The impact of skinfolds measurement on somatotype determination in Heath-Carter method

Anna Pastuszak; Jan Gajewski; Krzysztof Buśko

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0222100

Abstract

Objectives

The study aim was to determine if a difference exists in skinfold thickness measured by two interchangeable approaches; (1) supraspinale skinfold recommended in the Heath-Carter method and (2) iliac crest skinfold measurement. The question arises as to whether each approach has a similar or different effect on endomorphy determination, and whether there is a possibility to estimate the supraspinale skinfold based on other skinfold measurements.

Methods

A group of 186 male and 161 female students participated in this study. Anthropometric examination included all somatic measurements, as recommended in the Heath-Carter protocol, and the iliac crest skinfold measurement. Estimation of the supraspinale skinfold was performed based on the multiple linear regression procedure.

Results

Skinfold thickness measured in the supraspinale and iliac crest differed (p<0.001) in both men (5.41±1.65 mm and 9.55±4.05 mm, respectively) and women (8.87±4.08 mm and 15.20±6.85 mm), respectively. Endomorphy was significantly higher (0.46 in men, 0.63 in women) when the iliac crest skinfold was used. Subscapular skinfold and iliac crest skinfolds were included in the linear regression model for supraspinale skinfold estimation (R² = 0.724, SE = 0.9 mm and R² = 0.947, SE = 2.3 mm for men and women, respectively).

Conclusion

Two common skinfold approaches produced different measurements between the supraspinale and iliac crest skinfolds, which subsequently affected estimated endomorphy. Regression equations for supraspinale skinfold enabled correction of endomorphy in the case of improperly applied measurement (i.e. iliac crest) and thus, could allow for uniform somatotype estimation according to Carter and Heath approach.

Citation: Pastuszak A, Gajewski J, Buśko K (2019) The impact of skinfolds measurement on somatotype determination in Heath-Carter method. PLoS ONE 14(9): e0222100. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0222100

Editor: Yi-Hung Liao, National Taipei University of Nursing and Health Sciences, TAIWAN

Received: April 23, 2019; Accepted: August 21, 2019; Published: September 6, 2019

Copyright: © 2019 Pastuszak et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding: The authors received no specific funding for this work.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

The Heath-Carter anthropometric method,[1–2] is one of the commonly used approaches for somatotyping in anthropology, sport and health science. This methodology has been employed to document body types in elite athletes from various sports, including gymnastics,[3] climbing,[4–6] alpine skiing,[7], football,[8–9], handball,[10–11] water polo,[12–13] and combat sports,[14–20]. The contribution of individual body components, as somatic effects of sports training has also been examined,[21]. Comparison of somatotypes revealed different body types in athletes compared to non-athletes,[22–26], especially in terms of the contribution of endomorphy and mesomorphy. Studies in the social sciences have additional highlighted a number of somatotypes in populations with some dependency on social status,[27] and ethnic, cultural and geographical factors,[28–30]. This method to estimate individual somatotype of patients has also been used to identify predictors of illness,[31–36].

The researchers who have analysed somatotype components, in terms of the above-mentioned factors, have mainly compared their observations with the results obtained by other authors or analysed variability of body type over time. In recent years, a comparison of published reports using the Heath-Carter method revealed that, in certain cases, reasoning may have led to erroneous conclusions due to different measurement techniques.

Mistakes made during somatotype estimation primarily arise from the measurement above the iliac skinfold. The supraspinale skinfold method defines this skinfold as a diagonal fold raised five to seven centimetres above the anterior superior iliac spine on a line to the anterior axillary border and on a diagonal line going downwards and inwards at 45°,[1–2, 37]. Many researchers,[20, 27, 34–35, 38–39] have measured the iliac crest skinfold as a diagonal fold raised immediately above the crest of the ilium on a vertical line from the mid-axilla,[37]. Measured in the same way, the suprailiac skinfold was referred to body fat evaluated by Durnin and Womersley,[40]. In addition, the same name (suprailiac skinfold) was used in early publications of the Heath-Carter method,[41–43], but in subsequent papers the supraspinale skinfold approach was applied,[1–2, 37]. This change in nomenclature led some researchers,[44, 5, 36, 45, 46, 28] to use the same skinfold measurement for evaluating of both somatotype and body tissue composition using the Durnin and Womersley method,[40]. This confusion may lead to false conclusions being drawn by those studies employing the incorrect skinfold measurement and limits effective comparisons between studies in this area.

Given the aforementioned issues, the aim of this study was to determine whether a difference exists in measured skinfold thickness between the supraspinale skinfold, as recommended in the Heath-Carter method, and the iliac crest skinfold measurement, which have been used interchangeably. The question arises whether the measurements in these two different body locations influence endomorphy during somatotype determination, and whether there is a possibility to estimate the supraspinale skinfold based on the measurements defined in the Carter and Heath method,[1–2].

Methods

Ethics statement

This study was approved by the Senate Ethics Committee of the Josef Pilsudski University of Physical Education in Warsaw, Poland (SKE 001-82-1/2010). The study procedures were implemented according to the Declaration of Helsinki. All participants gave their written consent after receiving information on the study purpose, test procedures and benefits. Furthermore, they were made aware of the possibility to withdraw their consent at any time for any reason.

Participants

A cohort of 186 male and 161 female second-year students from the Faculty of Physical Education, the University of Physical Education, Warsaw, volunteered for this study. Testing was conducted between the months of October and November in 2012, 2013, and 2014. The physical characteristics of participants are shown in Table 1.

Download:

Table 1. Anthropometric characteristics of students from the University of Physical Education.

