Category: News

Posted on

Beyond BMI: Why Getting Measurement Right Matters for Health Equity

I was recently featured on ITV Calendar News (9:50 onwards) discussing concerns around Body Mass Index (BMI). As is often the case with broadcast interviews, only a short clip made it to air. But the issue deserves more space, because how we measure bodies directly shapes how we understand health -and ultimately how we care for people.

BMI is simple – but people aren’t

BMI is often treated as a definitive measure of health. In reality, it’s a very basic calculation: weight divided by height squared. That simplicity is both its strength and its biggest limitation.

At a population level, BMI can be useful. It helps us track broad trends and understand how obesity is changing across society. When used correctly, it gives policymakers a quick, standardised way to monitor public health.

But people aren’t averages.

When we apply BMI to individuals – particularly when we’re trying to understand personal health risk or track changes over time – it becomes much less reliable. Human bodies are complex. They vary in muscle mass, fat distribution, bone density, and metabolic risk. Trying to capture all of that in a single number is, quite simply, an oversimplification.

The problem is even greater across different ethnic groups

This limitation becomes even more significant when we consider ethnicity.

There is strong evidence that people from Black, South Asian and some other ethnic groups are more likely to store fat around vital organs – sometimes called central adiposity. This type of fat distribution is associated with a higher risk of conditions like type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease.

Crucially, this risk can occur at lower BMI levels than in White populations.

This isn’t new knowledge. It has been recognised for years by organisations such as the World Health Organization (WHO) and the UK’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). That’s why guidance recommends using lower BMI thresholds for people from these groups – typically around 2.5 kg/m² lower than standard thresholds.

If we don’t apply these adjusted thresholds, we are not measuring people accurately. And if we’re not measuring properly, we can’t care properly.

The result? Health risks are missed, diagnoses are delayed, and existing health inequalities are widened.

A recent data issue highlights the real-world consequences

These concerns have recently come into sharp focus, following a report from Nesta. They highlighted he latest Health Survey for England (2022) – published in 2024 – still relied on older NICE guidance that did not differentiate BMI thresholds by ethnicity. This risks systematically underestimating obesity prevalence among minoritised ethnic groups and, in turn, underestimating the true scale of health inequalities.

This example shows how small methodological decisions – like which thresholds we apply – can have very large consequences.

When large groups of people are misclassified or overlooked, it distorts our understanding of population health. It also risks misdirecting resources and reinforcing inequalities that already exist within the healthcare system.

This is a clear example of why measurement matters – not just scientifically, but socially and ethically.

Is BMI still useful?

Given all of this, a natural question follows: should we still be using BMI at all?

My view is that BMI is not the future of healthcare – but for now, it remains one of the most practical tools we have at scale.

It is quick, low-cost, and widely understood. That makes it valuable in large systems like the NHS, where consistency and efficiency matter.

But the key is using it correctly.

That means:

  • Applying the right thresholds for different populations
  • Understanding its limitations rather than treating it as definitive
  • Avoiding weight-stigmatising language, behaviours, and processes
  • Ensuring our approaches work for people from all backgrounds, cultures, religions and abilities

BMI should be a starting point – not the whole story.

Looking beyond BMI: the future of measurement

My research focuses on developing better ways to measure the body.

We now have access to emerging technologies that allow us to capture body size and shape in far greater detail – particularly through approaches like 3D imaging. These methods can help us understand not just how big a body is, but how it is composed and where fat is distributed.

That matters, because distribution – not just total weight – is closely linked to health risk.

The aim is to move towards more precise, personalised, and equitable measures of health. Measures that reflect real human diversity, rather than forcing everyone into a single, blunt category.

However, this kind of research takes time.

What we must do now

While we work towards better systems, there are practical steps we can take immediately:

  • Use the correct, evidence-based BMI thresholds for different ethnic groups
  • Combine BMI with other measures (such as waist-to-height ratio) where possible
  • Prioritise inclusive, non-stigmatising approaches to weight and health
  • Design healthcare systems that work for diverse populations, not just the majority

In short, we need to use BMI carefully now, while we build something better.

