{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.07134570765661252, 'fraction_numerical': 0.027842227378190254, 'mean_word_length': 5.010452961672474, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 4, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Evaluation of a foot-to-foot bioelectrical impedance analyser in highly active, moderately active and less active young men

The Tanita TBF-305 (Tanita Corp., Tokyo, Japan) is a commercially available foot-to-foot bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) system. The manufacturer-supplied equations incorporate gender, mass, height, activity category and a measured impedance value to determine % body fat (BF). The purpose of the present study was to determine whether the manufacturer-supplied ‘adult’ and ‘athlete’ equations provided an accurate estimate of % BF for a group of young men with varying activity levels. Fifty-seven men (18–35 years old) were categorized into the following groups: (1) highly active (HA) (≥10·0 h aerobic activity/week); (2) moderately active (MA) (2·5–10·0 h aerobic activity/week); (3) less active (LA) (<2·5 h aerobic activity/week). The % BF was measured using the BIA ‘athlete’ and ‘adult’ modes. After BIA measurements, residual volume was measured and hydrostatic weighing (HW) was performed. The amount of activity performed by each group was significantly different (P<0·001). No significant differences were found between the % BF determined by the ‘athlete’ mode and HW for HA (P=0·309) and MA (P=0·091). However, a significant difference was found for LA (P=0·001). The % BF determined by the ‘adult’ mode and HW was not different for LA (P=0·395), but was significantly different for MA (P<0·001) and HA (P<0·001). The choice of activity mode on the foot-to-foot BIA significantly alters prediction of % BF. With careful selection of activity mode, there was no statistical difference between % BF determined by HW and the BIA, but the range of individual error scores was large.