Anthropometric dimensions of male powerlifters of varying body mass

JUSTIN W. L. KEOGH, PATRIA A. HUME, SIMON N. PEARSON, & PETER MELLOW

Institute of Sport and Recreation Research New Zealand, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand

(Accepted 12 October 2006)

AbstractIn this study, we examined the anthropometric dimensions of powerlifters across various body mass (competitivebodyweight) categories. Fifty-four male Oceania competitive powerlifters (9 lightweight, 30 middleweight, and 15 heavy-weight) were recruited from one international and two national powerlifting competitions held in New Zealand. Powerlifterswere assessed for 37 anthropometric dimensions by ISAK (International Society for the Advancement of Kinanthropometry)level II and III accredited anthropometrists. The powerlifters were highly mesomorphic and had large girths and bonybreadths, both in absolute units and when expressed as Zp-scores compared through the Phantom (Ross & Wilson, 1974).These anthropometric characteristics were more pronounced in heavyweights, who were significantly heavier, had greatermuscle and fat mass, were more endo-mesomorphic, and had larger girths and bony breadths than the lighter lifters.Although middleweight and heavyweight lifters typically had longer segment lengths than the lightweights, all three groupshad similar Zp-scores for the segment lengths, indicating similar segment length proportions. While population comparisonswould be required to identify any connection between specific anthropometric dimensions that confer a competitiveadvantage to the expression of maximal strength, anthropometric profiling may prove useful for talent identification and forthe assessment of training progression in powerlifting.

Keywords: Anthropometry, proportionality, somatotype, weight class, weight training

Introduction

In powerlifting, lifters compete in various divisions

based on age, body mass, and gender with the aim of

lifting the greatest possible loads for one repetition

(one-repetition maximum, 1-RM) in the squat,

bench press, and deadlift exercises. The squat is pe-

rformed with a loaded barbell on the shoulders and

requires the lifter to flex the hip and knee joints until

the superior surface of the thigh at the hip joint is

lower than the knee joint. From this position, the

knee and hip joints are extended so that the lifter is

again standing upright. The bench press is per-

formed with the lifter lying supine on a bench and

involves the barbell being lowered to the chest

(where it is paused momentarily) and then pressed

upwards so that the bar finishes above the shoulders.

When performing the deadlift, the lifter is initially

crouched over the barbell, and via knee and hip

extension the bar is pulled (with straight arms) off

the ground so that the lifter is standing upright

with the bar resting across the upper thighs.

Pictorial representations of the three lifts are given

in Figure 1.

The current IPF (International Powerlifting

Federation) world records reveal that male power-

lifters in the lighter bodyweight (body mass) classes

can lift over five times their body mass in the squat

and deadlift and over three times their body mass in

the bench press. Although such impressive displays

of strength may be multi-factorial, it has been pro-

posed that powerlifters have specific anthropometric

characteristics that are advantageous to the expres-

sion of maximal strength (Bale & Williams, 1987;

Brechue & Abe, 2002; Mayhew, McCormick, Piper,

Kurth, & Arnold, 1993a). Specifically, powerlifters

are generally of average to below average height,

possess high body and fat-free mass per unit height,

and have large trunk and limb girths (Bale &

Williams, 1987; Brechue & Abe, 2002; Fort, Dore,

Defranca, & Van Praagh, 1996; Johnson, Housh,

Powell, & Ansorge, 1990; Katch, Katch, Moffatt, &

Gittleson, 1980; Mayhew et al., 1993a). A summary

of the anthropometric characteristics of male power-

lifters is presented in Table I. However, due to inter-

study differences in data collection and analysis

techniques, some caution must be used when com-

paring the results of these studies.

Correspondence: J. W. L. Keogh, Institute of Sport and Recreation Research New Zealand, Division of Sport and Recreation, Auckland University of

Technology, Auckland, New Zealand. E-mail: Justin.keogh@aut.ac.nz

Journal of Sports Sciences, October 2007; 25(12): 1365 – 1376

ISSN 0264-0414 print/ISSN 1466-447X online � 2007 Taylor & Francis

DOI: 10.1080/02640410601059630

Although the amount of fat-free/muscle mass may

be the greatest anthropometric determinant of maxi-

mal strength (Brechue & Abe, 2002; Mayhew et al.,

1993a; Mayhew, Piper, & Ware, 1993b), a range of

other anthropometric variables could also influence

powerlifting performance. As all powerlifters with

the exception of the super-heavyweights (4125 kg)

compete in bodyweight divisions that have a max-

imum allowable body mass, low amounts of body fat

are desirable so that the greatest proportion of body

Figure 1. Demonstration of the three powerlifts [squat (a), bench

press (b), and deadlift (c)] by an experienced powerlifter. Each

picture shows the lifter at the start of the concentric phase.

Tab

leI.

Su

mm

ary

of

the

lite

ratu

reo

nth

ean

thro

po

met

ryo

fm

ale

po

wer

lift

ers

(mea

n+

s).

Stu

dy

Par

tici

pan

tsH

eigh

t(c

m)

Bo

dy

mas

s(k

g)

Bo

dy

com

po

siti

on

Fat

-fre

em

ass

(kg)

Kat

chet

al.

(198

0)

13

sub

-elite

toel

ite

17

3.5+

10

.18

0.8+

11

.59

.1+

4.3

a73

.3+

9.7

May

hew

etal.

(199

3a)

99

ado

lesc

ent

no

vice

17

3.6+

7.3

74

.1+

16

.5S

6S

F¼

73

.7+

30

.1m

mN

.A.

Fo

rtet

al.

(199

6)

9el

ite

ligh

twei

gh

t1

60

.4+

4.8

56

7.5

kg

9.6+

2.5

bN

.A.

6el

ite

mid

dle

wei

gh

t1

72

.1+

6.0

67

.5–

82

.5kg

12

.6+

3.1

bN

.A.

9el

ite

hea

vyw

eigh

t1

74

.9+

4.7

48

2.5

kg

16

.2+

3.4

bN

.A.

