Type of Article : Original Research

Year: 2015 | Volume 3 | Issue 3 | Page No. 1068-1074

Date of Publication: 11-06-2015

DOI: 10.16965/ijpr.2015.139

ENDOMORPHY DOMINANCE AMONG NON-ATHLETE POPULATION IN ALL THE RANGES OF BODY MASS INDEX

R. Vinodh Rajkumar * .  

^* Founder: PALEOLITHICX, Physiotherapist & Functional Fitness Training Instructor (Freelance), Bangalore, Karnataka, India.

Corresponding author: R. Vinodh Rajkumar, # 638, 1st Floor, Jakkuramma Building, Behind Eswara Temple, 1st Cross, 1st Main, Mathikere, Bangalore-560054. Mobile: 9008424632
E-Mail: dreamofkalam@rediffmail.com

Abstract:

Introduction: Body composition and fitness testing for non-athlete population is being implemented only to those who take memberships in health clubs but still amidst various limitations like expertise and instrumentations, so the quality of fitness evaluation process remains substandard in many health clubs. At one point, for personal learning purpose and at the same time, to improve the quality of fitness evaluation and training services, data of somatotype variables were collected using Heath-Carter somatotype method to enhance the understanding of the somatotype, physical efficiency parameters and outcomes of exercise participation and life style modifications of personal clientele.
Objectives: The objective of this research study was to subject the collected data of somatotype variables of about 77 non-athlete subjects (males = 44, females = 33) into statistical analyses, interpret the somatotype diversity among the thirteen established somatotypes, compare the findings with the somatotype data of Olympic athletes obtained from Encyclopedia of International Sports Studies, relate the anthropometric variables with BMI classification and stimulate further researches.
Results: Out of 77 non-athlete subjects, it was found that approximately 87% were mesomorphic endomorph, 5% were ectomorphic endomorph, 7% were balanced endomorph, 1% was mesomorph endomorph and zero representation for other 9 somatotypes. This is chiefly because their endomorphy component was greater than the mesomorphy and ectomorphy components, regardless of BMI, as detected by Heath-Carter anthropometric somatotype method.
Conclusion: Heath-Carter anthropometric somatotype testing should be considered indispensable in Physiotherapy curriculum and practice. Sustained applications of somatotype test in all clinical and fitness evaluations have the potential of enhancing public awareness about measuring health through periodical somatotype testing not just only by BMI and laboratory testing of physiologic parameters because very high endomorphy component and its health risks may be hidden inside various accepted non-obese body frames as well.
KEY WORDS: Heath-Carter anthropometric somatotype, Body mass index, Endomorphy dominance.

References

1. Abel Romero Corral, Virend K.Somers, Justo Sierra Johnson, Randal J Thomas, Kent R.  Bailey, Maria L Collazo Clavell, Thomas G Allison. Josef Korinek, John A Batsis,         Francisco Lopez Jimenez, Accuracy of body mass index to diagnose obesity in the         U.S.Adult population, 2008 Int.J.Obes;32(6):959-966.
2. Yataco AR, Busby-Whitehead, Drinkwater DT, Katzel LI, Aging (Milano), Relationship of body composition and cardiovascular fitness to lipoprotein lipid profile in master athletics and sedentary men, 1997;9:88-94.(Pubmed: 9177590).
3. Carter, J.E.L. The Heath-Carter Somatotype Method, 3rd edition. San Diego: San Diego State University Syllabus Service, 1980.
4. Jeremy E.C. Genovese, Can Body Mass Index (BMI) be used as a proxy for somatotype?, June 2009, The Social Science Journal. 2009;46(2):390–393.
5. Roger Bartlett, Chris Gratton, Christer.G.Rolf, Encylopedia of International Sports Studies (P-Z), Volume-3, T & F Informa, Page-1036.
6. BMI Classification, Global Database on Body Mass Index, World Health Organization. 2006.
7. http://www.olympic.org/olympic-results/london-2012/athletics/100m-m, http://www.olympic.org/olympic-results/london-2012/athletics/100m-w,
   http://en.wikipedia.org. (Date of reference: 03.05.2015)
8. Sudipta Ghosh S. L. Malik, Variations of Body Physique in Santhals: An Indian Tribe, Coll. Antropol. 2010;34(2):467–472.
9. Vernillo G, Schena F, Berardelli C, Rosa G, Galvani C, Maggioni M, Agnello L, La Torre A. Anthropometric characteristics of top-class Kenyan marathon runners, J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 2013 Aug;53(4):403-8.
10. Carter, J.E.L., Heath,B.H. Somatotyping - Development and applications, Appendix I & II, Cambridge University Press, 1990;352-419.
11. Wilson BR, Olson HW, Sprague HA, Van Huss WD, Montoye HJ, Somatotype and longevity of former university athletes and nonathletes, Res Q Exerc Sport. 1990 Mar;61(1):1-6.
12. Koleva M, Nacheva A, Boev M, Somatotype and disease prevalence in adults, Rev Environ Health. 2002 Jan-Mar;17(1):65-84.
13. Paulina Yesica Ochoa Martínez, Javier Arturo Hall López, Edgar Ismael Alarcón Meza, Iván Rentería, Ana María Miranda Botelho Teixeira, Lara Zazueta Humberto, Estélio Henrique Martin Dantas, Comparison of Agility and Dynamic Balance in Elderly Women with Endomorphic Mesomorph Somatotype with Presence or Absence of Metabolic Syndrome. Int. J. Morphol., 2012;30(2):637-642
14. Katarzyna L. Sterkowicz-Przybycień, Stanisław Sterkowicz, Ryszard T. Żarów, Somatotype, Body Composition and Proportionality in Polish Top Greco-Roman Wrestlers. J Hum Kinet, 2011 Jun;28:141–154.

R. Vinodh Rajkumar. ENDOMORPHY DOMINANCE AMONG NON-ATHLETE POPULATION IN ALL THE RANGES OF BODY MASS INDEX. Int J Physiother Res 2015;3(3):1068-1074. DOI: 10.16965/ijpr.2015.139