Data are expressed as means and standard deviations (SD).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0222100.t001

Anthropology measurements

All participants attended an anthropometric examination in a biomechanics laboratory. The following variables were collected: body height and body mass, five skinfolds (triceps, subscapular, iliac crest, supraspinale, medial calf). All measurements were taken by the same researcher according to the International Standards for Anthropometric Assessment,[37] and the Heath-Carter methodology,[1, 2]. Body height was measured using a SiberHegner anthropometer (Switzerland), body mass using electronic scales (Tanita TBF 300, Japan) and skinfolds using a Harpenden skinfold calliper. Individual height-corrected endomorphy was subsequently estimated by a validated formula,[1, 2] as follows: where: Σ = (sum of triceps, subscapular and supraspinale skinfolds) multiplied by (170.18/height in cm).

Statistical analyses

Data normality was tested using the Shapiro-Wilk test and diagnostic plots. Since the data distributions were right-skewed, the nonparametric Wilcoxon test was used for comparison of supraspinale, iliac crest skinfold and endomorphy scores. Effect size statistics were calculated, as and can be interpreted using Cohen’s,[47] criteria; 0.1 = small effect, 0.3 = medium effect, 0.5 = large effect. Estimation of the supraspinale skinfold was performed using multiple linear regression with a backward stepwise procedure. The explanatory variables included skinfold measurements (triceps, subscapular, iliac crest, medial calf), body height and body mass. The regression procedure was applied using both linear and logarithmic models. Statistical significance was set at an alpha level of p<0.05. Descriptive statistics include means and standard deviations (SD) for all variables. All statistical analyses were performed using Statistica (data analysis software system), version 13, (TIBCO Software Inc., 2017).

Results

The measurements for males and females are depicted in Tables 2 and 3, respectively.

Download:

Table 2. Skinfold thickness and endomorphy in male students from the University of Physical Education.

Data are expressed as means and standard deviations (SD).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0222100.t002

Download:

Table 3. Skinfold thickness and endomorphy in female students from the University of Physical Education.

Data are expressed as means and standard deviations (SD).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0222100.t003

Skinfold thickness at the two locations (supraspinale and iliac crest) were found to be significantly different in both men (p<0.001, effect size r = 0.613) and women (p<0.001, r = 0.596). The mean thickness of the supraspinale skinfold was around 35% less than that measured at the iliac crest (4.14 mm and 6.33 mm, in terms of gender, respectively). These differences in skinfold thickness also had significant effect on the sum of the three skinfolds defined during calculation of endomorphy, which changed the point score for both men (p<0.001, effect size r = 0.613), and women (p<0.001, effect size r = 0.600). Notably, endomorphy decreased when the supraspinale measurement was considered, or it increased when calculated using the iliac crest skinfold about half a point (0.46 in men, 0.63 in women).

The regression models are shown in Figs 1, 2 and 3. Only two variables (subscapular skinfold and iliac crest skinfolds) were included in the final model (for women and men, respectively) following the stepwise regression procedure. For men (Fig 1), the following equation was obtained: supraspinale skinfold (mm) = 0.1864·(subscapular skinfold mm) + 0.2750·(iliac crest skinfold mm) + 1.0 with a strong model fit (R² = 0.724, SE = 0.9 mm).

Download:

Fig 1. Predicted vs. observed values of supraspinale skinfold thickness obtained using the multiple regression model based on thicknesses of subscapular and iliac crest skinfolds for male subjects.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0222100.g001

Download:

Fig 2. Supraspinale skinfold thickness as a linear function of iliac crest skinfold thickness in male subjects.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0222100.g002

Download:

Fig 3. Predicted vs. observed values of supraspinale skinfold thickness obtained using the multiple regression model based on thicknesses of subscapular and iliac crest skinfolds for female subjects.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0222100.g003

As seen in Fig 2, the estimation with similar error can also be made only based on the iliac crest skinfold (mm): supraspinale skinfold (mm) = 0.3360·(iliac crest skinfold mm) + 2.2 with model fit of R² = 0.683, SE = 1.0 mm.

For women (Fig 3), the formula adopted the following form (model without the constant).: supraspinale skinfold (mm) = 0.4242·(subscapular skinfold mm) + 0.2534·(iliac crest skinfold mm) with a very strong fit (R² = 0.947; SE = 2.3 mm).

The regression procedures were repeated using a logarithmic model. However, greater errors were obtained for the standard estimations. They were 1.6 mm and 2.5 mm for men and women, respectively. Therefore, the decision was made to use linear relationships.

Discussion

The Heath-Carter method,[1–2] represents a quantitative method for evaluating somatotype in both athletic and non-athletic populations and itself is a modification of an earlier somatoscopic method proposed by Sheldon,[48]. The first attempt to modify the Sheldon method was made by Parnell,[41] who introduced measurements to objectify this evaluation process, subsequent changes in somatotype methodology introduced by Honeyman-Heat,[42–43]. In 1990,[1], the creators of the Heath-Carter method considered these modifications and presented a standardized methodology for somatotype assessment,[1–2].

From the literature review on somatotype evaluated by Heath—Carter method results, that the researchers using different technics of measurements. Some of them measured suprailiac skinfold,[24, 29, 45] consistent with the measurement of iliac crest skinfold,[49]. Usually, most authors have used the incorrect name suprailiac skinfold instead of supraspinale skinfold,[8, 10–11, 16, 22, 25–26, 32, 50], despite their referring to the International Standards for Anthropometric Assessment protocol,[37] and the Heath-Carter methodology,[1], which introduced the new nomenclature. Other group of researchers who presented somatotypes of athletes measured abdominal skinfold,[23,51] skinfold completely different than that indicated in the measurement technique specified in the somatotype methodology. Furthermore some authors failed to provide information about measurements performed in their studies,[4, 13, 24]. It seems that such errors are generated in papers published in journals with high impact factors,[4–5, 8, 10–11, 13, 20, 22–23, 26–28, 32–33, 39, 51] as well as “less prestigious” ones,[16, 24–25, 34, 36, 38, 44–46, 50].

