This article was downloaded by: [University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign] On: 04 October 2014, At: 03:37 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Sports Sciences Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjsp20
Anthropometric characteristics as discriminators of body‐building success a
b
c
Andrew C. Fry , Alan J. Ryan , Robert J. Schwab , Dawn c
R. Powell & William J. Kraemer
a
a
Center for Sports Medicine , Pennsylvania State University , University Park, Pennsylvania, 16802, USA b
Department of Exercise Science , University of Iowa , Iowa City, Iowa, USA c
Center for Youth Fitness and Sports Research , University of Nebraska‐Lincoln , Lincoln, Nebraska, USA Published online: 14 Nov 2007.
To cite this article: Andrew C. Fry , Alan J. Ryan , Robert J. Schwab , Dawn R. Powell & William J. Kraemer (1991) Anthropometric characteristics as discriminators of body‐building success, Journal of Sports Sciences, 9:1, 23-32, DOI: 10.1080/02640419108729852 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02640419108729852
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
Downloaded by [University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign] at 03:37 04 October 2014
Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/ page/terms-and-conditions
Journal of Sports Sciences, 1991, 9, 23-32
Anthropometric characteristics as discriminators of body-building success Downloaded by [University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign] at 03:37 04 October 2014
ANDREW C. FRY,1 ALAN J. RYAN,2 ROBERT J. SCHWAB,3 DAWN R. POWELL3 and WILLIAM J. KRAEMER1 1 Center for Sports Medicine, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802, 2Department of Exercise Science, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, and 3Center for Youth Fitness and Sports Research, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, Nebraska, USA
Accepted 1 February 1990
Abstract A total of 36 non-elite male body builders were observed at the time of competition. Their mean physical characteristics (±S.D.) were: age, 24.6±4.8 years; height, 174.4 + 6.7 cm; bodyweight, 80.3 ± 11.0 kg. Their body composition values were: percentage body fat, 9.3 ± 1.6%; fat-free mass, 72.8 + 9.8 kg. The mean somatotype for all subjects was: endomorphy, 2.3±0.6; mesomorphy, 6.2+0.9; ectomorphy, 1.2 ±0.6. The body proportions (cm) included: biacromial diameter/bi-iliac diameter, 1.463±0.132; torso length/height, 0.468±0.018; chest circumference/abdominal circumference, 1.345 + 0.059. The body builders in the present study were younger, had lower bodyweights, lower fat-free mass, lower mesomorphy ratings, smaller circumferences, and smaller skeletal dimensions than elite body builders reported in the scientific literature. When the body builders in the present study were divided into successful and unsuccessful groups based on actual competition results, a multiple-discriminant analysis found that biacromial diameter/bi-iliac diameter, torso length/height, chest circumference/abdominal circumference, percentage body fat, height, and bodyweight accounted for 80.6% of the explained variance. These data indicate that the success of a body builder can be accounted for in large part by easily obtained physical variables. Keywords: Body composition, somatotype, body building, anthropometry.
Introduction With the increased use of anthropometric methodology, and its interpretation, it has become increasingly useful to measure the physical characteristics unique to participants in specific sports. While the participants in many sports have been described in this manner, only a few studies have dealt with the sport of male body building (Borms et al., 1986; Elliot et al., 1987; Fahey et al., 1975; Fry et al., 1987; Heyward et al., 1989; Katch et al., 1980; Pipes, 1979; Spitler et al, 1980). The physical characteristics of female body builders have been described by Freedson et al. (1982) in a similar study. In addition, only one study (Borms et al., 1986) has measured the athletes at an actual body-building competition, although Elliot et al. (1987) monitored their subjects within 3 days post-competition, and Fry et al. (1987) and Heyward et al (1989) observed their subjects 24-48 h pre-competition. All of these studies 0264-0414/91 $03.00 + .12 © 1991 E. & F.N. Spon Ltd.
Downloaded by [University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign] at 03:37 04 October 2014
24
Fry et al.
have clearly shown the extreme muscular development of their subjects, as well as relatively low body fat levels. While many of the variables measured would probably not be significantly different during competition, it is believed that there are some that may be affected. For example, the relative fat levels of competitive body builders appear to decrease just prior to competition owing to their intense training and dieting. The importance of proper dietary manipulation among weight-trained subjects trying to maintain fat-free mass has been examined by Walberg et al. (1988). Furthermore, the dieting characteristics of competitive body builders as well as their resulting body composition profiles have illustrated how they attempt to decrease relative fat levels as well as maintain or increase lean body mass (Heyward et al., 1989). It should also be noted that most previous studies have used only elite level competitors (national and world calibre) as subjects. Therefore, the purpose of this study was two-fold: 1. Describe the physical characteristics of non-elite body builders when they were at optimal condition for competition, and compare these results with those of previous studies of elite body builders. 2. Identify the easily obtained physical characteristics that discriminate between success and failure in body-building competitions.