Bre

chu

ean

dA

be

(200

2)

7el

ite

ligh

twei

gh

t1

59

.9+

5.0

63

.9+

5.6

13

.7+

2.2

c55

.2+

5.3

6el

ite

mid

dle

wei

gh

t1

66

.1+

5.7

78

.4+

6.7

14

.4+

2.1

c67

.0+

5.0

7el

ite

hea

vyw

eigh

t1

81

.6+

6.6

13

5.1+

26

.52

6.7+

7.1

c97

.7+

10

.9

Not

e:B

od

yco

mp

osi

tio

nis

bo

dy

fat

per

cen

tage

un

less

ind

icat

edo

ther

wis

e.T

heS

6S

Fw

asth

esu

mo

fth

etr

icep

s,su

bsc

apu

lar,

ches

t,su

pra

ilia

c,th

igh

,an

dca

lfsk

info

lds.

Bo

dy

fat

per

cen

tage

calc

ula

ted

by

the

follo

win

gm

eth

od

s:ah

ydro

stat

icw

eigh

ing

and

Sir

i(1

95

6);

bn

ot

stat

ed;

c ult

raso

un

dan

dB

roze

ket

al.

(196

3).

Fat

-fre

em

ass

was

calc

ula

ted

by

sub

trac

tin

gth

efa

tm

ass

(as

esti

mat

edfr

om

the

resp

ecti

veeq

uat

ion

s)fr

om

tota

lb

od

ym

ass.

N.A

.¼n

ot

asse

ssed

.

1366 J. W. L. Keogh et al.

mass is useful muscle rather than fat mass (Brechue &

Abe, 2002; Mayhew et al., 1993a). Furthermore,

possessing large limb and trunk girths and being

highly mesomorphic also appear to be positively

related to muscular strength (Bale, 1986; Huygens

et al., 2002; Mayhew et al., 1993b).

Beyond these measures of total or regional muscle

mass, skeletal (body) proportions may also influ-

ence strength performance (da Silva, de Souza

Trindade, & de Rose, 2003; Marchocka & Smuk,

1984; Ross & Marfell-Jones, 1991; Ross & Ward,

1982). Based on biomechanical principles for third-

class levers, the shorter the lever (body segment) the

less work and torque are required to lift a load (e.g.

the barbell). Similar to results reported for Olympic

weightlifters (Marchocka & Smuk, 1984; Ward,

Groppel, & Stone, 1979), powerlifters who are of

average or below average height with proportionally

short limbs would appear to be at an advantage

compared with taller lifters with longer limbs.

Powerlifters (and other strength athletes) also

possess relatively large bony breadths/bone

mass (Johnson et al., 1990; Katch et al., 1980;

Marchocka & Smuk, 1984). These heavy skeletal

structures appear to be required to accumulate

sufficiently large amounts of muscle mass (Mayhew

et al., 1993a, 1993b) and to withstand the tremen-

dous compressive and shear forces that occur during

training and competition (Escamilla, Lander, &

Garhammer, 2000).

Consistent with the fact that IPF events have 11

bodyweight classes (552 kg to 4125 kg) for male

lifters, the literature (as reviewed in Table I) demon-

strates considerable heterogeneity in terms of the

body mass of male powerlifters. As heavyweight

competitors in other sports involving various body-

weight classes such as judo (Claessens et al., 1986),

Olympic weightlifting (Orvanova, 1990; Pilis et al.,

1997), and wrestling (Carter & Lucio, 1986; Sodhi,

1983) differ significantly on a number of anthro-

pometric variables from their lighter peers, a true

representation of the powerlifting physique requires a

direct comparison of powerlifters across a range of

bodyweight categories. While this has been done by

Fort et al. (1996) and Brechue and Abe (2002), these

studies examined very few anthropometric variables.

The aim of the present study was to examine how

the anthropometry (in particular, the proportional-

ity) of competitive male powerlifters may differ as a

function of body mass. It was expected that anthro-

pometric variables relating to the accumulation of

muscle (e.g. mesomorphy, girths) and fat (e.g. sum

of four and six skinfolds, percent body fat) mass

would increase from lightweight to middleweight to

heavyweight powerlifters, but that the overall skeletal

proportions (particularly the segment lengths and

breadths when compared to the Phantom) would be

relatively mass-independent. Such results, if found,

would support the view that proportional anthropo-

metric characteristics are important determinants of

performance in sports, especially those primarily

dependent on one primary motor quality such as

muscular strength.

Methods

Participants

Fifty-four Oceania competitive male powerlifters (9

lightweight, 30 middleweight, and 15 heavyweight)

were recruited from one international and two

national powerlifting competitions held in New

Zealand. Demographic and performance character-

istics of each group of powerlifters are presented in

Table II. The highest standard of competition

attained by these powerlifters was as follows: IPF

World Championships (n¼ 6), IPF Oceania Cham-

pionships (n¼ 35), New Zealand national cham-

pionships (n¼ 10), and New Zealand regional

championships (n¼ 3). The proportion of World to

regional competitors was similar across the three

bodyweight classes. This appears consistent with

the finding that the Wilks score, as used in all IPF

events to determine the Champion of Champions

and as validated by Vanderburgh and Batterham

(1999), did not differ significantly as a function of

body mass.

None of the powerlifters had tested positive during

random or in-competition drug testing to any ban-

ned substance including anabolic steroids in the year

leading up to data collection. The Auckland

University of Technology Ethics Committee

approved this study. All participants received verbal

and written information about the study and gave

written informed consent before anthropometric

assessment.

Table II. Demographic characteristics of powerlifters (mean+ s).

Lightweight

(n¼9)

Middleweight

(n¼30)

Heavyweight

(n¼15)

Age 35.4+15.0 37.9+12.8 33.4+ 9.1

Weight-training

experience (years)

7.2+4.3 12.0+9.7 12.8+ 10.5

Powerlifting

experience (years)

4.9+3.2 6.2+6.6 6.6+ 4.3

1-RM squat (kg) 179+49b 209+52b 264+ 36

1-RM bench

press (kg)

116+28b 143+37b 180+ 28

1-RM deadlift (kg) 199+39b 230+35 259+ 27

Total (kg) 494+110b 580+111b 704+ 76

Wilks score 377+71 378+65 407+ 41

Note: Total¼ sum of the 1-RM squat, bench press, and deadlift.bSignificantly different from the heavyweight lifters.