A final thought

BMI was never designed to capture the full complexity of human health – and it doesn’t.

But when used thoughtfully, and alongside other tools, it can still play a role.

The real challenge is not just improving measurement. It’s ensuring that how we measure people doesn’t exclude, misrepresent, or disadvantage them.

Because ultimately, better measurement isn’t just about better data – it’s about fairer care for everyone.

Posted on

SHU PhD Opportunity: Child 3D Body Composition Methods (18/05/26)

SHU Funded PhD Opportunity: Validating 3D Child Body Composition: Agreement, Bias, Equity & Correction.

We’re pleased to share a fully funded Transforming Lives PhD scholarship at Sheffield Hallam University. This project focuses on an exciting and fast‑growing area: checking how accurate and fair 3D body composition methods are for children, and developing ways to improve them.

As 3D imaging becomes more common in health, sport, and research, it’s essential that these tools work well for all children. This PhD offers the chance to make a real difference to future health assessment.

APPLICATION DEADLINE 18th May 2026.

Why This Project Matters?

Traditional ways of measuring children’s body composition (like skinfolds or waist circumference) can take time, feel intrusive, and aren’t always consistent. 3D body scanning is quicker, non‑contact, and easier to use – but we still need to understand:

  • How accurate is it for children?
  • Does it work the same for different ages, ethnicities, and body types?
  • Could hidden biases affect results?

Your research will help answer these questions and guide how 3D methods are used in healthcare, research, and future growth monitoring.

What You Will Study?

In this PhD, you will:

  • Compare 3D body composition estimates to established “gold‑standard” methods
  • Explore where errors or bias might occur
  • Examine whether models built for adults work for children
  • Study how factors like age, sex, ethnicity, and body size influence accuracy
  • Develop ways to correct or improve prediction models

Your findings will help make digital measurement fairer, more accurate, and more useful for children.

Who We’re Looking For?

This PhD is a great fit for people with backgrounds in: Health sciences, Biomedical sciences, Sports and exercise science, Nutrition, Psychology, Data science or digital health, Engineering, Physiology or a related field.  If you care about improving child health, enjoy working with data, and are interested in new technologies, this could be the ideal project for you.

Find full details here:  https://www.findaphd.com/phds/project/transforming-lives-phd-scholarship-sheffield-hallam-university-validating-3d-child-body-composition-agreement-bias-equity-and-correction/?p194831

APPLICATION DEADLINE 18th May 2026.

If you’re motivated to explore digital health, fairness, and innovation in child measurement, we’d love to hear from you – so please get in contact.

add_filter( ‘the_content_more_link’, ‘wpsites_read_more_link’ );
function wpsites_read_more_link() {
return ‘‘;
}

Posted on

SHU PhD opportunity: Child Shape Phenotypes & Health (18/05/26)

SHU Funded PhD Opportunity: Child Body Shape Phenotypes & Health Risk Prediction.

We are excited to share a fully funded SHU Transforming Lives PhD scholarship opportunity at Sheffield Hallam University, focusing on an area of research that is both urgently needed and full of potential for real‑world impact: Child body shape phenotypes and their role in predicting future health risk.

This project sits within the School of Sport and Physical Activity and the wider Advance Wellbeing Research Centre – a vibrant environment where researchers work at the intersection of health, human measurement, digital innovation and applied science.

APPLICATION DEADLINE 18th May 2026.

Why This Research Matters?

Childhood obesity and related health conditions remain one of the most pressing public health challenges of our time. Yet, the way we assess children’s size and growth has barely evolved in decades.

Traditional measures such as BMI are widely used, but they do not capture differences in body shape, fat distribution, or proportionality – factors increasingly recognised as crucial for understanding health risk more accurately. Children with the same BMI can have very different body shapes and, subsequently, very different health trajectories. This PhD seeks to change that.

By exploring how body shape phenotypes – not just size – relate to health outcomes, this research has the potential to:

  • Improve early identification of children at risk
  • Inform better screening tools in healthcare and schools
  • Support targeted interventions
  • Enhance growth monitoring guidelines
  • Shape future national and international standards

Ultimately, this is a project with the capacity to change lives, ensuring children receive fairer, more accurate, and more personalised assessments of wellbeing.

