BODY COMPOSITION OF ELITE CLASS DISTANCE RUNNERS * Michael L. Pollock,t Larry R. Gettman, Andrew Jackson,$ John Ayres, Ann Ward, and A. C. Linnerudl Institute for Aerobics Research Dallas, Texas 75230
The percent fat in distance runners has been estimated at 6% to 8%.'-5 Costill, Bowers, and Kammer,%however, have suggested that top quality marathon runners probably have lower values. Limitations in previous investigations that could affect the accuracy of body density (BD) estimation resulted from the researchers' not differentiating distance runners from sprinters or field event athletes, not including elite runners (or mixing elite and average runners in the sample), and not using an accurate laboratory technique for determining percent Thus, a precise quantification of BD and percent fat of elite distance runners is needed. Preliminary results from an investigation on an Olympic gold medal winner (marathon) showed leaner values if BD was measured by the hydrostatic weighing technique rather than by prediction equations using various combinations of anthropometric measures. Forsyth and Sinning concluded that existing prediction equations estimating BD from various combinations of skinfold fat ( S ) , girth (G), and diameter ( D ) measurements accurately predicted the BD of young sedentary men and athletes, but that the equations might not be valid for a very lean athlete. Likewise, the use of regression equations developed from samples of young men and women systematically resulted in an overestimation of BD for middle-aged men and this difference was thought to reflect the significantly greater amount of fat found in the middle-aged population. These findings supported the practice of using population-specific equations and questioned the accuracy of predicting BD in a very lean population from equations developed from a normal and/or athletic population with a different body type. The purpose of this investigation was to measure and predict BD in national and international class distance runners. The questions considered were twofold: what is the BD of elite runners? and can BD of elite runners be estimated accurately with regression equations using anthropometric variables? Methods
Subjects for this investigation included 20 elite class distance runners described previously by Pollock in the overview section of this symposium. The elite runners were also dichotomized into groups in accordance with their best
* Project supported by the Quinton Instrument Company, Seattle, Washingon.
t Current address: Department of Medicine, Mt. Sinai Medical Center, Milwaukee, Wisc. 53201. t Department of Physical Education, University of Houston, Houston, Texas 77004. § Department of Statistics, North Carolina State University. Raleigh. North Carolina 27607.
361
3 62
Annals New York Academy of Sciences
performance capabilities. The two groups included eight marathon runners and 11 middle-long distance runners (M-LD). One runner (Kardong) was too difficult to classify and was not used in this phase of the data analysis. Three additional samples were included for comparative purposes. These included 95 average young men (average age 19.7 yrs), eight good middle-distance runners from a local university track club (average age 21.3 yrs), and 10 lean but sedentary college males (average age 20.7 yrs) . Upon arrival at the laboratory, the subjects were measured for standing height to the nearest 0.25 inch (0.6 cm) on a standard physician's scale and for body weight to the nearest 10 g on an Acme Scale (Model ACSMIN). Anthropometric determinations included seven S, eleven G, and seven D measures. Then vital capacity (VC), residual volume (RV), and BD by hydrostatic weighing were determined. Experienced technicians administered all tests. Sessions were organized so that the same investigator measured all subjects on the same tests; i.e., one investigator always was assigned to each of the following three stations: anthropometric measurements, spirometry, and hydrostatic weighing. Skinfold fat was measured at the chest, axilla, triceps, subscapula, abdomen, suprailium, and front thigh locations using a Lange skinfold fat caliper. The caliper had a constant pressure of 10 g/mm2, and measures were taken on the right side. Recommendations published by the Committee on Nutritional Anthropometry of the Food and Nutrition Board of the National Research Council were followed in obtaining skinfold fat data.