Search

The aim of this study was to evaluate sexual dimorphism in male (n = 43) and female (n = 39) springboard and platform divers at the 1991 World Diving Championships in Perth, Western Australia. In addition to recording the age, height and body mass of each diver, measurements were taken of 8 skinfolds, 13 girths, 8 breadths and depths, and 11 lengths. The derived variables were somatotype, sum of 6 skinfolds (SUM6) and height-adjusted proportional z-scores. The mean (+/- s) values for the males were: age, 22.2 +/- 4.6 years; height, 171 +/- 9 cm; body mass, 66.7 +/- 10.2 kg; somatotype, 2.0-5.3-2.4 +/- 0.5-1.0-0.8; SUM6, 45.9 +/- 11.4 mm. For the females, these values were: age, 20.9 +/- 3.8 years; height, 161 +/- 6 cm; body mass, 53.7 +/- 5.5 kg; somatotype, 2.8-3.8-2.8 +/- 0.7-1.0-0.9; SUM6, 65.6 +/- 17.0 mm. The males were taller, heavier, more mesomorphic, less endomorphic and had a smaller SUM6 than the females (P0.01). A series of discriminant function analyses were applied to groups of variables. Wilks' lambda and the overall F-ratio were highly significant (P0.001), with correct classification of sex reaching 84-99%. The best combinations of variables were as follows: (1) absolute size, 3 girths + SUM6, or body mass + SUM6 + height (Wilks' lambda = 0.17-0.35); (2) relative size, 2 girths + SUM6 + body mass. Combinations of breadths and lengths, skinfolds, or somatotype components, were less successful, with 84-87% classified correctly (Wilks' lambda = 0.40-0.48). We conclude that, in addition to the expected absolute size differences, sexual dimorphism between male and female divers can be explained by differences in relative size, skinfolds and somatotype, and that these differences may have implications for coaching and selection in diving.

The aim of this study was to compare the somatotype and size of elite female basketball players in terms of playing position and team performance. Anthropometry and somatotype data were collected on 168 players from 14 countries before the Women's World Basketball Championship, Australia, 1994. There were 64 guards (mean +/- s: age 25.4 +/- 3.3 years, height 1.72 +/- 0.06 m, mass 66.1 +/- 6.2 kg, somatotype = 2.9-3.9-2.6), 57 forwards (age 25.2 +/- 3.8 years, height 1.81 +/- 0.06 m, mass 73.3 +/- 5.9 kg, somatotype = 2.8-3.5-3.2) and 47 centres (age 24.1 +/- 3.1 years, height 1.90 +/- 0.06 m, mass 82.6 +/- 8.2 kg, somatotype = 3.2-3.1-3.4). Mean somatotypes by position were significantly different (F = 7.73, P0.01). Guards had greater mesomorphy than centres and less ectomorphy than forwards and centres. When discriminant function analysis was applied to endomorphy, mesomorphy, ectomorphy, age, height and mass, only height, mass and ectomorphy entered (Wilks' lambda = 0.351, F = 31.40, P0.000), 70% of the variance was accounted for, and 72% of players were correctly classified. In the four top versus four bottom teams, guards were taller and more ectomorphic, forwards were taller, with lower mesomorphy and higher ectomorphy, and centres did not differ. Thus there are some differences in somatotypes by position and team placing, but the combination of height, mass and ectomorphy provide the best differentiation by position.

The body composition and somatotype of 16 trained female triathletes aged 18.8-32.8 years were measured. All of the subjects were engaged in a competitive training programme and participated in the same triathlon. Anthropometric variables included height, mass, selected diameters, girths and skinfolds, and a Heath-Carter anthropometric somatotype. Body composition was determined by hydrostatic weighing procedures and skinfold patterns. Comparisons were made with Olympic swimmers and runners. The triathletes had a mean body mass of 55.2 kg and a mean height of 162.1 cm. When compared to swimmers, the triathletes were somewhat shorter and significantly (P less than 0.005) older. On most other measures, including a balanced mesomorph somatotype of 3.1-4.3-2.6, they were similar to swimmers. This group of triathletes were generally heavier, less lean, more mesomorphic and less ectomorphic than elite runners. Reported body densities from other studies indicated little difference between the triathletes and other groups. Skinfold patterns were similar in shape for all groups, but the runners had smaller values, at all sites, than either swimmers or triathletes. Because of lack of information on cyclists, adequate comparisons were not possible. Regression analysis indicated that training parameters were more important than anthropometric measures in the prediction of performance. It was concluded that this group of triathletes were closer, with respect to both body composition and somatotype, to swimmers than to runners.