## 3 Results
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Female Participants** & **Mean \(\pm\) SD** & **Mean Difference** & _p_**-Value** & **F-Value** &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Effect Size** \\ **(n\({}_{p}\)\({}^{2}\))** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline BIA & 25.5 \(\pm\) 7.8 & & 3.7 & \(<\)0.001 \({}^{*}\) & 43.808 & 0.556 \\ DXA & 29.2 \(\pm\) 6.6 & & **Fat mass (kg)—Whole-body** & & \\ BIA & 16.4 \(\pm\) 7.7 & & 2.2 & \(<\)0.001 \({}^{*}\) & 38.616 & 0.525 \\ DXA & 18.6 \(\pm\) 6.9 & & **Lean mass (kg)—Whole-body** & & \\ BIA & 43.5 \(\pm\) 5.5 & 2.5 & \(<\)0.001 \({}^{*}\) & 42.316 & 0.547 \\  & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Bone mineral content (kg)—Whole-body**} \\ BIA & 2.7 \(\pm\) 0.4 & & & \\ DXA & 2.7 \(\pm\) 0.3 & 0.0 & 0.137 & 2.311 & 0.062 \\  & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Fat mass (kg)—Right arm**} \\ BIA & 0.9 \(\pm\) 0.7 & & & \\ DXA & 1.1 \(\pm\) 0.6 & 0.2 & 0.233 & 1.475 & 0.400 \\  & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Fat mass (kg)—Right leg**} \\ BIA & 2.4 \(\pm\) 1.1 & & 3.3 & \(<\)0.001 \({}^{*}\) & 65.491 & 0.658 \\ DXA & 5.7 \(\pm\) 2.7 & & & \\ \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Lean mass (kg)—Right arm**} \\ BIA & 2.2 \(\pm\) 0.4 & & & \\ DXA & 1.8 \(\pm\) 0.3 & 0.4 & \(<\)0.001 \({}^{*}\) & 78.658 & 0.692 \\  & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Lean mass (kg)—Right leg**} \\ BIA & 7.5 \(\pm\) 1.1 & 0.9 & \(<\)0.001 \({}^{*}\) & 22.644 & 0.438 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} SD: standard deviation, \(\eta_{p}\)\({}^{2}\): partial eta squared values, BIA: bio-electrical impedance analysis, DXA: dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry, \({}^{*}\): significant differences (_p_ \(<\) 0.05) between BIA and DXA.  
\end{table} 
Table 3: Descriptive statistics (mean \(\pm\) standard deviation) and one-way repeated measures ANOVA test results comparing BIA and DXA for body fat percentage, fat mass, lean mass and bone mineral content at the whole-body and/or segmental level on the right-hand side of the body for women (\(n=36\)). Overall, significantly lower values for whole-body fat%, whole-body fat mass and right leg fat mass together with significantly higher values for whole-body lean mass, whole-body bone mineral content and right arm lean mass were observed using BIA against DXA in men. No significant differences were found for fat mass in the right arm and lean mass of the right leg among men. In women, significantly lower values for whole-body fat%, whole-body fat mass and right leg fat mass were complemented by significantly higher values for whole-body lean mass, right arm lean mass and right leg lean mass using BIA against DXA. No significant differences were observed for whole-body bone mineral content and fat mass in the right arm among women. [PERSON]'s r correlation coefficients between the BIA and DXA outcome measures are shown in Table 4. All presented correlation coefficients indicated statistically significant (\(p<0.05\)) and moderate to very strong positive relationships (r \(\geq\) 0.80), except for those expressing the association between BIA and DXA right arm fat mass (men: \(p\) = 0.904, women: \(p\) = 0.130) and right leg fat mass (only in men: \(p\) = 0.845). Based on the Fisher r- to z-transformation, a significant difference between the men's and women's BIA-DXA correlation coefficients was found for the measurement of both whole-body lean mass, right leg fat mass and right arm lean mass. These [PERSON]'s r correlation coefficients were significantly higher in men than in women (whole-body lean mass: [PERSON]' r difference = 0.06, right arm lean mass: [PERSON]' r difference = 0.26), apart from the right leg fat mass, with lower values being observed in men versus women ([PERSON]' r difference = 0.14). The degree of agreement between the two different body composition assessment methods was evaluated using Bland-Altman plots according to the participant's sex for whole-body and segmental outcome measures, respectively (Figures 1 and 2).