Memorias de investigación
Communications at congresses:
Comparison of different measurement techniques for quantifying whole body muscle hypertrophy in men

Research Areas
  • Physiology of exercise,
  • Physical education and sport

INTRODUCTION: Assessing exercise interventions effectiveness frequently requires an accurate quantification of body composition changes. For body fat mass (BFM), significant different values are obtained depending on the measurement procedure used (1). However, to the best of our knowledge, no previous study has addressed the impact of the measurement technique over the free fat mass (FFM) changes after a training program. The aim of this study was to determine if the measurement technique has an effect over FFM change results after hypertrophy training through a systematic review with meta-analysis. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was performed using different databases through May 2018. The search was based on the effect of resistance training on muscle mass changes in adult men. Selection criteria can be found in PROSPERO registration no CRD42018106274. A random effects meta-analysis was conducted to determine the effect of 6 measurement techniques on FFM. Theeffects on outcomes between pre and post training values were expressed as mean differences (MD) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI). The techniques were dual X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), bioimpedance (BIA), anthropometry (ANT), air-displacement plethysmography (BOD POD), ultrasound (US) and underwater weighting (UWW). RESULTS: A total of 61 articles (82 study groups) were selected following PRISMA methodology. The analysis showed no influence of the technique over FFM change (MD in kg: DXA 1.78 [1.27-2.28]; BIA 1.14 [0.41-1.87]; ANT 1.31 [0.66-1.97]; BOD POD 0.79 [-3.56-5.15]; US 0.8 [- 3.93-5.53]; UWW 2.19 [1.15-3.23]; I2 = 0%; sub-group differences p = 0.53). However, gathering the gold standard techniques for fat mass (i.e. DXA and UWW) and comparing them versus the others techniques (i.e. BIA, ANT, BOD POD and US), a trend toward significance was observed (MD in kg: gold standard 1.86 [1.40-2.31]; non-gold standard 1.23 [0.75-1.71]; I2 = 71.2%; sub-group differences p = 0.06). CONCLUSION: There was borderline significant interaction between procedure and change in FFM when grouping the techniques in gold standard versus non-gold standard, providing the gold standard group a FFM change 600 g higher than the non-gold standard group. DXA and UWW are considered gold standard for measuring BFM (1,2) and were grouped because we can infer they are also gold stand- ard for FFM (since FFM is the complementary value of BFM). Comparison of all the techniques showed no significant results, although some differences were clinically relevant. Thus, our results are not as clear as those for BFM, where different accuracy among methods is well establish (1), but they suggest a possible influence. More studies are needed, especially with intra-subject comparison designs, and with other forms of hypertrophy (i.e. lean body mass), in order to elucidate the influence of the measurement method on results. 1. Duz, S. et al. (2009). Eur. J. Sport Sci., 9, 181?190 2. Wilborn, C. et al. (2010). Int. J. Sport Nutr. Exerc. Metab., 20, 457?465
Praga (República Checa)
Start Date
End Date
From page
To page
Book of Abstracts of the 24th Annual Congress of the European College of Sport Science ? 3rd - 6th July 2019, Prague ? Czech Republic.

Research Group, Departaments and Institutes related
  • Creador: Grupo de Investigación: Grupo de Investigación del Laboratorio de Fisiología del Esfuerzo.
  • Departamento: Salud y Rendimiento Humano