The greatest confusion connected with using measurements in body locations other than the supraspinale to evaluate somatotype is associated with nomenclature. Previous suprailiac skinfold, defined in the Heath-Carter methodology,[42–43] was measured in a different place above the iliac crest, then suprailiac in the method evaluate the level of total body fat developed by Durnin and Womersley,[40]. This mistake committed the designers of the popular software for electronic estimation of total body fat, who used equations developed by the method's originators,[40] defined the measurement in other body locations,[52].

The aim of the present study was to examine whether supraspinale and iliac crest skinfold thickness, which are both commonly termed the suprailiac skinfold, measured in different body locations differ from each other. Our findings demonstrated that the difference is statistically significant with a large effect size (r = 0.613 for men and r = 0.596 for women). The mean thickness of the iliac crest skinfold was nearly twice as big as the supraspinale skinfold (9.55±4.05 and 5.41±1.65, respectively) in physically active university students from Warsaw). The measurement results showed consistency with the results obtained in groups of amateur Spanish soccer players (12.7 ± 5.1 and 7.0 ± 3.3),[9] and college athletes who participated in the Spanish university triathlon championships (11.78 ± 4.14 and 7.42 ± 2.53),[53]. Furthermore, the highest values of the measurement of the iliac crest skinfolds then supraspinale were found for the substantially older groups of Spanish water polo players (16.6±8.0 and 9.8±4.3, respectively),[12] and karate athletes (16.2±8.2 and 10.8±7.2, respectively),[17]. In young handball players, a decline was documented in the value of iliac crest and supraspinale skinfolds in age categories from 10 to 14 years (from 13.5 to 12.5 and 7.5 to 6.5, respectively). All the above presented data, published by other authors, point the difference between the compared skinfolds, measured in different body locations. In our group of female university students from Warsaw, the results of the compared measurements supraspinale skinfold (8.87±4.08) and iliac crest (15.20±6.85), were similar to those found in the female participants of the Pilates Mat Program following a 16-week training programme (12.37 ± 4.16 and 16.00 ± 4.00, respectively),[21]. Substantially lower values of the supraspinale and iliac crest skinfolds were documented in a group of Spanish female gymnasts (4.74–6.05 and 6.68–8.56, respectively, depending on the category). It is remarkable that there is a difference in thickness of the compared skinfolds even in very slim female athletes,[3]. Detailed measurements which took into consideration the supraspinale and iliac crest skinfolds were also taken in overweight, premenopausal Uruguayan women to analyse detailed anthropometric characteristics for risk of breast cancer,[35]. The values of one of the compared skinfold measurements were over twice as high as the other in both women from the risk group (22.56 ± 11.10 and 53.74 ± 20.25) and those from the control group (19.91± 9.23 and 48.49± 18.73). The results of the measurements of the supraspinale and iliac crest skinfolds in obtained by other authors confirm the nearly two-fold difference in the thickness between the skinfolds in both men and women, so indicated in our study. Such difference, also had an effect on the value of the estimated endomorphy (p<0.001). This is likely to have caused differences in this somatotype component in systematic reviews,[54] that compared results obtained by different authors. One example, is the endomorphy ranging, from 2.1 to 3.2 points in Brazilian jiu-jitsu athletes from the same weight category,[14]. The proposed equations that can be used to predict the supraspinale skinfold allow for correction of the erroneously estimated endomorphy and consequently, allow the methodology for estimation of the somatotype to be made uniform. Otherwise the equations can be a way of correcting data in the case of improperly applied measurement on the iliac crest. However, it should be remembered that the proposed formulas can be properly applied for data correction only for young subjects of similar age as those tested in our study.

Practical implications

The study findings verify the need for standardizing methodologies,[1,2], vocabulary and measurement techniques, especially those concerning skinfolds,[37] when estimating somatotype from skinfold measurements. The supraspinale skinfold should not be used to evaluate endomorphy by means of the Heath-Carter method. Using skinfolds measured via the iliac crest, the proposed equations that predict the value of the supraspinale skinfold can be used for correction of the erroneously estimated endomorphy.

Conclusion

The results confirm the difference in thickness between the supraspinale and iliac crest skinfolds, which affects the estimated endomorphy. The equations for supraspinale skinfold prediction allow for correction of the endomorphy in the case of improperly applied measurement on the iliac crest, and consequently allow the methodology for somatotype estimation to be made uniform according to Carter and Heath. The proposed equations are recommended for adult populations of around 20 years old, both sexes without being overweight, such as the ages of examined group.

