33 Role of body physique assessment in sports sciences

Suman Dua

epgp books

 

 

 

Contents:

 

Introduction

1.     Body composition , physique and sports

1.1    Body mass index

1.2   Skinfold thickness

1.3   Anthropometry

1.3.1 Somatotyping

1.3.2 Anthropometric Somatotyping

2.     Physique and sports

Summary

 

Learning Objectives:

 

To understand:

1.  how physique plays important role in sports

2.  how the profiles of athletes varies in different sports

3.  the methods of assessing body composition and physique among sportsperson

4.  the need for consistent data

 

Introduction

 

The assessment of physique is important as it can be used to ascertain an individual’s readiness for sport participation and to prevent injury. Developing skeleton is less able to withstand the trauma and shearing stress which occur in contact sports (e.g. football) or in sports with repeated internal trauma (e.g. long distance running, pitching),as compared to a mature skeleton, subjecting the athlete to fractures and other injuries. The assessment of physique is useful to characterize the profiles of athletes in different sports.

 

Therefore, an individual with a particular profile can be encouraged to participate in the sport for which he or she is physically best suited. Interest in the influence of body physique on physical performance dates back to antiquity (Gunther, 1975). Physique of a sumo wrestler can be compared easily with that of a marathon runner, or that of a volleyball player with a gymnast. It can be observed very well that within particular sports and position, the physiques of elite athletes appear similar, however the body size, structure and composition differ markedly among athletes of different sports.

 

Wide range of body size and composition characteristics among elite athletes demonstrate that physique plays an important role in high level performance in many sports. A lot of factors such as biochemical, physiological, psychological and morphological, play important role in sports performance. Body size and composition may enhance or limit performance in a particular event. Tall stature for example is very useful in sports like basketball where as a smaller stature is useful in gymnastics.

 

Large body mass is important for wresting whereas, less body weight is required for running. Human physique plays an inspirable role during execution of movement, skill and technique. The quality of an individual’s movement and skill efficiency in terms of its utilization value is directly proportional to his level of performance. Excess body fat hampers performance whereas, fat free mass (FFM) is normally associated with enhancing performance. Most sports as well as training programs aim to reduce fat to a minimum and increase FFM to an optimum. Excess fatness reduces performance, as it adds non force producing mass to total body weight. Acceleration being proportional to the force but inversely proportional to the mass, excess body fatness at a given level of force application resists change in velocity. Velocity is an important component in many sports. Sometimes, however certain level of fat located at specific level is important for certain sports. Body composition profiles of elite athletes in most of the sports, which involve translocation of body mass, a low fat percentage (fat%) is advantageous as far as mechanical and metabolic aspects are concerned.

 

Fat free mass, has a positive relation with performance whereas excess FFM may be negative factor for some sports. A large FFM is however required where force has to be exerted against an external object. A large FFM may have a negative influence on performance which requires translocation of body mass because, it like fat ,adds to mass of body e.g. running jumping and agility events.

 

2. Body Composition and sports

 

The relation of body composition to physical performance has been observed in adults though they have focused on influence of body fat on running performance. Percent fat is significantly associated with poorer performance at distance ranging from 800 to 10000 m (r value = 0.49 to 0.69 in trained runners. (Brandon and Boileau, 1987).

 

For studying association of physique and several physical performance functions such as pull-ups, sit-ups, shuttle run, standing broad jump, 50 yard dash, soft ball throw etc., several methods are used for assessing body composition, such as- densitometry, hydrometric, body potassium, neutron-activation analysis, creatinine excretion and other muscle metabolites, basal metabolic rate and anthropometry. Several advanced techniques and methodologies have emerged such as bio-electric impedance and total body conductivity, dual X-ray absorptiometry, infrared interactance, magnetic resonance imaging and computed axial tomography (CAT) scanning.

 

Most of the field/clinical techniques are validated and calibrated by densitometry. Among all the models of assessing body composition, two-component model, consisting of fat and fat free mass is the most commonly used. Several equations have been developed based on both theoretic and empiric assumptions to estimate percent fat from densitometry by using two component model. The assumptions are made about densities of both components based on adult cadaver data. Because fat is a solitary component. it is reasonable to assume that density of fat, 0.900 g/cc is somewhat constant.

