• norsk
    • English
  • English 
    • norsk
    • English
  • Login
View Item 
  •   Home
  • Øvrige samlinger
  • Publikasjoner fra CRIStin - NTNU
  • View Item
  •   Home
  • Øvrige samlinger
  • Publikasjoner fra CRIStin - NTNU
  • View Item
JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

The Impact of Feet Callosities, Arm Posture, and Usage of Electrolyte Wipes on Body Composition by Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis in Morbidly Obese Adults

Røkenes, Jessica Ann; Strømmen, Magnus; Kulseng, Bård Eirik; Martins, Catia
Journal article, Peer reviewed
Thumbnail
View/Open
Martins.pdf (656.8Kb)
URI
http://hdl.handle.net/11250/2368292
Date
2015
Metadata
Show full item record
Collections
  • Institutt for klinisk og molekylær medisin [2114]
  • Institutt for nevromedisin og bevegelsesvitenskap [1758]
  • Institutt for samfunnsmedisin og sykepleie [1814]
  • Publikasjoner fra CRIStin - NTNU [21846]
Original version
Obesity Facts 2015, 8(6):364-372   10.1159/000442033
Abstract
Objective: This study evaluated the impact of feet callosities, arm posture, and use of electrolyte wipes on body composition measurements by bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) in morbidly obese adults. Methods: 36 morbidly obese patients (13 males, aged 28-70 years, BMI 41.6 ± 4.3 kg/m2) with moderate/severe feet callosities participated in this study. Body composition (percent body fat (%BF)) was measured while fasting using multi-frequency BIA (InBody 720®), before and after removal of callosities, with and without InBody® electrolyte wipes and custom-built auxiliary pads (to assess arm posture impact). Results from BIA were compared to air displacement plethysmography (ADP, BodPod®). Results: Median %BF was significantly higher with auxiliary pads than without (50.1 (interquartile range 8.2) vs. 49.3 (interquartile range 9.1); p < 0.001), while no differences were found with callosity removal (49.3 (interquartile range 9.1) vs. 50.0 (interquartile range 7.9); NS) or use of wipes (49.6 (interquartile range 8.5) vs. 49.3 (interquartile range 9.1); NS). No differences in %BF were found between BIA and ADP (49.1 (IQR: 8.9) vs. 49.3 (IQR: 9.1); NS). Conclusion: Arm posture has a significant impact on %BF assessed by BIA, contrary to the presence of feet callosities and use of electrolyte wipes. Arm posture standardization during BIA for body composition assessment is, therefore, recommended.
Publisher
Karger
Journal
Obesity Facts

Contact Us | Send Feedback

Privacy policy
DSpace software copyright © 2002-2019  DuraSpace

Service from  Unit
 

 

Browse

ArchiveCommunities & CollectionsBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsDocument TypesJournalsThis CollectionBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsDocument TypesJournals

My Account

Login

Statistics

View Usage Statistics

Contact Us | Send Feedback

Privacy policy
DSpace software copyright © 2002-2019  DuraSpace

Service from  Unit