Supporting information

S1 Data. Data to calculation.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0222100.s001

(XLS)

References

1. Carter JEL, Heath BH. Somatotyping: Development and Applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1990.
2. Carter JEL. The heath-carter anthropometric somatotype; instruction manual. 2002. www.somatotype.org/Heath-CarterManual.pdf
3. Taboada-Iglesias Y, Santana MV, Gutiérrez-Sánchez Á. Anthropometric Profile in Different Event Categories of Acrobatic Gymnastics. J Hum Kinet 2017; 57: 169–179. pmid:28713469
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
4. Ozimek M, Krawczyk M, Zadarko E, Barabasz Z, Ambroży T, Stanula A, et al. Somatic Profile of the Elite Boulderers in Poland. J Strength Cond Res 2017; 31(4): 963–970. pmid:28328714
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
5. Barbieri D, Zaccagni L, Cogo A, Gualdi-Russo E. Body Composition and Somatotype of Experienced Mountain Climbers. High Altitude Medicine & Biology March 2012; 13(1): 46–50.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
6. Tomaszewski P, Gajewski J, Lewandowska J. Somatic profile of competetive sport climbers. J Hum Kinet 2011; 39: 107–113.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
7. Vermeulen B, Clijsen R, Fässler R, Taeymans J, D’Hondt E, Aerenhouts D. Event-Specific Body Characteristics of Elite Alpine Skiers in Relation to International Rankings. Advances in Anthropology 2017; 7: 94–106.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
8. Cárdenas-Fernández V, Chinchilla-Minguet JL, Castillo-Rodríguez A. Somatotype And Body Composition In Young Soccer Players According To The Playing Position And Sport Success. J Strength Cond Res: Post Acceptance: July 17, 2017, pmid:28723818
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
9. Hernández-Camacho JD, Fuentes-Lorca E, Moya-Amaya H. Anthropometric characteristics, somatotype and dietary patterns in youth soccer players. Rev Andal Med Deporte 2017; 10(4): 192–196. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ramd.2017.01.004
- View Article
- Google Scholar
10. Bon M, Pori P, Šibila M. Position-Related Differences in Selected Morphological Body Characteristics of Top-Level Female Handball Players. Coll Antropol 2015; 39(3): 631–639. pmid:26898059
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
11. Vila H, Manchado C, Rodriguez N, Abraldes JA, Alcaraz P, and Ferragut C. Anthropometric profile, vertical jump, and throwing velocity in elite female handball players by playing positions. J Strength Cond Res 2012; 26(8): 2146–2155. pmid:21997459
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
12. Ferragut C, Abraldes J, Vila H, Rodríguez N, Argudo FM, Fernandes RJ.Anthropometry and throwing velocity in elite water polo by specific playing positions. J Hum Kine 2011; 27: 31–44.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
13. Martínez JG, Vila MH, Ferragut C, Noguera MM, Abraldes JA, Rodrıguez N, et al. Position-specific anthropometry and throwing velocity of elite female water polo players. J Strength Cond Res 2015; 29(2): 472–477. pmid:25627450
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
14. Andreato LV, Lara FJD, Andrade A, Branco BHM. Physical and Physiological Profiles of Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu Athletes: a Systematic Review. Sports Med-Open 2017; 3: 9. pmid:28194734
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
15. Buśko K, Pastuszak A, Kalka E. Body composition and somatotype of judo athletes and untrained male students as a reference group for comparison in sport. Biomedical Human Kinetics 2017; 9: 7–13.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
16. Raschka C, Müller J. Sports anthropological and somatotypical comparison between male wrestlers and hapkidoin of different performance levels. Papers on Anthropology 2017; 26(1): 52–63. https://doi.org/10.12697/poa.2017.26.1.04
- View Article
- Google Scholar
17. Sánchez-Puccini MB, Argothy-Bucheli RE, Meneses-Echávez JF, López-Albán CA, Ramírez-Vélez R. Anthropometric and Physical Fitness Characterization of Male Elite Karate Athletes. Int J Morphol 2014; 32(3): 1026–1031.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
18. Franchini E, Huertas JR, Sterkowicz S, Carratalá V, Gutiérrez-García C, Escobar-Molina R. Anthropometrical profile of elite Spanish Judoka: Comparative analysis among ages. Arch Budo 2011; 7: 239–245.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
19. Sterkowicz-Przybycień KL, Sterkowicz S. Zarów R T. Somatotype, body composition and proportionality in polish top greco-roman wrestlers. J Hum Kinet 2011; 28: 141–154. Published online 2011 Jul 4. pmid:23486846
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
20. Charzewski J, Glaz A, Kuzmicki S. Somatotype characteristics of elite European wrestlers. Biol. Sport 1991; 8(4): 213–221.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
21. Vaquero-Cristóbal R, Alacid F, Esparza-Ros F, Muyor JM, López-Miñarro PA. The effects of 16-weeks Pilates Mat Program on antrhropometric variables and body composition in active adult women after a short detraining period. Nutr Hosp 2015; 31(4): 1738–1747. pmid:25795966
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
22. Bidaurrazaga-Letona I, Zubero J, Lekue JA, Amado M, Gil SM. Anthropometry and Somatotype of Pre-adolescent Soccer Players: Comparisons amongst Elite, Sub-elite and Non-elite Players with Non-players. Coll Antropol 2016; 40(4): 269–277.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
23. Gontarev S, Kalac R, Zivkovic V, Ameti V, Redjepi A. Anthropometrical Characteristics and Somatotype of Young Macedonian Soccer Players. Int J Morphol 2016;34(1):160–167.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
24. Gutnik B, Zuoza A, Zuozienė I, Alekrinskis A, Nash D, Scherbina S. Body physique and dominant somatotype in elite and low-profile athletes with different specializations. Medicina 2015; 51(4): 247–252. ISSN 1010-660X, pmid:26424190
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
25. Saha S. Somatotype, Body Composition and Explosive Power of Athlete and Non-Athlete. Arch Exerc Health Dis 2015; 5(1–2): 354–358.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
