Somatotypes of Indian Athletes of Different Sports

Choudhary S

ISSN 0972-5997

Published Quarterly

Mangalore, India

editor.ojhas@gmail.com

Custom Search

OJHAS Vol. 18, Issue 2: (April - June 2019)

Original Article
Somatotypes of Indian Athletes of Different Sports

Authors:
Shilpa Choudhary, Defence Institute of Physiology and Allied Sciences, Defence Research & Development Organization(DRDO), Ministry of Defence, Govt. of India, Lucknow Road, Timarpur, Delhi-110054, India,
Suchitra Singh, Defence Institute of Physiology and Allied Sciences, Defence Research & Development Organization(DRDO), Ministry of Defence, Govt. of India, Lucknow Road, Timarpur, Delhi-110054, India,
Inderjeet Singh, Technical Officer, Defence Institute of Physiology and Allied Sciences, Defence Research & Development Organization(DRDO), Ministry of Defence, Govt. of India, Lucknow Road, Timarpur, Delhi-110054, India,
L. Robert Varte, Scientist D, Defence Institute of Physiology and Allied Sciences, Defence Research & Development Organization(DRDO), Ministry of Defence, Govt. of India, Lucknow Road, Timarpur, Delhi-110054, India,
Ramesh Sahani, Assistant Professor, Department of Anthropology, Panjab University, Chandigarh-160014, India,
Shweta Rawat, Scientist D, Defence Institute of Physiology and Allied Sciences, Defence Research & Development Organization(DRDO), Ministry of Defence, Govt. of India, Lucknow Road, Timarpur, Delhi-110054, India.

Address for Correspondence
Dr. Shweta Rawat,
Scientist ‘D’, Defence Institute of Physiology and Allied Sciences,
Defence Research & Development Organization (DRDO),
Ministry of Defence, Govt. of India,
Lucknow Road, Timarpur,
Delhi-110054, India.
E-mail: shwetadrdo@gmail.com.

Citation
Choudhary S, Singh S, Singh I, Varte LR, Sahani R, Rawat S. Somatotypes of Indian Athletes of Different Sports. Online J Health Allied Scs. 2019;18(2):6. Available at URL: https://www.ojhas.org/issue70/2019-2-6.html

Submitted: Apr 30, 2019; Accepted: Jul 13, 2019; Published: Jul 30, 2019

PDF

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 2.5 India License

Abstract: Somatotyping is the overall quantification of the morphology and categorization of physique using three numeral rating. Application of anthropometry and somatotype is well recognized in designing training programs and identifying talented athletes for different sports. 165 Indian elite athletes of different sports (football, wrestling, hockey, combat sports and athletics) including 18 control group individuals were somatotyped according to Heath and Carter devised method. Anthropometric measurements were taken following the International Society for Advancement of Kinanthropometry guidelines. The studied groups differentiated highly between each other while within-group variability was lower as compared to variability within the control group. Upon comparison with Olympic athletes, participants under study exhibited lower mesomorphs and higher endomorphy or ectomorphy.
Key Words: Body mass index, Nutritional status, Sportspersons, Somatotype

Introduction:

Studies have shown that there exist significant differences in body types of athletes pursuing different sports. Some of the anthropometric variables are found to be directly correlated with performance.[1] There are many sports events where persons with similar body physiques excel. When such groups are analyzed for somatotype distributions on the somatocharts, they tend to cluster narrowly in a particular area on the somatochart.[2] A study conducted to investigate the effects of use of talent identification tests by the coaches in the field of wrestling were found to effective in identifying the athletes who may become successful. Athletes who are new to sports should be tested scientifically in terms of physical, physiological and body composition characteristics, somatotype along with basic motoric and intelligence parameters.[3]

There are three ways of obtaining somatotypes, first is the anthropometric measurements based method, second is a photoscopic method (ratings are made using standardized photographs) and third is the anthropometric plus photoscopic method. Anthropometry-based method i.e. Heath and Carter method of somatotyping is the most widely used method.[4]

Application of somatotype analysis in designing training programmes and in identifying talented performers is well recognized.[5-9] For sports persons, success in various sporting competitions is associated with specific physiques with the dominant type of somatotype component. Level of heritability of somatotype is moderate to high.[10,11] Somatotype can be altered, but only to a certain extent.[12] For a good level of performance in any branch of sports, suitable body type must be considered. Inborn characteristics play a significant role in the level of physical activity while there might be some sports specific changes in one’s body as a result of regular physical activity.[13]

