COMPARISON OF BODY PROPORTIONS OF SPORTMEN FROM DIFFERENT BRANCHES

Vol 21, No. 2;Feb 2014

319 [email protected]

COMPARISON OF BODY PROPORTIONS OF

SPORTMEN FROM DIFFERENT BRANCHES

Elvin Onarıcı Güngör1, Can Cemal Cingi PhD2, Nuray Bayar Muluk MD3, Barıs Gurol4, Cemal Cingi

MD5, Özge Bolluk6

1Research Assistant, School of Physical Education and Sports, Anadolu University, Eskisehir, Turkey

2Instractor, Communication Design and Management, Faculty of Communication Sciences, Anadolu University,

Eskisehir, Turkey

3Professor in Kırıkkale University, Faculty of Medicine, ENT Department, Kırıkkale, Turkey

4Research Assistant, School of Physical Education and Sports, Anadolu University, Eskisehir, Turkey 5Professor

in Eskisehir Osmangazi University, Faculty of Medicine, ENT Department, Eskisehir, Turkey

6Research Assistant, Eskisehir Osmangazi University, Biostatistics and Medical Informatics Department,

Eskişehir, Turkey

Elvin Onarici Gungor (Corresponding author)

Faculty of Sport Science, Anadolu University,

Iki Eylul Campus, Eskisehir, Turkey

Tel: +90 222 3350580-6718, +90 533 4694805 E-mail: [email protected]

Conflict of interest: The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest

Acknowledgement:

"With exception of data collection, preparation of this paper including design and planning was

supported by Continuous Education and Scientific Research Association."

Abstract

Purpose: Body proportions of humans may be different between various sportive branches. We investigated the

body proportions of volleyball and basketball players and track and field athletes.

Method: The study was conducted with 88 male students of School of Physical Education and Sports: Group1:

Basketball players (n=37), Group 2: Volleyball players (n=23), and Group 3: Track and field athletes (n=28).

Height, chest circumference, difference of inspiration and expiration chest circumference, waist circumference,

hip circumference, waist/hip circumferences, length from crista to below the foot, length from the root of the

penis and below the foot, length from head to chin, length from chin to chest, length from chest to abdomen,

length from abdomen to root of the penis were measured.

New Results: In basketball players, “Height”; and “Difference of inspiration and expiration chest

circumference” values were higher than volleyball players and track and field athletes. In volleyball players,

“Waist circumference”, “Hip circumference” and “Waist/hip circumference” values were higher than basketball

players and track and field athletes.

Conclusion: Chest circumference and respiratory capacities of the sportmen were improved in basketball

players. In volleyball players, the body circumference was wider; whereas in basketball players, the reaching the

ball movement might have caused elongation of the body and the arms.

Key words: Volleyball players, Basketball players, Track and field athletes, body proportions.

Vol 21, No. 2;Feb 2014


1.Introduction The drawing of the Vitruvian Man by the famed renaissance artist Leonardo da Vinci in the late fifteenth century

(circa 1487) is representation of ideal human proportions (male) described by the ancient Roman architect

Vitruvius. Leonardo created this work based on the writings of Marcus Vitruvius Pollio, a master architect in the

Roman Empire. It is generally considered to be a supreme example of the synergy between art and science

(Ashrafian, 2011; Maloney et al, 2011; Pollio, 2006). There are some researches about the growth of body limbs.

Ontogenetic research and migrant studies have demonstrated that body proportions are largely genetically

controlled (Hooliday, 1997).

According to other researches ethnicity, genetic and hormonal are very important factors of body composition

and growth process (Wagner et al, 2000). Additionally nutrition, are important factor for the bone mass

development of preadolescent (Rogol et al, 2000; Ilich et al, 1998). Based on the previous researches it can be

said that genetic, ethnicity, nutrition are the important factors for the anthropometric growth. Ethnicity is said as

a single word. But so many different ethnic groups are living in Anatolia, which is the cradle of civilization for

centuries.

Anthropometric data, body composition, bone density, muscle mass between different sport branches were

researched in previous literature (Andreoli et al, 2001; Damsgaard et al, 2001). It’s known that moderate activity

is associated with cardiovascular benefits and favorable changes in body composition (Rogol,et al, 2000). Two

studies were done in Turkey about Vitruvius square. One of them was about the evaluation of Turkish males

with respect to Leonardo’s circle and upper extremity ratios (Yilmaz et al, 2005). Other one was about Vitruvius

Square and related equations in Turkish men in terms of artistic anatomy (Cikmaz et al., 2007). Both of these

studies were applied to regular population. But there is not any study comparing the differences of body

proportions among different sport branches.