What will the PhD Will Explore?

As the doctoral researcher, you will investigate:

  • How child body shape and proportionality differ across populations
  • The relationship between body shape phenotypes and indicators of health risk
  • How new technologies (such as 3D body scanning and digital anthropometry) can enhance child growth assessment
  • Whether combining traditional measurements with shape‑based phenotypes improves the prediction of future health.

Who Should Apply?

This studentship is ideal for applicants with backgrounds in: Public health, Health sciences, Sports and exercise science, Nutrition, Psychology, Biomedical sciences, Data science, Physiology or related fields. 

We welcome applicants who are passionate about improving child health, curious about the drivers of health inequality, and eager to develop strong research expertise in anthropometry, measurement science, and applied health methods.

Full details, including eligibility, project description and application process, can be found here: https://www.findaphd.com/phds/project/transforming-lives-phd-scholarship-sheffield-hallam-university-child-body-shape-phenotypes-and-health-risk-prediction/?p194832

APPLICATION DEADLINE 18th May 2026.

If you’re motivated to improve child health, passionate about high‑quality measurement, and excited by the chance to work on a project that genuinely makes a difference, we’d love to hear from you – so please get in contact.

Posted on

BLOG: UK Voices Against Weight Stigma (World Obesity Day ’26)

Each World Obesity Day (March 4th) is a reminder that we need to keep rethinking how we talk about and respond to obesity. This blog brings together key UK organisations and influential voices working to reduce weight stigma and ensure lived experience is at the heart of change.

A major milestone in this area is the International Consensus Statement and Pledge to Eradicate Weight Stigma, led by King’s College London and endorsed by over 100 organisations. It shifts the focus away from personal blame and highlights the biological, environmental, and social factors that contribute to obesity. The pledge calls for respectful language, non‑stigmatising imagery, and stronger advocacy across public systems.

The Obesity Health Alliance (OHA) brings together more than 60 organisations committed to stigma‑free, equitable, person‑centred care. Their work recognises how harmful stigma can be—and how often it prevents people from seeking support. The British Dietetic Association (BDA)  also plays a vital role, providing practical guidelines for person‑first language and the use of non‑dehumanising imagery, which is especially important given how commonly stigma is experienced in healthcare settings.

Across the UK, public‑facing resources are growing too. Food Active’s Weight Stigma Resource Hub  offers accessible tools and examples for practitioners and local authorities, challenging the idea that obesity is just a matter of personal choice and helping shift public understanding. At the same time, patient and public involvement (PPI) initiatives like Obesity Voices  ensure people with lived experience have genuine influence over research, policy, and practice.

Several key individuals are also helping reshape national conversations. Sarah Le Brocq, Founder of All About Obesity CIC, is one of the UK’s leading advocates. She blends lived experience with scientific insight and national policy roles at NICE, NHSE, and the OHA. Her work reframes obesity as a chronic condition rather than a personal failing.

Ken Clare, Chair of the UK Coalition for People Living with Obesity (UKCPO) and co‑founder of Obesity Voices, is another long‑standing lived‑experience leader. He champions peer‑led communities and ensures that those most affected are shaping services, research, and strategy.

Scientific communicators such as Dr Giles Yeo, a genetics expert, also play an important role by challenging the “choice” narrative and promoting compassion grounded in evidence. And Dr Stephanie DeGiorgio  works nationally to improve how healthcare professionals communicate about obesity, strengthening scientific understanding and reducing stigma in clinical settings.

Together, these organisations and individuals signal a positive shift in the UK – away from stigma and towards evidence‑based, compassionate, and inclusive approaches. On World Obesity Day, it’s more important than ever to amplify these efforts, challenge outdated assumptions, and ensure that every voice is heard, respected, and valued.

Written by Dr Alice Bullas, Sheffield Hallam University.

Edited by Co-Pilot AI (University Enterprise License).