It is demonstrated that somatotype is influenced by nutrition and exercise.[14] It is not clear if training for sports produces physical changes or it is the certain morphological characteristics that become successful in particular sports only.[15,16] Or it can be the bidirectional relationship between genetic and environmental factors as suggested by Goottlieb, the theory of probabilistic epigenesist.[17] In adult sports persons, Somatotype accounts for 65% of the variance in physical fitness tests. A study concluded that the most frequent differences within either the male or female Junior Olympic samples involved the performers in throwing events (shot put, discus, and javelin), who were taller, heavier, fatter, and of unique somatotype when compared to all or most other competitors.[18] Ryan stewart, 2018 has also suggested the necessity to comprehend the relation between somatotype and aspects of performance.[12]

It is important to study the physiques of elite athletes of different sports by which extremes of performance in a population can be known. Both somatotype and body size reflected that there were remarkable differences among some sports and thus supported the hypothesis that physique was selective in particular sports performance. It also indicated that the lesser the difference in somatotype patterns the higher the level of competition.[5] For example, ideal build for a high jumper is assumed to be ectomorph with some mesomorph as one need strong muscles for power and lift, on the contrary, a sumo wrestler needs to be heavy so that he cannot be pushed or lifted easily, thus has a build dominant in endomorph with some mesomorph. Athletes involved in different sports have different fat values.[19] Somatotyping measures anthropometric dimensions of athletes which reflect body shape, proportionality and composition. Thus these variables play an important role in determining the physiques with potential for success in a particular sport.[20] Thus it is suggested that physique and body composition variables should be considered for selection process of athletes.[17]

The objective of the present study is to assess the somatotypes of Indian elite athletes of different sports. The study will help in quantifying somatotypes and differences in somatotypes of athletes of different sports. Comparisons will be made with model somatic pattern for that sport i.e. somatic indices of athletes who have achieved highest results.

Methodology

Only those athletes who have played in national and international levels, aging 18-30 years were considered for the study. A total of 165 Indian male sports person of five different sports, football (n=18), hockey (18), control group (18), combat sports (25), wrestling (60) and athletics (running, jumping and throwing, n=26) participated in the study. 18, age-matched individuals, who were not engaged in any sport but had a physical activity of 2 hours/day, six days a week, were taken as control group. Samples were collected when participants were preparing for their upcoming tournaments.

Before testing purpose, procedure and benefits of the test were explained to each participant and signed consent were taken from them. The sports persons who were physically fit with no signs of injury or reported complications were considered for the present study.

Anthropometric measurements (height, weight, triceps skinfold thickness, subscapular skinfold thickness, supraspinale skinfold thickness, calf skinfold thickness, humerus biepicondyalr width and femur biepicondylar width, mid upper arm circumference, calf circumference) were taken following international society for advancement of kinanthropometry (ISAK) protocols. Heath-Carter Anthropometric Somatotype: Instruction manual was used to obtain the somatotypes.[4] Three number rating representing endomorphy, mesomorphy and ectomorphy (always in the same order) rates human physique according to the present shape and body composition of an individual. Endomorphy is the relative fatness, mesomorphy is the relative musculoskeletal robustness, and ectomorphy is the relative linearity or slenderness of a physique.

Statistical analysis was done using SPSS version 23.0. Descriptive statistics are computed to describe the nature of the data and provide a summary of various measures of the sample in terms of mean and standard deviation. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was further used to compare the means of different sports group. It was used to test the null hypothesis that there were no differences among different sports. Post hoc Scheffe test was applied on the variables which showed significant results when the null hypothesis of equality of means was rejected. The level of significance was set at 5% level.

Results

Anthropometric characteristics used for obtaining somatotypes for athletes of different sports are described in terms of mean and standard deviation in Table 1. ANOVA gives the variables with significant and non-significant inter-group differences. Three components of somatotype i.e. endomorphy, mesomorphy and ectomorphy are described in terms of means and standard deviation for different sports with ANOVA in Table 2. Table 3 refers to the post hoc analysis for determining significant and non-significant intragroup differences. Figure 1 shows the distribution of somatotype of different sports group on a somatoplot.

