Body Composition Assessment: A Comparison of the DXA, InBody 270, and Omron

Main Article Content

Paulina Czartoryski
Jose Garcia
Rithin Manimaleth
Paige Napolitano
Haley Watters
Catherine Weber
Alexsandra Alvarez-Beaton
Alexandra C. Nieto
Aysha Patel
Corey Peacock
Jonathan Banks
Jaime Tartar
Jose Antonio


fat mass, Fat-free mass, Exercise


Introduction: The purpose of this study was to compare three body composition methods in a cohort of exercise-trained men and women: dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA), a multifrequency bioelectrical impedance (MF-BIA) device (InBody® 270) and the Omron handheld BIA.
Methods: Subjects (n=47; 22 male, 25 female) came to the laboratory for body composition assessment (i.e., percent body fat, fat-free mass and fat mass).Results: There were no statistically significant differences between the InBody 270 and DXA for any measure of body composition. Nor were there any significant differences between the InBody 270 and Omron. However, the Omron under- predicted percent body fat and fat mass in comparison to the DXA.
Conclusions: In general, the Omron underestimates percent body fat and fat mass versus the DXA. However, the mean data for body composition assessment were quite similar between the InBody 270 and DXA. It should be noted that the DXA and InBody 270 are acceptable for body composition analysis.

Abstract 4560 | PDF Downloads 3427


1. Aragon AA, Schoenfeld BJ, Wildman R, et al. International society of sports nutrition position stand: diets and body composition. Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition. 2017;14(1):16.
2. Bosy-Westphal A, Later W, Hitze B, et al. Accuracy of bioelectrical impedance consumer devices for measurement of body composition in comparison to whole body magnetic resonance imaging and dual X-ray absorptiometry. Obes Facts. 2008;1(6):319-324.
3. Burns RD, Fu Y, Constantino N. Measurement agreement in percent body fat estimates among laboratory and field assessments in college students: Use of equivalence testing. PLOS ONE. 2019;14(3):e0214029.
4. Carrion BM, Wells A, Mayhew JL, Koch AJ. Concordance Among Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis Measures of Percent Body Fat in Athletic Young Adults. Int J Exerc Sci. 2019;12(4):324-331.
5. Day K, Kwok A, Evans A, et al. Comparison of a Bioelectrical Impedance Device against the Reference Method Dual Energy X-Ray Absorptiometry and Anthropometry for the Evaluation of Body Composition in Adults. Nutrients. 2018;10(10).
6. Finn KJ, Saint-Maurice PF, Karsai I, Ihász F, Csányi T. Agreement Between Omron 306 and Biospace InBody 720 Bioelectrical Impedance Analyzers (BIA) in Children and Adolescents. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport. 2015;86(sup1):S58-S65.
7. Karastergiou K, Smith SR, Greenberg AS, Fried SK. Sex differences in human adipose tissues - the biology of pear shape. Biol Sex Differ. 2012;3(1):13-13.
8. Lee SY, Ahn S, Kim YJ, et al. Comparison between Dual-Energy X-ray Absorptiometry and Bioelectrical Impedance Analyses for Accuracy in Measuring Whole Body Muscle Mass and Appendicular Skeletal Muscle Mass. Nutrients. 2018;10(6).
9. McLester CN, Nickerson BS, Kliszczewicz BM, McLester JR. Reliability and Agreement of Various InBody Body Composition Analyzers as Compared to Dual-Energy X-Ray Absorptiometry in Healthy Men and Women. J Clin Densitom. 2018.
10. Rockamann RA, Dalton EK, Arabas JL, Jorn L, Mayhew JL. Validity of Arm-to-Arm BIA Devices Compared to DXA for Estimating % Fat in College Men and Women. Int J Exerc Sci. 2017;10(7):977-988.
11. Wingo BC, Barry VG, Ellis AC, Gower BA. Comparison of segmental body composition estimated by bioelectrical impedance analysis and dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. Clin Nutr ESPEN. 2018;28:141-147.