Evaluation of Fat-free Mass Characteristics at Different Adiposity Levels: Impact of Weight Status Stratification Method

The method used to stratify weight status when evaluating fat-free mass (FFM) characteristics has primarily been based upon body mass index (BMI) and not body fat percent (BF%). As a result, it is unknown whether deviations in FFM characteristics are similar when stratifying weight status based upon BMI or BF%. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate FFM characteristics at different adiposity levels when stratifying weight status via BMI and BF%. Methods: 150 adults (50% males) participated in this study. 3-compartment (3C) model body composition was based upon body density (Db) via air displacement plethysmography (ADP) and total body water via bioimpedance analysis. FFM density (DFFM), residual (RFFM), and hydration (HFFM)were evaluated in all subjects. The Db obtained from a stand-alone assessment of ADP (2C-Db) and 3C model (3C-Db)were also compared between groups. Subjects were stratified based upon weight status (BMI and BF%). First, subjects were divided into a normal weight (NW-BMI), overweight (OW-BMI) or obese (OB-BMI) group, which were based upon BMI values of 18.5-24.99 kg/m2 (n=50), 25.0-29.99 kg/m2 (n=50), and ³ 30.0 kg/m2 (n=50), respectively. Next, subjects were divided into groups based upon BF% where normal weight BF% values (NW-BF%) for males and females were \u3c 25 and 35% (n=81), respectively, and obese BF% values (OB-BF%) were ³25 and 35% (n=69), respectively. Results: The DFFM ranged from 1.096 – 1.097 g/cm3 for all groups in both weight status stratification methods (all p \u3e 0.05). HFFM and RFFM were similar for all comparisons and ranged from 73.99 – 74.33% and 25.67 – 26.01%, respectively, for BMI groups and 74.02 – 74.26% and 25.74 – 25.98%, respectively, for BF% groups (all p \u3e 0.05). In contrast, the 3C-Db (1.050, 1.036, and 1.013 g/cm3) and 2C-Db (1.051, 1.036, and 1.014 g/cm3) were statistically significant for all comparisons between NW-BMI, OW-BMI, and OB-BMI respectively (all p \u3c 0.05). Furthermore, 3C-Db (1.051 and 1.011 g/cm3) and 2C-Db (1.052 and 1.012 g/cm3) were significantly different when comparing NW-BF% and OB-BF% (both p \u3c 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Previous research has reported the FFM characteristics when stratifying weight status via BMI classification. As a result, it was unknown whether deviations in FFM characteristics existed when stratifying by BF%. Uniquely, the current study findings revealed that FFM characteristics are similar between groups regardless of the weight status stratification method (BMI or BF%)

Evaluation of Load Velocity Profiles with Varying Warm-up Sets and Relative Intensities

International Journal of Exercise Science 14(4): 971-979, 2021. The purpose of this study was to determine whether the number of warm-up sets and relative intensity impacts the prediction of velocity-based one-repetition maximum (1RM) values. Twenty resistance-trained individuals (males: n = 10, females: n = 10) participated in this study. Warm-up sets consisted of subject’s bench-pressing loads at 50 (five-repetitions), 70 (three-repetitions), and 90% (one-repetition) of estimated 1RM. A maximum of four attempts were performed to determine 1RM, while recording mean concentric velocity (MCV)using a linear position transducer during warm-up and 1RM trials in order to develop load-velocity profiles. Specifically, four different velocity-based 1RM equations (EQ) were developed from the warm-up sets of 50, 70, and 90% (MCV-EQ1), 50 and 90% (MCV-EQ2), 70 and 90% (MCV-EQ3), and 50 and 70% (MCV-EQ4). Constant error (CE) for the MCV prediction equations were not statistically significant for any comparisons (CEs = 0.80 to 2.96kg, all p \u3e 0.05). Correlation coefficients between the MCV prediction methods and measured 1RM were near perfect for all comparisons (r ≥ 0.98, all p \u3c 0.001). The standard error of estimate (SEE) and 95% limits of agreement (LOAs) were lowest for MCV-EQ1 (7.86 kg and ± 15.00 kg, respectively) and slightly higher for MCV-EQ3 (9.24 kg and 17.74 kg, respectively). Nonetheless, SEEs and 95% LOAs for MCV-EQ2 (8.10 kg and ± 15.55kg, respectively) and MCV-EQ4 (8.38 kg and ± 16.08 kg, respectively) were similar as MCV-EQ1. Current study results indicated that an additional warm-up set only slightly increases the accuracy of velocity-based 1RM estimations. Furthermore, larger differences in relative intensity will help produce slightly more accurate 1RM values

Inter-device reliability of wearable technology for quantifying jump height in collegiate athletes

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the inter-device reliability of three VERT devices (Mayfonk Athletic, Florida, USA) when worn on the waist (W), left-hip (LH), and right-hip (RH) during single- and double-leg counter movement jumps (CMJ) in collegiate athletes. Thirty-two female and twenty-eight male NCAA Division II athletes (n = 60) participated in the present study. Jump height (JH) values for double-leg CMJs were analyzed by each device using a one-way repeated measures ANOVA whereas a 2 (jump leg) x 3 (wear location) repeated measures ANOVA was employed to evaluate single-leg CMJs. Reliability of the VERT devices were based upon intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). Double-leg CMJs revealed an excellent ICC between all three VERT devices (ICC = 0.969). However, JH for RH and LH (45.69 ± 9.84 and 45.82 ± 10.45 cm, respectively) were on average lower than W (50.44 ± 12.37cm; both p \u3c 0.001). The ICCs were excellent for right- and left-leg CMJs (ICC = 0.939 and 0.941, respectively). However, an interaction was observed (p \u3c 0.001). No differences existed for left- or right-leg when VERT was worn on the waist. However, JH was higher when VERT devices were worn on the opposite hip of the jump leg (i.e., LH\u3eRH for right-leg CMJs; RH\u3eLH for left-leg CMJs; all p \u3c 0.001). Results suggest that LH and RH are interchangeable for double-leg CMJs, but not with waist despite excellent reliability. In addition, all wear locations provided excellent ICCs for single-leg CMJs. However, waist provides more consistent JH values for right- and left-leg CMJs while RH and LH show more variability