Image: Wold Obesity

Posted on

BLOG – AnthroEngineering: why measurement alone is no longer enough

Anthropometry has long provided a way of describing human size, shape, and proportion. Traditionally, its outputs have been datasets, reference values, and population summaries – useful for comparison, surveillance, and classification. Increasingly, however, anthropometric data is no longer an endpoint. It is passed directly into engineering and design processes, shaping physical systems that people must wear, use, or interact with. It is this transition – from measurement to design decision – that sits at the heart of anthropometric engineering.

Berthaume and Kramer have argued that the sustained integration of anthropology and engineering has reached a point where it can no longer be treated as a temporary collaboration or methodological tool. Instead, they propose anthroengineering as an independent interdisciplinary field, focused on translating biological knowledge into engineered solutions. Their argument resonates strongly with current uses of anthropometry, particularly in applied and sports contexts.

Where anthropometric engineering is already at work

In general engineering, anthropometric data informs decisions about fit, clearance, reach, and interface geometry. Examples include seating systems, vehicle interiors, personal protective equipment, and medical devices. In each case, engineers must decide how much body variability to accommodate, which dimensions matter most, and what happens when users fall outside expected ranges. These are not measurement problems alone – they are design and risk decisions built on anthropometric assumptions.

In sports engineering, this translation is even more explicit. Body dimensions influence: equipment sizing and adjustment ranges, load distribution in protective gear, interface pressures at points of contact, and the balance between performance optimisation and injury risk.

Here, anthropometric data is rarely used in isolation. It interacts with biomechanics, materials science, and performance demands. Anthropometric engineering provides a way of framing that interaction, recognising that the same measurement can have very different implications depending on how it is operationalised within a system.

How anthroengineering differs from human factors

Anthropometric engineering is often conflated with human factors or ergonomics, but the distinction is important. Human factors focuses on human–system interaction, prioritising usability, safety, cognition, and behaviour within complex environments. It is typically concerned with how people use systems. Anthropometric engineering, by contrast, is concerned with how bodies are represented within engineered models. Its emphasis is upstream of interaction: on how measurements, structural variation, and biological constraints are translated into design parameters, tolerances, and constraints. Both fields overlap and inform one another, but their starting points differ. Anthropometric engineering is less about user experience and more about biological realism in design logic.

Anthropometry as a tool – not the whole process

Critically, this framing reminds us that anthropometry itself is not anthroengineering. Anthropometry provides the raw material: measurements, distributions, and error characteristics. Anthropometric engineering begins when those data are interpreted and embedded within engineered systems. This distinction matters methodologically. A highly reliable measurement protocol does not guarantee appropriate design use. Percentiles, means, and reference values may obscure multidimensional relationships, dynamic movement, and task‑specific demands. Once measurements are converted into fixed geometries or adjustment limits, their embedded assumptions become difficult to detect – or challenge.

Anthropometric engineering therefore requires practitioners to engage not only with how bodies are measured, but with how measurement uncertainty, population diversity, and biological variability are handled downstream.

Why this matters now

As digital human models, automated body scanning, and data‑driven design become routine, anthropometric data is increasingly abstracted from its measurement context. Berthaume and Kramer’s call to recognise anthroengineering as a field highlights the need for methodological literacy across disciplinary boundaries.

For applied anthropometry, this is an opportunity. By engaging explicitly with engineering translation – not just data collection – anthropometrists can play a more active role in shaping the systems built around real human bodies.

For more information about our research and work in Anthropometry please contact Dr Alice Bullas (a.bullas@shu.ac.uk), or visit our research website: https://research.shu.ac.uk/shusize/. A copy of this post is also available at www.engineeringsport.co.uk.

Reference

Berthaume, M. A. & Kramer, P. A. (2021). Anthroengineering: an independent interdisciplinary field. Interface Focus, 11(5), 20200056.

Posted on

BLOG – England’s latest NCMP results: what the 2024/25 data tells us about children’s growth, health and the environments shaping it

Released in November 2025, the National Child Measurement Programme (NCMP) provides one of the most detailed insights into children’s growth across England. This summary outlines the latest findings and their implications for families, schools, and communities.