26. Gil SM, Gil J, Ruiz F, Irazusta A, Irazusta J. Anthropometrical characteristics and somatotype of young soccer players and their comparison with the general population. Biol Sport 2010; 27(1): 17–24.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
27. Yang LT, Wang N, Li ZX, Liu C, He X, Zhang JF, et al. Study on the adult physique with the Heath-Carter anthropometric somatotype in the Han of Xi’an, China. Anat Sci Int 2016; 91(2): 180–187. pmid:25940679
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
28. Ghosh S, Dosaev T, Prakash J, Livshits G. Quantitative genetic analysis of the body composition and blood pressure association in two ethnically diverse populations. Am J Phys Anthropol 2017; 162(4): 701–714. pmid:28063232
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
29. Ruderman A, Navarro T, Mangeaud A, Cejas V, Bajo JM. Somatotipos de adolescentes escolarizados de Córdoba (Argentina). Rev Arg Antrop Biol 2017; 19(2): 1–11. http://dx.doi.org/10.17139/raab.2017.0019.02.05
- View Article
- Google Scholar
30. Cohen E, Bernard JY, Ponty A, Ndao A, Amougou N, Saïd-Mohamed R, et al. Development and Validation of the Body Size Scale for Assessing Body Weight Perception in African Populations. PLoS ONE 2015; 10(11): e0138983. pmid:26536030
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
31. Franco D, Fragoso I, Andrea M, Teles J, Martins F. Somatotype and body composition of normal and dysphonic adult speakers. Journal of Voice 2017; 31(1): 132e9–132e20.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
32. Pietraszewska J, Burdukiewicz A, Zagrodna A, Stacho A, Andrzejewska J. Anthropometry and Serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D3 Levels in Elite Soccer Players. Mitteilungen Klosterneuburg 2017; 67(4): 22–30.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
33. Hujoel PP, Bollen AM, Yuen KCJ, Hujoel-Homo IA. Phenotypic characteristics of adolescents with concave and convex facial profiles–The National Health Examination Survey. HOMO-Journal of Comparative Human Biology 2016; 67(5): 417–432.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
34. Salimi HR, Heidari N, Salimi A. The relation between somatotype with aerobic capacity and balance in the boys 11–13 years. Turk J Kin 2016; 2(2): 23–26.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
35. Ronco AL, De Stéfani E, Deneo-Pellegrini H. Body composition, somatotype and risk of premenopausal breast cancer: a case-control study in Uruguay. J Cancer Res Ther 2013; 1: 77–86.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
36. Zabulienė L, Urboniene J, Tutkuvienė J. Body composition of lean women with polycystic ovary syndrome. Anthropol Rev 2013; 76(2): 183–198.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
37. International Standards for Anthropometric Assessment protocol published by the The International Society for the Advancement of Kinanthropometry (ISAK), 2001, p. 37 file:///C:/Users/Wlasciciel/Desktop/ISAK%20protokół.pdf
38. Singh V, Chakraborty S, Verma S. Body proportion and physique of all India inter varsity male sprint swimmers. International Journal of Physical Education, Sports and Health 2016; 3(3): 424–426.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
39. Hagner-Derengowska M, Hagner W, Zubrzycki I, Krakowiak H, Słomko W, Dzierżanowski M, et al. Body structure and composition of canoeists and kayakers: analysis of junior and teenage polish national canoeing team. Biol Sport 2014; 31(4): 323–326. pmid:25609891
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
40. Durnin JV, Womersley J. Body fat assessed from total body density and its estimation from skinfold thickness: measurements on 481 men and women aged from 16 to 72 years. Br J Nutr 1974; 32(1): 79.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
41. Parnell RW. Somatotyping by physical anthropometry. Am J Phys Anthropol 1954; (12)2: 209–240. pmid:13188958
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
42. Honeyman-Heath B. Need for mogification of somatotype methodology. Am J Phys Anthropol 1963; 21: 227–233. pmid:14110699
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
43. Honeyman-Heath B, Carter LJE. A modified somatotype method. Am J Phys Anthropol 1967; 27: 57–74. pmid:6049820
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
44. Diafas V, Dimakopoulou E, Diamanti V, Zelioti D, Kaloupsis S. Anthropometric characteristics and somatotype of Greek male and female flatwater kayak athletes. Biom Hum Kine 2011; 3: 111–114.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
45. Marinho BF, Follmer B, Esteves JVDC, Andreato LV. Body composition, somatotype, and physical fitness of mixed martial arts athletes. Sport Sci Health 2016; 12(2): 157–165.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
46. Noh JW, Kim JH, Kim MY, Lee JU, Lee LK, Park BS, et al. Somatotype Analysis of Elite Boxing Athletes Compared with Nonathletes for Sports Physiotherapy. J Phys Ther Sci 2014; 26(8): 1231–1235. pmid:25202187
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
47. Cohen J. A power primer. Psychological bulletin,1992; 112(1): 155. pmid:19565683
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
48. Sheldon WH, Stevens SS, Tucker WB. The varieties of human physique. New York–Harper and Brothers 1940.
49. Lohman TG, Roche AF, Martorell F (eds). Anthropometric Standardization Reference Manual. Human Kinetics Books: Champaign, IL, 1988, p. 4–5
50. Mantarkov M, Ahmed-Popova F, Akabaliev V, Sivkov S. Somatotype in Bipolar Disorder Revisited: Gender Differences, Neurodevelopment and Clinical Implications. Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research (IJIR) 2016; 2(9): 1028–1037.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
51. Krawczyk B, Skład M, Jackiewicz A. Heath-Carter somatotypes of athletes representing various sports. Biol Sport 1997; 14(4): 305–310.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
52. (http://www.harpenden-skinfold.com/site_selection.html; date of entry 03.08.2017)
53. Guillén RL, Mielgo-Ayuso J, Norte-Navarro A, Cejuela R, Cabañas MD, Martínez-Sanz JM. Body composition and somatotype in university triathletes. Nutr Hosp 2014; 32(2): 799–807.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
54. Raković A, Savanović V, Stanković D, Pavlović R, Simeonov A, Petković E. Analysis of the elite athletes’ somatotypes. Acta Kinesiologica 2015; 9(1): 47‐53.
- View Article
- Google Scholar

