Objectives: There may be no doubt that circumferences, measured at different sites of body segments, have a variety of applications. Studies using girths are based on assumed logic, but within a general context no literature is found as to the origin of choice of a particular circumference for a particular application. The purpose of this study is to relate each circumference (i) with the segmental tissue masses and (ii) with all whole-body tissue masses; in order to provide a complete constitutional reliability report of each girth available.
Methods: Subsequent to an anthropometric protocol, 23 (9 male aged 74.8 ± 5.7 years and 14 female aged 79.2 ± 7.3 years) well-preserved white Caucasian cadavers, of lean subjects were dissected according to the 5-component model and expressed on its tissue-system level, for example, skin, muscle, adipose tissue, viscera, and bones.
Results: The relations range from r = 0.80 to r = 0.99 (P < 0.01). A majority of circumferences (e.g., head, neck, upper thigh, mid-thigh, and calf) do represent what is expected. Other girths (e.g., waist, upper arm, elbow, forearm, and wrist) do not relate adequately to the assumed constituent.
Conclusion: This study suggests the appreciation of the waist circumference. This measure is not valid for lean individuals, but might be for the obese. It is suggested likewise that a combination of chest and hip circumference may have a more general application within the public health sector. In summary, evidence confirms the reliability of a series of circumferences but creates doubts or rejects other colloquially established perimeters.
Copyright © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.