InBody in Studies
Over 5,100 research studies utilizing the InBody
Validation Studies of InBody Technology
Study 1
HIGHER FREQUENCIES, HIGHER POWER
Now with more frequencies, and frequencies up to 3000 kHz, the InBody 970 and the BWA 2.0 devices provide not only more outputs, but greater precision. Life journal in a July 2022 publication evaluated the newest InBody devices compared to dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) in a cohort of 109 individuals. What they found was that high-frequency InBody devices showed a “high correlation with the DEXA results” for assessing appendicular lean mass (β ≥ 0.95), fat-free mass (R2 ≥ 0.95), and percent body fat (R2≥ 0.89).
Yi, Y.; Baek, J.; Lee, E.; Jung, H.; Jang, I. (July 2022). “A Comparative Study of High-Frequency Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis and Dual-Energy X-ray Absorptiometry for Estimating Body Composition”. Life 2022, 12(7), 994; https://doi.org/10.3390/life12070994
Study 2
HIGHLY VALID RESULTS IN EACH RACE AND ETHNICITY
A 2022 study published by the British Journal of Nutrition compared the accuracy of DSM-BIA (InBody 770) amongst body composition gold standards (DXA, ADP) and BIS with 110 participants of varying races and ethnicities. The study found that alongside DXA and ADP, InBody provided “excellent to ideal” measures of percent body fat and “ideal” fat free mass measurements compared to the criterion. Moreover, our devices can be used in a multi-ethnic sample “to obtain highly valid results” without estimations based on ethnicity.
Blue, M.; Hirsch, K.; Brewer, G.; Cabre, H.; Gould, L.; Tinsley, G.; Ng, B.; Ryan, E.; Padua, D.; Smith-Ryan, A. (February 2022). “The validation of contemporary body composition methods in various races and ethnicities”. British Journal of Nutrition. 10.1017/S0007114522000368. PMID: 35109945.*
Study 3
ACCURATE ALTERNATIVE TO DXA FOR PEDIATRIC OBESITY
The Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition published a 2020 study that evaluated the accuracy of different BIA devices relative to DXA in children with obesity. Amongst other BIA, InBody stood out as it was “relatively accurate for estimating body fat percentage” and was not limited to patients younger than 10 or patients with high body fat percentage (>50%). Beyond being a “reasonably accurate alternative to DXA” in pediatric obesity, InBody is available at a tenth of the cost.
Khan, S., Xanthakos, S. A., Hornung, L., Arce-Clachar, C., Siegel, R., & Kalkwarf, H. J. (2020). Relative Accuracy of Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis for Assessing Body Composition in Children With Severe Obesity. Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology & Nutrition, 70(6), e129–e135. https://doi.org/10.1097/MPG.0000000000002666
Study 4
MAYO CLINIC VALIDATION – 98% CORRELATION TO DEXA
Researchers from the Mayo Clinic compared InBody technology to DXA, a body composition gold standard, for estimating fat-free mass and percent body fat in a 2020 study. They validated InBody as 98% correlated to DXA and overall had good agreement amongst all BMI categories. The authors note that InBody “allows providers to further risk stratify patients and develop treatment plans.” On another note, InBody “takes the same amount of space as a scale and allows our clinical assistants… to obtain body composition measurements in a few minutes while obtaining other vitals (eg, weight, heart rate, and blood pressure).”
Ryan T. Hurt; Jon O. Ebbert; Ivana Croghan; Sanjeev Nanda; Darrell R. Schroeder; Levi M. Teigen; Saketh R. Velapati; and Manpreet S. Mundi. The Comparison of Segmental Multifrequency Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis and Dual-Energy X-ray Absorptiometry for Estimating Fat Free Mass and Percentage Body Fat in an Ambulatory Population. Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition. 00.0, 1-8 (2020). 10.1002/jpen.1994
Study 5
AN ACCURATE AND RELIABLE ALTERNATIVE TO COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY (CT)
A 2020 publication from Nutrition in Clinical Practice evaluated the accuracy and reliability of InBody compared to computed tomography (CT) to assess skeletal muscle mass (SMM) in colorectal cancer patients. In their results, they found that InBody SMM has “very significant correlation” (p<0.001) to CT even after adjusting for age, weight, and BMI (p<0.001). Overall, the authors suggest that InBody could be “an alternative to CT scan for the assessment of SMM in colorectal cancer patients.”
