↓ Skip to main content

Influence of subject presentation on interpretation of body composition change after 6 months of self-selected training and diet in athletic males

Overview of attention for article published in European Journal of Applied Physiology, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
35 Mendeley
Title
Influence of subject presentation on interpretation of body composition change after 6 months of self-selected training and diet in athletic males
Published in
European Journal of Applied Physiology, April 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00421-018-3861-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ava D. Kerr, Gary J. Slater, Nuala M. Byrne

Abstract

High precision body composition assessment methods accurately monitor physique traits in athletes. The acute impact of subject presentation (ad libitum food and fluid intake plus physical activity) on body composition estimation using field and laboratory methods has been quantified, but the impact on interpretation of longitudinal change is unknown. This study evaluated the impact of athlete presentation (standardised versus non-standardised) on interpretation of change in physique traits over time. Thirty athletic males (31.2 ± 7.5 years; 182.2 ± 6.5 cm; 91.7 ± 10.3 kg; 27.6 ± 2.6 kg/m2) underwent two testing sessions on 1 day including surface anthropometry, dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), bioelectrical impedance spectroscopy (BIS) and air displacement plethysmography (via the BOD POD), with combinations of these used to establish three-compartment (3C) and four-compartment (4C) models. Tests were conducted after an overnight fast (BASEam) and ~ 7 h later after ad libitum food/fluid and physical activity (BASEpm). This procedure was repeated 6 months later (POSTam and POSTpm). Magnitude of changes in the mean was assessed by standardisation. After 6 months of self-selected training and diet, standardised presentation testing (BASEam to POSTam) identified trivial changes from the smallest worthwhile effect (SWE) in fat-free mass (FFM) and fat mass (FM) for all methods except for BIS (FM) where there was a large change (7.2%) from the SWE. Non-standardised follow-up testing (BASEam to POSTpm) showed trivial changes from the SWE except for small changes in FFM (BOD POD) of 1.1%, and in FM (3C and 4C models) of 6.4 and 3.5%. Large changes from the SWE were found in FFM (BIS, 3C and 4C models) of 2.2, 1.8 and 1.8% and in FM (BIS) of 6.4%. Non-standardised presentation testing (BASEpm to POSTpm) identified trivial changes from the SWE in FFM except for BIS which was small (1.1%). A moderate change from the SWE was found for BOD POD (3.3%) and large for BIS (9.4%) in FM estimations. Changes in body composition utilising non-standardised presentation were more substantial and often in the opposite direction to those identified using standardised presentation, causing misinterpretation of change in physique traits. Standardised presentation prior to body composition assessment for athletic populations should be advocated to enhance interpretation of true change.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 35 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 17%
Unspecified 3 9%
Other 3 9%
Student > Bachelor 3 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 6%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 15 43%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 7 20%
Unspecified 3 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 9%
Psychology 2 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 15 43%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 April 2018.
All research outputs
#20,663,600
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Applied Physiology
#3,712
of 4,345 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#267,891
of 343,274 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Applied Physiology
#47
of 55 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,345 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.7. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 343,274 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 55 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.