[ref1] 1. Carter JEL, Heath BH. Somatotyping: Development and Applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1990.

[ref2] 2. Carter JEL. The heath-carter anthropometric somatotype; instruction manual. 2002. www.somatotype.org/Heath-CarterManual.pdf

[ref3] 3. Taboada-Iglesias Y, Santana MV, Gutiérrez-Sánchez Á. Anthropometric Profile in Different Event Categories of Acrobatic Gymnastics. J Hum Kinet 2017; 57: 169–179. pmid:28713469
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[4] View Article

[5] PubMed/NCBI

[6] Google Scholar

[ref4] 4. Ozimek M, Krawczyk M, Zadarko E, Barabasz Z, Ambroży T, Stanula A, et al. Somatic Profile of the Elite Boulderers in Poland. J Strength Cond Res 2017; 31(4): 963–970. pmid:28328714
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[8] View Article

[9] PubMed/NCBI

[10] Google Scholar

[ref5] 5. Barbieri D, Zaccagni L, Cogo A, Gualdi-Russo E. Body Composition and Somatotype of Experienced Mountain Climbers. High Altitude Medicine & Biology March 2012; 13(1): 46–50.
View Article
Google Scholar

[12] View Article

[13] Google Scholar

[ref6] 6. Tomaszewski P, Gajewski J, Lewandowska J. Somatic profile of competetive sport climbers. J Hum Kinet 2011; 39: 107–113.
View Article
Google Scholar

[15] View Article

[16] Google Scholar

[ref7] 7. Vermeulen B, Clijsen R, Fässler R, Taeymans J, D’Hondt E, Aerenhouts D. Event-Specific Body Characteristics of Elite Alpine Skiers in Relation to International Rankings. Advances in Anthropology 2017; 7: 94–106.
View Article
Google Scholar

[18] View Article

[19] Google Scholar

[ref8] 8. Cárdenas-Fernández V, Chinchilla-Minguet JL, Castillo-Rodríguez A. Somatotype And Body Composition In Young Soccer Players According To The Playing Position And Sport Success. J Strength Cond Res: Post Acceptance: July 17, 2017, pmid:28723818
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[21] View Article

[22] PubMed/NCBI

[23] Google Scholar

[ref9] 9. Hernández-Camacho JD, Fuentes-Lorca E, Moya-Amaya H. Anthropometric characteristics, somatotype and dietary patterns in youth soccer players. Rev Andal Med Deporte 2017; 10(4): 192–196. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ramd.2017.01.004
View Article
Google Scholar

[25] View Article

[26] Google Scholar

[ref10] 10. Bon M, Pori P, Šibila M. Position-Related Differences in Selected Morphological Body Characteristics of Top-Level Female Handball Players. Coll Antropol 2015; 39(3): 631–639. pmid:26898059
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[28] View Article

[29] PubMed/NCBI

[30] Google Scholar

[ref11] 11. Vila H, Manchado C, Rodriguez N, Abraldes JA, Alcaraz P, and Ferragut C. Anthropometric profile, vertical jump, and throwing velocity in elite female handball players by playing positions. J Strength Cond Res 2012; 26(8): 2146–2155. pmid:21997459
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[32] View Article

[33] PubMed/NCBI

[34] Google Scholar

[ref12] 12. Ferragut C, Abraldes J, Vila H, Rodríguez N, Argudo FM, Fernandes RJ.Anthropometry and throwing velocity in elite water polo by specific playing positions. J Hum Kine 2011; 27: 31–44.
View Article
Google Scholar

[36] View Article

[37] Google Scholar

[ref13] 13. Martínez JG, Vila MH, Ferragut C, Noguera MM, Abraldes JA, Rodrıguez N, et al. Position-specific anthropometry and throwing velocity of elite female water polo players. J Strength Cond Res 2015; 29(2): 472–477. pmid:25627450
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[39] View Article

[40] PubMed/NCBI

[41] Google Scholar

[ref14] 14. Andreato LV, Lara FJD, Andrade A, Branco BHM. Physical and Physiological Profiles of Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu Athletes: a Systematic Review. Sports Med-Open 2017; 3: 9. pmid:28194734
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[43] View Article

[44] PubMed/NCBI

[45] Google Scholar

[ref15] 15. Buśko K, Pastuszak A, Kalka E. Body composition and somatotype of judo athletes and untrained male students as a reference group for comparison in sport. Biomedical Human Kinetics 2017; 9: 7–13.
View Article
Google Scholar

[47] View Article

[48] Google Scholar

[ref16] 16. Raschka C, Müller J. Sports anthropological and somatotypical comparison between male wrestlers and hapkidoin of different performance levels. Papers on Anthropology 2017; 26(1): 52–63. https://doi.org/10.12697/poa.2017.26.1.04
View Article
Google Scholar

[50] View Article

[51] Google Scholar

[ref17] 17. Sánchez-Puccini MB, Argothy-Bucheli RE, Meneses-Echávez JF, López-Albán CA, Ramírez-Vélez R. Anthropometric and Physical Fitness Characterization of Male Elite Karate Athletes. Int J Morphol 2014; 32(3): 1026–1031.
View Article
Google Scholar

