Changes in the bioelectrical impedance parameters estimating appendicular skeletal muscle mass in healthy older persons

  • Małgorzata KołodziejEmail author
  • Zofia Ignasiak
Original Article


Background and aims

As population ageing, it is necessary to use inexpensive and widely available methods of monitoring healthy ageing to earlier detect the risk of potential ageing-related diseases. As an alternative to the reference methods, bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) enables one to quickly and easily estimate appendicular skeletal muscle mass, which in the case of older persons is an indicator of their physical fitness. The aim of this study was to evaluate the actual bio-impedance parameters used to estimate body composition, as possible markers of changes in the mass of the appendicular skeletal muscles in the course of ageing.


Four hundred and thirty-five persons (including 107 men and 328 women) aged 50–87 years (65.6 ± 6.4 years) participated in the study. Anthropometric measurements and measurements of the bioelectrical impedance components (resistance, reactance, and phase angle) were carried out. Using the prediction equations, appendicular muscle mass and appendicular skeletal muscle mass were estimated.


Differences in the bio-impedance parameters between older persons aged 65 + and persons on average 10 years younger have been demonstrated and the impedance components have been shown to be correlated with age, the correlations being stronger in the persons after the 65th year of life.


The actual bioelectrical impedance parameters measured directly using the BIA method of estimating body composition are good identifiers of the changes in the mass of the appendicular skeletal muscles in older persons in the course of ageing.


Appendicular skeletal muscle mass Bioelectrical impedance analysis Healthy ageing Older adults 



The authors thank the study participants for their effort, devoted time, and collaboration during the study.

Author contributions

MK and ZI initiated the conception of the study. MK designed the analysis, performed statistical analysis, and wrote the first draft of the article, and ZI revised it critically for important intellectual content. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.


This study was part of a project (No: N404 075337) funded by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education and did not receive any other grants from funding agencies, commercial firms, or not-for-profit sectors.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflict of interest to declare.

Ethical approval

The study protocol was approved (18 February 2009) by the Senate Committee for Scientific Research Ethics at University School of Physical Education in Wrocław. The study was conducted in accordance with the recommendations of the Declaration of Helsinki. All persons gave written consent to participate in the study.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.