Anthropometric dimensions of powerlifters 1367

Data collection

International Society for the Advancement of

Kinanthropometry (ISAK) protocols were used to

determine the anthropometric profile of the power-

lifters (Norton et al., 1996b). Measurement involved

body mass (using Seca scales), standing and seated

height, six skinfolds (using a Slim Guide calliper

with 10 g �mm72 constant pressure), 13 limb/body

girths (using a Lufkin metal tape), nine segment

lengths (using a Rosscraft segmometer), and six

breadths (using a Rosscraft anthropometer). Double

measures for each of the 37 anthropometric dimen-

sions (triple measures for skinfolds) were obtained by

four accredited level II and two accredited level III

ISAK anthropometrists. The technical error of

measurement was 52% for all skinfolds and 51%

for all bone breadths and limb girths.

Data analyses

Selected anthropometric measures were used to

determine somatotype following the methods de-

scribed by Carter and Heath (1990). The Brugsch

index (chest girth/height), ilio-acromial index

(bi-iliac/bi-acromial breadth), Cormic index (sitting

height/standing height), arm length – height index

(S upper arm, forearm, and hand length/height),

arm – leg index (S upper arm, forearm, and hand

length/trochanterion), brachial index (forearm

length/upper arm length), and crural index (lower

leg length/thigh length) were calculated. All these

indices were expressed as percentages. Body fat was

calculated using the sum of four and six skinfolds

(Withers, Craig, Bourdon, & Norton, 1987). The

amounts of fat, residual, skeletal (bone), and

muscle mass were calculated using the method of

Drinkwater and Ross (1980). Muscle mass was also

estimated using equation (4) from Lee et al. (2000).

When validated against whole-body multi-slice mag-

netic resonance images, this equation was found to

be highly valid (r2¼ 0.91, standard error of the

estimate¼ 2.2 kg) in a group of 244 non-obese adult

participants (Lee et al., 2000).

The anthropometric characteristics of each lifter

were adjusted for differences in height by normal-

izing to the Phantom height of 170.18 cm (Ross &

Marfell-Jones, 1991; Ross & Ward, 1982; Ross &

Wilson, 1974). The anthropometric profile of each

lifter was then compared (via the calculation of

Z-scores) to that of the Phantom model (a calcula-

tion device) to allow an examination of the potential

difference in proportionality across the three body-

weight classes (Ross & Marfell-Jones, 1991; Ross &

Ward, 1982; Ross & Wilson, 1974). The Phantom is

a unisex, bilaterally symmetrical conceptual model

that was derived from reference male and female

data. The Phantom Z-scores (Zp-scores) for each

anthropometric variable demonstrate the number

and direction of standard deviations each of the three

bodyweight groups vary against the Phantom.

Statistical analyses

For group comparisons, the powerlifters were sub-

divided into: lightweight (75 kg class and below,

n¼ 9), middleweight (82.5 kg, 90 kg, and 100 kg

classes, n¼ 30), and heavyweight (110 kg class and

above, n¼ 15). These classifications were almost

identical to those used by Brechue and Abe (2002).

When presented in the text or in the tables, all

group results were expressed as means+ standard

deviations. However, in accordance with the meth-

ods of de Ridder, Smith, Wilders, and Underhay

(2003), the Zp-score data shown in the figures are

expressed as means+ standard errors of the mean.

Unequal variance independent t-tests were used to

determine whether significant inter-group differ-

ences occurred for the anthropometric variables. It

was acknowledged that the large number of statistical

comparisons performed would increase the like-

lihood of obtaining Type I errors. Therefore,

statistical significance was set at P5 0.01.

Results

Powerlifters’ anthropometric dimensions

Figure 2 displays the somatoplots for all the indi-

vidual powerlifters as well as means for each of

three groups. Virtually all of the powerlifters were

endo-mesomorphs (the only exception being three

lightweights and one middleweight who were ecto-

mesomorphs). Mesomorphy was the dominant

somatotype component for all powerlifters, with the

mesomorph values ranging from 5.3 to 14.8. The

general anthropometric characteristics presented in

Table III indicate that heavyweight lifters tended

to be significantly taller and heavier, have higher

skinfolds/body fat percentage, and were more endo-

mesomorphic than their lighter counterparts

(P5 0.001 – 0.007). Middleweight lifters generally

possessed anthropometric characteristics that

were intermediate to those of the lightweights and

heavyweights. The absolute amount of skeletal

muscle mass, as calculated by the equations of

Drinkwater and Ross (1980) and Lee et al. (2000),

increased with bodyweight category. For example,

heavyweight lifters had significantly more muscle

mass than both the lightweight and middleweight

lifters (P5 0.001 – 0.004), and middleweight lifters

had significantly greater muscle mass than light-

weight lifters (P5 0.001). Similar bodyweight-

related increases in the absolute amount of fat,

1368 J. W. L. Keogh et al.

residual, and bone mass were also observed

(P5 0.001), the only exception being the lack of a

significant difference in the fat mass between light-

weights and middleweights (P¼ 0.023). When the

four fractionated body compartments were expressed

as a percentage of total body mass, these inter-group

differences became less pronounced. However, light-

weights and middleweights still had a significantly

lower percentage fat mass than heavyweight lifters

(P5 0.001 – 0.002), with middleweight lifters also

having a higher percentage muscle mass (P¼ 0.003)

than heavyweights.

Girths and breadths were typically significantly

greater in heavyweight than middleweight lifters

(P5 0.001 – 0.001), the only exception being for

humerus breadth (P¼ 0.082). Both of these two

groups generally possessed significantly larger mus-

cular girths and bony breadths than lightweights

(P5 0.001 – 0.007). The only exceptions to this

were found between the lightweights and middle-

weights, where no significant differences in upper

arm, forearm, and calf girths (P¼ 0.014 – 0.056) or

femur breadth (p¼ 0.013) were observed. A sum-

mary of these results is presented in Table IV.