 

However, the assumption that FFM is constant with regard to proportions of its components is less tenable particularly during respective growth and aging. Variation also occurs in FFM components among racial groups, which is of considerable importance among athletes. Body composition of athletes has been studied by using Siri equation, which was derived through the two-component model by assuming the density of fat (DF) = 0.900 g/cc and the density of FFM (DFFM) of 1.100 g/cc. By using these constants for DF and DFFM, the Siri’s equation is as follows: % Fat = (4.95/DB-4.50)Í100 Fat Free Mass is calculated as FFM = Body weight (BW) –(% Fat/100) Í BW. There is however scarcity of data on DFFM for age and social groups and on athletic groups.

 

1.1 Body mass index

 

Body mass index (BMI) is widely used for adults for clinical and epidemiological assessments. It is also defined as body weight expressed in kilograms divided by square of height expressed in metres. The unit of BMI is kg/m2. BMI is classified as normal, underweight, overweight and obese. Body mass index is both influenced by fat and FFM. Most of the heavy weight boxers are overweight according to BMI but are not fat. So, BMI alone is not a good index for assessment of status of a sports person.

 

2.1 Skinfold thickness

 

Like BMI, skinfolds are relatively easy and inexpensive to obtain. Subcutaneous fat is believed to make major contribution to the prediction of total body fat as it composes about 50% of total body fat. When we consider the athletes, a significantly lower portion of total body fat may be located subcutaneously. The use of skinfolds to assess body fat or DB is based on the regression equations. which have several limitations due to the variability encountered due to age, gender and ethnicity. Cross validated equations however are there. Jackson and Pollock equations(Howley,2017), for male subjects and the Jackson, Pollock and Ward equations(Howley,2017), for female’s subjects are considered to be more precise than other equations when tested in both male and female athletes, respectively.

 

1.3. Anthropometry

 

Anthropometry plays an important role in athlete selection and performance criteria in sports Determination of the somatotype is especially useful in sports in which the body may impact on the biomechanics of movement as well as performance. Investigations of somatotypes in elite sportspersons play an important role in the study of the dynamics of development of a specific shape of the human body under the influence of various intensive purposeful training processes and competitive periods. It is well known that the anthropometric profile may indicate whether a player would be suitable to participate at the highest level in a specific sport.

 

1.3.1 Somatotyping

 

Somatotyping is one of the most valuable methods of evaluating body physique. It is the quantification of the present shape and composition of the human body in terms of endomorphy (relative fatness), mesomorphy (relative muscularity) and ectomorphy (relative linearity or thinness) ,Carter and Heath, (1990). Because of its exclusivity somatotyping has been used for studying population variation and/or age and sex variations. The differences in physique between populations in different regions were of importance, especially to underlie the cultural differences (Handa et al., 1995).

 

Somatotypes vary between population groups as well as during growth in the same population (Singh and Sidhu, 1980; Kaul et al., 1996). In growth studies, somatotyping allows one to characterize changes in physique during growth in order to monitor growth patterns and to better understand variations in adult physique (Norton and Olds, 1996; Malina et al., 2004). Changes in somatotype components during the growth period can also provide useful information about the growth status and the timing and rate of sexual maturation (Beunen et al., 1987; Hebbelinck et al., 1995; Toselli and Gruppioni, 1999). In a group of sports persons, the wrestlers had largest body volume and were fattest the. Gymness were smallest leanest and had greatest lean body mass per kg body weight. (Bharadwaj et al., 1990) Indian wrestlers were found to be shorter than the Olympic wrestlers. They also had greater subcutaneours fat (Yashpal et al. 1991). While comparing the structural composition of different category of hockey players, the forwards and half line players were lighter than backs and goal keepers as they have to run around relatively more (Patnaik et al., 1991). Significant differences in body measurements were also observed among athletes and non- Athletes by Banerjee et al. (1995). Study conducted by Satwanti and Kapoor (1994) showed lower value of extremity volume (leg volume) in swimmers as compared to non-swimmers. This showed the utility of this measurement in selection of class swimmers.