Methods and materials
A total of 36 male body builders from eight local or regional level contests volunteered for this study. All of them gave informed consent prior to participation. Each of the variables was measured on the same day as the contest, except for 12 subjects who were used as a validation sample for the body composition procedures, and were measured 24-48 h prior to their respective contests (Fry et al, 1987). The age of each subject was recorded. Their height (Ht) was measured using a wall scale and a Broca plane to the nearest 0.1 cm; leg length was determined by measuring the height of their coccyx, which approximates trochanter height (Behnke and Wilmore, 1974); and bodyweight (BW) was recorded to the nearest 0.1 kg using a calibrated upright physician's scale. AU anthropométrie values were determined from the mean of duplicate measures according to the methods and landmarks of Behnke and Wilmore (1974). The following skinfolds were measured to the nearest 0.5 mm with a Lange skinfold caliper (10 g pressure mm" 2 , constant pressure): triceps, subscapular, abdominal, supra-iliac, mid-axillary, juxta-nipple, anterior thigh and medial calf. Circumferences were taken to the nearest 0.1 cm with a metal Lufkin tape. These were taken at the abdominal I, abdominal II, forearm, biceps (tensed and flexed arm), chest (mid-expiration) and calf sites. The diameters were assessed to the nearest 0.1 cm with a broad-blade anthropometer at the biacromial, bi-iliac, biepicondylar humérus (elbow) and biepicondylar femur (knee) sites. In the event that the skinfolds varied by more than 1.0 mm, or the circumferences or diameters by more than 0.5 cm, a third measure was taken with the mean of the two most similar values used as the representative record. The Heath-Carter anthropométrie somatotype rating was used to determine body type (Heath and Carter, 1967). Torso length was determined by subtracting leg length from height. This in turn was used to determine torso length/height (TL/Ht) ratios. The mean of abdominal I and abdominal II measures was used to determine abdominal average
Body builders
25
circumference, which was then used to obtain chest circumference/abdominal average (Ch/Ab) ratios. The biacromial diameter/bi-iliac diameter (Biac/Bi-il) ratio was also calculated. These ratios were selected to represent potentially important body proportions for body builders. Closer examination of each of the absolute measures with the corresponding ratios resulted in a shared variance (r2) of between 2.0 and 49.4%. Thus, the predicament of spurious ratios was avoided (Heise, 1975). Body density was determined using Lohman's (1981) formula: Bodydensity=1.0982-0.000815(A + B + C) + 0.0000084(A + B + C)2 Downloaded by [University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign] at 03:37 04 October 2014
where A = triceps SF, B = subscapular SF and C = abdominal SF. This formula has been found to be appropriate for use with competitive body builders (Fry et al., 1987). Brozek et al.'s (1963) formula was used to calculate the percentage of body fat (%BF), from which fat-free mass (FFM) was calculated. Descriptive statistics (x ± S.D.) were calculated for all the variables measured, and were compared with the data of reference man (Behnke, 1968). The actual contest results were obtained from the 'meet director' of each contest. All of the subjects who came first in a local contest or were among the top three in a regional contest (n = 11 ) were placed in the 'successful group'. The remaining subjects (n = 25) were placed in the 'non-successful group'. Six specific anthropométrie variables were selected owing to their ease of measurement and ready availability to a competitive body, builder outside the laboratory setting. A Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient (r) matrix was calculated for these six measures (BW, Ht, %BF, Biac/Bi-il, TL/Ht and Ch/Ab) to determine the common zeroorder variances. Individual somatotype ratings (e.g. mesomorphy) were not included among these variables, as it is most effective to consider these ratings when weighted against each other and not as individual values (Ross and Marfell-Jones, 1982). A full-model multiple discriminant analysis using these six variables was used to calculate the discriminant function. The percentage of explained variance was determined from the discriminant functions. Although the purpose of this study was not to develop a prediction equation to determine body-building success, group centroids were calculated and group classification results for predicted group membership were determined.
Results and discussion
The means (+S.D.) of each variable for all 36 subjects are shown in the first column in Table 1. The last three columns contain data from several representative studies of elite body builders (Borms et al., 1986; Spitler et al, 1980) and from reference man (Behnke, 1968) for comparative purposes. It is important to note that the body builders in the other studies were elite competitors, whereas the present study utilized subjects from local and regional competitions in the USA. The subjects in Borms et al.'s (1986) and Spitler et al.'s (1980) studies were all highly accomplished, resulting in obvious differences when compared to the sample in the present study. It should also be noted that the data in Borms et a/.'s (1986) study were pooled from four different weight classes to simplify the comparisons. The subjects in the present study were slightly younger (x = 24.6 years) than the elite body builders (x = 30.1 and 28.7 years). This may reflect the level of experience required to attain elite status. The height of the body builders in the present study (x= 174.4 cm) was
Downloaded by [University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign] at 03:37 04 October 2014
Table 1. Mean (±s.D.) anthropométrie characteristics of body builders from the presenit study compared to the mean characteristics of elite body builders, ¡ind when divided into successful and unsuccessful body builders
Age (years) Height (cm) Weight (kg) Body fat (%) Fat-free mass (kg) Somatotype Endomorphy Mesomorphy Ectomorphy Skinfolds (mm) Triceps Subscapular Abdominal Supra-iliac Mid-axillary Juxta-nipple Thigh Calf Circumferences (cm) Abdominal I Abdominal II Abdominal average Forearm Biceps (flexed) Chest Calf Diameters (cm) Biacromial Bi-iliac Elbow Knee Torso length (cm) Leg length (cm) Biac/Bi-il Torso length/height Chest/Ab "Estimated.
