Ortega GonzÃ¡lez, JesÃºs AdÃ¡n; VÃ¡zquez Tlalolini, Francisco Eduardo; VÃ©lez Pliego, Marcela; CortÃ©s Romero, Celso Enrique; Barrios Espinosa, Cecilia; Cueto Ameca, Katia; Anaya Arroyo, Edgar Ari; Bilbao Reboredo, Tania
Introduction: Assessing the body composition (CC) by classical anthropometry and bioelectrical impedance (BI) allows to know the proportion of the different body segments and their relationship with the nutritional status, however, it is not sufficiently documented if both methods are comparable in the evaluation of young women. The objective of this study is to compare body composition by classical anthropometry and bioelectrical impedance in healthy university students.
Material and Methods: Correlational, comparative, transversal and retrospective study. Where 60 university women participated, with average age: 20.9 ± 2.3. The body mass index (BMI) was calculated; anthropometry/equations: Body fat (CF) / Siri, Deurenberg and Lean; muscle mass (MM) / Heymsfield and Poortmans; body water (BW) / Watson and Hume. Anthropometry performed according to ISAK®. IB with the tetrapolar direct segmental measurement analyzer. Statistics: Student’s t-test, intraclass correlation coefficient (CCI), Spearman (CCS) and Bland-Altman graphs.
Results: Average height and weight 56.94 ± 10.21 kg, 159 ± 6.38 cm, respectively. The estimated BMI was similar with both methods (p> 0.05). Classical anthropometry and IB: GC (%): Siri 28.4 ± 4.55, Deurenberg 26.0 ± 4.41, Lean 26.94 ± 3.66 and IB 32.3 ± 7.04; best CCI: Siri-IB (0,600). MM (kg): Heymsfield 17.47 ± 3.81, Poortmans 25.85 ± 4.62, IB 20.55 ± 2.77; best CCI: Poortmans-IB (0.719). AC (%): Watson 51.6 ± 3.75, Hume 53.5 ± 4.77, IB 49.96 ± 4.69; best CCI: Watson-IB (0.817).
Conclusions: When comparing the CC by both methods, the equations of Siri, Poortmans, and Watson for the determination of the GC, MM, and AC, respectively, showed a greater association with respect to the IB.