Related Experiment Video
Updated: Nov 12, 2025
Author Spotlight: Advancements in 3D Optical Imaging for Comprehensive Body Composition Assessment in Modern Research
Published on: June 7, 2024
Circumference Method Estimates Percent Body Fat in Male US Service Members with Lower Limb Loss
Beatriz Guerrero George1, Alison Linberg Pruziner2, Anne Marie Andrews1
1US Military-Baylor University Graduate Program in Nutrition, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, MD.
Background:
The Department of Defense circumference method (CM) is used to estimate percent body fat (%BF) in evaluation of health, physical fitness, appearance, and military readiness; however, the CM has not been validated in individuals with lower limb loss.
Objective:
To evaluate the agreement between CM and dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) for measuring %BF in individuals with lower limb loss.
Design:
This study is part of a larger cross-sectional comparison study, and this analysis was included as a secondary objective. Two methods of measuring %BF included CM and DXA, with DXA as the reference standard for this study.
Participants/Setting:
This study was conducted at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. Data were collected from summer 2010 to summer 2011. One hundred individuals, 50 with and 50 without lower limb loss, were screened for this study; three individuals with limb loss and two without limb loss had incomplete data, and one individual (female, without limb loss) lacked a comparison participant. All participants were recruited from a military medical center, and data were collected in a clinic research laboratory.
Main Outcome Measures:
Measurements of %BF were compared between methods for each group.
Statistical Analyses Performed:
Measurements of %BF were compared using paired t-tests and intraclass correlation coefficient. Agreement and bias were assessed with Bland-Altman analysis. Receiver operating characteristic analysis was used to determine the diagnostic accuracy of the CM to identify participants with %BF levels in the obese category (≥25%).
Results:
A statistically significant difference was found between %BF methods in the group with limb loss (1.7%; P = 0.001) and the group without limb loss (1.4%; P = 0.005), with DXA consistently higher than CM. However, the intraclass correlation coefficient estimates for the agreement between %BF by CM and DXA were 0.848 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.683-0.922; P < 0.001) and 0.828 (CI: 0.679-0.906; P < 0.001), for the groups with and without limb loss, respectively, suggesting that CM has good to near excellent agreement with DXA for estimating %BF in these groups. Receiver operating characteristic analysis indicated that the area under the curve supported predictive ability to detect obesity-based %BF in males with and without limb loss.
Conclusions:
Although a statistically significant difference was found between methods for individuals with limb loss, there was also good agreement between the methods, suggesting that CM may be a useful tool for estimating %BF in individuals with lower limb loss. The CM may be a useful and field expedient method for assessing %BF in a clinical setting when DXA is not available.