Present study (« = 36) 24.6 (4.8) 174.4 (6.7) 80.3 (11.0) 9.3 (1.6) 72.8 (9.8)
Successful (« = 11) 25.3 (2.0) 174.5 (8.3) 83.9 (14.2) 8.5 (0.8) 76.7 (12.6)
Unsuccessful (« =25) 24.4 (5.6) 174.4 (6.1) 78.8 (9.2) 9.7 (1.8) 71.1 (8.0)
Spitler, 1980 («=20) 30.1 177.1 91.3 9.9 82.3
Borms, 1986 (n = 66) 28.67 171.42 80.22
^
Behnke, 1968 (Reference man) 20-24 174.0 70.0 11.7 61.8
2.3 6.2 1.2
(0.6) (0.9) (0.6)
2.0 6.7 0.9
(0.4) (0.9) (0.4)
2.4 6.0 1.3
(0.7) (0.9) (0.6)
1.60 8.68 1.17
6.7 9.2 7.9 7.2 6.1 5.2 7.8 5.7
(1.9) (1.8) (2.7) (2-6) (1.4) (1.3) (2.5) (2.0)
5.6 9.0 6.7 5.9 5.5 4.7 6.3 4.5
(0.9) (1.6) (1.0) (1.4) (1.0) (0.6) (1.4) (1.4)
7.2 9.3 8.4 7.7 6.4 5.4 8.4 6.3
(2.0) (2.0) (3.0) (2.8) (1.5) (1.5) (2.6) (2.0)
77.7 77.2 77.5 30.2 39.5 104.6 37.7
(5.0) (5.1) (5.0) (2.1) (2.9) (7.6) (2.4)
79.5 77.8 78.7 31.1 40.8 109.4 38.1
(6.3) (6.6) (6.4) (2.6) (3.4) (8.1) (2.7)
76.9 76.9 76.9 29.8 38.9 102.5 37.5
(4.2) (4.4) (4.3) (1.7) (2.5) (6.5) (2.3)
33.0 43.6 116.8 41.1
77.0 79.8 78.4° • 26.9 31.7 91.8 35.8
40.4 27.7 7.0 9.2
(3.0) (1.8) (0.4) (0.6)
41.2 27.8 7.0 9.3
(2.8) (1.7) (0.6) (0.8)
40.0 27.7 7.0 9.1
(3.1) (1.9) (0.4) (0.5)
46.7 28.8 7.9 10.8
40.6 28.6 6.95 9.25
81.7 92.7 1.463 0.468 1.345
(3.6) (5.5) (0.132) (0.018) (0.059)
82.5 92.0 1.487 0.473 1.375
(4.0) (6.9) (0.102) (0.021) (0.058)
81.4 93.0 1.453 0.466 1.332
(3.5) (4.9) (0.144) (0.017) (0.056)
7.1 14.3 15.5 10.6 9.5 1
9.9 6.4
87.2
1.622" 1.339"
1.420"
^ !-»•
Downloaded by [University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign] at 03:37 04 October 2014
Body builders
27
comparable to the elite body builders (x = 177.1 and 171.4 cm). The bodyweight of our sample (x = 80.3 kg) was less than the subjects examined by Spitler et al. (1980)(x = 91.3 kg), but similar to that of Borms et al. (1986) (x = 80.2 kg). It should be noted that the subjects in Borms et al.'s (1986) study were measured at the contest site as in the present study. Therefore, the higher bodyweights recorded by Spitler et al. (1980) may simply be due to the fact that their subjects were not in optimal competitive condition, or, more likely, they were due to their greater height and lean body mass. Also, the subjects in Borms et al.'s (1986) study included a disproportionate number of contestants from the lighter weight categories used at that level of competition. Whether this reflected the actual distribution of contestants is not known. Relative fat levels for the present study (x = 9.3% fat) were slightly less than that of reference man (x = 11.7% fat) and similar to those observed by Spitler et al. (1980) (x = 9.9% fat). It should be pointed out that identical methods were not used for determining relative fat levels for each of these studies. The differences observed could easily be an artefact of the various methods used. It would appear that elite body builders may attain much lower levels of relative fat when approaching a competition, as the values recorded for them were not taken while they were preparing for competition. The fat-free mass of subjects in this study (x = 72.8 kg) was considerably greater than that of reference man (x = 61.8 kg), but considerably less than that of elite body builders (x = 82.3 kg). This indicates that whereas contestants at local and regional contests have a greater FFM than reference man, the values are much less than the FFM of elite body builders. When comparing the results of this study with the characteristics of athletes in other sports, it was observed that the relative fat levels were similar to those of the following athletes: basketball players, offensive and defensive backs in American football, gymnasts, swimmers, distance runners, weightlifters, and all wrestlers but the heavyweights (Behnke and Wilmore, 1974), as well as sprinters and middle-distance runners (Pollock and Jackson, 1977; Wilmore et al, 1977). The mean somatotypes of the body builders in the present study (x = 2.3-6.2-1.2) are those of an endomorphic mesomorph. High levels of muscularity are evident owing to the extremely high mesomorphic component. These characteristics have been shown in elite body builders, but to a much greater extent. Borms et al. (1986) observed mean mesomorphic values as high as 8.7. When comparing the somatotypes recorded in the present study with those of Olympic level athletes, the greatest similarity was found with weightlifters and wrestlers (all weight classes), with values of 2.4-7.1-1.0 and 2.2-6.3-1.6, respectively (de Garay et al, 1974; Tanner, 1964). Other athletes with similar somatotype characteristics include American football professionals playing in several positions and heavyweight boxers (Carter, 1980). Figure 1 illustrates the somatotypes observed in the present study, as well as values from several sports with