 

1.3.2 Anthropometric Somatotyping

 

Heath-Carter method (Heath and Carter, 1967; Carter, 1980) is followed for evaluating somatotype characteristics. The following equations are used for calculating somatotype:

 

Endomorphy = – 0.7182 + 0.1451 (X) – 0.00068 (X 2) + 0.0000014 (X 3)

 

Where, X = (sum of triceps, subscapular and supraspinale skinfolds) multiplied by (170.18/height in cm). This is called height-corrected endomorphy and is the preferred method for calculating endomorphy.

 

Mesomorphy = 0.858 × biepicondylar humerus + 0.601 × biepicondylar femur + 0.188 × corrected arm girth + 0.161 × corrected calf girth – height × 0.131 + 4.50

 

Where, Corrected arm girth = Upper arm circumference (in cm) – Triceps skinfold (in mm)/10 and Corrected calf girth = Calf circumference (cm) – Calf skinfold (mm)/10

 

Ectomorphy is calculated using three different equations according to the height-weight ratio (HWR) which can be calculated as height divided by cube root of weight.

If HWR is greater than or equal to 40.75 then,

Ectomorphy = 0.732 × HWR  ̶ 28.58

If HWR was less than 40.75 and greater than 38.25 then,

Ectomorphy = 0.463 × HWR ̶ 17.63

If HWR was equal to or less than 38.25 then,

Ectomorphy = 0.1

 

Using the formula given by Carter (1980), Individual somatotypes were plotted on a somatochart by calculating values of X and Y coordinates.

X-coordinate = Ectomorphy – Endomorphy

Y-coordinate = 2 × Mesomorphy – (Endomorphy + Ectomorphy)

The values thus obtained are plotted in somatochart. Somatochart, which was first devised by Sheldon (Sheldon et al., 1940), is a schematic, triangular shaped, two-dimensional representation of the theoretical range of known somatotypes. It shows the distribution of the somatotypes plotted as points, and their concentration on the chart. Furthermore, Somatotype dispersion distances, Mean somatotype dispersion, Standard deviation of somatotype dispersion distance have been calculated using Ross and Wilson’s (1973) method.

 

2. Physique and sports

 

Analysis of the literature has shown that there is a lack of information explaining the developmental pattern of high profile athletes in relation to different expressions of the human somatotype. It is obvious that the structural appearance of a person, or body shape, is determined by his or her genotype as influenced by their environment. The quantification of morphological characteristics of high profile athletes can be a key aspect of relating body structure to sports performance. On the other side the quantified body physique of elite sportsmen has been shown to alter over time. Analysis of the latest literature comparing anthropometric variables and somatotypes clearly illustrates that specific functional requirements produce differences in the anthropometric variables of the human body.

 

It is also difficult to make accurate conclusion on the morphometric and somatotype characteristics of elite athletes due to lack of consistency between different studies. Different terms have been used from time to time like dynamic anthropometry, sports anthropometry, biometry, physiological anthropometry, anthropometrica, kinanthropometry, etc. by scientists to establish some relationship between body structure and the specialized functions required for various tasks (Koley, 2006). In fact, it is well established that each individual is unique. The extent of human variability is so enormous that no two individuals can ever be exactly the same.

 

There are two fundamental causes for this variation. One is the genes inherited from parents and the other is infinity of environment which acts upon individuals from cradle to grave. Therefore, scientists have always been fascinated by the phenomenon of human variation. In the populations, the law of chance operates as a whole and people in general tend to fall along curve of normal distribution on all traits (Koley & Sandhu, 2005). With the innumerable variety of human physique, it has become a generalized consideration that some sports events are more suitable to individuals with specific physique than other (Reco-Sanz, 1998; Wilmore & Constill, 1999; Keogh, 1999).

