Assessment of the body composition of basketball players by anthropometry and bioimpedancemetry methods – comparison of the results of calculated and two hardware methods

Abstract

Standardization of methods for assessing body composition is an extremely relevant topic, especially when analyzing the long-term training of athletes. Evaluation of the results of measuring body composition using the method of classical anthropometry in comparison with the hardware method of bioimpedanceometry is relevant, because Measurement results from these techniques often vary, and it is important for practitioners and trainers to be aware of these differences.The aim of the study was to ompare the results of assessing the body composition of basketball players obtained using the calculation and two hardware methods.Materials and methods. The survey involved 25 students-basketball players (age 20.3±1.7 years). Body composition was assessed by three methods: calculation – according to the formulas of J. Mateyk, hardware – using the body composition analyzer ABC‑01 (LLC STC «MEDASS», Russia), hardware – using the basic multi-frequency portable body composition analyzer ACCUNIQ BC310 (SELVAS Healthcare Inc., Daejeon, South Korea). Statistica software was used for statistical calculations and plotting. The significance of differences between independent groups was determined using the nonparametric Mann – Whitney test (U-test). Distribution normality was assessed using the Shapiro – Wilk test. The nonparametric Wilcoxon test was used to compare dependent samples. Correlation analysis – according to Bland – Altman.Results and discussion. The calculation method based on anthropometry gives significantly greater results in terms of skeletal muscle mass; in terms of basal metabolism, ACCUNIQ gives the highest values, Medass – the smallest, anthropometry method – the average between the results obtained by two hardware methods. Correlation analysis showed that when determining lean body mass, the closest results are obtained when measured using two analyzers MEDAS and ACCUNIQ (r=0.938, p<0.05 5); ANTRA and ACCUNIQ give a lower correlation (r=0.819, p<0.05), the lowest correlation is shown between the ANTRA method and MEDASS (r=0.715, p<0.05). When determining body fat mass, the methods give the least correlations than when determining lean body mass: the closest results are obtained when measured using two analyzers – MEDASS and ACCUNIQ (r=0.677; p<0.05)), ANTRA and ACCUNIQ give a lower correlation (r=0.598; p<0.05) (moreover, the correlation is not significant).Conclusion. Determination of the body composition of athletes is possible by any of the methods (caliperometry, bioimpedancemetry), given that the same method will be used for dynamic studies.