Eun Young Kim, MD,; Seong Ryong Kim,; Daeyoun David Won;Moon Hyung Choi; and In Kyu Lee. Multifrequency Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis Compared With Computed Tomography for Assessment of Skeletal Muscle Mass in Primary Colorectal Malignancy: A Predictor of Short-Term Outcome After Surgery. Nutrition in Clinical Practice 35.4, 664-674 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1002/ncp.10363
Study 6
TRACK BODY COMPOSITION CHANGES SIMILAR TO DXA
A 2019 study from the Journal of Functional Morphology and Kinesiology compared InBody 770 and DXA for body composition changes in exercise-trained men and women after a 4-week program. The researchers found that the device “can predict changes in body composition (i.e., fat mass, fat-free mass, and percent body fat) similar to a DXA.” InBody’s multiple frequencies “may be less subject to error” and “likely a superior method for the estimation of total body composition.”
Antonio, J.; Kenyon, M.; Ellerbroek, A.; Carson, C.; Burgess, V.; Tyler-Palmer, D.; Mike, J.; Roberts, J.; Angeli, G.; Peacock, C. Comparison of Dual-Energy X-ray Absorptiometry (DXA) Versus a Multi-Frequency Bioelectrical Impedance (InBody 770) Device for Body Composition Assessment after a 4-Week Hypoenergetic Diet. J. Funct. Morphol. Kinesiol. 2019, 4, 23. https://doi.org/10.3390/jfmk4020023
Study 7
HIGH AGREEMENT WITH D20 IN TOTAL BODY WATER MEASURES
Researchers in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition assessed the integration of DXA and InBody for a rapid body composition model in a 2018 clinical population study. What they found was that InBody had “high agreement” with D20 TBW measurements, the gold standard for assessing body water. Nonetheless, InBody is “an appealing method for clinical TBW measurement owing to its low cost, rapid results, and amenability to field calibration.”
Ng, B. K., Liu, Y. E., Wang, W., Kelly, T. L., Wilson, K. E., Schoeller, D. A., Heymsfield, S. B., & Shepherd, J. A. (2018). Validation of rapid 4-component body composition assessment with the use of dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry and bioelectrical impedance analysis. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 108(4), 708–715. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcn/nqy158
Study 8
RESTING METABOLIC RATE ACCURACY IN CLINICAL SETTINGS
In a 2018 study published by the Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness, a team investigated the validity in an InBody device for predicting resting metabolic rate (RMR). The team found that InBody “provides valid measurements of RMR” when compared to gas analysis, the current standard. RMR values based on the InBody analysis was “a valid, more practical, and less time-intensive alternative to determine RMR in a clinical setting.”
Salacinski, A. J., Howell, S. M., & Hill, D. L. (2018). Validity of the InBody 520TM to predict metabolic rate in apparently healthy adults. Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness, 58(9), 1275–1280. https://doi.org/10.23736/S0022-4707.17.06719-6
Study 9
BLOOD PRESSURE MONITOR VALID FOR CLINICAL USE
“The single-cuff oscillometric device InBody BPBIO320 developed for self-measurement by adults in public spaces passed all the validation requirements of the 2010 ESH-IP and can be recommended for clinical use.” The test–reference BP difference was 0.5±4.3/−1.1±4.3mmHg (systolic/diastolic) in participants with arm circumference less than 31.4 cm (n=17) and −1.3±6.0/0.2±4.8mmHg in those with an arm circumference of at least 31.4 cm (n=16). This indicates that the margin of error is ~5/5.5 mmHg (systolic/diastolic) in those with smaller arms, and ~7/5 mmHg (systolic/diastolic) in those with higher arm circumference.
Kollias, A., Stambolliu, E., Kyriakoulis, K. G., Papadatos, S. S., & Stergiou, G. S. (2019). Validation of the single-cuff oscillometric blood pressure monitor InBody BPBIO320 for public use according to the 2010 European Society of Hypertension International Protocol. Blood pressure monitoring, 24(1), 30-32.
Who Should Get a Scan?
Our clients include:
- People working on fat loss or muscle gain
- Athletes aiming for peak performance
- Clients seeking muscle balance insights
- Anyone curious about their internal health markers
If you want to stop relying on the scale and start understanding your body, the
InBody scan is your first step.
Call us to schedule: 541-845-3311