What is the NCMP – and why does it matter?

Every year, trained teams record the height and weight of Reception (ages 4–5) and Year 6 (ages 10–11) pupils in state-maintained schools. These measurements are used to calculate BMI centiles, supporting the monitoring of population-level trends in growth and body size. In 2024/25, 1,145,893 children were measured, achieving a 94.1% participation rate and providing a strong national overview.

While BMI is not a perfect measure for individuals, NCMP uses established centile cut-offs to monitor population patterns and inequalities, complementing other health surveys. According to OHID, population monitoring applies centiles to identify children at higher risk of entering clinically defined categories later, without assigning labels or diagnoses.

The headlines

The majority of children measured are within a healthy weight range: 75.4% in Reception and 62.2% in Year 6. At the same time, 10.5% of Reception children and 22.2% of Year 6 children are living with obesity – with severe obesity at 2.9% and 5.6%, respectively.

Compared to recent years, Reception shows a concerning uptick: excluding the pandemic peak, 2024/25 records one of the highest Reception obesity rates since measurements began. Year 6 obesity remains higher than pre‑pandemic levels and has not returned to earlier lows.

Participation is slightly higher than last year, strengthening confidence in these concerning trends.

It’s common to see higher obesity prevalence in Year 6 than Reception. Several factors contribute: cumulative exposure to environments that make nutritious choices harder, changes in physical activity opportunities as children get older, and transitions in school routines and food options. The NCMP trend charts show that while Reception prevalence hovered around 9–10% pre‑pandemic (with a spike in 2020/21), 2024/25 has ticked up to 10.5%, and Year 6 remains elevated at 22.2%.

Understanding BMI distributions (not just category cut‑offs) helps. OHID’s analysis shows shifts in the whole distribution, not only at the tails – evidence that population‑level drivers, rather than individual behaviours alone, are at play.

Inequalities: the gap is still wide – and in some places widening

Children living in the most deprived areas continue to face far higher risks. In Reception, obesity prevalence is 14.0% in the most deprived areas versus 6.9% in the least; in Year 6, it’s 29.3% versus 13.5%. The deprivation gap has widened compared with the early years of the programme.

Differences by ethnic group persist: the report highlights higher obesity prevalence among children from Black ethnic groups, and higher underweight prevalence among some South Asian groups (for example, Indian). These patterns reflect complex intersections of culture, food environments and socioeconomic circumstances.

Geographically, local authorities and regions vary – underlining the importance of local planning and targeted action. (OHID’s Fingertips profile is updated so councils and ICBs can explore their area’s trends over time.)

Should we trust the NCMP data?

NCMP is a powerful dataset, but it isn’t perfect. BMI centiles do not capture body composition or fat distribution – that’s a key reason researchers and clinicians explore complementary measures like waist‑based indices; still, those are better suited to clinical research than school settings. For population‑level monitoring, NCMP remains the most comprehensive, consistent system we have at the moment.

What does this mean for children and families?

Numbers can feel abstract. What matters is supporting every child to grow and thrive in nurturing environments. It is important to remember:

  • Children are growing within diverse bodies. A single metric doesn’t define a child’s health, identity or potential. NCMP is designed for population monitoring, not individual diagnosis; families should be offered supportive, stigma‑free conversations when results are shared.
  • The environments around children shape choices. Food availability, marketing, price promotions and the density of fast‑food outlets influence what’s on offer on the walk to school and at the end of a busy day. Policy groups like Nesta emphasise that focusing solely on “healthy food literacy” without changing the wider environment is unlikely to shift population trends.
  • Health is multifaceted. It’s shaped by more than BMI – factors like access to nutritious food, opportunities for physical activity, air quality, housing, mental wellbeing, and community safety all play a role.
  • Use NCMP letters as a conversation starter, not a label. If you receive results, ask for supportive guidance from school nurses or your GP. The aim is to promote wellbeing – sleep, food, movement and mental health – without stigma.

What helps – and where should effort focus?