Table I: Anthropometric characteristics of the different study groups
	Wrestling	Athletics	Football	Hockey	Combat Sports	Control Group	ANOVA (F)
Age	19.77±2.98	19.50 ±2.61	25.44 ±2.96	17.06 ±2.18	19.64 ±4.12	23.33 ±1.08	20.546***
Height	170.05 ±7.58	175.74 ±6.75	172.02 ±5.79	172.29 ±5.33	172.40 ±6.59	170.19 ±5.34	2.900*
Weight	75.86 ±14.96	70.91 ±15.27	69.76 ±6.03	63.71 ±6.87	64.96 ±12.23	61.87 ±7.71	5.860***
Humerus biepicondylar	7.13 ±0.55	6.85 ±0.71	6.62 ±0.51	6.75 ±0.40	6.61 ±0.61	6.77 ±0.34	4.787***
Femur biepicondylar breadth	10.44 ±1.39	9.94 ±0.86	9.75 ±0.55	9.76 ±0.77	9.46 ±0.79	9.57 ±0.46	4.645**
Maximum upper arm circumference breadth	31.75 ±3.11	27.79 ±4.68	28.12 ±1.82	27.22 ±3.44	27.94 ±3.57	25.72 ±2.24	14.130***
Calf circumference	35.82 ±4.17	35.76 ±3.21	36.90 ±1.91	33.33 ±3.20	33.81 ±3.27	33.44 ±1.82	4.305**
Triceps skinfold thickness	10.31 ±4.52	7.99 ±4.82	10.56 ±3.40	9.44 ±3.54	11.57 ±10.83	11.47 ±6.69	1.190N.S.
Subscapular skinfold thickness	12.26 ±5.59	10.22 ±2.99	12.09 ±3.41	8.94 ±2.00	10.30 ±5.01	17.18 ±6.87	6.835***
Suprailliac skinfold thickness	9.38 ±5.65	6.73 ±2.90	10.56 ±3.98	6.28 ±1.86	8.02 ±3.42	10.78 ±5.46	3.821*
Medial calf skinfold thickness	10.57 ±6.38	9.35 ±7.04	8.14 ±3.02	8.72 ±2.65	8.29 ±4.70	13.17 ±4.40	2.478*
Values represent Mean±Standard deviation, *p=0.000, p=0.001, *p=0.05, N.S.=Non-significant

Table 2: Somatotype categorization of different groups
	Wrestling	Athletics	Football	Hockey	Combat Sports	Control Group	F
Endomorphy	3.18±1.30	2.40±0.92	3.32±1.01	2.57±0.87	2.76±1.01	4.04±1.97	4.903***
Mesomorphy	6.00±1.67	4.38±2.24	4.40±1.09	4.26±1.67	3.99±1.49	4.37±3.25	6.302***
Ectomorphy	1.22±0.81	2.75±1.77	2.06±1.07	2.81±1.21	2.89±1.40	2.87±1.22	12.566***
Region	6.37±1.15	7.81±2.38	6.89±2.27	7.39±2.06	8.32±2.54	6.78±3.78	3.540**
Values represent Mean±Standard deviation, *p=0.000, p=0.001

Table III: Intra group differences in endomorphy, mesomorphy and ectomorphy
		Endomorphy	Mesomorphy	Ectomorphy			Endomeorphy	Mesomorphy	Ectomorphy
Wrestling	Athletics	N.S.	*	*	Hockey	Wrestling	-	N.S.	*
	Football	N.S.	N.S.	N.S.		Athletics	N.S.	N.S.	N.S.
	Hockey	N.S.	N.S.	*		Football	N.S.	N.S.	N.S.
	Control group	N.S.	N.S.	*		Control group	*	N.S.	N.S.
	Combat Sports	N.S.	*	*		Combat Sports	N.S.	N.S.	N.S.
Athletics	Wrestling	N.S.	*	*	Control group	Wrestling	N.S.	N.S.	*
	Football	N.S.	N.S.	N.S.		Athletics	*	N.S.	N.S.
	Hockey	N.S.	N.S.	N.S.		Football	N.S.	N.S.	N.S.
	Control group	*	N.S.	N.S.		Hockey	*	N.S.	N.S.
	Combat Sports	N.S.	N.S.	N.S.		Combat Sports	*	N.S.	N.S.
Football	Wrestling	N.S.	N.S.	N.S.	Combat sports	Wrestling	N.S.	*	*
	Athletics	N.S.	N.S.	N.S.		Athletics	N.S.	N.S.	N.S.
	Hockey	N.S.	N.S.	N.S.		Football	N.S.	N.S.	N.S.
	Control group	N.S.	N.S.	N.S.		Hockey	N.S.	N.S.	N.S.
	Combat Sports	N.S.	N.S.	N.S.		Control group	*	N.S.	N.S.
*=significant , N.S.=Non-significant