Body proportions of athletes from different branches were investigated in this study among basketball, volleyball

and track and field athletes of Physical Education and Sports Department compared with the Leonardo’s perfect

anatomical representation. So research group that included in this study consisted of people who have sportsman

since childhood. We predict that lengths of extremity and body proportions of the subjects can be different from

average values because of they started sport pre-adolescent. The aim of the present study was compare the body

proportions of basketball, volleyball and track and field athletes.

2.Materials and Method

This prospective study was conducted in students of “School of Physical Education and Sports” (SPESp) in

Anadolu University between January to June 2012.

2.1.Participants

The study group was consisted of 88 male students of School of Physical Education and Sports. Their ages were

between 18 and 25. This study was conducted by three sport groups:

Group1: Basketball players (n=37)

Group 2: Volleyball players (n=23)

Group 3: Track and field athletes (n=28)

2.2.Instruments and Procedure

All measurements were performed by the same investigator using the same measuring devices for all and

repeated for reliability. Height, chest circumference, difference of inspiration and expiration chest

circumference, waist circumference, hip circumference, waist/hip circumferences, length from crista to ground,

length from the inner side of the leg and ground, length from head to chin, length from chin to chest, length from

chest to abdomen, length from abdomen to root of the penis were measured.

Height was measured to the nearest 0.1 cm using a stadiometer (Holtain Ltd) with the subject wearing sports

clothing and no shoes. Measure the circumference of the chest at maximum inspiration and expiration procedure:

The patient is standing with arms hanging relaxed. The circumference was measured immediately bellowed the

nipples in men while maximum inspiration and expiration (Backup, 2008). Waist–hip ratio (i.e. the waist

circumference divided by the hip circumference) was suggested as an additional measure of body fat

distribution. The ratio can be measured more precisely than skin folds, and it provides an index of both

subcutaneous and intra‐ abdominal adipose tissue (Bjorntorp, 1987). Waist circumference is measured at the

narrowest portion of the torso, while hip circumference is measured at the level of greater trochanters as

Hoffman (Hoffman, 2006) did.

All the steps of the study were planned and carried out according to the principles outlined in the Declaration of

Helsinki (2004). Local Ethics Committee Approval of Eskişehir Osmangazi University was also present for this

study.

2.3.Statistical Analysis

Vol 21, No. 2;Feb 2014


SPSS 16.0 was used for statistical analysis. Kruskal Wallis Variance Analysis and Mann Whitney U test with

Bonferroni correction were used.

The level of significance was set at p<0.05.

3.Results

Proportions of basketball players, volleyball players and track and field athletes are shown in Table 1. The

difference between Groups 1-3 was analyzed by Kruskal Wallis Variance Analysis. When statistically significant

difference was present, to detect the cause, pairwise comparisons (Group 1-2, Group 1-3 and Group 2-3) were

performed by Mann Whitney U test with Bonferroni correction:

There was no significant difference for the items of chest circumference; length from crista to ground/height;

length from krista to below the foot - the root of the penis; length from the root of the penis to below the foot /

length from crista to below the foot between Group 1-3 (p>0.05) (Table 1).

-Height values of Group 1 (185.70 cm), and Group 2 (185.90 cm) were significantly higher than that of Group 2

(175.28 cm) (p<0.0175) (Table 1).

-Difference of inspiration and expiration chest circumference values of Group 1 (6.61 cm) was significantly

higher than Group 2 (3.50 cm), and Group 3 (4.14 cm) (p<0.0175) (Table 1).

- Waist circumference values of Group 2 (88.91 cm) was significantly higher than those of Group 1 (81.04); and

Group 3 (79.14cm) (p<0.0175) (Table 1).

- Hip circumference values of Group 2 (106.3 cm) was significantly higher than those of Group 1 (101.3); and

Group 3 (100.18 cm) (p<0.0175) (Table 1).

- Waist/hip circumference values of Group 2 (0.83) was significantly higher than those of Group 1 (0.79); and

Group 3 (079) (p<0.0175) (Table 1).