As shown in Table V, the segment lengths of the

lightweight lifters were generally significantly less

(P5 0.001 – 0.007) than those of the middleweight

and heavyweight lifters. The only exceptions were seen

between lightweights and middleweights for forearm

length (P¼ 0.023) and between lightweights and

heavyweights for forearm and thigh length (P¼0.016 – 0.061). No significant differences in segment

lengths were observed between the middleweights

and heavyweights (P¼ 0.037 – 0.916). In general,

the length ratios were similar across all bodyweight

classes. The only exception was that lightweight and

middleweight lifters had a significantly lower Brugsch

index than the heavyweights (P5 0.001).

Powerlifters’ anthropometric dimensions compared

through the Phantom

Figures 3 – 6 display a range of selected anthro-

pometric dimensions of the powerlifter groups as

Figure 2. Somatochart of all individual powerlifters. The means for the lightweight (1), middleweight (2), and heavyweight (3) groups are

also provided.

Anthropometric dimensions of powerlifters 1369

proportional scores through the Phantom (Zp-scores).

Figure 3 indicates that while all powerlifters had

moderate to large Zp-scores for residual, bone, and

muscle mass, they (with the exception of the heavy-

weights) had negative Zp-scores for adiposity.

According to the girth Zp-scores (see Figure 4), all

three groups of powerlifters were very muscular; this

was especially evident in the upper body. Regardless of

bodyweight category, powerlifters had moderate to

large Zp-scores for their bony breadths with the

possible exception of the hip (bi-iliocristal) (see

Figure 5). In contrast to the other anthropometric

variables, the Zp-scores for the segment lengths of the

powerlifters groups were close to zero (see Figure 6).

Heavyweight lifters tended to have significantly

higher Zp-scores for fat, residual, bone, and muscle

mass than lightweight and middleweight lifters

(P5 0.001 – 0.002). The only exception was for the

fat mass Zp-score, where no significant difference was

observed between lightweight and heavyweight

lifters (P¼ 0.030). Heavyweights also had significantly

higher Zp-scores for all girths (with the exception of

the head) and all bony breadths (except humerus

breadth) than the lighter lifters (P5 0.001 – 0.006).

No significant differences were observed in the

Zp-scores for the segment lengths between the three

bodyweight categories (P¼ 0.096 – 0.865).

Discussion

The aim of the present study was to examine how the

anthropometric profiles of competitive male power-

lifters might differ across different bodyweight

classes. It was hypothesized that while absolute

measures of total and regional muscle and fat mass

would increase with body mass, the overall skeletal

proportions of the powerlifters would be relatively

similar across all three bodyweight categories.

Table III. General anthropometric characteristics of powerlifters (mean+ s).

Lightweight (n¼ 9) Middleweight (n¼ 30) Heavyweight (n¼15)

Height (cm) 163.0+ 7.2a,b 174.7+ 4.9 174.7+ 9.6

Mass (kg) 68.9+ 7.9a,b 87.7+ 6.9b 121.9+ 17.2

Mass (S4 fractionated compartments) (kg) 67.4+ 4.9a,b 84.1+ 5.0b 105.2+ 13.6

S4SF (mm) 38.3+ 21.3b 40.8+ 14.8b 85.2+ 31.7

S6SF (mm) 59.0+ 29.0b 64.4+ 17.0b 128.2+ 35.4

Body fat (%) (from S4SF) 12.1+ 6.1b 12.8+ 3.0b 26.4+ 8.5

Body fat (%) (from S6SF) 13.7+ 6.8b 14.3+ 3.4b 24.7+ 6.2

Endomorphy 3.2+ 1.8b 3.2+ 0.9b 6.3+ 1.6

Mesomorphy 7.5+ 1.6b 8.0+ 1.3b 10.7+ 1.7

Ectomorphy 1.1+ 1.1b 0.7+ 0.6b 0.1+ 0.0

Muscle mass (kg) 33.0+ 4.1a,b 39.0+ 4.2b 48.2+ 5.1

Fractionated fat mass (kg) 6.6+ 1.9b 8.5+ 1.9b 15.4+ 4.3

Fractionated residual mass (kg) 17.0+ 2.0a,b 20.9+ 1.4b 25.0+ 3.4

Fractionated bone mass (kg) 11.3+ 1.1a,b 14.2+ 1.2b 16.7+ 2.2

Fractionated muscle mass (kg) 32.5+ 3.8a,b 40.5+ 2.5b 48.1+ 6.1

Fractionated fat mass (%) 9.8+ 3.2b 10.1+ 1.9b 14.5+ 3.0

Fractionated residual mass (%) 25.3+ 3.1 24.8+ 1.2 23.8+ 1.1

Fractionated bone mass (%) 16.8+ 1.3 16.9+ 1.2 15.9+ 1.5

Fractionated muscle mass (%) 48.1+ 3.2 48.2+ 2.2b 45.8+ 2.4

Note: The S4 fractionated compartments¼ sum of the four (fat, residual, bone, and muscle) compartment masses. The S4SF and

S6SF¼ sum of four and six skinfolds, respectively. Body fat percentage was estimated from the S4SF and S6SF (Withers et al., 1987),

muscle mass from Lee et al. (2000), and all fractionated body mass values from Drinkwater and Ross (1980).aSignificantly different from the middleweight lifters. bSignificantly different from the heavyweight lifters.

Table IV. Girth and breadths of powerlifters (mean+ s).

