Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting 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.

You are viewing this page in draft mode.

Body composition, energy expenditure and physical activity

Digital anthropometry via three-dimensional optical scanning: evaluation of four commercially available systems




Digital anthropometry is increasingly accessible due to commercial availability of three-dimensional optical scanners (3DO).


One hundred and seventy-nine participants were assessed by four 3DO systems (FIT3D®, Size Stream®, Styku®, and Naked Labs®) in duplicate, air displacement plethysmography (ADP), and dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA). Test–retest precision was evaluated, and validity of total and regional volumes was established.


All scanners produced precise estimates, with root mean square coefficient of variation (RMS-%CV) of 1.1–1.3% when averaged across circumferences and 1.9–2.3% when averaged across volumes. Precision for circumferences generally decreased in the order of: hip, waist and thigh, chest, neck, and arms. Precision for volumes generally decreased in the order of: total body volume (BV), torso, legs, and arms. Total BV was significantly underestimated by Styku® (constant error [CE]: −10.1 L; root mean square error [RMSE]: 10.5 L) and overestimated by Size Stream® (CE: 8.0 L; RMSE: 8.3 L). Total BV did not differ between ADP and FIT3D® (CE: −3.9 L; RMSE: 4.2 L) or DXA BV equations (CE: 0–1.4 L; RMSE: 0.7–1.5 L). Torso volume was overestimated and leg and arm volumes were underestimated by all 3DO. No total or regional 3DO volume estimates exhibited equivalence with reference methods using 5% equivalence regions, and proportional bias of varying magnitudes was observed.


All 3DO produced precise anthropometric estimates, although variability in specific precision estimates was observed. 3DO BV estimates did not exhibit equivalence with reference methods. Conversely, DXA-derived total BV exhibited superior validity and equivalence with ADP.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2


  1. 1.

    Ward LC. Human body composition: yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2018;72:1201–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Heymsfield SB, Bourgeois B, Ng BK, Sommer MJ, Li X, Shepherd JA. Digital anthropometry: a critical review. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2018;72:680–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Treleaven P, Wells J. 3D body scanning and healthcare applications. Computer. 2007;40:28–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Ng BK, Sommer MJ, Wong MC, Pagano I, Nie Y, Fan B. et al. Detailed 3-dimensional body shape features predict body composition, blood metabolites, and functional strength: the Shape Up! studies. Am J Clin Nutr 2019.

  5. 5.

    Medina-Inojosa J, Somers VK, Ngwa T, Hinshaw L, Lopez-Jimenez F. Reliability of a 3D body scanner for anthropometric measurements of central obesity. Obes Open Access 2016;2.

  6. 6.

    Bourgeois B, Ng BK, Latimer D, Stannard CR, Romeo L, Li X, et al. Clinically applicable optical imaging technology for body size and shape analysis: comparison of systems differing in design. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2017;71:1329–35.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Wang J, Gallagher D, Thornton JC, Yu W, Horlick M, Pi-Sunyer FX. Validation of a 3-dimensional photonic scanner for the measurement of body volumes, dimensions, and percentage body fat. Am J Clin Nutr. 2006;83:809–16.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Wilson JP, Strauss BJ, Fan B, Duewer FW, Shepherd JA. Improved 4-compartment body-composition model for a clinically accessible measure of total body protein. Am J Clin Nutr. 2013;97:497–504.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Wilson JP, Fan B, Shepherd JA. Total and regional body volumes derived from dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry output. J Clin Densitom. 2013;16:368–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Tinsley GM. Reliability and agreement between DXA-derived body volumes and their usage in 4-compartment body composition models produced from DXA and BIA values. J Sports Sci. 2018;36:1235–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Higgins PB, Fields DA, Hunter GR, Gower BA. Effect of scalp and facial hair on air displacement plethysmography estimates of percentage of body fat. Obes Res. 2001;9:326–30.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Collins AL, McCarthy HD. Evaluation of factors determining the precision of body composition measurements by air displacement plethysmography. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2003;57:770–6.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Nana A, Slater GJ, Hopkins WG, Burke LM. Effects of daily activities on dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry measurements of body composition in active people. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2012;44:180–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Koo TK, Li MY. A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med. 2016;15:155–63.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Weir JP. Quantifying the test–retest reliability using the intraclass correlation coefficient and the SEM. J Strength Cond Res. 2005;19:231–40.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Henzell S, Dhaliwal S, Pontifex R, Gill F, Price R, Retallack R, et al. Precision error of fan-beam dual X-ray absorptiometry scans at the spine, hip, and forearm. J Clin Densitom. 2000;3:359–64.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Gluer CC, Blake G, Lu Y, Blunt BA, Jergas M, Genant HK. Accurate assessment of precision errors: how to measure the reproducibility of bone densitometry techniques. Osteoporos Int. 1995;5:262–70.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Smith-Ryan AE, Mock MG, Ryan ED, Gerstner GR, Trexler ET, Hirsch KR. Validity and reliability of a 4-compartment body composition model using dual energy x-ray absorptiometry-derived body volume. Clin Nutr. 2016;36:825–30.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Ng BK, Liu YE, Wang W, Kelly TL, Wilson KE, Schoeller DA, et al. Validation of rapid 4-component body composition assessment with the use of dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry and bioelectrical impedance analysis. Am J Clin Nutr. 2018;108:708–15.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Dixon PM, Saint-Maurice PF, Kim Y, Hibbing P, Bai Y, Welk GJ. A primer on the use of equivalence testing for evaluating measurement agreement. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2018;50:837–45.

  22. 22.

    Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986;1:307–10.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Price GM, Uauy R, Breeze E, Bulpitt CJ, Fletcher AE. Weight, shape, and mortality risk in older persons: elevated waist-hip ratio, not high body mass index, is associated with a greater risk of death. Am J Clin Nutr. 2006;84:449–60.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Kuk JL, Katzmarzyk PT, Nichaman MZ, Church TS, Blair SN, Ross R. Visceral fat is an independent predictor of all-cause mortality in men. Obesity. 2006;14:336–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Shape Up! Kids Study - NCT03706612. 2019.

  26. 26.

    Shape Up! Adults Study - NCT03637855. 2019.

Download references


The authors would like to acknowledge Tyler Dierolf and Claire Underwood for their assistance with data collection and Amber McCord for creating Fig. 1.


Financial support for this study was provided by Texas Tech University start-up funds (GMT). Product loans from Size Stream® (Contract #C12496) and Naked Labs® (Contract #C13132) were received for this study. No sponsor or external entity played a role in the research design, data collection, analysis, or discussion presented in this paper.

Author information




GMT designed the research and obtained necessary equipment; GMT, MLM, MLB, JRD, and BTA collected and processed the data; GMT performed the statistical analysis and drafted the paper. All authors read and approved the paper.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Grant M. Tinsley.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tinsley, G.M., Moore, M.L., Dellinger, J.R. et al. Digital anthropometry via three-dimensional optical scanning: evaluation of four commercially available systems. Eur J Clin Nutr 74, 1054–1064 (2020).

Download citation

Further reading


Quick links