khomyakova I.A., Sipatrova A.G., Zubko A.V. Methodological issues of bioimpedance analysis: comparability of equipment and the influence of electrodes on the measurement result. Lomonosov Journal of Anthropology. 2026. No 1, pp. 85–103. https://doi.org/10.55959/MSU2074-8132-26-1-7

Seoane F., Yang L., Dai M., Zhao Z. Editorial: Multidimensional physiology: novel techniques and discoveries with bioimpedance measurements. Front. Physiol., 2023, 14, 1243850. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2023.1243850

Thakur H.K., Pareek P.A., Sayyad M.G. Comparison of bioelectrical impedance analysis and skinfold thickness to determine body fat percentage among young women. Current Research in Nutrition and Food Science, 2022, 10 (1). http://dx.doi.org/10.12944/CRNFSJ.10.1.24

Tornero-Aguilera J.F., Villegas-Mora B.E., Clemente-Suárez V.J. Differences in body composition analysis by DEXA, skinfold and BIA methods in young football players. Children, 2022, 9 (11), 1643. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/children9111643

Vybornaya K.V., Semenov M.M. Comparison of body composition assessment results in rowing athletes obtained by anthropometry and bioimpedancemetry using ABC-01 Medass and Accuniq BC310. Journal of New Medical Technologies. Electronic edition, 2024, 18 (2), рр.108–118. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24412/2075-4094-2024-2-3-6