Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

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

European Journal of Clinical Nutrition volume 72, pages 1191–1194 (2018)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

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%.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

from$1.95

to$39.95

Learn more

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1

References

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

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

Funding

Funding

The authors report no funding source.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  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

Authors
  1. Michelle M. Harbin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alexander Kasak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Joseph D. Ostrem
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Donald R. Dengel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michelle M. Harbin.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Disclosure Statement

:The authors report no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Harbin, M., Kasak, A., Ostrem, J.D. et al. Validation of a three-dimensional body scanner for body composition measures. Eur J Clin Nutr 72, 1191–1194 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41430-017-0046-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41430-017-0046-1

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links