 

It has been well established that specific physical characteristics or anthropometric profiles indicate whether the player would be suitable for the competition at the highest level in a specific sport 2003; Slater et al., 2005). These anthropometric and morphological parameters are the sensitive indicators of physical growth and nutritional status of the athletes for their maximal performances (Wilmore & Costill, 1999; Chatterjee et al., 2006).

 

Testing volleyball players, Busk and coworkers(year) also demonstrated that the ectomorph and mesomorph components of body physique correlated significantly with values of maximal power measured during counter movement jumps. It was interesting that the athletes in the elite groups, unlike the groups of low profile sportsmen, demonstrated a greater variability of endomorphic and ectomorphic indices. It is difficult to explain this phenomenon. Probably it is due to the large variety of individual somatotype ratios of high profile athletes who belong to the same kind of sport. Hazir (YEAR)supported this point of view, testing elite football players. He supposed that highly trained athletes in modern sport vary more widely in terms of different anthropometrical values and explained this variation by the influence of different sport requirements of the game.

 

Sodhi and Sidhu (1984) studied anthropometric traits of hockey and football players and concluded that forwards and halves were found to be short statured in hockey because they have to do maximum ground work specially the formers. Long upper extremities of halves help them to cover wider range in the field. The backs in hockey and stoppers in football were having tall height which helps them to cover wider range during play. Bale (1991) studied the anthropometric measurements and performance of 18 junior female national basketball players of England.

 

They were studied according to their playing positions and it was found that the central position players were taller, followed by the forwards and guards. It was concluded that the central positioned players were more taller, had longer limbs, wider hips and had more lean body mass. Authors have found different somatotype ratios at which sportsmen excel in different sports. The morphometric differences obtained in the experiments suggest the probable observation of a modification in morphometric phenotype of athletes as a result of intense workouts. This observation gives reason to believe that morphometric characteristics of the athlete’s body and fundamental values of the fractional somatotype of athletes is a result of intense workouts.

 

There is a need and requirement for morphometric oriented studies in sports with an importance of differentiation by age and sex. While the classic Heath Carter protocol is widely used nowadays in elite and mass sports future experimental work is required to collect more and more data from other studies. For example, body size measurements may be used to calculate vertical and circumferential proportionality (shapes) of the body which ought to be specific to some sports. Additional information about arm lengths and arm and hand span as well as leg lengths would be furthermore useful for a large variety of sport and athletic pursuits including; basketball, soccer, and kayaking.

 

Also the androgyny Index which illustrates the relative widths of the shoulders and pelvis may be valuable as an additional correlate of the level of masculinity and probably mesomorphy. It may prove useful to use bioelectrical impedance examination that indirectly demonstrates the assessment of fat-free mass within the body or the measurement of the hydrostatic weight for the same purpose. It is also possible to indirectly calculate body muscle mass using the simply attained girth and skinfold measurements.

 

It is obvious that determination of the somatotype is especially supportive in sports in which the body may impact on the biomechanics of movement and the resulting performance. Investigations of somatotypes in elite sportspersons play an important role while studying the dynamics of development of specific shape of the human body under the influence of various intensive purposeful training processes and competitive periods. It is well known that the anthropometric profile may indicate whether a player would be suitable to participate at the highest level in a specific sport. Analysis of the literature has shown that there is a lack of information explaining the developmental pattern of high profile athletes in relation to different expressions of the human somatotype. It is obvious that the structural appearance of a person, or body shape, is determined by his or her genotype as influenced by their environment.

 

Summary

 

It is well known that the anthropometric profile may indicate whether a player would be suitable to participate at the highest level in a specific sport. The quantifications of morphological characteristics of high profile athletes can be a key aspect of relating body structure to sports performance. On the other side the quantified body physique of elite sportspersons has been shown to alter over time. Analysis of the latest literature comparing anthropometric variables and somatotypes clearly illustrates that specific functional requirements produce differences in the anthropometric variables of the human body. Wide range of body size and composition characteristics among elite athletes demonstrate that physique plays an important role in high level performance in many sports. A lot of factors such as biochemical, physiological, psychological and morphological, play important role in sports performance. Body size and composition may enhance or limit performance in a particular event. Tall stature for example, is very useful in sports like basketball where as a smaller stature is useful in gymnastics.