* Girth measures were taken with a Lufkin steel tape at the following 11 sites: shoulder, chest (normal), abdomen, waist, gluteus, thigh, calf, ankle, arm, forearm, and wrist. Body diameters were determined with a GPM Swiss-made anthropometer and included the following measures: bideltoid, biacromion, chest width, bi-ilium, bitrochanter, knee, and wrist. Skinfold fat data were measured and recorded to the nearest 0.5 mm; and G and D measures, to the nearest 0.1 cm. The location of the anthropometric sites and the procedures used in measuring were shown and described by Hertzberg et d oand by Behnke and Wilmore.lo Vital capacity was determined using a rolling seal spirometer (Model 842, Ohio Medical, Madison, Wisc.) according to the procedures outlined by Kory et d.ll and W. E. Collins, Inc.12 Residual volume was determined by the nitrogen washout technique described by Wilmore l 3 with a nitrogen analyzer (Model 700, Ohio Medical, Madison, Wisc.). Although RV and hydrostatic weighing determinations were administered separately, the same postural positions (sitting) were used for both. Hydrostatic weighing was conducted in a 4 X 6 X 5 ft fiberglas tank in which a chair seat was suspended from a Chatillion 15 kg scale. The hydrostatic weighmg procedure was repeated six to ten times until three similar readings to the nearest 20 g were obtained.l4 The three values were averaged. Water temperature was recorded after each trial. The technique for determining BD followed the method outlined by Goldman and Buskirk; l5 and the calculation of BD, from the formula of BroZek et d . 1 6 The percent fat was calculated according to the Siri formula," The statistical analysis included the calculations of mean values, standard deviations (SD), and a basic correlation matrix of all variables (including BD) for both groups. Regression analysis was used to test for the homogenity of regression slopes and intercepts. The regression equations reported by several investigators were
Pollock et a / . : Body Composition
363
cross-validated on the sample of elite runners. Multiple stepwise regression analysis was used to isolate the independent variables that accounted for a significant proportion of BD variance and to develop a specific regression equation for predicting BD for the sample of elite runners.'* Results and Discussion
The physical characteristics of the elite runners, good runners, untrained 1. The data showed lean men and average young men are presented in TABLE the elite runners to be shorter in stature, lighter in body weight, and higher in BD. These findings are characteristic of trained runners and agreed with previous reports comparing runners to sedentary population^.^^ lo*l@ The elite runners were 4.7% fat (5.1% using the BroZek and Keys equationzO),which is a lower value than reported by other inve~tigators.~-~ The 99% confidence interval of the mean percent fat for elite runners ranged from 0.99 to 5.07. The values reported by other investigators were significantly Costill, Bowers, and Kammer3 found 114 participants at the 1968 US. Olympic Marathon Trial to be 7.5% fat; Adams' found college distance runners to be 9.8% fat; Behnke and Royce 2 found three long distance runners to be 7.9% fat; and Sprynarova and Parizkova&analyzed runners to be 6.3% fat. Comparing these values with the present data, the difference appeared to be related to the previous investigators' mixing of elite runners with good runners, using anthropometric techniques to estimate BD, and/or using runners whose training characteristics were less demanding, The total body weight of the elite runners was 63.1 kg with a 99% confidence interval that ranged from 59.6 to 66.2 kg. Within this same confidence level, Costill, Bowers, and Kammer a reported 64.2 kg; Saltin and Astrand found 60.0 kg for three elite runners; and deGaray, Levine, and Carterz2 showed 59.8 kg for Olympic middle-distance runners. The 20 Olympic marathon runners also evaluated by deGaray, Levine, and Carter 2z were significantly lower in body weight (56.6 kg). Body weight and fat values of the middledistance and marathon runners in this investigation showed no significant difference. Although some variance exists, outstanding runners tend to be approximately 60 kg in body weight and 5 % fat. The investigation *2 of the 20 Olympic marathon runners included several African and Oriental runners who had lower body weights, but appeared to be similar in body fat. The sum of three S measures (triceps, subscapula, and suprailium) for their runners was 16.8 mm for middle distance runners and 16.7 mm for marathon runners, compared to 16.0 mm for the runners in this investigation. The descriptive statistics for the anthropometric variables of the elite runners and average young men are presented in TABLE 2. The mean values and standard deviations for the elite runners were smaller than those for the young men, which indicated a homogeneous group. The product-moment correlations presented in TABLE2 showed that the relationship between BD and the S, G, and D measurements tended to be negative, while the correlations for the young men were higher. For the runners only three S correlations were significantly different from zero. The significant correlations found for triceps S and thigh S suggested that limb S measurements might be the most appropriate S measurements for this homogeneous population. The lack of variability exhibited by the elite runners was the main reason for these low correlations.
