Back to Research Overview

Meta-Analyses & Systematic Reviews

Systematic reviews and comprehensive analyses of body composition assessment methods, from foundational field-vs-laboratory comparisons to military standards.

Content last reviewed: February 11, 2026

Recent Systematic Reviews

Military Body Composition Standards

Review by Harty et al. (2022) on military body composition standards and physical performance (DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000004142), with supporting validation by Friedl & Vogel (1997) on circumference-based prediction (PMID: 9121667):

  • Historical evolution of military body composition standards
  • Validity of circumference-based percent body fat prediction
  • Relationship between body composition and physical performance
  • Implications for field-method selection in operational settings

Topics covered:

  • Military standards evolution and current practices
  • Circumference method validity in military populations
  • Performance implications of body composition standards

Body Composition Measurement Methods

Comprehensive review by Fosbøl & Zerahn (2015) on contemporary methods of body composition measurement (DOI: 10.1111/cpf.12152, PMID: 24735332):

  • Review of field and laboratory body composition methods
  • Comparison of technique accuracy, cost, and practicality
  • Analysis of measurement limitations and error sources
  • Practical guidance for clinical and field settings

Topics covered:

  • Field vs laboratory measurement techniques
  • Sources of measurement error and mitigation
  • Practical considerations for method selection

Foundational Reviews

Laboratory and Field Methods

Systematic review by Wagner & Heyward (1999) on body composition assessment techniques:

  • Comprehensive method comparison
  • Analysis of measurement errors
  • Practical applications in field settings

Topics covered:

  • Method comparisons across settings
  • Standardization and reliability considerations
  • Error sources and mitigation strategies

Research Implications

Common Themes

  • Field methods compared against laboratory standards
  • Population-specific equations and accuracy trade-offs
  • Standardized protocols and reliability considerations
  • Operational standards for field use

References

  • Harty, P.S., et al. (2022). “Military Body Composition Standards and Physical Performance: Historical Perspectives and Future Directions.” J Strength Cond Res, 36(12), 3551-3561. DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000004142
  • Friedl, K.E., & Vogel, J.A. (1997). “Validity of percent body fat predicted from circumferences.” Military Medicine, 162(3), 194-200. PMID: 9121667
  • Fosbøl, M.Ø., & Zerahn, B. (2015). “Contemporary methods of body composition measurement.” Clinical Physiology and Functional Imaging, 35(2), 81-97. DOI: 10.1111/cpf.12152
  • 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. DOI: 10.1080/02701367.1999.10608031