similar characteristics. It should be noted that Tanner (1964) utilized Sheldon's (1954) method of somatotyping, whereas all of the other somatotypes reported were derived from the Heath-Carter (1967) method. The skinfold thicknesses for the subjects in the present study indicate their low relative fat levels. At each site, the skinfolds were less than those observed by Spitler et al. (1980), reflecting the slightly greater fat weight of their subjects at the time of that study. As was previously mentioned, it is important to note that the methods for determining relative fat differed between the study by Spitler et al. (1980) and the present study. The values observed are easily within the potential error for this type of measure. In the present study, the largest skinfolds were observed at the subscapular (x=9.2 mm), abdominal (x = 7.9 mm) and thigh (x = 7.8 mm) locations. In a study of fat distribution patterns, Chien et al. (1975) found that
Downloaded by [University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign] at 03:37 04 October 2014
28
Fry et al.
Fig. 1. Somatogram of body builders from the present study, together with athletes from other sports with similar characteristics. • , total x (n = 36); • , successful x (n = 11 ); • , unsuccessful x (n = 25); O, elite body builders (Borms et al., 1986); A, Olympic weightlifters (de Garay et al, 1974); A, Olympic wrestlers (no heavyweights: Tanner, 1964).
the largest skinfold values for males over a 12-year time span were consistently the abdomen, waist and back (respectively, in descending order). The body builders in the present study had the largest skinfold thicknesses at the subscapular site, and had apparently been able to decrease their abdominal and waist (supra-iliac) fat deposits. Although a longitudinal study was not performed, this would suggest that, for many body builders, the fat deposits on the back may be the last to decrease. The circumferences for the subjects in the present study were considerably greater than those of reference man, except for the abdominal measures. However, they were considerably less than those of elite body builders. This is indicative of the relative muscle mass carried by each group, with greater muscle mass resulting in larger circumferences. Diameters, on the other hand, showed little difference between the values for reference man and the body builders in the present study. In marked contrast, the elite body builders in Spitler et a/.'s (1980) study had much larger skeletal dimensions, except for the bi-iliac diameter. This was reflected in the Biac/Bi-il ratio, where elite body builders were much broader across the shoulders in relation to hip width than were either the present subjects or reference man. It was interesting to note, however, that Ch/Ab values were similar for both elite and non-elite body builders, and both were greater than the Ch/Ab value for reference man. It should be noted here that the Biac/Bi-il and Ch/Ab values for both the body builders in Spitler et al.'s (1980) study and Behnke's (1968) reference man were estimated from the available data using mean values, and may not be indicative of the actual values.
Body builders
29
Downloaded by [University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign] at 03:37 04 October 2014
A multiple-discriminant analysis was performed using six easily obtained anthropométrie values (Ht, BW, %BF, Biac/Bi-il, TL/Ht and Ch/Ab) to discriminate between the successful (« = 11) and unsuccessful (n = 25) groups. Table 1 lists a description of the physical characteristics for both groups. Although not significantly different, the successful subjects were slightly taller, had greater bodyweight, lower levels of relative body fat, and had greater values for Biac/Bi-il, TL/Ht and Ch/Ab than the non-successful subjects. The correlation matrix in Table 2 shows absolute correlation values ranging from 0.01 to 0.81. Only three
Table 2. Pearson correlation coefficients of selected physical variables of body builders (n = 36)
Biac/Bi-il TL/Ht Ch/Ab
Biac/ Bi-il
TL/Ht
Ch/Ab
%BF
Ht
BW
—
-0.13
0.39" 0.19
-0.10 -0.24 -0.27
-0.11 -0.34" -0.12 0.27
0.10 -0.26 0.01 0.23 0.81"
—
—
—
%BF Ht BW
—
—
°P
Journal of Sports Sciences Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjsp20
Anthropometric characteristics as discriminators of body‐building success a
b
c
Andrew C. Fry , Alan J. Ryan , Robert J. Schwab , Dawn c
R. Powell & William J. Kraemer
a
a
Center for Sports Medicine , Pennsylvania State University , University Park, Pennsylvania, 16802, USA b
Department of Exercise Science , University of Iowa , Iowa City, Iowa, USA c
Center for Youth Fitness and Sports Research , University of Nebraska‐Lincoln , Lincoln, Nebraska, USA Published online: 14 Nov 2007.