Figure 1: Representation of mean somatotype of each group on a somatoplot

Discussion

Appropriate stature and adequate somatotype are not the only attributes determining athletic performance, but they are important prerequisites for sports participation and success.[21,22] In the present study, wrestlers had the highest mesomorphy component as well as the least ectomorphy value as compared to other studied sports group (Table 2). Wrestlers and footballers were categorized as endomorphic mesomorph (Figure1). Although upon comparison wrestlers had greater mesomorphy component but ectomorphy component of footballers was high which indicates linearity in their physique. This clearly differentiates the physiques of a wrestler from a footballer and also signals their body makeup as per requirements of their sports. Since a wrestler has to maintain his/her weight as well because it helps them to push or pull their opponents while footballers tend to maintain leaness in their bodies so that they can run easily on field without carrying extra body weight. High mesomorphy ratings are observed in successful athletes of many sports, which demonstrate strong musculoskeletal development.6 Large muscles can produce higher strength outputs thus can have higher anaerobic performance.[23] The relationship between total and task-specific or sport-specific strength or power and mesomorphy component of somatotype is well established.[7,8,23-26] Yashpal & Satwanti in 1991 assessed somatotype of Indian wrestlers and compared their mean somatotype (3.89-6.58-1.61) with that of Olympic wrestler (2.4-6.7-1.5).[27] There exists appreciable similarity in somatotype of wrestlers in 1991data and in present study (3.18-6.00-1.20). High mesomorphy value implies predisposition for higher strength performance thus it can be used to identify those predisposed who can perform well in sports having strength based movements. It can also be utilized as a prescription of training programmes in physically active males.[12]

Control group mean somatotype categorized as mesomorphic endomorph among all the groups showed the highest endomorphy value (Table 2). A similar study among Indian college students showed mean somatotype as endomorphic mesomorph (3.78-4.73-2.87).[28] Mean somatotype of athletics group is balanced mesomorph and for hockey group is ectomorphic mesomorph. Wrestling group differed significantly from all the other groups in terms of ectomorphy component significantly except with the football group (Table 3). Control group differed from hockey, combat sports and athletics in endomorphy component. Mesomorphy values differed only between wrestling and athletics. All the five studied groups clustered near one another on the somatochart except for the wrestling group which had higher mesomorphy value (Figure 1). Positive association of ectomorphy and negative association of endomorphy are found with the variance in performance in activities where body propulsion is important for example in explosive leg power.[7,26,29] In strength movements where short levers (muscles and bones together form a lever) are preferable, ectomorphy is advantageous like in combat sports.[5]

In the present study, somatotype components of Indian elite football players (3.32-4.40-2.06) was termed as endomorphic mesomorph. Mean somatotype of Indian university level football players was ectomorphic mesomorph (2.33-4.63-2.90) which was inferior to their counter parts from Liverpool, Russian and South American international teams it was also suggested that physique and body composition variables should be considered while selection process.[21] Various studies have assessed that in general football players have a mesomorphic character falling in balanced mesomorph category.[30-32]

Within-group variability (Standard deviation) in somatotype components in sports groups are markedly lower than that of the control group (Table 2). It suggests that athletes of same sports cluster narrowly in a particular area on the somatochart or it can be said that there is little variability among athletes of the same sport.[2]

Conclusion

The present study assessed somatotypes of Indian athletes who have participated in national and international events. Lower, within group variability and higher between group variability suggests that there exists a suitable body type for a particular sport. Upon comparison with Olympic athletes or with model somatic pattern, participants under study exhibited lower mesomorphs and higher endomorphy or ectomorphy. Thus present data can help young sports enthusiasts and Indian elite athletes to assess their somatotypes and target for model somatic pattern which is the best possible body type suitable for particular sport.

Conflict of Interests

Authors declare that there is no conflict of interest of any type concerning this research work.

Acknowledgements

Authors wish to thank Defence Institute of Physiology and Allied Science (DIPAS) for its support in providing various resources and finance to make the study possible.

References:

Someren KV, Palmer GS. Prediction of 200-m sprint kayaking performance. Canadian Journal of Applied Physiology. 2003 Aug 1;28(4):505-17.
Singh SP, Mehta P. Human body measurements: concepts and applications. PHI Learning Pvt. Ltd.; 2009.
Kaynar Ö. Investigation of the Effects of the Talent Identification Tests Used by the Coaches in Wrestling on Success. Universal Journal of Educational Research. 2019;7(3):885-91.
Carter JE. Part 1: The Heath-Carter anthropometric somatotype-instruction manual. From htth/cmvwsomatotypeorg/Heath—CarterManual. pdf [Retrieved 31 Januuary 2013]. 2002 Mar:3-4.
Carter JL. The somatotypes of athletes—a review. Human Biology. 1970 Dec 1:535-69.
Carter JL, Carter JL, Heath BH. Somatotyping: development and applications. Cambridge University Press; 1990 Jun 28.
Busko K, Lewandowska J, Lipinska M, Michalski R, Pastuszak A. Somatotype-variables related to muscle torque and power output in female volleyball players. Acta Bioeng Biomech 2013;15(2):119–26.
Lewandowska J, Busko K, Pastuszak A, Boguszewska K. Somatotype variables related to muscle torque and power in judoists. Journal of Human Kinetics. 2011 Dec 1;30:21-8.
Stepnicka J. Somatotype in relation to physical performance, sports and body posture. Kinanthropometry. 1986;3:39-52.
Bouchard C, Lortie G. Heredity and endurance performance. Sports Medicine. 1984 Jan 1;1(1):38-64.
Peeters MW, Thomis MA, Loos RJ, Derom CA, Fagard R, Claessens AL, Vlietinck RF, Beunen GP. Heritability of somatotype components: a multivariate analysis. International Journal of Obesity. 2007 Aug;31(8):1295.
Ryan-Stewart H, Faulkner J, Jobson S. The influence of somatotype on anaerobic performance. PloS One. 2018 May 22;13(5):e0197761.
Gualdi-Russo E, Zaccagni L. Somatotype, role and performance in elite volleyball players. Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness. 2001 Jun 1;41(2):256.
Carter JE, Phillips WH. Structural changes in exercising middle-aged males during a 2-year period. Journal of Applied Physiology. 1969 Dec 1;27(6):787-94.
Bale P. A review of the physique and performance qualities characteristic of games players in specific positions on the field of play. The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness. 1986 Jun;26(2):109.
Medved R. Body height and predisposition for certain sports. The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness. 1966 Jun;6(2):89.
Gottlieb G. Probabilistic epigenesis. Developmental Science. 2007 Jan;10(1):1-1.
Thorland WG, Johnson GO, Fagot TG, Tharp GD, Hammer RW. Body composition and somatotype characteristics of junior Olympic athletes. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise. 1981;13(5):332-8.
Fleck SJ. Body composition of elite American athletes. The American Journal of Sports Medicine. 1983 Nov;11(6):398-403.
Norton K, Olds T, Olive S, Craig N. Anthropometry and sports performance. Anthropometrica. 1996:287-364.
Sukanta S. Somatotype and Body Composition Characteristics of Indian University Level Football Players. World Applied Sciences Journal. 2017;35 (3): 356-360
Carvajal W, Ríos A, Echevarría I, Martínez M, Miñoso J, Rodríguez D. Body type and performance of elite Cuban baseball players. Medicc Review. 2009 Jun 29;11(2):15-20.
Laubach LL, McConville JT. The relationship of strength to body size and typology. Medicine and Science in Sports. 1969 Dec 1;1(4):189-94.
Malina RM, Bouchard C, Bar-Or O. Growth, maturation, and physical activity. Human Kinetics; Illinois, US. 2004.
Lewandowska J, Busko K, Pastuszak A, Boguszewska K. Somatotype variables related to muscle torque and power in judoists. Journal of Human Kinetics. 2011 Dec 1;30:21-8.
Sukanta S. Somatotype, Body Composition and Explosive Power of Athlete and Non-Athlete. LASE Journal of Sport Science. 2014 Jun 1;5(1):26-34.
Yashpal, Kapoor S, Singh IP. A Comparative Study of Physique and Body Composition of Indian and Olympic Wrestlers. Indian Anthropologist. 1991 Jun 1:23-8.
Saha, S. Morphological characteristics and grip strength of physical education students. European Journal of Experimental Biology. 2013; 3(5):469-473
Marta C, Marinho D, Costa A, Barbosa T, Marques M. Somatotype is more interactive with strength than fat mass and physical activity in peripubertal children. Journal of Human Kinetics. 2011 Sep 1;29(Special Issue):83-91.
Rahmawati NT, Budiharjo S, Ashizawa K. Somatotypes of young male athletes and non-athlete students in Yogyakarta, Indonesia. Anthropological Science. 2007;115(1):1-7.
Rienzi E, Drust B, Reilly T, Carter JE, Martin A. Investigation of anthropometric and work-rate profiles of elite South American international soccer players. Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness. 2000 Jun 1;40(2):162.
Bandyopadhyay A. Anthropometry and body composition in soccer and volleyball players in West Bengal, India. Journal of Physiological Anthropology. 2007;26(4):501-5.