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. Am. J. Hum. Biol., 2013. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.