To cite this article: Andrew C. Fry , Alan J. Ryan , Robert J. Schwab , Dawn R. Powell & William J. Kraemer (1991) Anthropometric characteristics as discriminators of body‐building success, Journal of Sports Sciences, 9:1, 23-32, DOI: 10.1080/02640419108729852 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02640419108729852
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
Downloaded by [University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign] at 03:37 04 October 2014
Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/ page/terms-and-conditions
Journal of Sports Sciences, 1991, 9, 23-32
Anthropometric characteristics as discriminators of body-building success Downloaded by [University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign] at 03:37 04 October 2014
ANDREW C. FRY,1 ALAN J. RYAN,2 ROBERT J. SCHWAB,3 DAWN R. POWELL3 and WILLIAM J. KRAEMER1 1 Center for Sports Medicine, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802, 2Department of Exercise Science, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, and 3Center for Youth Fitness and Sports Research, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, Nebraska, USA
Accepted 1 February 1990
Abstract A total of 36 non-elite male body builders were observed at the time of competition. Their mean physical characteristics (±S.D.) were: age, 24.6±4.8 years; height, 174.4 + 6.7 cm; bodyweight, 80.3 ± 11.0 kg. Their body composition values were: percentage body fat, 9.3 ± 1.6%; fat-free mass, 72.8 + 9.8 kg. The mean somatotype for all subjects was: endomorphy, 2.3±0.6; mesomorphy, 6.2+0.9; ectomorphy, 1.2 ±0.6. The body proportions (cm) included: biacromial diameter/bi-iliac diameter, 1.463±0.132; torso length/height, 0.468±0.018; chest circumference/abdominal circumference, 1.345 + 0.059. The body builders in the present study were younger, had lower bodyweights, lower fat-free mass, lower mesomorphy ratings, smaller circumferences, and smaller skeletal dimensions than elite body builders reported in the scientific literature. When the body builders in the present study were divided into successful and unsuccessful groups based on actual competition results, a multiple-discriminant analysis found that biacromial diameter/bi-iliac diameter, torso length/height, chest circumference/abdominal circumference, percentage body fat, height, and bodyweight accounted for 80.6% of the explained variance. These data indicate that the success of a body builder can be accounted for in large part by easily obtained physical variables. Keywords: Body composition, somatotype, body building, anthropometry.
Introduction With the increased use of anthropometric methodology, and its interpretation, it has become increasingly useful to measure the physical characteristics unique to participants in specific sports. While the participants in many sports have been described in this manner, only a few studies have dealt with the sport of male body building (Borms et al., 1986; Elliot et al., 1987; Fahey et al., 1975; Fry et al., 1987; Heyward et al., 1989; Katch et al., 1980; Pipes, 1979; Spitler et al, 1980). The physical characteristics of female body builders have been described by Freedson et al. (1982) in a similar study. In addition, only one study (Borms et al., 1986) has measured the athletes at an actual body-building competition, although Elliot et al. (1987) monitored their subjects within 3 days post-competition, and Fry et al. (1987) and Heyward et al (1989) observed their subjects 24-48 h pre-competition. All of these studies 0264-0414/91 $03.00 + .12 © 1991 E. & F.N. Spon Ltd.
Downloaded by [University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign] at 03:37 04 October 2014
24
Fry et al.
have clearly shown the extreme muscular development of their subjects, as well as relatively low body fat levels. While many of the variables measured would probably not be significantly different during competition, it is believed that there are some that may be affected. For example, the relative fat levels of competitive body builders appear to decrease just prior to competition owing to their intense training and dieting. The importance of proper dietary manipulation among weight-trained subjects trying to maintain fat-free mass has been examined by Walberg et al. (1988). Furthermore, the dieting characteristics of competitive body builders as well as their resulting body composition profiles have illustrated how they attempt to decrease relative fat levels as well as maintain or increase lean body mass (Heyward et al., 1989). It should also be noted that most previous studies have used only elite level competitors (national and world calibre) as subjects. Therefore, the purpose of this study was two-fold: 1. Describe the physical characteristics of non-elite body builders when they were at optimal condition for competition, and compare these results with those of previous studies of elite body builders. 2. Identify the easily obtained physical characteristics that discriminate between success and failure in body-building competitions.