-Length from crista to ground values of Group 1 (99.24 cm); and Group 2 (98.52 cm) were significantly higher

than that of Group 3 (92.42 cm) (p<0.0175) (Table 1).

-Length from the root of the penis to below the foot values of Group 1 (88.32 cm); and Group 2 (89.00 cm) were

significantly higher than that of Group 3 (81.89 cm) (p<0.0175) (Table 1).

Figure 1A: Proportions of Sportmen

*CC: Chest circumference; DIECC: Difference of inspiration and expiration chest circumference; WaC: Waist

Circumference; HiC: Hip Circumference; LfrCG: Length from crista to ground; LfrRPblF: Length from the root

of the penis to below the foot; LfrCblF-RP: Length from crista to below the foot-the root of the penis

‡Statistically significant difference was present between Group 1 and Group 2 by Mann Whitney U test with

Bonferroni correction (p<0.0175)

¶ Statistically significant difference was present between Group 1 and Group 3 by Mann Whitney U test with


■ Statistically significant difference was present between Group 2 and Group 3 by Mann Whitney U test with


Vol 21, No. 2;Feb 2014


Table 1: Proportions of Sportmen*

Parameters of Human

Proportions

Measurements of

Basketball Players

(Group 1)

Measurements of

Volleyball Players

(Group 2)

Measurements of

Track and Field

Athletes

(Group 3)

P** Mean Standard

Deviation

Mean Standard

Deviation

Mean Standard

Deviation

Height (cm) ¶■ 185.70 8,98 185,90 2,60 175,28

10,32

0.000

Chest circumference (CC)

(cm) 99,67 7,03 101,83 4,38 98,89 7,26

0.017

Difference of inspiration and

expiration chest

circumference (DIECC) (cm)

‡¶

6,61

1,75

3,50

2,05

4,14

2,17

0.000

Waist Circumference (WaC)

(cm) ‡■ 81,04 7,51 88,91 5,64 79,14 7,96

0.000

Hip Circumference (cm)

(HiC) ‡■

101.3 5,08 106.3 5,37 100,18 6,89

0.001

Waist/hip circumferences

(Wa/HiC)(cm) ‡■

0.79 0,05 0,83

0,03

0,79

0,06

0.003

Length from crista to ground

(LfrCG) (cm) ¶■ 99,24 7,22 98,52 1,95 92,42 6,92

0.000

Length from crista to

ground/height

(LfrCG/He)(cm)

0,53 0,02 0,52 0,01 0,52 0,025

0.259

Length from the root of the

penis to below the foot

(LfrRPblF) (cm) ¶■

88,32 5,80 89,00 1,23 81,89 4,19

0.000

Length from crista to below

the foot - the root of the penis

(LfrCblF-RP)(cm)

10,91 3,75 9,52 2,47 10,53 5,35

0.291

Length from the root of the

penis to below the foot /

Length from crista to below

the foot

(LfrRPblF/LfrCblF)(cm)

0,89 0,03 0,90 0,02 0,88 0,04

0.530

*Values were given as mean±standard deviation

**p value shows the results of Kruskal Wallis Variance Analysis







Vol 21, No. 2;Feb 2014


Figure 1B: Proportions of Sportmen*

*Wa/HiC: Waist/hip circumferences; LfrCG/He: Length from crista to ground/height; LfrRPblF/LfrCblF:

Length from the root of the penis to below the foot / Length from crista to below the foot







Proportions of sportmen according to the ideal ratio were shown in Table 2. The difference between Groups 1-3

was analyzed by Kruskal Wallis Variance Analysis. When statistically significant difference was present, to

detect the cause, pairwise comparisons (Group 1-2, Group 1-3 and Group 2-3) were performed by Mann

Whitney U test with Bonferroni correction:

-Length from the top of head to the bottom of the chin values of Group 2 (23.25 cm) was significantly higher

than those of Group 1 (22.48 cm); and Group 3 (21.38 cm); and values of Group 1 (22.48) was significantly

higher than Group 3 (21.38) (p<0.0175) (Table 2).

-Length from chin to breast values of Group 1 (25.55 cm) was significantly higher than those of Group 2 (24.10

cm); and Group 3 (24.15 cm) (p<0.0175) (Table 2).

-Length from breast to abdomen values of Group 2 (25.79 cm) was significantly higher than those of Group 1

(24.03 cm); and Group 3 (22.36 cm) (p<0.0175) (Table 2).