Lightweight

(n¼ 9)

Middleweight

(n¼30)

Heavyweight

(n¼15)

Girths

Head (cm) 56.0+ 1.7b 57.6+1.4b 60.2+1.6

Neck (cm) 37.1+ 1.7a,b 41.5+2.5b 47.4+3.2

Flexed upper

arm (cm)

37.0+ 2.8b 40.0+3.1b 46.7+3.5

Forearm (cm) 29.2+ 1.5b 31.1+1.6b 35.3+2.0

Chest (cm) 101.3+ 6.1a,b 109.7+6.1b 126.0+8.0

Waist (cm) 79.6+ 7.2a,b 90.5+6.7b 109.6+9.5

Hip (cm) 92.7+ 5.1a,b 101.0+3.5b 117.0+9.4

Thigh (cm) 57.3+ 3.7a,b 61.8+3.3b 73.1+6.2

Calf (cm) 36.4+ 3.2b 38.8+1.9b 45.0+3.2

Breadths

Bi-acromial (cm) 40.3+ 2.1a,b 42.0+2.1b 44.3+2.1

Bi-iliocristal (cm) 27.9+ 1.8a,b 29.6+1.2b 33.1+2.8

Anterior – posterior

chest depth (cm)

19.2+ 1.7a,b 21.6+1.6b 25.5+2.5

Humerus (cm) 7.0+ 0.5a,b 7.8+0.7 8.0+0.5

Femur (cm) 9.7+ 0.6b 10.3+0.6b 11.3+0.6

aSignificantly different from the middleweight lifters. bSignificantly

different from the heavyweight lifters.

1370 J. W. L. Keogh et al.

Overall anthropometric profile of powerlifters

Regardless of body mass, all of the powerlifters in the

present study were muscular individuals, exhibiting

very high mesomorphy and having large girths and

bony breadths and relatively average segment length/

ratios. While such results appear consistent with

most of the literature for male and female power-

lifters (Bale & Williams, 1987; Brechue & Abe, 2002;

Fort et al., 1996; Johnson et al., 1990; Katch et al.,

1980; Mayhew et al., 1993a), of particular interest

was the very high levels of mesomorphy seen in this

population. Thirteen of the 54 powerlifters were

found to have a mesomorphy rating of over 10, with

one individual having a rating of 14.8. Such values

are very rare in the scientific literature, and may even

exceed those values reported by Olds (2003) in a

review paper on the extremes of human physiques.

The powerlifters’ heightened muscularity was espe-

cially evident in the upper body, where the heavy-

weight lifters were more than six Zp-scores above the

Phantom values for neck, flexed upper arm, forearm,

chest, and waist girth. While these girth Zp-scores are

very high and would exceed those of the general and

even most athletic populations, somewhat similar

scores have been observed in previous studies of

bodybuilders and powerlifters (da Silva et al., 2003;

Katch et al., 1980). It has been proposed that the

greater relative muscular development of the upper

than lower body in weight-trained athletes like

powerlifters reflects the comparatively untrained

status of the upper body in non-weight-trained

individuals, in that all ambulating individuals must

support their body mass on their legs during upright

stance and gait (da Silva et al., 2003). Future studies

might adopt the photoscopic method to more

accurately determine whether dysplasia (i.e. upper-

vs. lower-body differences) is found in the somato-

type of powerlifters.

The powerlifters’ large bony breadths (and bone

mass) could allow for the accumulation of greater

muscle mass per unit height (Mayhew et al., 1993a,

1993b). Thicker and heavier bones would typically

also have an increased ability to withstand the

tremendous compressive and shear forces imposed

on the body during powerlifting training and com-

petition (Escamilla et al., 2000). This would be

advantageous to powerlifters, as injuries, especially

Table V. Lengths and length ratios of powerlifters (mean+ s).

Lightweight

(n¼ 9)

Middleweight

(n¼30)

Heavyweight

(n¼15)

Lengths

Seated height (cm) 86.6+ 3.9a,b 91.7+2.9 94.3+3.9

Upper arm (cm) 31.0+ 1.8a,b 33.6+1.5 33.6+1.8

Forearm (cm) 25.5+ 1.3 26.7+1.6 26.9+1.6

Thigh (cm) 39.1+ 3.7a 43.4+2.9 42.3+3.9

Lower leg (cm) 35.0+ 2.1a,b 38.6+1.9 38.3+3.2

Ratios

Brugsch (%) 62.2+ 4.1b 62.9+4.3b 72.2+5.1

Ilio-acromial (%) 69.7+ 6.4 70.0+3.5 74.3+6.4

Cormic (%) 53.2+ 1.5 52.5+1.7 53.7+1.4

Arm/height (%) 45.8+ 1.4 46.0+1.5 46.3+1.4

Arm/leg (%) 91.1+ 3.3 89.2+3.8 90.9+3.8

Brachial (%) 82.1+ 2.5 79.5+4.8 80.0+3.2

Crural (%) 89.8+ 4.4 89.2+6.2 90.9+4.9

aSignificantly different from the middleweight lifters. bSignificantly

different from the heavyweight lifters.

Figure 3. Comparison of the general anthropometric values of the powerlifters through the Phantom. All values are mean Zp-scores

(+standard error of the mean).

Anthropometric dimensions of powerlifters 1371

those to the shoulder, lower back, and knee, have

a negative effect on their training and competition

performance (Keogh, Hume, & Pearson, 2006).

The powerlifters in this study were typically of

average to below average height and had rela-

tively short limbs (in absolute terms). Similar results

have been reported for male powerlifters (Mayhew

et al., 1993a) and Olympic weightlifters (Marchocka &

Smuk, 1984; Ward et al., 1979). These anthro-

pometric characteristics would be advantageous to

the lifting of maximal loads in both of these sports as

they: (1) decrease the amount of muscular work

required to lift a load by reducing the vertical distance

the bar must be displaced; and (2) improve the

mechanical advantage by reducing the length of the

resistance lever arm(s) and hence the load torque(s).

However, the Zp-scores for the limb and trunk lengths

of all three groups of powerlifters were very close to

zero. This indicates that all of the powerlifters shared

similar segment length proportions with the Phantom,

with the powerlifters’ relatively short limbs being a

function of their relatively short stature. The power-

lifters’ low segment length Zp-scores could reflect

the varying biomechanical demands of the three

powerlifts, whereby different limb proportions may

prove disadvantageous for one lift but advantageous

Figure 4. Comparison of the girth values of the powerlifters through the Phantom. All values are mean Zp-scores (+ standard error of the

mean).