Methods and materials
A total of 36 male body builders from eight local or regional level contests volunteered for this study. All of them gave informed consent prior to participation. Each of the variables was measured on the same day as the contest, except for 12 subjects who were used as a validation sample for the body composition procedures, and were measured 24-48 h prior to their respective contests (Fry et al, 1987). The age of each subject was recorded. Their height (Ht) was measured using a wall scale and a Broca plane to the nearest 0.1 cm; leg length was determined by measuring the height of their coccyx, which approximates trochanter height (Behnke and Wilmore, 1974); and bodyweight (BW) was recorded to the nearest 0.1 kg using a calibrated upright physician's scale. AU anthropométrie values were determined from the mean of duplicate measures according to the methods and landmarks of Behnke and Wilmore (1974). The following skinfolds were measured to the nearest 0.5 mm with a Lange skinfold caliper (10 g pressure mm" 2 , constant pressure): triceps, subscapular, abdominal, supra-iliac, mid-axillary, juxta-nipple, anterior thigh and medial calf. Circumferences were taken to the nearest 0.1 cm with a metal Lufkin tape. These were taken at the abdominal I, abdominal II, forearm, biceps (tensed and flexed arm), chest (mid-expiration) and calf sites. The diameters were assessed to the nearest 0.1 cm with a broad-blade anthropometer at the biacromial, bi-iliac, biepicondylar humérus (elbow) and biepicondylar femur (knee) sites. In the event that the skinfolds varied by more than 1.0 mm, or the circumferences or diameters by more than 0.5 cm, a third measure was taken with the mean of the two most similar values used as the representative record. The Heath-Carter anthropométrie somatotype rating was used to determine body type (Heath and Carter, 1967). Torso length was determined by subtracting leg length from height. This in turn was used to determine torso length/height (TL/Ht) ratios. The mean of abdominal I and abdominal II measures was used to determine abdominal average
Body builders
25
circumference, which was then used to obtain chest circumference/abdominal average (Ch/Ab) ratios. The biacromial diameter/bi-iliac diameter (Biac/Bi-il) ratio was also calculated. These ratios were selected to represent potentially important body proportions for body builders. Closer examination of each of the absolute measures with the corresponding ratios resulted in a shared variance (r2) of between 2.0 and 49.4%. Thus, the predicament of spurious ratios was avoided (Heise, 1975). Body density was determined using Lohman's (1981) formula: Bodydensity=1.0982-0.000815(A + B + C) + 0.0000084(A + B + C)2 Downloaded by [University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign] at 03:37 04 October 2014
where A = triceps SF, B = subscapular SF and C = abdominal SF. This formula has been found to be appropriate for use with competitive body builders (Fry et al., 1987). Brozek et al.'s (1963) formula was used to calculate the percentage of body fat (%BF), from which fat-free mass (FFM) was calculated. Descriptive statistics (x ± S.D.) were calculated for all the variables measured, and were compared with the data of reference man (Behnke, 1968). The actual contest results were obtained from the 'meet director' of each contest. All of the subjects who came first in a local contest or were among the top three in a regional contest (n = 11 ) were placed in the 'successful group'. The remaining subjects (n = 25) were placed in the 'non-successful group'. Six specific anthropométrie variables were selected owing to their ease of measurement and ready availability to a competitive body, builder outside the laboratory setting. A Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient (r) matrix was calculated for these six measures (BW, Ht, %BF, Biac/Bi-il, TL/Ht and Ch/Ab) to determine the common zeroorder variances. Individual somatotype ratings (e.g. mesomorphy) were not included among these variables, as it is most effective to consider these ratings when weighted against each other and not as individual values (Ross and Marfell-Jones, 1982). A full-model multiple discriminant analysis using these six variables was used to calculate the discriminant function. The percentage of explained variance was determined from the discriminant functions. Although the purpose of this study was not to develop a prediction equation to determine body-building success, group centroids were calculated and group classification results for predicted group membership were determined.
Results and discussion
The means (+S.D.) of each variable for all 36 subjects are shown in the first column in Table 1. The last three columns contain data from several representative studies of elite body builders (Borms et al., 1986; Spitler et al, 1980) and from reference man (Behnke, 1968) for comparative purposes. It is important to note that the body builders in the other studies were elite competitors, whereas the present study utilized subjects from local and regional competitions in the USA. The subjects in Borms et al.'s (1986) and Spitler et al.'s (1980) studies were all highly accomplished, resulting in obvious differences when compared to the sample in the present study. It should also be noted that the data in Borms et a/.'s (1986) study were pooled from four different weight classes to simplify the comparisons. The subjects in the present study were slightly younger (x = 24.6 years) than the elite body builders (x = 30.1 and 28.7 years). This may reflect the level of experience required to attain elite status. The height of the body builders in the present study (x= 174.4 cm) was
Downloaded by [University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign] at 03:37 04 October 2014
Table 1. Mean (±s.D.) anthropométrie characteristics of body builders from the presenit study compared to the mean characteristics of elite body builders, ¡ind when divided into successful and unsuccessful body builders
Age (years) Height (cm) Weight (kg) Body fat (%) Fat-free mass (kg) Somatotype Endomorphy Mesomorphy Ectomorphy Skinfolds (mm) Triceps Subscapular Abdominal Supra-iliac Mid-axillary Juxta-nipple Thigh Calf Circumferences (cm) Abdominal I Abdominal II Abdominal average Forearm Biceps (flexed) Chest Calf Diameters (cm) Biacromial Bi-iliac Elbow Knee Torso length (cm) Leg length (cm) Biac/Bi-il Torso length/height Chest/Ab "Estimated.
