KINANTHROPOMETRY AND PERFORMANCE

SOME EXAMPLES FROM THE

WIDE WORLD OF SPORT

J.E. Lindsay Carter, Ph.D.

San Diego State University

KINANTHROPOMETRY

The quantitative interface between anatomy and physiology, or between structure and function. (Ross & Marfell-Jones, 1991)

A MODEL OF FACTORS INFLUENCING THE QUALITY OF PERFORMANCE
(Adapted from Hay, 1978)

SPORT SELECTION

“ATHLETES WHO HAVE OR AQUIRE THE OPTIMAL PHYSIQUE FOR AN EVENT ARE MORE LIKELY TO SUCCEED THAN THOSE WHO LACK THE GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS” (Carter, 1985)

MORPHOLOGICAL OPTIMIZATION

“THE PROCESS WHEREBY THE PHYSICAL DEMANDS OF A SPORT LEAD TO THE SELECTION OF BODY TYPES (STRUCTURE AND COMPOSITION) BEST SUITED TO THAT SPORT.” (Norton and Olds, 1996, p. 352.)

TEAM vs INDIVIDUAL SPORTS

MANY DIFFERENCES DUE TO: TEAM TACTICS; STRATEGIES; “MATCH UPS”; SUBSTITUTIONS; PERSONALITIES

SUCCESS IN SPORT

“Physical activities that place a premium on strength, power, speed or endurance, confine successful participation to the somatotypes (physiques) best suited or best developed for the physical requirements of the activity”

(Carter & Heath, 1990)

Some notables studies: MEXOG (68); MOGAP (76); KASP (91); WBKBL (94); COPA AMERICA (95); HAAGKIP (95); OTHERS!!

KINANTHROPOMETRIC RESEARCH AT THE MEXICO CITY OLYMPIC GAMES, 1968

· 1265 athletes from 92 countries

· 1117 males, 148 females

· 13 sports, 129 events

· Reference: 355 urban Mexicans

· 267 males, 88 females

MEXOG68 - Results

· ANTHROPOMETRY

1. Between event differences in size and somatotype in some sports

2. No event differences in size and somatotype in other sports

3. Between sport differences in size and somatotype for some sports, but not for other sports

4. Athletes with similar somatotypes excel at specific events regardless of race/ethnicity

5. Athletes in the same events of different race/ethnicity may differ in terms of body size

MEXOG68 - Summary

· ANTHROPOMETRY

· There is a strong relationship between the physique of athletes and the specific tasks (events) in which they excel

· Clear physical prototypes exist for optimal performance at the Olympic Games level

KINANTHROPOMETRIC RESEARCH AT THE MONTREAL OLYMPIC GAMES, 1976

MOGAP76 - Subjects

· 457 athletes from 53 countries - 309 males, 148 females

· 20 sports, 110 events

· Reference: 247 Canadian students 153 males, 94 females

MOGAP76 - Results

· ANTHROPOMETRY - Size, somatotype, proportions, composition

(1) New profiles established for fencing, field hockey, judo for men; rowing for women

(2) Additional information provided for boxing, cycling, rowing, weight lifting and wrestling for men; and canoeing, gymnastics, swimming, and track and field for men and women

MOGAP76 - Results (2)

· SEXUAL DIMORPHISM

(3) Comparisons by sport revealed differences in all groups of measures

(4) Proportionality comparisons reduced some differences, but accentuated others

(5) Differences between athletes and students were similar to those within sport

MOGAP76 - Results (3)

· SKINFOLDS

(6) Skinfold patterns for each sex separately were similar in shape but differed in magnitude among sports

(7) Female patterns were different in shape compared to male patterns

MOGAP76 - Summary

· MOGAP PROVIDED IMPORTANT NEW INFORMATION ON THE KINANTHROPOMETRIC PROFILES OF OLYMPIC ATHLETES.

· PREVIOUS KNOWLEDGE WAS REFINED AND NEW APPROACHES WERE APPLIED IN ESTABLISHING PROTOTYPES

Selected findings from studies of distance runners, gymnasts and divers

WORLD CLASS MALE AFRICAN MIDDLE, LONG DISTANCE AND MARATHON RUNNERS (2000). J. Hans de Ridder^*, K. Dan Monyeki, Lateef O. Amusa, Abel L. Toriola, Moni Wekesa & J.E. Lindsay Carter

DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS, ANALYSIS OF DIFFERENCES, SOMATOPLOTS, SKINFOLD PATTERNS, CONCLUSION

· M older than MD and LD

· MD heavier and taller than M and LD

· LD lower % muscle than MD

· LD lower in mesomorphy than M

· No significant differences for mean skinfolds, sum6SF, %BF, %skeleton, endomorphy, ectomorphy, SAM between event groups

Female African Distance Runners, (De Ridder et al. 2001)

Middle Dist = 11; Long Dist = 9; Marathon = 8: Total N = 28

Age = 21.3 (+/-3.6) yr; body mass = 50.2 (+\-4.7) kg;

Stature = 164.0 (+\-6.7) cm; Sum6Skf = 48.5 (+\-9.9) mm;

Overall Somatotype = 2.1-2.7-4.0:

MD = 2.2-2.6-4.0; LD = 2.0-2.3-4.6; M = 2.1-3.4-3.3

No differences in age, body mass, stature, Sum6Skf; SAMs

M gt LD + MD in meso; LD gt M in ecto.