Figure 5. Comparison of the bony breadth values of the powerlifters through the Phantom. All values are mean Zp-scores (+ standard error

of the mean). A-P chest depth¼ anterior – posterior chest depth Zp-scores.

1372 J. W. L. Keogh et al.

for another. For example, while long arms may reduce

bench press performance, such proportions may

actually be beneficial for the deadlift (Hart, Ward, &

Mayhew, 1991; Mayhew et al., 1993a, 1993b).

Body mass-related differences in anthropometry

As hypothesized, heavyweight powerlifters tended to

have significantly greater absolute levels of muscle

mass, adiposity, endomorphy, mesomorphy, and

muscular girths than the lighter lifters. Similar body

mass-related anthropometric differences have been

observed in other sports involving bodyweight

classes, including judo (Claessens et al., 1986),

Olympic weightlifting (Orvanova, 1990; Pilis et al.,

1997), and wrestling (Carter & Lucio, 1986;

Sodhi, 1983). Such bodyweight-related differences

in anthropometry could be considered an example

of open upper-end optimization (Norton, Olds,

Olive, & Craig, 1996a), in that the ability of the

powerlifters to lift greater absolute loads typically

increases in conjunction with the majority of these

anthropometric characteristics (Brechue & Abe,

2002; Mayhew et al., 1993a, 1993b).

Heavyweight powerlifters were significantly taller

than lightweight lifters, although the difference in

mean height between these groups was only moderate

(11.7 cm). However, the mean height of the middle-

weight and heavyweight lifters was virtually identical

even though their mean body mass differed by 34.2 kg.

While Fort et al. (1996) also only found moderate

differences in the height of lightweight versus middle-

weight and heavyweight male powerlifters, in most

sports heavyweight athletes are significantly taller than

their lighter peers (Borms, Ross, Duquet, & Carter,

1986; Brechue & Abe, 2002; Carter & Lucio, 1986;

Orvanova, 1990; Pilis et al., 1997; Sodhi, 1983). For

example, Borms et al. (1986), Carter and Lucio

(1986), and Brechue and Abe (2002) reported

differences of about 19 – 22 cm between lightweight

and heavyweight bodybuilders, wrestlers, and power-

lifters, respectively. Although the greater inter-body-

weight class height differences in previous studies

may reflect the moderately high correlation

(r¼ 0.54 – 0.65) between height and fat-free/body

mass (Bale, 1986), more recent evidence suggests that

this relationship plateaus at *170 cm (Abe, Brechue,

Fujita, & Brown, 1998), a height similar to the

middleweight and heavyweight male lifters in

the current study and that of Fort et al. (1996).

Heavyweight powerlifters were also observed to have

significantly larger bony breadths and greater

bone mass (typically in absolute and relative Zp-scores)

than the lighter lifters. Larger bony breadths have also

been reported in heavyweight than in lightweight

wrestlers (Claessens et al., 1986; Sodhi, 1983) and

Olympic weightlifters (Marchocka & Smuk, 1984).

The segment lengths of the heavyweight and

middleweight lifters (expressed in absolute units)

were generally significantly greater than those of the

lightweights; however, the ratio length and Zp-scores

were very similar across all three bodyweight groups.

This suggests that the lightweight, middleweight, and

heavyweight powerlifters had similar segment length

proportions, with the difference in absolute limb

lengths being a result of the lightweight lifters being

shorter than the two heavier classes. Similar findings

have been observed by Sodhi (1983), Claessens et al.

(1986), and Pilis et al. (1997), who reported minor

differences in the segment proportions of elite male

Figure 6. Comparison of the segment lengths of the powerlifters through the Phantom. All values are mean Zp-scores (+ standard error of

the mean).

Anthropometric dimensions of powerlifters 1373

judoists, Olympic weightlifters, and wrestlers of

varying body mass respectively. It appears that

segment lengths and their ratios are subject to

upper-end optimization in powerlifters (Norton

et al., 1996a), in that regardless of the height or mass

of the lifter, once the length or ratio of the limbs

exceeds a certain threshold, strength performance

may decrease due to the increased muscular work and

torque required. These results suggest that in body-

weight class sports requiring high levels of strength,

certain segment length proportions confer a compe-

titive advantage and successful performers of all body

masses are likely to possess such proportions.

Overall, the bodyweight-related differences in

anthropometry reported in this study suggest an

interesting optimization question for heavyweight

powerlifters (who are relatively unaffected by body-

weight restriction), with pressures working in opposite

directions. It is apparent that a large part of the

heavyweight powerlifters’ greater absolute strength

than the lighter classes is the heavyweights’ greater fat-

free/body mass. Due to the diminishing relationship

between fat-free/body mass and height above 170 cm

and the loss of biomechanical advantage associated

with possessing long levers, heavyweight powerlifters

cannot be too tall. As a result, successful heavyweight

powerlifters may require a huge skeletal frame on

which to ‘‘hang’’ sufficient muscle mass. However,

even with such large skeletal frames, achieving

maximal muscle mass will tend to occur in conjunc-

tion with that of additional fat mass (Forbes, 1987).

Therefore, in the quest to maximize their muscle mass

and performance, heavyweight powerlifters may have

to accumulate additional fat mass and consequently

have higher relative body fat than lighter lifters.

Anthropometry of powerlifters compared with other

weight-trained athletes

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 anthro-

pometry 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 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 power-

lifters 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 multiple-

discriminant analysis (Fry et al., 1991), whereby

variables such as the ilio-acromial index, chest – waist

ratio, and body fat percentage were able to differ-

entiate successful and less successful body-

builders. 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 hypertro-

phy and muscularity.

Anthropometric equations: Possible limitations

A potential problem with much anthropometric

research is the need to use indirect methods to

estimate anthropometric characteristics such as

body fractionation. As a result, equations from

Drinkwater and Ross (1980), Withers et al. (1987),

and Lee et al. (2000) were all used to estimate the

body composition of the powerlifters in this study.