As, child health challenges remain concentrated in the most deprived communities, and the modest progress seen in Reception in recent years has not been sustained – this year’s data shows those gains have reversed. Many, including the Obesity Health Alliance, are calling for comprehensive, system‑level action – not blame or shame. Such action would address the broader structures and environments that influence health, rather than focusing only on individual behaviour;

  • Food environment regulation: Restricting marketing of high‑fat, salt and sugar foods to children (including online and in-store promotions).Setting nutritional standards for school meals and out‑of‑school food provision.
  • Urban planning and transport: Designing walkable, safe streets and green spaces to encourage active travel and play. Improving access to affordable sports and recreation facilities.
  • Economic and policy levers: Subsidising healthy foods and reviewing price promotions that make less nutritious options cheaper. Supporting families through benefits and cost‑of‑living measures that reduce food insecurity.
  • Education and community support: Embedding health and wellbeing into school curricula without stigma. Co‑designing culturally sensitive weight management and wellbeing services with families.
  • Cross‑sector collaboration: Aligning health, education, housing and transport policies so they work together to create healthier environments.

The 2024/25 NCMP data is a call to support children with person‑centred care and to reshape environments so that healthy growth is the default – everywhere, for everyone. The evidence is clear; consistent, community‑led action without stigma is needed.

Key take‑away messages

  • Most children in England are within a healthy weight – 75.4% in Reception and 62.2% in Year 6 – but obesity affects 10.5% and 22.2%, respectively, with severe obesity at 2.9% and 5.6%.
  • Reception obesity has risen in 2024/25, marking one of the highest rates outside the pandemic peak; Year 6 remains above pre‑pandemic levels.
  • Inequalities are stark: children in the most deprived areas are about twice as likely to be living with obesity as those in the least deprived areas (Reception 14.0% vs 6.9%; Year 6 29.3% vs 13.5%).
  • Differences by ethnic group persist, underscoring the need for culturally informed, person‑centred support and equitable environments.
  • Population‑level drivers matter. Changing the wider food and activity environment is more effective than relying on education alone.
  • NCMP remains a critical tool for local planning, with 94.1% participation providing robust evidence to guide action.
  • NCMP data is a tool for action – not for stigma.

by Dr Alice Bullas (December 2025)

Posted on

VOLUNTEER MODELS NEEDED: (£45 Shopping voucher) 28/11/25 12:00-15:00, AWRC Sheffield

At the end of November, at Hallam’s Advanced Wellbeing Research Centre (AWRC) in Attercliffe, we are holding a body measurement training course. On the final day of the training (28th November) there will be an assessment in which course attendees are required to measure 3 models each. Doing so will allow us to assess their precision.  However, we need volunteers (aged 18 year+) to participate as these models.

The session will last ~ 3 hours (12:00-15:00) and each model will receive a £45 Shopping voucher. You will be have a series of body measures (a video of these measures can be found here) taken using tape measure and callipers. Each measurement session will take ~15 minutes and you will be measured no more than 6 times. You will be required to wear form fitting non compressive clothing. If you do not have suitable clothing we can provide some. We would also recommend that you bring some loose clothing to wear on top in between measurement sessions, again if you do not have suitable clothing we can provide some.

If you are interested in volunteering please contact Dr Alice Bullas (a.bullas@shu.ac.uk). Or if you know of somebody else that might be interested, please share this opportunity with them.

Posted on

November 2025: SHU ISAK level 1 accreditation & re-accreditation training course

SHU School of Sport & Physical Activity & the AWRC to hold ISAK Level 1 CPD training in November 2025 (26 – 28/11 09:00 – 17:00). This course will teach an understanding of the theory of anthropometric applications through asynchronous online content (received 2 weeks ahead of practical sessions) and in person practical sessions over consecutive days.

During the final day you will undergo a practical examination in which your inter and intra anthropometrist error will be assessed. After the course you are required to collect 20 anthropometric profiles, achieving appropriate intra anthropometrist error, to achieve ISAK accreditation.

Once accredited, the ISAK certificate is valid for 4 years, after which point you can undertake re-accreditation at the same level or complete a full course at a higher level.