 

Large body mass is important for wresting whereas, less body weight is required for running. Human physique plays an inspirable role during execution of movement, skill and technique. The quality of an individual’s movement and skill efficiency in terms of its utilization value is directly proportional to his level of performance. Excess body fat hampers performance whereas, fat free mass (FFM) is normally associated with enhancing performance. Most sports as well as training programs aim to reduce fat to a minimum and increase FFM to an optimum. Excess fatness reduces performance, as it adds non force producing mass to total body weight. Acceleration being proportional to the force but inversely proportional to the mass, excess body fatness at a given level of force application resists change in velocity. Velocity is an important component in many sports. Sometimes, however certain level of fat located at specific level is important for certain sports. Body composition profiles of elite athletes in most of the sports, which involve translocation of body mass, a low fat percentage (fat%) is advantageous as far as mechanical and metabolic aspects are concerned. There is a need and requirement for morphometric oriented studies in sports with an importance of differentiation by age and sex.

 

Studies showed that the essential difference in the anthropometrical variables and their somatotypes are because of the large age difference between groups. It is also difficult to make accurate conclusions on the morphometric and somatotype characteristics of elite athletes due to a lack of consistency between different studies, based on data received from different national groups of athletes and obtained during differing periods.

you can view video on Role of body physique assessment in sports sciences

 

References

  • Brandon L J, Boileau R A. 1987.The contribution of selected variables to middle and long distance run performance .J. Sports Med Phys Fitness ; 27:157-164.
  • Jackson AS, Pollock ML,1978.Generalized equations for predicting body density of men.Br J Nutr 1978;40,497-504.
  • Jackson AS, Pollock ML, Ward A.1980. Generalized equations for predicting body density of women.
  • Med Sci sports Excerc;12:175-182.
  • Carter JEL, Mirwald RL, Heath-Roll BH, Bailey DA 1997. Somatotypes of 7 to 15 year old boys in Saskatchewan, Canada. Am J Hum Biol, 9: 257-272.
  • Carter JEL, Heath BH 1990. Somatotyping: Developments and Applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Gakhar I, Malik SL 2002. Age changes and sex differences in somatotypes among Jats of Delhi. Anthropologist, 1: 115-125.
  • Gaur R, Maurya M, Kang P 2008. Sex, Age and Caste Differences in Somatotypes of Rajput and Scheduled Caste Adolescents from the Sirmour District of Himachal Pradesh, India. Anthrop Anz, 66: 81-97.
  • Ghosh S, Malik S 2014. A comparitive Study of Age changes in Somatotypes of Brahmin and Rajput Boys of Sundarnagar, Himachal Pradesh. Anthropologist, 6: 19-23.
  • Handa N, Karir B, Kaul S 1995. Somatotype changes during adolescence in Jat Sikh boys of Chandigarh. J Indian Anthropol Soc, 30: 85-88.
  • Heath BH, Carter JEL 1971. Growth and somatotype patterns of Manus children, territory of Papua and New Guinea: Application of a modified somatotype method to study the growth patterns. Am J Phys Anthrop, 35: 49-68.
  • Hebbelinck M, Duquet WJB, Carter J 1995. Stability of Somatotype: A longitudinal study of Belgian children aged 6 to 17 years. Am J Hum Biol, 7: 575-588.
  • ISAK 2011. International Standards for Anthropometric Assessment, ISAK manual. Lower Hutt, New Zealand: International Society for the Advancement of Kinanthropometry (ISAK).
  • Ji C, Ohsawa S 1996. Changes in somatotype during growth in Chinese youth 7-18 years of age. Am J Hum Biol, 8: 347-359.
  • Kaul S, Karim B, Nand N 1996. Somatotype variation in India. In: L Sidhu, S Singh: Human Biology: Global Developments. Ludhiana: USG Publishers and Distributors, pp. 61-82.
  • Longkumer T. 2014. Physical Activity and Somatotypes among Ao Naga Boys. Anthropologist, 17: 669-675.
  • Malik S, Eiben O, Prakash M, Mittal M 1986. Impact of high altitude on body shape. Anthrop Kozl, 30: 203-208.
  • Malina RM, Bar-Or O, Bouchard C 2004. Growth, Maturation and Physical Activity (2nd Edition). USA: Human Kinetics.
  • Norton K, Olds T 1996. Anthropometrica. Sydney: University of New South Wales Press.
  • Rahmawati T, Hastuti J, Ashizawa K 2004. Growth and somatotype of urban and rural Javanese children in Yogyakarta and Bantul, Indonesia. Anthropol Sci, 112: 99-108.
  • Rosique J, Rebato E, Apraiz A, Pacheco J 1994. Somatotype related to centripetal fat patterning of 8-to 19-year-old Basque boys and girls. Am J Hum Biol, 6: 171-181.
  • Ross WD, Wilson BD 1973. A somatotype dispersion distance. Research Quarterly, 44: 372 – 374. Singh LP, Bhasin MK 1990. Somatotype changes in adolescence among Dogras of Jammu and Kashmir, India. J Hum Ecol, 1: 169-174.
  • Singh LP, Singh SP 1991. Physical Growth and Anthropometric Somatotype of Rajput and Brahmin Boys of Chamba District, Himachal Pradesh. J Hum Ecol, 2: 121-126.
  • Singh SP, Sidhu LS 1980. Changes in somatotypes during 4 to 20 years in Gaddi Rajput boys. Z Morph Anthrop, 71: 285-293.
  • Stepnicka J, Chytrackova J, Kasalicka V 1976. A somatotypic characteristic of the Czechoslovak superior downhill skiers, wrestlers, and road cyclists. Teor Prax Teles Vychovy, 24: 156-160.
  • Toselli S, Gruppioni G 1999. Study of somatotype in Italian children aged 6-10 years. Int J Anthropol, 14: 135-146.
  • Koley S.2006.New Horizons in kinanthropometry. New Delhi. Friends publications;2006.
  • Wilmore, JH, Costill, DL.1999. Physiology of sports and exercise. Campaign : Human kinetics.(Abstract).
  • Chatterjee S.,Chatterjee P.and Bandopadhyay A.2005.Cardiorespiratory fitness of obese boys.Ind.J.Physiol Pharmacol,49:353-357.

