Dual-Energy X-Ray Absorptiometry Body Composition in NCAA Division I Athletes: Exploration of Mass Distribution.
body fat
collegiate
fat mass
lean mass
Journal
Sports health
ISSN: 1941-0921
Titre abrégé: Sports Health
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101518422
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Historique:
pubmed:
28
7
2019
medline:
8
11
2019
entrez:
27
7
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Body composition assessment is frequently used in sports medicine and athletic performance environments to assess change in response to strength training and nutrition programs. However, to effectively do so requires knowledge regarding expected body composition values relative to sport and sex. Dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) is widely used to evaluate body composition, although its utility in relationship to specific sports, performance, or rehabilitation is not clearly defined. Body composition metrics and distribution of National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I collegiate athletes will vary based on sport and sex. Level 4. Cross-sectional study. A convenience sample of 337 athletes (229 men and 108 women) participating in football, wrestling, soccer, hockey, basketball, golf, softball, or volleyball was evaluated. DXA-measured total body composition, including bone mineral density (BMD), % lean mass, % fat, and regional distribution, were compared by sex, sport, and with an age-matched National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) population. Men had higher BMD, lower % fat (16.4% vs 25.2%) and higher % lean mass (79.2% vs 70.6%) ( DXA-measured body composition and lean mass distribution varies by sport and sex in Division I athletes. The observed difference to the NHANES population emphasizes challenges in identifying appropriate comparison populations, reinforcing the need to compare athletes with their own baseline. These findings establish a framework to investigate the relevance of these variances and determine the utility of body composition analysis in elite athletes.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Body composition assessment is frequently used in sports medicine and athletic performance environments to assess change in response to strength training and nutrition programs. However, to effectively do so requires knowledge regarding expected body composition values relative to sport and sex. Dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) is widely used to evaluate body composition, although its utility in relationship to specific sports, performance, or rehabilitation is not clearly defined.
HYPOTHESIS
OBJECTIVE
Body composition metrics and distribution of National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I collegiate athletes will vary based on sport and sex.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
METHODS
Level 4.
STUDY DESIGN
METHODS
Cross-sectional study.
METHODS
METHODS
A convenience sample of 337 athletes (229 men and 108 women) participating in football, wrestling, soccer, hockey, basketball, golf, softball, or volleyball was evaluated. DXA-measured total body composition, including bone mineral density (BMD), % lean mass, % fat, and regional distribution, were compared by sex, sport, and with an age-matched National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) population.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Men had higher BMD, lower % fat (16.4% vs 25.2%) and higher % lean mass (79.2% vs 70.6%) (
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
DXA-measured body composition and lean mass distribution varies by sport and sex in Division I athletes. The observed difference to the NHANES population emphasizes challenges in identifying appropriate comparison populations, reinforcing the need to compare athletes with their own baseline.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE
CONCLUSIONS
These findings establish a framework to investigate the relevance of these variances and determine the utility of body composition analysis in elite athletes.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31348720
doi: 10.1177/1941738119861572
pmc: PMC6745817
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
453-460Références
Physiol Rev. 2000 Apr;80(2):649-80
pubmed: 10747204
J Clin Densitom. 2003 Summer;6(2):75-85
pubmed: 12794229
J Bone Miner Res. 2005 Mar;20(3):529-35
pubmed: 15746999
Osteoporos Int. 2005 Dec;16(12):1495-505
pubmed: 15838718
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2007 Oct;39(10):1867-82
pubmed: 17909417
J Strength Cond Res. 2008 Nov;22(6):1985-91
pubmed: 18978611
PLoS One. 2009 Sep 15;4(9):e7038
pubmed: 19753111
Nutr Metab (Lond). 2010 Mar 22;7:22
pubmed: 20307312
J Strength Cond Res. 2010 Jul;24(7):1710-7
pubmed: 20453684
J Strength Cond Res. 2011 Apr;25(4):1024-9
pubmed: 20651606
J Nutr Health Aging. 2011 May;15(5):368-75
pubmed: 21528163
Sports Med. 2012 Mar 1;42(3):227-49
pubmed: 22303996
J Clin Densitom. 2012 Jul-Sep;15(3):282-9
pubmed: 22321660
J Sports Sci. 2013;31(6):684-7
pubmed: 23215824
J Clin Densitom. 2014 Jan-Mar;17(1):136-42
pubmed: 23541124
J Clin Densitom. 2014 Jan-Mar;17(1):121-8
pubmed: 23643968
Res Sports Med. 2013;21(3):286-91
pubmed: 23777383
Br J Sports Med. 2013 Nov;47(16):1044-53
pubmed: 24065075
J Clin Densitom. 2013 Oct-Dec;16(4):496-507
pubmed: 24090645
J Strength Cond Res. 2014 Jan;28(1):1-6
pubmed: 24149760
J Clin Densitom. 2014 Jul-Sep;17(3):344-77
pubmed: 24161789
J Clin Densitom. 2013 Oct-Dec;16(4):508-19
pubmed: 24183640
J Clin Densitom. 2013 Oct-Dec;16(4):520-36
pubmed: 24183641
J Sports Sci Med. 2014 Jan 20;13(1):157-65
pubmed: 24570620
J Strength Cond Res. 2014 Sep;28(9):2673-9
pubmed: 24626136
PLoS One. 2014 May 15;9(5):e97846
pubmed: 24830292
J Strength Cond Res. 2014 Dec;28(12):3320-9
pubmed: 25187245
J Strength Cond Res. 2016 Oct;30(10):2828-38
pubmed: 25486296
Sports Health. 2015 Jan;7(1):45-51
pubmed: 25553212
US Army Med Dep J. 2015 Apr-Jun;:22-32
pubmed: 26101903
J Clin Densitom. 2016 Apr-Jun;19(2):127-40
pubmed: 27020004
Clin J Sport Med. 2017 May;27(3):302-307
pubmed: 27347859
J Strength Cond Res. 2018 Mar;32(3):772-782
pubmed: 29120982
J Strength Cond Res. 2018 May 17;:null
pubmed: 29781937
Am J Clin Nutr. 1993 Oct;58(4):463-7
pubmed: 8379501