This course is an official ISAK registered course and is delivered by an ISAK accredited level 3 instructor, and anthropometry specialist in the Morphology Research Theme, Dr Alice Bullas.

The cost of this course includes the training course, ISAK membership registration, digital ISAK manual royalty fee, a physical ISAK manual, lunch and refreshments each day.

SHU student/staff/alumni will receive a large discount.

If you are interested in ISAK Level 2, please get in contact – as this will only be provided if there is enough demand. This would be costed at External: £550, Student*: £400, SHU staff* / alumni*: £350, SHU student: £325.

ISAK LEVEL 1 (External: £450, Student*: £300, SHU staff* / alumni*: £250, SHU student: £225).

This ISAK level 1 course is designed for those required to collate a restricted profile of anthropometric measurements and skinfolds: 4 base measures, 8 skinfolds, 6 girths and 3 bone breadths. BOOK HERE

RE-ACCREDITATION (External: £155, Student*: £130, SHU staff* / alumni*: £130, SHU student: £110).

This course is the re-accreditation (one day examination) for the ISAK level 1 and 2 course. This consists of a three-subject practical exam in which Inter-tester TEM targets (of 12.5% for each skinfold and 2.5% for each of the other measures), must be met. This is an in person practical examination session over 1 days (typically 9:30am – 5:00pm). BOOK HERE

*Proof of Student ID/Staff ID/Graduation Certificate Required.

ABOUT ISAK:

ISAK, the International Society for the Advancement of Kinanthropometry, is a global organization that sets standards for the measurement of the human body in relation to movement, health, and performance. Kinanthropometry focuses on body composition, size, shape, and proportionality, and ISAK plays a key role by providing a standardized framework for how these measurements are taken and interpreted. Through internationally recognized accreditation courses, ISAK ensures that practitioners—such as sport scientists, physiotherapists, and nutritionists—collect accurate, reliable, and consistent anthropometric data.

The importance of ISAK lies in its ability to unify and professionalize measurement practices worldwide. Accurate anthropometric assessment is essential for evaluating athletic potential, monitoring training adaptations, tailoring nutrition programs, and identifying health risks linked to obesity or undernutrition. By maintaining strict methodological standards, ISAK enhances comparability across studies and applications, ensuring data is scientifically valid. This supports evidence-based decision-making in sports performance, talent identification, physical education, and clinical health. Ultimately, ISAK provides the foundation for trustworthy anthropometric research and practice, advancing both science and applied health fields globally.

ADDITIONAL INFO:

Candidates whose previous accreditation has expired for more than two years are ineligible for re-accreditation, unless there is a medically-certified reason for their not having been able to re-accredit within that entire period. In the absence of that, these candidates must redo the complete Level 1 course if they wish to regain their accreditation.

No candidate can be admitted to a re-accreditation workshop if any unresolved disciplinary or administrative issue exists between them and ISAK. Therefore, it is compulsory for the candidate to contact the ISAK Secretariat to confirm approval for reaccreditation ahead of booking onto this course. This email confirmation should then be forwarded to the course leader – Dr Alice Bullas (a.bullas@shu.ac.uk).

Certification will only be issued after: Successful participation in an anthropometry course (at Level 1) containing theory and practical components as specified in the Level 1 curriculum. Successful demonstration of landmarking, equipment manipulation and measurement of the Restricted Profile in front of a Level 3 or Level 4 Anthropometrist. Successful completion of a practical examination (80% minimum) in the presence of a Level 3 (Instructor) or Level 4 (Criterion) Anthropometrist.

The examination will consist of the measurement of a sample set of 10 variables from the Restricted Profile on 3 subjects. The 10 variables of the exam must include: 1 base measure, 5 skinfolds, 3 girths and 1 bone breaths. To score points for a variable, the intra-tester % TEM in the practical exam must be no more than 10% for skinfolds and no more than 2% for the other measures. To score points for a variable, the inter-tester %TEM between the criterion and the technician, using the same equipment, must be no more than 12.5% for skinfold measures and no more than 2.5% for the other measures (Table 1).Successful post-course completion of repeat measures of the Restricted Profile on 20 subjects, where a subject is landmarked once and then duplicate or triplicate measures are taken, as required. All variables of the Restricted Profile are to be measured on each of the 20 subjects. [This must be done by measuring the entire proforma once, then the entire proforma a second time, then taking third measures where needed.]

