Related Experiment Video
Updated: Feb 17, 2026
Non-invasive Skeletal Muscle Quantification in Small Animals Using Micro-computed Tomography
Published on: November 8, 2024
Comparison of muscle/lean mass measurement methods: correlation with functional and biochemical testing
B Buehring1, E Siglinsky1, D Krueger1
1University of Wisconsin Osteoporosis Clinical Research Program, 2870 University Avenue, Suite 100, Madison, WI, 53705, USA.
Abstract:
DXA-measured lean mass is often used to assess muscle mass but has limitations. Thus, we compared DXA lean mass with two novel methods-bioelectric impedance spectroscopy and creatine (methyl-d3) dilution. The examined methodologies did not measure lean mass similarly and the correlation with muscle biomarkers/function varied.
Introduction:
Muscle function tests predict adverse health outcomes better than lean mass measurement. This may reflect limitations of current mass measurement methods. Newer approaches, e.g., bioelectric impedance spectroscopy (BIS) and creatine (methyl-d3) dilution (D3-C), may more accurately assess muscle mass. We hypothesized that BIS and D3-C measured muscle mass would better correlate with function and bone/muscle biomarkers than DXA measured lean mass.
Methods:
Evaluations of muscle/lean mass, function, and serum biomarkers were obtained in older community-dwelling adults. Mass was assessed by DXA, BIS, and orally administered D3-C. Grip strength, timed up and go, and jump power were examined. Potential muscle/bone serum biomarkers were measured. Mass measurements were compared with functional and serum data using regression analyses; differences between techniques were determined by paired t tests.
Results:
Mean (SD) age of the 112 (89F/23M) participants was 80.6 (6.0) years. The lean/muscle mass assessments were correlated (.57-.88) but differed (p < 0.0001) from one another with DXA total body less head being highest at 37.8 (7.3) kg, D3-C muscle mass at 21.1 (4.6) kg, and BIS total body intracellular water at 17.4 (3.5) kg. All mass assessment methods correlated with grip strength and jump power (R = 0.35-0.63, p < 0.0002), but not with gait speed or repeat chair rise. Lean mass measures were unrelated to the serum biomarkers measured.
Conclusions:
These three methodologies do not similarly measure muscle/lean mass and should not be viewed as being equivalent. Functional tests assessing maximal muscle strength/power (grip strength and jump power) correlated with all mass measures whereas gait speed was not. None of the selected serum measures correlated with mass. Efforts to optimize muscle mass assessment and identify their relationships with health outcomes are needed.