7.9 6.6 2.7 3.3 1.3
59.12 61.42 54.99 62.12 56.54
64.19 65.76 56.52 64.24 57.28
Elite Marathon Runners ( n = 8 ) Cusack 174.6 Galloway 180.9 Kennedy 167.0 Moore 184.1 Pate 179.6 1.08096 1.08419 1.09348 1.09193 1.09676
59.89 (4.90)
5.0 (3.5)
1.08794 (0.00832)
63.10 (5.30)
176.0 (5.0)
11 § Mean (+SD)B
64.31 61.00 57.3 1 59.52 59.13 68.06 50.35 64.74 54.83 61.32 58.18
10.8 3.7 1.2 10.2 4.3 1.5 6.7 4.8 7.3 0.2 4.5
1.07428 1.09102 1.09702 1.07551 1.08963 1.09642 1.08379 1.08842 1.08248 1.09960 1.08916
Body Density (g/ml)
72.10 63.34 58.01 66.28 61.79 69.10 53.97 68.00 59.15 61.44 60.92
Weight (kg)
Lean Body Weight (kg)
187.3 178.6 171.8 179.1 174.6 177.8 169.3 174.2 175.6 176.8 170.5
Elite M-LD Runners ( n = l l ) $ Brown Castaneda Crawford Geis Johnson Manley Ndoo Prefontaine Rose Tuttle
Subject/Group
Height (cm)
Body Fat *
1.666 1.160 1.562 1.782 1.599
1.424 (0.320)
3.21 (2.38) 5.07 4.34 1.53 2.12 0.74
1.396 1.661 1.625 1.223 1.963 1.241 0.792 1.477 1.538 1.640 1.112
Residual Volume (liters)
7.79 2.34 0.70 6.76 2.66 1.04 3.62 3.26 4.32 0.12 2.74
Weight (kg)
Fat
Body
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF ELITE RUNNERS,GOOD RUNNERS,AND UNTRAINED MEN
TABLE 1
45.5 43.0 37.0 37.0 32.5
36.7 (7.4)
53.0 32.5 32.5 49.0 35.5 32.0 33.5 38.0 31.5 31.5 34.5
sumof7 Skinfolds t (mm)
w
a
E
D. 0
%
HEl
% b
4
2
2
t;
2
Q\ P
1.06830 (0.01380)
74.60 (10.90)
5.22 (2.04) 10.00 (5.40)
58.01 (4.60) 64.60 (8.70)
13.4 (6.0)
4.17 (2.62)
8.2 (2.8)
63.3 1 (3.98)
Subject's name kept anonymous.
fi SD, standard deviation.
§
t Middle-long distance,
l':
51.1 (10.2) 107.6 (45.4)
1.so (0.320)
48.9 (14.0)
38.3 (6.3)
37.5
1.460 (0.390)
1.590 (0.350)
1.541 (0.375)
3.03 (2.10)
60.03 (4.41)
4.7 (3.1) 6.1 (4.0)
1.893
3.44
66.76
40.5 (4.6)
1.656 (0.427)
2.73 (1.92)
59.38 (3.38)
4.3 (3.0) 4.9
45.0 42.5 41.5
1.869 1.132 2.48 1
1.35 5.48 1.19
59.82 56.13 64.88
2.2 8.9 1.8
* Percent fat calculated by Siri formula % Fat= 100 (4.95/density -4.5). iSum of 7 skinfolds=chest, axilla, triceps, subscapula, abdomen, suprailiac, and front thigh locations.
1.08044 (0.0067 1)
1.08527 (0.00939)
1.08859 (0.00749)
1.08807
1.08954 (0.007 18)
1.09475 1.07859 1.09569
63.23 (5.54)
67.48 (3.77)
63.06 (4.80)
177.0 (6.0)
181.1 (3.9)
70.20
62.11 (3.66)
176.8 (5.6)
191.8
61.17 61.61 66.07
178.4 172.1 177.2
Untrained Lean Men (n=IO) Mean 180.6 (&SD) (6.4) Average Young Men ( n z 9 5 ) Mean 179.8 (+SD) (6.4)
(&SD)
Good Runners (n=8) Mean
(-tSD)
Unclassified ( n=I ) Kardong Total Elite Runners ( n = 2 0 ) Mean
(&SD)
Shorter Wayne Williams Mean
g. s
8.
"
0
Y
a
r
> ..
