Research
Body Composition Reviews
Reviews of body composition assessment methods and U.S. military standards.
4 sources
Content last reviewed: February 11, 2026
What the evidence says
Method comparison
Friedl & Vogel (1997) compared circumference-based body fat estimates with DXA in 496 male soldiers under 40.
Population specificity
Validity of circumference-based body fat estimates in male soldiers
Measurement reliability
Wagner & Heyward (1999) review laboratory and field methods of body composition assessment.
Reviews and Validation Research
U.S. Military Body Composition Standards
Harty et al. (2022) review U.S. military body composition standards and physical performance (DOI: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000004142). Friedl & Vogel (1997) compared circumference-based body fat estimates with DXA in 496 male soldiers under 40 (PMID: 9121667):
- History of U.S. military body composition standards
- Validity of circumference-based body fat estimates in male soldiers
- Relationship between body composition and physical performance
Body Composition Measurement Methods
Fosbøl & Zerahn (2015) review body composition measurement methods (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
Foundational Reviews
Laboratory and Field Methods
Wagner & Heyward (1999) review laboratory and field methods of body composition assessment:
- Comparison of laboratory and field methods
- Strengths and limitations of each method
- Practical applications in field settings
What this means for your measurement
Research Implications
Study scope
- Friedl & Vogel (1997) compared circumference-based body fat estimates with DXA in 496 male soldiers under 40.
- Validity of circumference-based body fat estimates in male soldiers
- Wagner & Heyward (1999) review laboratory and field methods of body composition assessment.