Method Comparison

Comparison of body fat measurement methods based on published research and commonly reported accuracy ranges.

Content last reviewed: February 11, 2026

Method Selection Guide

General Population Methods

  • Durnin-Womersley (age-specific equations)
  • U.S. Navy Method (field-friendly circumference)
  • Jackson-Pollock 3-Site (Balance of accuracy and time)

Research-Grade Methods

  • Jackson-Pollock 7-Site (Comprehensive assessment)
  • DEXA (Laboratory reference method)
  • Hydrostatic Weighing (Traditional reference)

Validated Methods Comparison

Comparison of field methods with published accuracy data. Most skinfold ranges are reported as Standard Error of Estimate (SEE); some circumference ranges use reported or estimated field error ranges. Results depend on measurement technique.

MethodAccuracy RangeSitesEquipmentSource
Jackson-Pollock 7-Site
±3-4%7 skinfoldsCalipersJackson & Pollock (1978)
Durnin-Womersley
±3.5-5%4 skinfoldsCalipersDurnin & Womersley (1974)
Jackson-Pollock 3-Site
±4-5%3 skinfoldsCalipersJackson & Pollock (1978)
US Navy
±4-6%CircumferencesTape measureHodgdon & Beckett (1984)

References

  • Wagner, D.R., & Heyward, V.H. (1999). “Techniques of body composition assessment: a review of laboratory and field methods.” Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 70(2), 135-149.
  • Jackson, A.S., & Pollock, M.L. (1978). “Generalized equations for predicting body density of men.” British Journal of Nutrition, 40(3), 497-504.
  • Durnin, J.V.G.A., & Womersley, J. (1974). “Body fat assessed from total body density and its estimation from skinfold thickness.” British Journal of Nutrition, 32(1), 77-97.
  • Hodgdon, J.A., & Beckett, M.B. (1984). “Prediction of percent body fat for U.S. Navy men and women.” Naval Health Research Center Report, No. 84-29.