2
871
cd
Annals New York Academy of Sciences
366
TABLE2 SIUNFOLD, GIRTH,AND DIAMETER MEASURES OF ELITERUNNERS AND AVERAGE YOUNGMEN Correlation with Density Elite Runners (n=20)
Variable Skinfolds (rnrn) Chest Axilla Triceps Subscapula Abdomen Suprailium Thigh Total of 7 Girths ( c m ) Shoulder Chest Abdomen Waist Gluteus Thigh Calf Ankle Arm Forearm Wrist Diameters (cm) Bideltoid Biacromion Chest, width Bi-ilium Bitrochanter Knee, width Wrist, width
Average Young Men (n=95)
Run-
ners * r
Average
Young Men 1-
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
4.5 4.7 5.0 6.4 7.1 4.6 6.1 38.0
1.o 0.8 1.1 0.9 2.1 1.0 1.8 6.4
11.4 15.5 13.6 13.9 20.6 15.2 17.4 107.6
6.2 7.7 5.7 5.5 9.0 8.5 6.6 45.4
-0.30 -0.36 -0.53 -0.35 -0.40 -0.32 -0.82 -0.64
-0.77 -0.75 -0.73 -0.73 -0.77 -0.75 -0.76 -0.82
106.1 91.1 74.2 74.6 87.8 51.9 35.4 21.0 28.2 26.4 16.0
3.9 3.4 3.1 3.3 2.3 1.3 0.9 1.o 0.9 0.5
112.5 91.4 78.8 81.0 94.4 57.1 36.5 22.1 32.6 28.3 16.7
7.6 6.3 6.6 7.6 5.4 4.9 2.2 1.4 3.3 2.1 0.8
-0.04 -0.12 -0.32 -0.34 -0.29 -0.38 -0.36 -0.44 -0.14 -0.24 -0.13
-0.16 -0.29 -0.48 -0.59 -0.52 -0.50 -0.32 -0.33 -0.16 -0.02 -0.10
44.1 39.5 31.3 28.0 32.2 9.5 5.6
1.9 1.8 1.4 1.4 1.2 0.4 0.2
46.9 41.1 31.8 29.6 33.6 9.8 5.9
2.9 2.3 2.4 1.8 1.7 0.5 0.3
+0.27 +0.39 +0.19 -0.19 -0.04 -0.29 -0.29
-0.14 +0.12 -0.19 -0.47 -0.44 -0.28 +0.23
3 .O
r
* rz0.44,
18 df, p
The percent fat in distance runners has been estimated at 6% to 8%.'-5 Costill, Bowers, and Kammer,%however, have suggested that top quality marathon runners probably have lower values. Limitations in previous investigations that could affect the accuracy of body density (BD) estimation resulted from the researchers' not differentiating distance runners from sprinters or field event athletes, not including elite runners (or mixing elite and average runners in the sample), and not using an accurate laboratory technique for determining percent Thus, a precise quantification of BD and percent fat of elite distance runners is needed. Preliminary results from an investigation on an Olympic gold medal winner (marathon) showed leaner values if BD was measured by the hydrostatic weighing technique rather than by prediction equations using various combinations of anthropometric measures. Forsyth and Sinning concluded that existing prediction equations estimating BD from various combinations of skinfold fat ( S ) , girth (G), and diameter ( D ) measurements accurately predicted the BD of young sedentary men and athletes, but that the equations might not be valid for a very lean athlete. Likewise, the use of regression equations developed from samples of young men and women systematically resulted in an overestimation of BD for middle-aged men and this difference was thought to reflect the significantly greater amount of fat found in the middle-aged population. These findings supported the practice of using population-specific equations and questioned the accuracy of predicting BD in a very lean population from equations developed from a normal and/or athletic population with a different body type. The purpose of this investigation was to measure and predict BD in national and international class distance runners. The questions considered were twofold: what is the BD of elite runners? and can BD of elite runners be estimated accurately with regression equations using anthropometric variables? Methods
Subjects for this investigation included 20 elite class distance runners described previously by Pollock in the overview section of this symposium. The elite runners were also dichotomized into groups in accordance with their best
* Project supported by the Quinton Instrument Company, Seattle, Washingon.
t Current address: Department of Medicine, Mt. Sinai Medical Center, Milwaukee, Wisc. 53201. t Department of Physical Education, University of Houston, Houston, Texas 77004. § Department of Statistics, North Carolina State University. Raleigh. North Carolina 27607.