  1. 1.
    Eurostat (2019) Statistical Office of the European Communities. Population structure and ageing. Statistics Explained. Accessed 14 May 2019
  2. 2.
    World Health Organization (2017) Global strategy and action plan on ageing and health, Geneva. Accessed 14 May 2019
  3. 3.
    Baumgartner RN (2000) Body composition in healthy aging. Ann NY Acad Sci 904:437–448. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dawson A, Dennison E (2016) Measuring the musculoskeletal aging phenotype. Maturitas 93:13–17. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Goodpaster BH, Carlson CL, Visser M et al (2001) Attenuation of skeletal muscle and strength in the elderly: the health ABC study. J Appl Physiol 90:2157–2165. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Janssen I, Heymsfield SB, Wang ZM et al (2000) Skeletal muscle mass and distribution in 468 men and women aged 18–88 yr. J Appl Physiol 89:81–88. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Filippin LI, de Oliveira Teixeira VN, da Silva MPM et al (2015) Sarcopenia: a predictor of mortality and the need for early diagnosis and intervention. Aging Clin Exp Res 27:249–254. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Koster A, Ding J, Stenholm S et al (2011) Does the amount of fat mass predict age-related loss of lean mass, muscle strength, and muscle quality in older adults? J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 66:888–895. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fantin F, Di Francesco V, Fontana G et al (2007) Longitudinal body composition changes in old men and women: interrelationships with worsening disability. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 62:1375–1381. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fried LP, Tangen CM, Walston J et al (2001) Frailty in older adults: evidence for a phenotype. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 56:M146–M156. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cruz-Jentoft AJ, Baeyens JP, Bauer JM et al (2010) Sarcopenia: European consensus on definition and diagnosis: Report of the European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People. Age Ageing 39:412–423. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Morley JE, Abbatecola AM, Argiles JM et al (2011) Sarcopenia with limited mobility: an international consensus. J Am Med Dir Assoc 12:403–409. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Reginster JY, Cooper C, Rizzoli R et al (2016) Recommendations for the conduct of clinical trials for drugs to treat or prevent sarcopenia. Aging Clin Exp Res 28:47–58. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Xia W, Cooper C, Li M et al (2019) East meets West: current practices and policies in the management of musculoskeletal aging. Aging Clin Exp Res. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Heymsfield SB, Gonzalez MC, Lu J et al (2015) Skeletal muscle mass and quality: evolution of modern measurement concepts in the context of sarcopenia. Proc Nutr Soc 74:355–366. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Buckinx F, Landi F, Cesari M et al (2018) Pitfalls in the measurement of muscle mass: a need for a reference standard. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle 9:1272–1274. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tosato M, Marzetti E, Cesari M et al (2017) Measurement of muscle mass in sarcopenia: from imaging to biochemical markers. Aging Clin Exp Res 29:19–27. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sergi G, De Rui M, Stubbs B et al (2017) Measurement of lean body mass using bioelectrical impedance analysis: a consideration of the pros and cons. Aging Clin Exp Res 29:591–597. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kyle UG, Bosaeus I, De Lorenzo AD et al (2004) Bioelectrical impedance analysis—Part I: review of principles and methods. Clin Nutr 23:1226–1243. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Janssen I, Heymsfield SB, Baumgartner RN et al (2000) Estimation of skeletal muscle mass by bioelectrical impedance analysis. J Appl Physiol 89:465–471. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kyle UG, Genton L, Hans D et al (2003) Validation of a bioelectrical impedance analysis equation to predict appendicular skeletal muscle mass (ASMM). Clin Nutr 22:537–543. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Goodyear MD, Krleza-Jeric K, Lemmens T (2007) The Declaration of Helsinki. BMJ 335:624–625. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Tanita Corp (2005) Multi-frequency body composition analyser MC-180MA. Instruction manual. Accessed 10 May 2019
  24. 24.
    Kyle UG, Genton L, Karsegard L et al (2001) Single prediction equation for bioelectrical impedance analysis in adults ages 20-94 years. Nutrition 17:248–253. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    van Baar H, Hulshof PJ, Tieland M et al (2015) Bio-impedance analysis for appendicular skeletal muscle mass assessment in (pre-) frail elderly people. Clin Nutr ESPEN 10:e147–e153. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Barbosa-Silva MCG, Barros AJD (2005) Bioelectrical impedance analysis in clinical practice: a new perspective on its use beyond body composition equations Cur. Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care 8:311–317. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Norman K, Stobäus N, Pirlich M et al (2012) Bioelectrical impedance phase angle and impedance vector analysis—Clinical relevance and applicability of impedance parameters. Clin Nutr 31:854–861. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Barbosa-Silva MCG, Barros AJD, Wang J et al (2005) Bioelectrical impedance analysis: population values for phase angle by age and sex. Am J Clin Nutr 82:49–52. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bosy-Westphal A, Danielzik S, Dörhöfer RP et al (2006) Phase angle from bioelectrical impedance analysis: population reference values by age, sex, and body mass index. J Parenter Enter Nutr 30:309–316. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Genton L, Herrmann FR, Sporri A et al (2018) Association of mortality and phase angle measured by different bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) devices. Clin Nutr 37:1066–1069. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Barbat-Artigas S, Pion CH, Leduc-Gaudet J-P et al (2014) Exploring the role of muscle mass, obesity, and age in the relationship between muscle quality and physical function. J Am Med Dir Assoc 15:303.e13–303.e20. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Goodpaster BH, Park SW, Harris TB et al (2006) The loss of skeletal muscle strength, mass, and quality in older adults: the health, aging and body composition study. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 61:1059–1064. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Zoico E, Rossi A, Di Francesco V et al (2010) Adipose tissue infiltration in skeletal muscle of healthy elderly men: relationships with body composition, insulin resistance, and inflammation at the systemic and tissue level. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 65:295–299. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Physical EducationUniversity School of Physical Education in WroclawWroclawPoland

Personalised recommendations