Anthropometric characteristics as discriminators of body‐building success

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.

Anthropometric dimensions of male powerlifters of varying body mass

“…Bodybuilders have been described as being balanced mesomorphs (Borms et al, 1986;da Silva et al, 2003;Fry et al, 1991), whereas the results of this study and those in the literature suggest that powerlifters and Olympic weightlifters tend to be more endo-mesomorphic (Bale & Williams, 1987;Pilis et al, 1997). Bodybuilders may also have smaller bony breadths than similarly sized powerlifters and Olympic weightlifters, with this being particularly evident for the bi-iliac (hip), femur, and perhaps humerus (da Silva et al, 2003;Fry et al, 1991;Johnson et al, 1990).…”

“…Powerlifters share many similarities in their overall anthropometric profile to competitors in the other two popular weight-training sports, Olympic weightlifting (Katch et al, 1980;Marchocka & Smuk, 1984;Pilis et al, 1997) and bodybuilding (Borms et al, 1986;da Silva et al, 2003;Fry, Ryan, Schwab, Powell, & Kraemer, 1991;Huygens et al, 2002;Katch et al, 1980). However, several differences in the anthropometry of these groups are apparent, especially when powerlifters and Olympic weightlifters (who are judged on the amount of weight lifted) are compared with bodybuilders (who are judged solely on the aesthetics of their physique).…”

“…Bodybuilders may also have smaller bony breadths than similarly sized powerlifters and Olympic weightlifters, with this being particularly evident for the bi-iliac (hip), femur, and perhaps humerus (da Silva et al, 2003;Fry et al, 1991;Johnson et al, 1990). These differences appear to be consistent with the results of a multiplediscriminant analysis (Fry et al, 1991), whereby variables such as the ilio-acromial index, chest -waist ratio, and body fat percentage were able to differentiate successful and less successful bodybuilders. Such results suggest that successful bodybuilders require smaller joints and less body fat than powerlifters and Olympic weightlifters to create the illusion of even greater muscle hypertrophy and muscularity.…”

Physical Characteristics and Somatotype of Soccer Players according to Playing Level and Position

“…Short-term, highintensity repetitive activities are related to high muscle strength. The scores of the somatotype components of soccer players are close to the somatotype scores of athletes engaged in sports that include similar type of activities (Toriola et al, 1985;Foley et al, 1989;Fry et al, 1991;Igbokwe, 1991). Whole somatotype means of SL players were found to be significantly different than FL players, except goalkeepers (Figure 2), when somatotype of players in different playing levels were compared according to their playing positions.…”

“…Three components were identified in the classical anthropometric somatotype method of Heath and Carter: relative fatness (endomorphy), musculoskeletal component (mesomorphy), and linearity (ectomorphy). The ideal somatotype for an athlete differs according to the requirements of the particular sport (Fry et al, 1991;Igbokwe, 1991;Foley et al, 1989;Toriola et al, 1985). Significant variations were determined in team sports regarding somatotype components, both for the different sports and the different playing positions (Gualdi-Russo and Zaccagni, 2001;Carlson et al, 1994;Carda and Looney, 1994).…”