Brief Communication | Published:

Validation of a three-dimensional body scanner for body composition measures

European Journal of Clinical Nutritionvolume 72pages11911194 (2018) | Download Citation


The accuracy of an infrared three-dimensional (3D) body scanner in determining body composition was compared against hydrostatic weighing (HW), bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA), and anthropometry. A total of 265 adults (119 males; age = 22.1 ± 2.5 years; body mass index = 24.5 ± 3.9 kg/m2) had their body fat percent (BF%) estimated from 3D scanning, HW, BIA, skinfolds, and girths. A repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) indicated significant differences among methods (p < 0.001). Multivariate ANOVA indicated a significant main effect of sex and method (p < 0.001), with a non-significant interaction (p = 0.101). Bonferroni post-hoc comparisons identified that BF% from 3D scanning (18.1 ± 7.8%) was significantly less than HW (22.8 ± 8.5%, p < 0.001), BIA (20.1 ± 9.1%, p < 0.001), skinfolds (19.7 ± 9.7%, p < 0.001), and girths (21.2 ± 10.4%, p < 0.001). The 3D scanner decreased in precision with increasing adiposity, potentially resulting from inconsistences in the 3D scanner’s analysis algorithm. A correction factor within the algorithm is required before infrared 3D scanning can be considered valid in measuring BF%.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Additional information

:The authors report no conflict of interest.


  1. 1.

    Lee SY, Gallagher D. Assessment methods in human body composition. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care. 2008;11:566–572.

  2. 2.

    Ackland TR, Lohman TG, Sundgot-Borgen J, Maughan RJ, Meyer NL, Stewart AD, et al. Current status of body composition assessment in sport. Sports Med. 2012;42:227–249.

  3. 3.

    Clarkson S, Wheat J, Heller B, Choppin S. Assessment of a Microsoft Kinect-based 3d scanning system for taking body segment girth measurements: A comparison to isak and iso standards. J Sports Sci. 2016;34:1006–1014.

  4. 4.

    Schranz N, Tomkinson G, Olds T, Daniell N Three-dimensional anthropometric analysis: Differences between elite Australian rowers and the general population. J Sports Sci 2010;28:459–469.

  5. 5.

    Jackson AS, Pollock ML. Prediction accuracy of body density, lean body weight, and total body volume equations. Med Sci Sports. 1977;9:197–201.

  6. 6.

    Lohman TG, Roche AF, Martorell R. Anthropometric Standardization Reference Manual. Champaign, IL: Human kinetics books; 1988.

  7. 7.

    Quanjer PH. Standardized lung function testing. Bull Eur Physiopathol Respir. 1983;19:1–95.

  8. 8.

    Siri WE. Body composition from fluid spaces and density: Analysis of methods. Nutrition. 1961;9:480–491.

  9. 9.

    Ryder JR, Ball SD. Three-dimensional body scanning as a novel technique for body composition assessment: a preliminary investigation. J Exerc Physiol Online. 2012;15:1–14.

  10. 10.

    Ng BK, Hinton BJ, Fan B, Kanaya AM, Shepherd JA. Clinical anthropometrics and body composition from 3d whole-body surface scans. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2016;70:1265–1270.

Download references


The authors wish to thank the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities.

Author information


  1. Laboratory of Integrative Human Physiology, School of Kinesiology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, 55455, USA

    • Michelle M. Harbin
    • , Alexander Kasak
    •  & Donald R. Dengel
  2. Kinesiology and Health Sciences, College of Education and Science, Concordia University - St. Paul, St. Paul, MN, 55104, USA

    • Joseph D. Ostrem


  1. Search for Michelle M. Harbin in:

  2. Search for Alexander Kasak in:

  3. Search for Joseph D. Ostrem in:

  4. Search for Donald R. Dengel in:


The authors report no funding source.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michelle M. Harbin.

About this article

Publication history