Kinanthropometry in Aquatic Sports - A Study of World Class Athletes.

J.E. Lindsay Carter & Timothy R. Ackland (Editors). Human Kinetics: Champaign, IL.1994

KASP DIVERS - 1991

Females (N=39) Males (N=43)

Age (yr) 20.9 22.2

Mass (kg) 53.7 66.7

Stature (cm) 161.2 170.9

Sum6sk (mm) 65.6 45.9

Somatotype 2.8-3.8-2.8 2.0-5.3-2.4

SAD 1.3 1.1

SUMMARY

· Male and female gymnasts and divers have well defined physique profiles

· There are differences in physique by age in gymnastics

· These profiles can help in talent identification

Also from KASP – A Comparison of Swimming, Diving, Synchronized Swimming, and Water Polo.

SKINFOLDS - THE “OLYMPIC SIX”

· TRICEPS, SUBSCAPULAR, SUPRASPINALE, ABDOMINAL, ANTERIOR THIGH, MEDIAL CALF

· ISAK protocol – Harpenden calipers

SYNCHRONIZED SWIMMING - WC ‘91: N = 118, 13 Teams

Variable Mean SD

Age (yr) 21.7 2.6

Stature (cm) 168.8 5.9

Mass (kg) 56.5 5.3

Sum6 (mm) 81.8 22.7

Somatotype 3.3 – 3.5 – 3.2

SAM 1.4 0.8

BEST THREE TEAMS VS REST:

• OLDER AND DIFFERED IN ABSOLUTE AND RELATIVE SIZE ON SOME VARIABLES

• NO DIFFERENCES IN SUM 6 SKINFOLDS OR SOMATOTYPE

BASKETBALL - WORLD CHAMPIONSHIPS 94. Ackland, Schreiner & Kerr (1996, 1997), AJSMS; and Carter, Ackland, Kerr & Stapff (2005, JSS). Women’s World Championships, Australia, 1994.

N = 168; 14 teams; 38 variables; Guards = 64; Forwards = 57; Centers = 47

BASKETBALL- WC (1) [Ackland et al., 96,97]

Variable GRD FWD CEN

Stature (cm) 171.9 181.3 189.8

Mass (kg) 66.1 73.3 82.6

Sum6 (mm) 84.9 84.4 98.7

Stature and Mass: GRD << FWD << CEN

Age (yr) M = 25.0, sd = 3.5, R = 19-35.

FEMALE BASKETBALL-WC’94. PLAYING POSITION: M & SD

ENDO MESO ECTO SAM

Guards 2.9 3.9 2.6 1.4

(n=64) 0.88 0.95 0.91 0.69

Forwards 2.8 3.5 3.2 1.4

(n=57) 0.91 0.91 0.95 0.81

Centers 3.2 3.1 3.4 1.5

(n=47) 0.86 1.05 0.95 0.73

F-ratio 2.66 9.58** 10.54** 0.27

BASKETBALL - WC-94 - SKINFOLD PROFILE (N=168)

Basketball – SUMMARY - By playing position

· No difference by age, Sum6sk or SAM; Stature and Mass:

· GRD << FWD << CEN

· Guards > meso and < ecto than forwards and centers

· Guards and forwards in the top 4 teams were taller and more ectomorphic than in the bottom 4 teams

PHYSIQUE AND SPORTS – CONCLUSIONS

· MORPHOLOGICAL PROTOTYPES ARE NEEDED FOR SUCCESS AT VARIOUS LEVELS, BOTH WITHIN AND AMONG THESE SPORTS, AND ARE WELL DEFINED.

· THERE IS MORE VARIABILITY IN SOME SPORTS THAN OTHERS.

· ATHLETES WHO HAVE OR AQUIRE THE OPTIMAL PHYSIQUE FOR AN EVENT ARE MORE LIKELY TO SUCCEED THAN THOSE WHO LACK THE GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS

· MORPHOLOGICAL OPTIMIZATION IS A USEFUL CONCEPT FOR EVALUATING TRAINING STATUS, SELECTION PRESSURES, AND TALENT SELECTION IN MALE AND FEMALE ATHLETES

THE END