The equations of Drinkwater and Ross (1980) and

Lee and colleagues (2000) gave similar values for

muscle mass (intra-group variation ranged from 70.5

to 1.5 kg) across the three groups. The body fat

percentages derived from the sum of four and six

skinfolds (Withers et al., 1987) also differed by a few

percentage points (intra-group variation ranged from

71.7 to 1.6% body fat). However, there was no sys-

tematic direction to these intra-group differences

in muscle mass and body fat percentage. It was

apparent that the body fat percentages derived from

the sum of four and six skinfolds were higher than

those reported by Drinkwater and Ross (1980),

particularly for the heavyweight lifters. This is con-

sistent with the findings of Withers, Craig, Ball,

Norton, and Whittingham (1991), who reported a

number of significant differences in the fractionated

and densitometric estimations of muscle and fat mass

in team sport athletes. While Withers et al. (1991)

proposed four possible reasons for these discrepan-

cies, the greater difference between the fractionated

and densitometric estimates for the heavyweight than

lightweight lifters in the present study may also have

been a result of the underestimation of total body

mass by the four-compartment model for the heavy-

weight group (*16.7 kg). Due to the somewhat

questionable validity of these fractionation results for

heavyweight lifters, further research is warranted to

develop more valid measures for determining the

body composition of heavily muscled athletes such as

1374 J. W. L. Keogh et al.

heavyweight powerlifters (Cordain, Richau, & John-

son, 1995; Huygens et al., 2002).

Future research

To determine the anthropometric variables most

related to powerlifting performance, several research

paths could be undertaken. Cross-sectional studies

could compare the anthropometric profile of power-

lifters to normally active individuals or other athletic

groups as well as that of successful and less suc-

cessful powerlifters. These studies could utilize a

between-group comparison design as well as involve

correlational and regression analyses. Longitudinal

(training) studies investigating changes in anthro-

pometry with training and competition performance

would also provide additional information on the

role that anthropometric characteristics play in

powerlifting performance.

Practical applications

Heavyweight lifters had significantly greater muscle

and fat mass and girths, but similar overall skeletal

proportions (segment length ratios as well as breadth

and length Zp-scores), than lightweight lifters. These

results suggest that powerlifting performance is

strongly affected by anthropometric measures of body

(muscle) size, composition, and proportion. As a

result, anthropometric measures could play a role in

talent identification programmes for powerlifting, as

well as for the monitoring of training. In particular,

talent identification programmes could focus on

selecting muscular individuals who are not overly tall

and who possess relatively short limbs, whereas

changes in somatotype, muscular girths, and skinfolds

could be used for the monitoring of training.

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by a grant from the Faculty

of Health and Environmental Sciences, Auckland

University of Technology, New Zealand. Thanks are

given to the member federations of the Oceania

Powerlifting Federation, in particular the New

Zealand Powerlifting Federation and Powerlifting

Australia for their support of the project.

References

Abe, T., Brechue, W. F., Fujita, S., & Brown, J. B. (1998).

Gender differences in FFM accumulation and architectural

characteristics of muscle. Medicine and Science in Sports and

Exercise, 30, 1066 – 1070.

Bale, P. (1986). The relationship of somatotype and body com-

position to strength in a group of men and women sport science

students. In J. A. P. Day (Ed.), Perspectives in kinanthropometry

(pp. 187 – 198). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Bale, P., & Williams, H. (1987). An anthropometric

prototype of female power lifters. Journal of Sports Medicine,

27, 191 – 196.

Borms, J., Ross, W. D., Duquet, W., & Carter, J. E. L. (1986).

Somatotypes of world class body builders. In J. A. P. Day (Ed.),

Perspectives in kinanthropometry (pp. 81 – 90). Champaign, IL:

Human Kinetics.

Brechue, W. F., & Abe, T. (2002). The role of FFM accumulation

and skeletal muscle architecture in powerlifting performance.

European Journal of Applied Physiology, 86, 327 – 336.

Brozek, A., Grande, F., Anderson, J. & Keys, A. (1963).

Densiometric analysis of body composition: revision of some

quantitative assumptions. Annals of the Academy of Sciences, 110,

113 – 150.

Carter, J. E. L., & Heath, B. H. (1990). Somatotyping – development

and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Carter, J. E. L., & Lucio, F. D. (1986). Body size, skinfolds, and

somatotypes of high school and Olympic wrestlers.

In J. A. P. Day (Ed.), Perspectives in kinanthropometry

(pp. 171 – 179). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Claessens, A. L., Beunen, G. P., Simon, S., Wellens, R. I.,

Geldof, D., & Nuyts, M. (1986). Body structure, somatotype,

and motor fitness of top-class Belgian judoists. In J. A. P. Day

(Ed.), Perspectives in kinanthropometry (pp. 155 – 163).

Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Cordain, L., Richau, L. L., & Johnson, J. E. (1995). Variability of

body composition assessments in men exhibiting extreme

muscular hypertrophy. Journal of Strength and Conditioning

Research, 9, 85 – 89.

da Silva, P. R. P., de Souza Trindade, R., & de Rose, E. H.

(2003). Body composition, somatotype and proportionality of

elite bodybuilders in Brazil. Revista Brasileira de Medicina do

Esporte, 9, 408 – 412.

de Ridder, H., Smith, E., Wilders, C., & Underhay, C. (2003).

Sexual dimorphism in elite middle-distance runners: 1995

All-Africa Games (Project HAAGKIP). In H. de Ridder &

T. Olds (Eds.), Kinanthropometry 7 (pp. 57 – 75).

Potchefstroom: Potchefstroom University for Christian Higher

Education.

Drinkwater, D., & Ross, W. D. (1980). Anthropometric fractiona-

tion of body mass. In W. Ostyn, G. Beunen, & J. Simons

(Eds.), Kinanthropometry II (pp. 177 – 188). Baltimore, MD:

University Park Press.

Escamilla, R. F., Lander, J. E., & Garhammer, J. (2000).