361
3 62
Annals New York Academy of Sciences
performance capabilities. The two groups included eight marathon runners and 11 middle-long distance runners (M-LD). One runner (Kardong) was too difficult to classify and was not used in this phase of the data analysis. Three additional samples were included for comparative purposes. These included 95 average young men (average age 19.7 yrs), eight good middle-distance runners from a local university track club (average age 21.3 yrs), and 10 lean but sedentary college males (average age 20.7 yrs) . Upon arrival at the laboratory, the subjects were measured for standing height to the nearest 0.25 inch (0.6 cm) on a standard physician's scale and for body weight to the nearest 10 g on an Acme Scale (Model ACSMIN). Anthropometric determinations included seven S, eleven G, and seven D measures. Then vital capacity (VC), residual volume (RV), and BD by hydrostatic weighing were determined. Experienced technicians administered all tests. Sessions were organized so that the same investigator measured all subjects on the same tests; i.e., one investigator always was assigned to each of the following three stations: anthropometric measurements, spirometry, and hydrostatic weighing. Skinfold fat was measured at the chest, axilla, triceps, subscapula, abdomen, suprailium, and front thigh locations using a Lange skinfold fat caliper. The caliper had a constant pressure of 10 g/mm2, and measures were taken on the right side. Recommendations published by the Committee on Nutritional Anthropometry of the Food and Nutrition Board of the National Research Council were followed in obtaining skinfold fat data.* Girth measures were taken with a Lufkin steel tape at the following 11 sites: shoulder, chest (normal), abdomen, waist, gluteus, thigh, calf, ankle, arm, forearm, and wrist. Body diameters were determined with a GPM Swiss-made anthropometer and included the following measures: bideltoid, biacromion, chest width, bi-ilium, bitrochanter, knee, and wrist. Skinfold fat data were measured and recorded to the nearest 0.5 mm; and G and D measures, to the nearest 0.1 cm. The location of the anthropometric sites and the procedures used in measuring were shown and described by Hertzberg et d oand by Behnke and Wilmore.lo Vital capacity was determined using a rolling seal spirometer (Model 842, Ohio Medical, Madison, Wisc.) according to the procedures outlined by Kory et d.ll and W. E. Collins, Inc.12 Residual volume was determined by the nitrogen washout technique described by Wilmore l 3 with a nitrogen analyzer (Model 700, Ohio Medical, Madison, Wisc.). Although RV and hydrostatic weighing determinations were administered separately, the same postural positions (sitting) were used for both. Hydrostatic weighing was conducted in a 4 X 6 X 5 ft fiberglas tank in which a chair seat was suspended from a Chatillion 15 kg scale. The hydrostatic weighmg procedure was repeated six to ten times until three similar readings to the nearest 20 g were obtained.l4 The three values were averaged. Water temperature was recorded after each trial. The technique for determining BD followed the method outlined by Goldman and Buskirk; l5 and the calculation of BD, from the formula of BroZek et d . 1 6 The percent fat was calculated according to the Siri formula," The statistical analysis included the calculations of mean values, standard deviations (SD), and a basic correlation matrix of all variables (including BD) for both groups. Regression analysis was used to test for the homogenity of regression slopes and intercepts. The regression equations reported by several investigators were
Pollock et a / . : Body Composition
363
cross-validated on the sample of elite runners. Multiple stepwise regression analysis was used to isolate the independent variables that accounted for a significant proportion of BD variance and to develop a specific regression equation for predicting BD for the sample of elite runners.'* Results and Discussion
