Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 292

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

A comparison of the skinfold method with extent of ‘overweight’ and various weight-height relationships in the assessment of obesity

Open access
Womersley, J., Durnin, J. V. G. A.·1977·British Journal of Nutrition

Abstract

1. Body-weight, height, skinfold thickness and body density measurements were made on 245 men and 324 women aged between 17 and 72 years. The body fat content of each individual was calculated from his density measurement using equations similar to that of Siri (1956) but appropriate to age, muscular development, and extent of obesity. Regression equations were then derived for separate age-groups for the prediction of body fat from (1) weight–height (W–H) relationships (W:H, W:H 2 W:H 3, W 0.33:H, H:W 0.33), (2) ‘percentage overweight’ (body-weight:mean body-weight; W:W;) and ‘percentage desirable weight’ body-weight: ‘desirable weight’ (mean weights for men and women aged 20-24 years); (W:DES), (3) the independent variables weight and height incorporated in a regression equation, (4) skinfold measurements. 2. The correlations between height and indices, W:H, W:H 3, W 0.33:H and H:W 0.33: were substantially different from those between height and body fat estimated by densitometry. 3. The method having the highest correlation with body fat estimated by densitometry was the skinfold method, although in the older groups of women other methods sometimes gave equally good correlations. The index H:W 0.33 had a negative correlation with body fat, and the indices W:H, W 0.33:H and W:H 3 had a lower correlation with body fat estimated by densitometry than did the other indices. These indices are therefore unsuitable measures of obesity, and this is in agreement with the findings of other workers. 4. The correlations betweeen body fat estimated by densitometry and the indices W:H 2, W:W, W:DES and the equations incorporating the independent variable weight and height are all very similar, although it is not appropriate to use the index W:W; as a measure of obesity in groups of people of widely different ages. 5. The standard error of prediction of body fat from skinfold measurement may be of the same order of magnitude as the standard error of prediction of body fat by densitometry. It is therefore probably inappropriate to assess the accuracy of the skinfold method by comparison with the density method alone. 6. From the distribution patterns obtained, it was evident that compared with the density method, all methods tended to over-estimate body fat in very lean individuals. The skinfold method however showed this tendency to only a relatively small extent.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1079/bjn19770088

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 292

Metadata

Authors
Womersley, J., & Durnin, J. V. G. A.
Venue
British Journal of Nutrition
Published
1977-09
Volume
38
Issue
2
Pages
271-284
ISSN
  • 0007-1145 (ISSN-L)
  • 1475-2662
OpenAlex
W2009071029
Cited by
292
References
0
FWCI
3.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A comparison of the skinfold method with extent of ‘overweight’ and various weight-height relationships in the assessment of obesity. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1079/bjn19770088
The paper
Womersley, J., & Durnin, J. V. G. A. (1977). A comparison of the skinfold method with extent of ‘overweight’ and various weight-height relationships in the assessment of obesity. British Journal of Nutrition. https://doi.org/10.1079/bjn19770088

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.