Study: Evaluation of 4 Commercially Available Scanners

In a recent publication by the Energy Balance & Body Composition Laboratory at Texas Tech, Fit3D came out on top (incrementally).

Specifically, the study concluded that "All scanners produced precise estimates", however some competitors underestimated or overestimated some values. It is important to note in this study that the Naked Labs scanner is no longer commercially available & also is not made for large volume clubs. Of the remaining 3 competitors, Fit3D is the only vendor that did not overestimate or underestimate total Body Volume (BV).

Total BV was significantly underestimated by Styku® (constant error [CE]: -10.1 L; root mean square error [RMSE]: 10.5 L) and overestimated by Size Stream® (CE: 8.0 L; RMSE: 8.3 L). Total BV did not differ between ADP and FIT3D® (CE: -3.9 L; RMSE: 4.2 L) or DXA BV equations (CE: 0-1.4 L; RMSE: 0.7-1.5 L)

The overall conclusion from this article was that "Commercially available 3DO scanners produce relatively reliable body composition estimates. Three out of four scanners demonstrated equivalence with a 4C model for assessments of BF%, FM, and FFM, although other metrics of validity varied among scanners, and proportional bias was present for all scanners." 

You can read the full article & review the results here in the NIH portal.

PMID: 32113641