The physical characteristics of the elite runners, good runners, untrained 1. The data showed lean men and average young men are presented in TABLE the elite runners to be shorter in stature, lighter in body weight, and higher in BD. These findings are characteristic of trained runners and agreed with previous reports comparing runners to sedentary population^.^^ lo*l@ The elite runners were 4.7% fat (5.1% using the BroZek and Keys equationzO),which is a lower value than reported by other inve~tigators.~-~ The 99% confidence interval of the mean percent fat for elite runners ranged from 0.99 to 5.07. The values reported by other investigators were significantly Costill, Bowers, and Kammer3 found 114 participants at the 1968 US. Olympic Marathon Trial to be 7.5% fat; Adams' found college distance runners to be 9.8% fat; Behnke and Royce 2 found three long distance runners to be 7.9% fat; and Sprynarova and Parizkova&analyzed runners to be 6.3% fat. Comparing these values with the present data, the difference appeared to be related to the previous investigators' mixing of elite runners with good runners, using anthropometric techniques to estimate BD, and/or using runners whose training characteristics were less demanding, The total body weight of the elite runners was 63.1 kg with a 99% confidence interval that ranged from 59.6 to 66.2 kg. Within this same confidence level, Costill, Bowers, and Kammer a reported 64.2 kg; Saltin and Astrand found 60.0 kg for three elite runners; and deGaray, Levine, and Carterz2 showed 59.8 kg for Olympic middle-distance runners. The 20 Olympic marathon runners also evaluated by deGaray, Levine, and Carter 2z were significantly lower in body weight (56.6 kg). Body weight and fat values of the middledistance and marathon runners in this investigation showed no significant difference. Although some variance exists, outstanding runners tend to be approximately 60 kg in body weight and 5 % fat. The investigation *2 of the 20 Olympic marathon runners included several African and Oriental runners who had lower body weights, but appeared to be similar in body fat. The sum of three S measures (triceps, subscapula, and suprailium) for their runners was 16.8 mm for middle distance runners and 16.7 mm for marathon runners, compared to 16.0 mm for the runners in this investigation. The descriptive statistics for the anthropometric variables of the elite runners and average young men are presented in TABLE 2. The mean values and standard deviations for the elite runners were smaller than those for the young men, which indicated a homogeneous group. The product-moment correlations presented in TABLE2 showed that the relationship between BD and the S, G, and D measurements tended to be negative, while the correlations for the young men were higher. For the runners only three S correlations were significantly different from zero. The significant correlations found for triceps S and thigh S suggested that limb S measurements might be the most appropriate S measurements for this homogeneous population. The lack of variability exhibited by the elite runners was the main reason for these low correlations.
7.9 6.6 2.7 3.3 1.3
59.12 61.42 54.99 62.12 56.54
64.19 65.76 56.52 64.24 57.28
Elite Marathon Runners ( n = 8 ) Cusack 174.6 Galloway 180.9 Kennedy 167.0 Moore 184.1 Pate 179.6 1.08096 1.08419 1.09348 1.09193 1.09676
59.89 (4.90)
5.0 (3.5)
1.08794 (0.00832)
63.10 (5.30)
176.0 (5.0)
11 § Mean (+SD)B
64.31 61.00 57.3 1 59.52 59.13 68.06 50.35 64.74 54.83 61.32 58.18
10.8 3.7 1.2 10.2 4.3 1.5 6.7 4.8 7.3 0.2 4.5
1.07428 1.09102 1.09702 1.07551 1.08963 1.09642 1.08379 1.08842 1.08248 1.09960 1.08916
Body Density (g/ml)
72.10 63.34 58.01 66.28 61.79 69.10 53.97 68.00 59.15 61.44 60.92
Weight (kg)
Lean Body Weight (kg)
187.3 178.6 171.8 179.1 174.6 177.8 169.3 174.2 175.6 176.8 170.5
Elite M-LD Runners ( n = l l ) $ Brown Castaneda Crawford Geis Johnson Manley Ndoo Prefontaine Rose Tuttle
Subject/Group
Height (cm)
Body Fat *
1.666 1.160 1.562 1.782 1.599
1.424 (0.320)
3.21 (2.38) 5.07 4.34 1.53 2.12 0.74
1.396 1.661 1.625 1.223 1.963 1.241 0.792 1.477 1.538 1.640 1.112
Residual Volume (liters)
7.79 2.34 0.70 6.76 2.66 1.04 3.62 3.26 4.32 0.12 2.74
Weight (kg)
Fat
Body
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF ELITE RUNNERS,GOOD RUNNERS,AND UNTRAINED MEN
TABLE 1
45.5 43.0 37.0 37.0 32.5
36.7 (7.4)
53.0 32.5 32.5 49.0 35.5 32.0 33.5 38.0 31.5 31.5 34.5
sumof7 Skinfolds t (mm)
w
a
E
D. 0
%
HEl
% b
4
2
2
t;
2
Q\ P
1.06830 (0.01380)
74.60 (10.90)
5.22 (2.04) 10.00 (5.40)
58.01 (4.60) 64.60 (8.70)
13.4 (6.0)
4.17 (2.62)
8.2 (2.8)
63.3 1 (3.98)
Subject's name kept anonymous.
fi SD, standard deviation.
