Bioelectrical impedance analysis of body composition indicators in healthy young people depending on the initial somatotype
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32782/2077-6594/2026.1/09Keywords:
body mass index, bioimpedance analysis, body composition, somatotype, studentsAbstract
Body mass index (BMI) remains the most common indicator of body weight assessment, but it does not take into account the ratio of fat and muscle components, the level of visceral fat and hydration of the body. This limits its informativeness for early detection of metabolic disorders, sarcopenia and hidden obesity, especially in young people with normal BMI. In this regard, the use of bioimpedance analysis (BIA) taking into account somatotype and gender is relevant. Purpose. The aim of the study was to conduct a bioelectrical impedance analysis of body composition parameters in healthy young people depending on the initial somatotype. Materials and methods. 307 practically healthy students aged 18–22 (228 girls and 79 boys) were examined. Body composition was determined by bioimpedance analysis using a TANITA MC-780 MA analyser (Japan). BMI, percentage of fat mass (BF, %), visceral fat (VF, conventional units), relative muscle mass (MM, %), skeletal muscle mass (SM, %), sarcopenic index (SI), total water content (TBW, %) and phase angle (PA) were determined. Somatotypes were classified according to the 9-level Physique Rating scale. To interpret the obtained data, we used reference values for indicators based on age and gender, as recommended by the equipment manufacturer (Tanita, Japan) and international standards for body composition assessment. Statistical processing was performed using the Minitab 21.3.1 package. To describe the data, mean values and standard deviations (M ± SD) were calculated. Results. It was found, that 37.5% of boys and 52.6% of girls have a standard somatotype, which is characterised by a balanced ratio of fat and muscle mass. Students with increased fat content (“High Fat/ Average Muscle” and “High Fat/ High Muscle” somatotypes) showed an increase in BMI, BF% and VF, especially in boys, indicating a risk of developing metabolic disorders at an early young age. At the same time, a significant proportion of students with „Average Fat/Low Muscle“ and „Low Fat/Low Muscle“ somatotypes were found to have a body mass index within the normal range, but they had a reduced ratio of muscle mass, as confirmed by a decrease in percentage of skeletal muscle, sarcopenic index and phase angle, an indicator, that is associated with impaired cell membrane integrity, muscle strength and quality. According to the European consensus EWGSOP2 (European Working Group on Sarcopenia), a sarcopenic index < 7.0 kg/m² in young men and < 5.5 kg/m² in young women is considered as sarcopenia. Our study found a critical decrease in SI in boys with the „Average Fat/Low Muscle“ and „Low Fat/Low Muscle“ somatotypes (SI = 7.0 and 6.8 kg/m2). As for young women, the signs of sarcopenia were found in girls with the same somatotypes (SI = 5.3 and 5.1 kg/m²). Conclusions. Bioelectrical impedance analysis, accounting for somatotype and gender, is an informative tool for detecting hidden imbalances in the fat-to-muscle ratio in young, practically healthy individuals. The use of BIA allows to identify sarcopenic states, reduced cellular functional activity and increased metabolic risks by the excess visceral fat which are not determined when using BMI alone. The results justify the feasibility of implementing body composition analysis into routine preventive screenings for the student population.
References
Tomiyama AJ, Hunger JM, Nguyen-Cuu J, Wells C. Misclassification of cardiometabolic health when using body mass index categories in NHANES 2005–2012. Int J Obes. 2016;40(5):883–886. DOI:10.1038/ijo.2016.17
Donini LM, Busetto L, Bischoff SC, et al. Definition and Diagnostic Criteria for Sarcopenic Obesity: ESPEN and EASO Consensus Statement. Obes Facts. 2022;15(3):321-335. DOI: 10.1159/000521241
Prado CM, Batsis JA, Donini LM, Gonzalez MC, Siervo M. Sarcopenic obesity in older adults: a clinical overview. Nat Rev Endocrinol. 2024;20(5):261-277. DOI: 10.1038/s41574-023-00943-z
Marques M, Baptista F. Pediatric sarcopenia: what do we know? Acta Med Port. 2025;38(12):800-807. DOI: 10.20344/amp.23301
Guo C, Kong Y, Wang G, Du J, Yu C, Wu J. CT-Based assessment of sarcopenia and its association with biologic treatment outcomes in Chinese Children with Crohn‘s disease. Front Nutr. 2025;12:1660731. DOI: 10.3389/fnut.2025.1660731
Lewandowski CG, Silveira TT, Moreno YMF, Leite HP. Sarcopenia in Children and Adolescents With Cancer: A Systematic Review of Diagnostic Assessment Methods. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2025;72(9):e31844. DOI: 10.1002/pbc.31844.
