From evidence-based research and understanding human physiology, we recommend scanning at 4 week intervals.
When using BIA technology to assess body composition changes, it is important to allow adequate time between scans to observe meaningful changes from a physiological standpoint. From evidence-based research and understanding human physiology, we recommend scanning at 4 week intervals.
- The process of increasing muscle size, or hypertrophy, is comparatively slow. Significant improvements in muscle mass usually take many weeks to months, while doing resistance training and adhering to a specific nutrition regimen.
- Fat loss is also a gradual process that is largely dependent on creating a caloric deficit through consistent nutrition compliance and exercise.
- Muscle protein synthesis and growth are gradual processes, and even under ideal conditions, significant increases in muscle mass are typically not noticeable until at least 4 weeks of consistent training and nutrition compliance.
- A safe and effective rate for long-term fat loss is usually between 0.5 and 1 kg (1 and 2 pounds) each week. Consequently, 4 weeks is enough time to see noticeable improvements in order to identify a considerable reduction in fat mass.
- As food consumption, hydration levels, and exercise can all vary daily, BIA measures are extremely sensitive to variations in hydration status. Valid changes in muscle or fat mass may be disrupted by these transient variations. Setting a longer time (such as 4-week intervals) between scans makes it more likely that any changes seen are prompted by actual changes in body composition rather than transient fluctuations in total body water. For this reason, it is essential that the same scan conditions are followed consistently for each scan performed.
- Scanning every two weeks may not provide these changes enough time to provide a consistent idea of realistic changes, given the comparatively slow speed of physiological changes in muscle mass and fat.
Suggestions Based on Research
- Research indicates that 4-week intervals are suitable for evaluating changes in body composition since this time frame permits adequate physiological adaptation in response to dietary and training modifications. Heymsfield et al. (2014), for instance, stress in their study that it is important to space out body composition measures sufficiently to record long-term variations rather than transient ones.1
- Regular scanning, such once every two weeks, may cause one to place too much attention on immediate outcomes, which may not accurately represent long-term development. By scanning every four weeks, people can avoid becoming sidetracked or demotivated by small swings and instead concentrate on stable, long-term habits that result in significant improvements in body composition.
- While frequent self-monitoring is crucial, short-term assessments might cause the client to be stressed, which may undermine long-term compliance, according to a 2009 study by VanWormer et al. It follows that longer time intervals between assessments such as 4 weeks, for example, might promote better compliance and long-lasting behavioural changes.2
- In another study, Jeffery et al. (2000) examined the physiological aspects of long-term weight maintenance. It emphasises that in order to prevent burnout and maintain motivation over the long term, less frequent monitoring is necessary, which supports the use of 4-week intervals.3
In accordance with the research, scanning every 4 weeks is a logical and supported time frame to assess proper quality of change over time and provide valuable feedback of compliance to nutrition and training programs.
References
Heymsfield, S. B., and associates (2014). Analysing body fat and lean mass using bioelectrical impedance: An examination of the bioelectrical impedance approach for assessing body composition. Eight02–809 in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 99(4).
2. J. J. VanWormer et al. (2009). For obese people, self-monitoring encourages weight loss. 36(1), 70–73; American Journal of Preventive Medicine.
3. R. W. Jeffery and associates (2000). maintenance of weight loss over time. Present Situation. Physiology of Health, 19(1S), 5–16