Present study (« = 36) 24.6 (4.8) 174.4 (6.7) 80.3 (11.0) 9.3 (1.6) 72.8 (9.8)
Successful (« = 11) 25.3 (2.0) 174.5 (8.3) 83.9 (14.2) 8.5 (0.8) 76.7 (12.6)
Unsuccessful (« =25) 24.4 (5.6) 174.4 (6.1) 78.8 (9.2) 9.7 (1.8) 71.1 (8.0)
Spitler, 1980 («=20) 30.1 177.1 91.3 9.9 82.3
Borms, 1986 (n = 66) 28.67 171.42 80.22
^
Behnke, 1968 (Reference man) 20-24 174.0 70.0 11.7 61.8
2.3 6.2 1.2
(0.6) (0.9) (0.6)
2.0 6.7 0.9
(0.4) (0.9) (0.4)
2.4 6.0 1.3
(0.7) (0.9) (0.6)
1.60 8.68 1.17
6.7 9.2 7.9 7.2 6.1 5.2 7.8 5.7
(1.9) (1.8) (2.7) (2-6) (1.4) (1.3) (2.5) (2.0)
5.6 9.0 6.7 5.9 5.5 4.7 6.3 4.5
(0.9) (1.6) (1.0) (1.4) (1.0) (0.6) (1.4) (1.4)
7.2 9.3 8.4 7.7 6.4 5.4 8.4 6.3
(2.0) (2.0) (3.0) (2.8) (1.5) (1.5) (2.6) (2.0)
77.7 77.2 77.5 30.2 39.5 104.6 37.7
(5.0) (5.1) (5.0) (2.1) (2.9) (7.6) (2.4)
79.5 77.8 78.7 31.1 40.8 109.4 38.1
(6.3) (6.6) (6.4) (2.6) (3.4) (8.1) (2.7)
76.9 76.9 76.9 29.8 38.9 102.5 37.5
(4.2) (4.4) (4.3) (1.7) (2.5) (6.5) (2.3)
33.0 43.6 116.8 41.1
77.0 79.8 78.4° • 26.9 31.7 91.8 35.8
40.4 27.7 7.0 9.2
(3.0) (1.8) (0.4) (0.6)
41.2 27.8 7.0 9.3
(2.8) (1.7) (0.6) (0.8)
40.0 27.7 7.0 9.1
(3.1) (1.9) (0.4) (0.5)
46.7 28.8 7.9 10.8
40.6 28.6 6.95 9.25
81.7 92.7 1.463 0.468 1.345
(3.6) (5.5) (0.132) (0.018) (0.059)
82.5 92.0 1.487 0.473 1.375
(4.0) (6.9) (0.102) (0.021) (0.058)
81.4 93.0 1.453 0.466 1.332
(3.5) (4.9) (0.144) (0.017) (0.056)
7.1 14.3 15.5 10.6 9.5 1
9.9 6.4
87.2
1.622" 1.339"
1.420"
^ !-»•
Downloaded by [University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign] at 03:37 04 October 2014
Body builders
27
comparable to the elite body builders (x = 177.1 and 171.4 cm). The bodyweight of our sample (x = 80.3 kg) was less than the subjects examined by Spitler et al. (1980)(x = 91.3 kg), but similar to that of Borms et al. (1986) (x = 80.2 kg). It should be noted that the subjects in Borms et al.'s (1986) study were measured at the contest site as in the present study. Therefore, the higher bodyweights recorded by Spitler et al. (1980) may simply be due to the fact that their subjects were not in optimal competitive condition, or, more likely, they were due to their greater height and lean body mass. Also, the subjects in Borms et al.'s (1986) study included a disproportionate number of contestants from the lighter weight categories used at that level of competition. Whether this reflected the actual distribution of contestants is not known. Relative fat levels for the present study (x = 9.3% fat) were slightly less than that of reference man (x = 11.7% fat) and similar to those observed by Spitler et al. (1980) (x = 9.9% fat). It should be pointed out that identical methods were not used for determining relative fat levels for each of these studies. The differences observed could easily be an artefact of the various methods used. It would appear that elite body builders may attain much lower levels of relative fat when approaching a competition, as the values recorded for them were not taken while they were preparing for competition. The fat-free mass of subjects in this study (x = 72.8 kg) was considerably greater than that of reference man (x = 61.8 kg), but considerably less than that of elite body builders (x = 82.3 kg). This indicates that whereas contestants at local and regional contests have a greater FFM than reference man, the values are much less than the FFM of elite body builders. When comparing the results of this study with the characteristics of athletes in other sports, it was observed that the relative fat levels were similar to those of the following athletes: basketball players, offensive and defensive backs in American football, gymnasts, swimmers, distance runners, weightlifters, and all wrestlers but the heavyweights (Behnke and Wilmore, 1974), as well as sprinters and middle-distance runners (Pollock and Jackson, 1977; Wilmore et al, 1977). The mean somatotypes of the body builders in the present study (x = 2.3-6.2-1.2) are those of an endomorphic mesomorph. High levels of muscularity are evident owing to the extremely high mesomorphic component. These characteristics have been shown in elite body builders, but to a much greater extent. Borms et al. (1986) observed mean mesomorphic values as high as 8.7. When comparing the somatotypes recorded in the present study with those of Olympic level athletes, the greatest similarity was found with weightlifters and wrestlers (all weight classes), with values of 2.4-7.1-1.0 and 2.2-6.3-1.6, respectively (de Garay et al, 1974; Tanner, 