[53] View Article

[54] Google Scholar

[ref18] 18. Franchini E, Huertas JR, Sterkowicz S, Carratalá V, Gutiérrez-García C, Escobar-Molina R. Anthropometrical profile of elite Spanish Judoka: Comparative analysis among ages. Arch Budo 2011; 7: 239–245.
View Article
Google Scholar

[56] View Article

[57] Google Scholar

[ref19] 19. Sterkowicz-Przybycień KL, Sterkowicz S. Zarów R T. Somatotype, body composition and proportionality in polish top greco-roman wrestlers. J Hum Kinet 2011; 28: 141–154. Published online 2011 Jul 4. pmid:23486846
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[59] View Article

[60] PubMed/NCBI

[61] Google Scholar

[ref20] 20. Charzewski J, Glaz A, Kuzmicki S. Somatotype characteristics of elite European wrestlers. Biol. Sport 1991; 8(4): 213–221.
View Article
Google Scholar

[63] View Article

[64] Google Scholar

[ref21] 21. Vaquero-Cristóbal R, Alacid F, Esparza-Ros F, Muyor JM, López-Miñarro PA. The effects of 16-weeks Pilates Mat Program on antrhropometric variables and body composition in active adult women after a short detraining period. Nutr Hosp 2015; 31(4): 1738–1747. pmid:25795966
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[66] View Article

[67] PubMed/NCBI

[68] Google Scholar

[ref22] 22. Bidaurrazaga-Letona I, Zubero J, Lekue JA, Amado M, Gil SM. Anthropometry and Somatotype of Pre-adolescent Soccer Players: Comparisons amongst Elite, Sub-elite and Non-elite Players with Non-players. Coll Antropol 2016; 40(4): 269–277.
View Article
Google Scholar

[70] View Article

[71] Google Scholar

[ref23] 23. Gontarev S, Kalac R, Zivkovic V, Ameti V, Redjepi A. Anthropometrical Characteristics and Somatotype of Young Macedonian Soccer Players. Int J Morphol 2016;34(1):160–167.
View Article
Google Scholar

[73] View Article

[74] Google Scholar

[ref24] 24. Gutnik B, Zuoza A, Zuozienė I, Alekrinskis A, Nash D, Scherbina S. Body physique and dominant somatotype in elite and low-profile athletes with different specializations. Medicina 2015; 51(4): 247–252. ISSN 1010-660X, pmid:26424190
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[76] View Article

[77] PubMed/NCBI

[78] Google Scholar

[ref25] 25. Saha S. Somatotype, Body Composition and Explosive Power of Athlete and Non-Athlete. Arch Exerc Health Dis 2015; 5(1–2): 354–358.
View Article
Google Scholar

[80] View Article

[81] Google Scholar

[ref26] 26. Gil SM, Gil J, Ruiz F, Irazusta A, Irazusta J. Anthropometrical characteristics and somatotype of young soccer players and their comparison with the general population. Biol Sport 2010; 27(1): 17–24.
View Article
Google Scholar

[83] View Article

[84] Google Scholar

[ref27] 27. Yang LT, Wang N, Li ZX, Liu C, He X, Zhang JF, et al. Study on the adult physique with the Heath-Carter anthropometric somatotype in the Han of Xi’an, China. Anat Sci Int 2016; 91(2): 180–187. pmid:25940679
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[86] View Article

[87] PubMed/NCBI

[88] Google Scholar

[ref28] 28. Ghosh S, Dosaev T, Prakash J, Livshits G. Quantitative genetic analysis of the body composition and blood pressure association in two ethnically diverse populations. Am J Phys Anthropol 2017; 162(4): 701–714. pmid:28063232
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[90] View Article

[91] PubMed/NCBI

[92] Google Scholar

[ref29] 29. Ruderman A, Navarro T, Mangeaud A, Cejas V, Bajo JM. Somatotipos de adolescentes escolarizados de Córdoba (Argentina). Rev Arg Antrop Biol 2017; 19(2): 1–11. http://dx.doi.org/10.17139/raab.2017.0019.02.05
View Article
Google Scholar

[94] View Article

[95] Google Scholar

[ref30] 30. Cohen E, Bernard JY, Ponty A, Ndao A, Amougou N, Saïd-Mohamed R, et al. Development and Validation of the Body Size Scale for Assessing Body Weight Perception in African Populations. PLoS ONE 2015; 10(11): e0138983. pmid:26536030
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[97] View Article

[98] PubMed/NCBI

[99] Google Scholar

[ref31] 31. Franco D, Fragoso I, Andrea M, Teles J, Martins F. Somatotype and body composition of normal and dysphonic adult speakers. Journal of Voice 2017; 31(1): 132e9–132e20.
View Article
Google Scholar

[101] View Article

[102] Google Scholar

[ref32] 32. Pietraszewska J, Burdukiewicz A, Zagrodna A, Stacho A, Andrzejewska J. Anthropometry and Serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D3 Levels in Elite Soccer Players. Mitteilungen Klosterneuburg 2017; 67(4): 22–30.
View Article
Google Scholar

[104] View Article

[105] Google Scholar

[ref33] 33. Hujoel PP, Bollen AM, Yuen KCJ, Hujoel-Homo IA. Phenotypic characteristics of adolescents with concave and convex facial profiles–The National Health Examination Survey. HOMO-Journal of Comparative Human Biology 2016; 67(5): 417–432.
View Article
Google Scholar

[107] View Article

[108] Google Scholar

[ref34] 34. Salimi HR, Heidari N, Salimi A. The relation between somatotype with aerobic capacity and balance in the boys 11–13 years. Turk J Kin 2016; 2(2): 23–26.
View Article
Google Scholar