§
t Middle-long distance,
l':
51.1 (10.2) 107.6 (45.4)
1.so (0.320)
48.9 (14.0)
38.3 (6.3)
37.5
1.460 (0.390)
1.590 (0.350)
1.541 (0.375)
3.03 (2.10)
60.03 (4.41)
4.7 (3.1) 6.1 (4.0)
1.893
3.44
66.76
40.5 (4.6)
1.656 (0.427)
2.73 (1.92)
59.38 (3.38)
4.3 (3.0) 4.9
45.0 42.5 41.5
1.869 1.132 2.48 1
1.35 5.48 1.19
59.82 56.13 64.88
2.2 8.9 1.8
* Percent fat calculated by Siri formula % Fat= 100 (4.95/density -4.5). iSum of 7 skinfolds=chest, axilla, triceps, subscapula, abdomen, suprailiac, and front thigh locations.
1.08044 (0.0067 1)
1.08527 (0.00939)
1.08859 (0.00749)
1.08807
1.08954 (0.007 18)
1.09475 1.07859 1.09569
63.23 (5.54)
67.48 (3.77)
63.06 (4.80)
177.0 (6.0)
181.1 (3.9)
70.20
62.11 (3.66)
176.8 (5.6)
191.8
61.17 61.61 66.07
178.4 172.1 177.2
Untrained Lean Men (n=IO) Mean 180.6 (&SD) (6.4) Average Young Men ( n z 9 5 ) Mean 179.8 (+SD) (6.4)
(&SD)
Good Runners (n=8) Mean
(-tSD)
Unclassified ( n=I ) Kardong Total Elite Runners ( n = 2 0 ) Mean
(&SD)
Shorter Wayne Williams Mean
g. s
8.
"
0
Y
a
r
> ..
2
871
cd
Annals New York Academy of Sciences
366
TABLE2 SIUNFOLD, GIRTH,AND DIAMETER MEASURES OF ELITERUNNERS AND AVERAGE YOUNGMEN Correlation with Density Elite Runners (n=20)
Variable Skinfolds (rnrn) Chest Axilla Triceps Subscapula Abdomen Suprailium Thigh Total of 7 Girths ( c m ) Shoulder Chest Abdomen Waist Gluteus Thigh Calf Ankle Arm Forearm Wrist Diameters (cm) Bideltoid Biacromion Chest, width Bi-ilium Bitrochanter Knee, width Wrist, width
Average Young Men (n=95)
Run-
ners * r
Average
Young Men 1-
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
4.5 4.7 5.0 6.4 7.1 4.6 6.1 38.0
1.o 0.8 1.1 0.9 2.1 1.0 1.8 6.4
11.4 15.5 13.6 13.9 20.6 15.2 17.4 107.6
6.2 7.7 5.7 5.5 9.0 8.5 6.6 45.4
-0.30 -0.36 -0.53 -0.35 -0.40 -0.32 -0.82 -0.64
-0.77 -0.75 -0.73 -0.73 -0.77 -0.75 -0.76 -0.82
106.1 91.1 74.2 74.6 87.8 51.9 35.4 21.0 28.2 26.4 16.0
3.9 3.4 3.1 3.3 2.3 1.3 0.9 1.o 0.9 0.5
112.5 91.4 78.8 81.0 94.4 57.1 36.5 22.1 32.6 28.3 16.7
7.6 6.3 6.6 7.6 5.4 4.9 2.2 1.4 3.3 2.1 0.8
-0.04 -0.12 -0.32 -0.34 -0.29 -0.38 -0.36 -0.44 -0.14 -0.24 -0.13
-0.16 -0.29 -0.48 -0.59 -0.52 -0.50 -0.32 -0.33 -0.16 -0.02 -0.10
44.1 39.5 31.3 28.0 32.2 9.5 5.6
1.9 1.8 1.4 1.4 1.2 0.4 0.2
46.9 41.1 31.8 29.6 33.6 9.8 5.9
2.9 2.3 2.4 1.8 1.7 0.5 0.3
+0.27 +0.39 +0.19 -0.19 -0.04 -0.29 -0.29
-0.14 +0.12 -0.19 -0.47 -0.44 -0.28 +0.23
3 .O
r
* rz0.44,
18 df, p