1964). Other athletes with similar somatotype characteristics include American football professionals playing in several positions and heavyweight boxers (Carter, 1980). Figure 1 illustrates the somatotypes observed in the present study, as well as values from several sports with similar characteristics. It should be noted that Tanner (1964) utilized Sheldon's (1954) method of somatotyping, whereas all of the other somatotypes reported were derived from the Heath-Carter (1967) method. The skinfold thicknesses for the subjects in the present study indicate their low relative fat levels. At each site, the skinfolds were less than those observed by Spitler et al. (1980), reflecting the slightly greater fat weight of their subjects at the time of that study. As was previously mentioned, it is important to note that the methods for determining relative fat differed between the study by Spitler et al. (1980) and the present study. The values observed are easily within the potential error for this type of measure. In the present study, the largest skinfolds were observed at the subscapular (x=9.2 mm), abdominal (x = 7.9 mm) and thigh (x = 7.8 mm) locations. In a study of fat distribution patterns, Chien et al. (1975) found that
Downloaded by [University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign] at 03:37 04 October 2014
28
Fry et al.
Fig. 1. Somatogram of body builders from the present study, together with athletes from other sports with similar characteristics. • , total x (n = 36); • , successful x (n = 11 ); • , unsuccessful x (n = 25); O, elite body builders (Borms et al., 1986); A, Olympic weightlifters (de Garay et al, 1974); A, Olympic wrestlers (no heavyweights: Tanner, 1964).
the largest skinfold values for males over a 12-year time span were consistently the abdomen, waist and back (respectively, in descending order). The body builders in the present study had the largest skinfold thicknesses at the subscapular site, and had apparently been able to decrease their abdominal and waist (supra-iliac) fat deposits. Although a longitudinal study was not performed, this would suggest that, for many body builders, the fat deposits on the back may be the last to decrease. The circumferences for the subjects in the present study were considerably greater than those of reference man, except for the abdominal measures. However, they were considerably less than those of elite body builders. This is indicative of the relative muscle mass carried by each group, with greater muscle mass resulting in larger circumferences. Diameters, on the other hand, showed little difference between the values for reference man and the body builders in the present study. In marked contrast, the elite body builders in Spitler et a/.'s (1980) study had much larger skeletal dimensions, except for the bi-iliac diameter. This was reflected in the Biac/Bi-il ratio, where elite body builders were much broader across the shoulders in relation to hip width than were either the present subjects or reference man. It was interesting to note, however, that Ch/Ab values were similar for both elite and non-elite body builders, and both were greater than the Ch/Ab value for reference man. It should be noted here that the Biac/Bi-il and Ch/Ab values for both the body builders in Spitler et al.'s (1980) study and Behnke's (1968) reference man were estimated from the available data using mean values, and may not be indicative of the actual values.
Body builders
29
Downloaded by [University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign] at 03:37 04 October 2014
A multiple-discriminant analysis was performed using six easily obtained anthropométrie values (Ht, BW, %BF, Biac/Bi-il, TL/Ht and Ch/Ab) to discriminate between the successful (« = 11) and unsuccessful (n = 25) groups. Table 1 lists a description of the physical characteristics for both groups. Although not significantly different, the successful subjects were slightly taller, had greater bodyweight, lower levels of relative body fat, and had greater values for Biac/Bi-il, TL/Ht and Ch/Ab than the non-successful subjects. The correlation matrix in Table 2 shows absolute correlation values ranging from 0.01 to 0.81. Only three
Table 2. Pearson correlation coefficients of selected physical variables of body builders (n = 36)
Biac/Bi-il TL/Ht Ch/Ab
Biac/ Bi-il
TL/Ht
Ch/Ab
%BF
Ht
BW
—
-0.13
0.39" 0.19
-0.10 -0.24 -0.27
-0.11 -0.34" -0.12 0.27
0.10 -0.26 0.01 0.23 0.81"
—
—
—
%BF Ht BW
—
—
°P