[110] View Article

[111] Google Scholar

[ref35] 35. Ronco AL, De Stéfani E, Deneo-Pellegrini H. Body composition, somatotype and risk of premenopausal breast cancer: a case-control study in Uruguay. J Cancer Res Ther 2013; 1: 77–86.
View Article
Google Scholar

[113] View Article

[114] Google Scholar

[ref36] 36. Zabulienė L, Urboniene J, Tutkuvienė J. Body composition of lean women with polycystic ovary syndrome. Anthropol Rev 2013; 76(2): 183–198.
View Article
Google Scholar

[116] View Article

[117] Google Scholar

[ref37] 37. International Standards for Anthropometric Assessment protocol published by the The International Society for the Advancement of Kinanthropometry (ISAK), 2001, p. 37 file:///C:/Users/Wlasciciel/Desktop/ISAK%20protokół.pdf

[ref38] 38. Singh V, Chakraborty S, Verma S. Body proportion and physique of all India inter varsity male sprint swimmers. International Journal of Physical Education, Sports and Health 2016; 3(3): 424–426.
View Article
Google Scholar

[120] View Article

[121] Google Scholar

[ref39] 39. Hagner-Derengowska M, Hagner W, Zubrzycki I, Krakowiak H, Słomko W, Dzierżanowski M, et al. Body structure and composition of canoeists and kayakers: analysis of junior and teenage polish national canoeing team. Biol Sport 2014; 31(4): 323–326. pmid:25609891
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[123] View Article

[124] PubMed/NCBI

[125] Google Scholar

[ref40] 40. Durnin JV, Womersley J. Body fat assessed from total body density and its estimation from skinfold thickness: measurements on 481 men and women aged from 16 to 72 years. Br J Nutr 1974; 32(1): 79.
View Article
Google Scholar

[127] View Article

[128] Google Scholar

[ref41] 41. Parnell RW. Somatotyping by physical anthropometry. Am J Phys Anthropol 1954; (12)2: 209–240. pmid:13188958
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[130] View Article

[131] PubMed/NCBI

[132] Google Scholar

[ref42] 42. Honeyman-Heath B. Need for mogification of somatotype methodology. Am J Phys Anthropol 1963; 21: 227–233. pmid:14110699
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[134] View Article

[135] PubMed/NCBI

[136] Google Scholar

[ref43] 43. Honeyman-Heath B, Carter LJE. A modified somatotype method. Am J Phys Anthropol 1967; 27: 57–74. pmid:6049820
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[138] View Article

[139] PubMed/NCBI

[140] Google Scholar

[ref44] 44. Diafas V, Dimakopoulou E, Diamanti V, Zelioti D, Kaloupsis S. Anthropometric characteristics and somatotype of Greek male and female flatwater kayak athletes. Biom Hum Kine 2011; 3: 111–114.
View Article
Google Scholar

[142] View Article

[143] Google Scholar

[ref45] 45. Marinho BF, Follmer B, Esteves JVDC, Andreato LV. Body composition, somatotype, and physical fitness of mixed martial arts athletes. Sport Sci Health 2016; 12(2): 157–165.
View Article
Google Scholar

[145] View Article

[146] Google Scholar

[ref46] 46. Noh JW, Kim JH, Kim MY, Lee JU, Lee LK, Park BS, et al. Somatotype Analysis of Elite Boxing Athletes Compared with Nonathletes for Sports Physiotherapy. J Phys Ther Sci 2014; 26(8): 1231–1235. pmid:25202187
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[148] View Article

[149] PubMed/NCBI

[150] Google Scholar

[ref47] 47. Cohen J. A power primer. Psychological bulletin,1992; 112(1): 155. pmid:19565683
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[152] View Article

[153] PubMed/NCBI

[154] Google Scholar

[ref48] 48. Sheldon WH, Stevens SS, Tucker WB. The varieties of human physique. New York–Harper and Brothers 1940.

[ref49] 49. Lohman TG, Roche AF, Martorell F (eds). Anthropometric Standardization Reference Manual. Human Kinetics Books: Champaign, IL, 1988, p. 4–5

[ref50] 50. Mantarkov M, Ahmed-Popova F, Akabaliev V, Sivkov S. Somatotype in Bipolar Disorder Revisited: Gender Differences, Neurodevelopment and Clinical Implications. Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research (IJIR) 2016; 2(9): 1028–1037.
View Article
Google Scholar

[158] View Article

[159] Google Scholar

[ref51] 51. Krawczyk B, Skład M, Jackiewicz A. Heath-Carter somatotypes of athletes representing various sports. Biol Sport 1997; 14(4): 305–310.
View Article
Google Scholar

[161] View Article

[162] Google Scholar

[ref52] 52. (http://www.harpenden-skinfold.com/site_selection.html; date of entry 03.08.2017)

[ref53] 53. Guillén RL, Mielgo-Ayuso J, Norte-Navarro A, Cejuela R, Cabañas MD, Martínez-Sanz JM. Body composition and somatotype in university triathletes. Nutr Hosp 2014; 32(2): 799–807.
View Article
Google Scholar

[165] View Article

[166] Google Scholar

[ref54] 54. Raković A, Savanović V, Stanković D, Pavlović R, Simeonov A, Petković E. Analysis of the elite athletes’ somatotypes. Acta Kinesiologica 2015; 9(1): 47‐53.
View Article
Google Scholar

[168] View Article

[169] Google Scholar

Figures

Abstract

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Introduction

Methods

Ethics statement

Participants

Anthropology measurements

Statistical analyses

Results

Discussion

Practical implications

Conclusion

Supporting information

S1 Data. Data to calculation.

References