Ward LC, Brantlov S. Bioimpedance basics and phase angle fundamentals. Rev Endocr Metab Disord. 2023;24:381–391. DOI: 10.1007/s11154-022-09780-3
Catapano A, Trinchese G, Cimmino F et al. Impedance Analysis to Evaluate Nutritional Status in Physiological and Pathological Conditions. Nutrients. 2023;10;15(10):2264. DOI: 10.3390/nu15102264
da Silva BR, Orsso CE, Gonzalez MC, et al. Phase angle and cellular health: inflammation and oxidative damage. Rev Endocr Metab Disord. 2023;24(3):543-562. DOI: 10.1007/s11154-022-09775-0
Yucel HE, Ulcay T, Gorgulu O, Oncu R, Uguz E, Dulkadiroglu E. A new score for metabolic age in type 2 diabetes mellitus: physical rating score. J Clin Med. 2025;14:2868. DOI: 10.3390/jcm14092868
Black DR, Coster DC, Paige SR. Physiological health parameters among college students to promote chronic disease prevention and health promotion. Prev Med Rep. 2017;18;7:64-73. DOI: 10.1016/j.pmedr.2017.05.006
Kyle UG, Bosaeus I, De Lorenzo AD, et al. Bioelectrical impedance analysis—part II: utilization in clinical practice. Clin Nutr. 2004;23(5):1430–1453. DOI: 10.1016/j.clnu.2004.09.012
Cruz-Jentoft AJ, Bahat G, Bauer J et al. Sarcopenia: revised European consensus on definition and diagnosis. Age Ageing. 2019;48(1):16–31. DOI: 10.1093/ageing/afy169
Amaral MA, Mundstock E, Scarpatto CH, Cañon-Montañez W, Mattiello R. Reference percentiles for bioimpedance body composition parameters of healthy individuals: а cross-sectional study. Clinics (Sao Paulo). 2022;7;77:100078. DOI:10.1016/j.clinsp.2022.100078
Mattiello R, Mundstock E, Ziegelmann PK. Brazilian Reference Percentiles forBioimpedance Phase Angle of Healthy Individuals. Front Nutr. 2022;9:912840. DOI:10.3389/fnut.2022.912840
Merz KE, Thurmond DC. Role of skeletal muscle in insulin resistance and glucose uptake. Compr Physiol. 2020;8;10(3):785-809. DOI:10.1002/cphy.c190029
Sato H, Akisue T, Tanemura R et al. Association between the skeletal muscle mass index and physical function in adolescents with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Adv Neurodev Disord. 2025;9:655–664. DOI:10.1007/s41252-025-00437-1
Lafontant K, Sterner DA, Fukuda DH, Stout JR. A non-invasive window into cellular health: phase angle and impedance ratio explained. ACSMs Health Fit J. 2024;29:25–31. DOI: 1249/FIT.0000000000001030
Сosta Pereira JPD, Rebouças AS, Prado CM et al. Phase angle as a marker of muscle quality: A systematic review and metaanalysis. Clin Nutr. 2024;43(12):308-326. DOI: 10.1016/j.clnu.2024.11.008
Di Vincenzo O, Marra M, Sacco AM, Pasanisi F, Scalfi L. Bioelectrical impedance-derived phase angle in adults with obesity: a systematic review. Clin Nutr. 2021;40(9):5238–5248. DOI: 10.1016/j.clnu.2021.07.035