Biomechanics of powerlifting and weightlifting exercises. In W.

E. Garrett & D. T. Kirkendall (Eds.), Exercise and sport science

(pp. 585 – 615). Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.

Forbes, G. B. (1987). Lean body mass and body fat interrelation-

ships in humans. Nutrition Reviews, 50, 157 – 161.

Fort, C., Dore, E., Defranca, N., & Van Praagh, E. (1996).

Anthropometric and performance characteristics in elite power-

lifters of both sexes. In P. Marconnet, J. Gaulard, I. Margartis,

& F. Tessier (Eds.), First Annual Congress of the European College

of Sport Science: Frontiers in sport science, the European perspective

(pp. 718 – 719). Nice: ECSS.

Fry, A. C., Ryan, A. J., Schwab, R. J., Powell, D. R., &

Kraemer, W. J. (1991). Anthropometric characteristics as

discriminators of body-building success. Journal of Sports

Sciences, 9, 23 – 32.

Hart, C. L., Ward, T. E., & Mayhew, D. L. (1991). Anthropo-

metric correlates with bench press performance following

resistance training. Sports Training, Medicine and Rehabilitation,

2, 89 – 95.

Huygens, W., Claessens, A. L., Thomis, M., Loos, R., van

Langendonck, L., Peeters, M. et al. (2002). Body composition

estimates by BIA versus anthropometric equations in body-

builders and other power athletes. Journal of Sports Medicine and

Physical Fitness, 42, 45 – 55.

Anthropometric dimensions of powerlifters 1375

Johnson, G. O., Housh, T. J., Powell, D. R., & Ansorge, C. J.

(1990). A physiological comparison of female body builders

and power lifters. Journal of Sports Medicine, 30, 361 – 364.

Katch, V. L., Katch, F. I., Moffatt, R., & Gittleson, M. (1980).

Muscular development and lean body weight in body builders

and weight lifters. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 12,

340 – 344.

Keogh, J., Hume, P., & Pearson, S. (2006). Retrospective injury

epidemiology of 101 competitive Oceania power lifters: The

effects of age, body mass, competitive standard and gender.

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 20, 672 – 681.

Lee, R. C., Wang, Z., Heo, M., Ross, R., Janssen, I., & Heymsfield,

S. B. (2000). Total-body skeletal muscle mass: Development

and cross-validation of anthropometric prediction models.

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 72, 796 – 803.

Marchocka, M., & Smuk, E. (1984). Analysis of body build of

senior weightlifters with particular regard for proportions.

Biology of Sport, 1, 55 – 71.

Mayhew, J. L., McCormick, T. P., Piper, F. C., Kurth, A. L., &

Arnold, M. D. (1993a). Relationships of body dimensions to

strength performance in novice adolescent male powerlifters.

Pediatric Exercise Science, 5, 347 – 356.

Mayhew, J. L., Piper, F. C., & Ware, J. S. (1993b). Anthropo-

metric correlates with strength performance among resistance

trained athletes. Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness,

33, 159 – 165.

Norton, K., Olds, T., Olive, S., & Craig, N. (1996a).

Anthropometry and sports performance. In K. Norton &

T. Olds (Eds.), Anthropometrica (pp. 289 – 364). Marrackville:

UNSW Press.

Norton, K., Whittingham, N. O., Carter, L., Kerr, D., Gore, C.,

& Marfell-Jones, M. (1996b). Measurement techniques in

anthropometry. In K. Norton & T. Olds (Eds.), Anthropome-

trica (pp. 25 – 75). Marrackville: UNSW Press.

Olds, T. (2003). Extreme physiques. In H. de Ridder & T. Olds

(Eds.), Kinanthropometry 7 (pp. 9 – 33). Potchefstroom: Potch-

efstroom University for Christian Higher Education.

Orvanova, E. (1990). Somatotypes of weight lifters. Journal of

Sports Sciences, 8, 119 – 137.

Pilis, W., Wojtyna, J., Langfort, J., Zajac, A., Manowska, B., &

Chmura, J., et al. (1997). Relationships between sport results,

somatic variables and anaerobic power in elite weight lifters.

Biology of Sport, 14, 275 – 281.

Ross, W. D., & Marfell-Jones, M. F. (1991). Kinanthropometry.

In J. D. MacDougall, H. A. Wenger, & H. J. Green (Eds.),

The physiological assessment of high performance athletes

(pp. 223 – 283). Champaign, IL.: Human Kinetics.

Ross, W. D., & Ward, R. (1982). Human proportionality and

sexual dimorphism. In Sexual dimorphism in homo sapiens: a

question of size (edited by R. L. Hall), pp. 317 – 361. New York:

Praeger.

Ross, W. D., & Wilson, N. C. (1974). A stratagem for pro-

portional growth assessment. Acta Paediatrica Belgica, 28

(suppl.), 169 – 182.

Siri, W. E. (1956). Gross composition of the body. In Advances in

Biological and Medical Physics, Vol. IV (edited by J. H. Lawrence

and C. A. Tobias), pp. 239 – 280. New York: Academic Press.

Sodhi, H. S. (1983). Physique of top-ranking Indian wrestlers.

Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness, 23, 59 – 66.

Vanderburgh, P. M., & Batterham, A. M. (1999). Validation of the

Wilks powerlifting formula. Medicine and Science in Sports and

Exercise, 31, 1869 – 1875.

Ward, J., Groppel, J. L., & Stone, M. (1979). Anthropometry and

performance in master and first-class Olympic weight lifters.

Journal of Sports Medicine, 19, 205 – 212.

Withers, R. T., Craig, N., Ball, C. T., Norton, K. I., &

Whittingham, N. O. (1991). The Drinkwater-Ross estimate of

body density and lean body weight in young men. Journal of

Sports Sciences, 9, 299 – 311.

Withers, R. T., Craig, N. P., Bourdon, P. C., & Norton, K. I.

(1987). Relative body fat and anthropometric prediction of

body density of male athletes. European Journal of Applied

Physiology, 56, 191 – 200.

1376 J. W. L. Keogh et al.