## 1 Introduction  
Human body composition is sex-specific in terms of its distribution (e.g., women tend to have a higher body fat percentage than men) and changes over time (e.g., women have shown to have stronger increases in body fat% than men during their university studies) [1]. Moreover, it is considered a crucial feature in various contexts, including athletic performance, overall physical fitness and health-related assessments [2, 3]. In this regard, analyzing body composition at the segmental level has gained attention and has been linked to sport performance and injury risk [4, 5]. As such, different non-invasive methods to indirectly assess body composition in humans have been developed through the years, with each technique having its own advantages and limitations. Bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) estimates a person's body composition by spreading a low, constant and alternating electric current across the body [6]. More recent BIA devices, such as the InBody S10 (InBody, Seoul, Korea) [7], apply multiple electrodes and frequencies (i.e., 1 kHz, 5 kHz, 50 kHz, 250 kHz, 500 kHz and 1 MHz). They no longer use predetermined formulas or estimations concerning the measured individual's age and sex but only base their output on registered resistance of impedance outcomes. This allows practitioners to conduct segmental analyses with values for the trunk and each of the four limbs separately and, therefore, to monitor (the development of) bodily asymmetries [8]. BIA is a convenient, relatively low cost, field-based and reliable technique that also requires minimal participant action [9]. However, this technique is highly dependent on the amount of body water or the participant's hydration status and involves several prerequisites before actual testing (e.g., fasting, no exercise and no alcohol consumption prior to the measurement) [10]. Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) is a commonly used lab-based method for determining body composition founded on the principle of X-ray beam attenuation [11]. The extent to which the energy is attenuated when crossing the body depends on the thickness, density and chemical composition of the different tissues [11]. Originally, DXA has mainly been used for the assessment of areal bone mineral density, but nowadays it is increasingly considered the 'gold standard' for the (segmental) body composition assessment of bone mineral content, fat tissue and lean tissue [12]. The Norland Elite DXA (Swissray Medical AG, Hochdorf, Switzerland) [13] is a more recently developed DXA device, featured by a large scan window, a high weight capacity as well as a low and adaptive radiation dose. Although DXA has numerous advantages, including a relatively short measurement time and its applicability in humans of all ages [12], this method or technique also contains some limitations. As such, the DXA device uses minimal ionizing radiation and is not portable [14]. Furthermore, the purchase of a DXA device is relatively costly and it must be operated by a trained technician [14]. Therefore, DXA scans are more inconvenient to use among large samples in epidemiological field research. Current literature suggests that BIA may be a usable alternative to DXA for the estimation of (segmental) body composition as this method is less expensive, faster and more applicable under field conditions compared to DXA [15]. In this respect, [PERSON] et al. [16] investigated the (dis)agreement between BIA (i.e., InBody 720) and DXA (i.e., GE Lunar Prodigy) test outcomes for estimating body fat% and fat-free mass in addition to whole-body, arm and leg lean soft tissue in 45 female collegiate athletes. These authors demonstrated that BIA resulted in significantly lower whole-body fat% values and significantly higher whole-body fat-free mass values when compared to DXA, although there was an excellent agreement between both methods for whole-body and segmental lean soft tissue outcomes.