Within-course Post-course profiles 15 tester %TEMs for the duplicates must not exceed 7.5% for any skinfold nor 1.5% for any of the other measures. The authenticity of the measurement session(s) and original data sheets must be certified by the candidate. The authenticity and adequacy of those measurements are matters for the Examiner to determine. Note: Level 1s have 4 months from the date of their practical examination to submit their 20 proformas through ISAK Metry software.

Certification expires four years and four months from the date of the practical
examination.

100% Refunds available up to 14 days before the course start date (26/11/25).
50% Refunds available up to 7 days before the course start date (26/11/25).

If you are interested in attending, or have any questions please get in contact with Dr Alice Bullas

Posted on

CALL FOR PAPERS (DEADLINE EXTENDED FEB’26) – Applied Sciences Special Issue: Novel Anthropometric Techniques for Health and Nutrition Assessment

Looking to publish research in anthropometry? We are looking for papers (deadline 31/12/24 – EXTENDED TO FEBRUARY 2026) on: the validity of anthropometric indices in health and nutritional screenings, novel anthropometric indices and techniques, applications of anthropometry for physical performance assessment, and association of anthropometry and psychological health.

Background:

Anthropometry is a non-invasive, simple, convenient and cost-effective method to assess the health and nutritional status of individuals and populations. To date, a number of anthropometric indices, including body mass index (BMI), waist-to-hip ratio (WHR), and waist circumference, have been proposed as useful tools to screen health and nutritional status. Today, with the advancement of technologies to assess body composition and fat distribution patterns, physical performance, metabolic biomarkers, and also genetic information, the capabilities and usefulness of anthropometry and the indices that conveniently reflect these pieces of information have been highlighted.

In this Special Issue of Applied Sciences, we will consider studies that investigate the potential of anthropometry in assessments of both physiological and psychological health and nutritional status. The topics of interest include but are not limited to the following:

  • Validity of anthropometric indices in health and nutritional screenings;
  • Proposal of novel anthropometric indices and techniques;
  • Application of anthropometry for physical performance assessment;
  • Association of anthropometry and psychological health.

Guest Editors:

Dr. Masaharu Kagawa – Institute of Nutrition Sciences, Kagawa Nutrition University, Japan.
Dr. Alice May Bullas – SHU, Sheffield, UK.

For more information please head to the Applied Sciences website: https://www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci/special_issues/H6R3N30EU3

Posted on

13/08/24 (12:30-13:30) BASES Webinar – Beyond the Scale: Evaluating Body Metrics in Health and Sport

Body measures underpin life as we know it; from the trivial: the shape of the chair you’re sat on, the clothes you are wearing and the dimension of your devices, to the critical: the design of your seat belt, your qualification for medical treatments and the dosages of those treatment. In sport we typically place a lot of emphasis on the accuracy of these measures, however this has not translated into health – yet. This presentation explores the translation of body measurement expertise from sport to health, with a focus on childhood obesity.

For more information please head to the BASES webite:https://www.bases.org.uk/subcalendar.html?id=events&sub=event_listings0&ssub=&p=0&eventtype=10

Posted on

NEWS: Dr Alice Bullas researcher awarded prestigious Future Leaders Fellowship

Sheffield Hallam University morphology researcher, Dr Alice Bullas, been awarded a £1.6m Future Leaders Fellowship from UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) to develop new body measurement methods for children living with obesity.

Alice has been recognised as one of the most promising science and research leaders in the UK, securing one of 75 fellowships announced today (Monday 4 December).

The Fellowship will fund a five-year study to identify the most accurate and suitable ways to assess the health of children, with a focus on childhood obesity. The project is centred around developing new approaches for data collection of external body shapes, body composition and health measures from 400 children from diverse backgrounds across Sheffield.

The full SHU press release can be viewed here.