    Suggested Readings

  1. Albright,A.L., Stern, J.S.(1998). Adipose tissue.Encyclopedia of Sports Medicine and Science.
  2. Brodie, D. A. (1988). Techniques of measurement of body composition Part II. Sports Medicine, 5, 74-98.
  3. Burke, L., Deakin, V.(2002). Kinanthropometry: physique assessment of the athlete. Clinical Sports Nutrition (2 nd ed), 4,69-89.
  4. Dragan, I. , et al. Evaluarea dezvoltarii fizice la sportivi. Medicina sportiva, 2002; 214-35.
  5. Heyward, V. H. Advanced fitness assessment & exercise prescription. Champaign : Human Kinetics Publishers.(1991).
  6. Lohman, T.G., et al. Assessing body composition and changes in body composition. Another look at dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. Ann NY Acad Sci 2000; 904-45.
  7. Maynard, L. M., et al. Childhood body composition in relation to body mass index. Pediatrics 2001; 107-344.
  8. McArdle, W. D., Katch, F. I. & Katch, V. I.(2001). Body composition assessment. Exercise physiology: Energy, nutrition and human performance (5 rd ed). 752-93.
  9. Wilmore, J. H., Buskirk, E. R.,DiGirolamo, M., & Lohman, T.G. (1986). Body composition: A round table. The Physician and Sportsmedicine, 14(3), 144-162.
  10. Norton, K. & Olds, T. (2004). Antropometrica. Sydney: UNSW Press.ttp://www.medtrng.com/anatomy%20lesson/bhp2_files/image002.gif