-“Length from abdomen to the root of the penis” values of Group 2 (29.20 cm) was significantly higher than

those of Group 1 (27.29 cm); and Group 3 (25.19 cm) (p<0.0175) (Table 2).

Proportions of Basketball and Volleyball players and Track and Field Athletes and Leonardo da Vinci

Anatomical Proportions were shown on Table 3. The difference between Groups 1-3 was analyzed by Kruskal

Wallis Variance Analysis. When statistically significant difference was present, to detect the value caused

difference, pairwise comparisons (Group 1-2, Group 1-3 and Group 2-3) were performed by Mann Whitney U

test with Bonferroni correction:

Vol 21, No. 2;Feb 2014


- There was no significant difference for the ratios of “Height/Length from above the chest to the top of the

head” and “Height/ Length from the root of the penis to below the foot” between Group 1-3 (p>0.05) (Table 3).

-Height /length from the top of head to the bottom of the chin values of Group 1 (8.29 cm) was significantly

higher than that of Group 2 (8.01 cm) (p<0.0175) (Table 3).

Table 2. Proportions of Sportmen According to the Ideal Ratio

Parameters of

Human

Proportions

Measurements

of Basketball

Players

Measurements

of Volleyball

Players

Measurements of Track and

Field Athletes

P** Mean Standard

Deviation

Mean

Standard

Deviation

Mean Standard

Deviation

Ideal Ratio 24.8 25.6 22.9

Length from the

top of head to the

bottom of the chin

(LfrTHtoBCn)(cm)

‡¶■

22,48 1,77 23,25 1,17 21,38 1,61

0.000

Length from chin

to breast

(LfrCntoBr) (cm)

‡¶

25,55 1,72 24,10 2,26 24,15 1,70

0.000

Length from breast

to abdomen

(LfrBrtoAb) (cm)

‡■

24,03 3,48 25,79 1,41 22,36 1,96

0.000

Length from

abdomen to the

root of the penis

(LfrAbtoRPen)

(cm) ‡■

27,29 4,45 29,20 1,50 25,19 4,25

0.000









Vol 21, No. 2;Feb 2014


Table 3. Proportions of Basketball and Volleyball players and Track and Field Athletes and Leonardo da

Vinci Anatomical Proportions*

Parameters

of Human

Proportions

Measurements of

Basketball

Players*

Measurements of

Volleyball Players*

Measurements of

Track and Field

Athletes*

P**

Leonardo da

Vinci’s

Anatomical

Proportions

(Maloney and

Fried, 2011

(2); Pollio,

2006 (3)

Mean Std.Dev. Mean Std.Dev. Mean Std.Dev.

Height /length

from the top

of head to the

bottom of the

chin (cm) ‡

8,29 0,53 8,01 0,42 8,21 0,34

0.010

8.0

Height/Length

from above

the chest to

the top of the

head

3,87 0,17 3,93 0,19 3,85 0,14

0.298

4.0

Height/

Length from

the root of the

penis to below

the foot

2,10 0,07 2,08 0,03 2,14 0,10

0.126

2.0





Vol 21, No. 2;Feb 2014


Figure 2: Proportions of Sportmen According to the Ideal Ratio*

*LfrTHtoBCn: Length from the top of head to the bottom of the chin (cm); LfrCntoBr: Length from chin to

breast; LfrBrtoAb: Length from breast to abdomen; LfrAbtoRPen: Length from abdomen to the root of the penis






Bonferroni correction (p<0.0175) 4.Discussion

Musaiger et al. (1994), found that basketball players and volleyball players were the tallest athletes among

different sport branches at Bahrain. As a result of this study volleyball and basketball players were taller than

track and field athletes. Difference between inspiration and expiration chest circumference of basketball players

is more than volleyball players (p<0.05). This result was also supported with the literature from different

countries.

The reason of this difference may not only be the nature of the basketball sport. Basketball is very popular sport

in Turkey at schools. So basketball players start play basketball at early ages. There are so many basketball

schools in big cities like Istanbul, Ankara. On the contrary volleyball schools are not so many. Also Turkey was

the second at FIBA world championship of basketball in 2010.

Our results showed that, in basketball players, “Height”; and “Difference of inspiration and expiration chest

circumference” values were higher than volleyball players and track and field athletes. In volleyball players,

“Waist circumference”, “Hip circumference” and “Waist/hip circumference” values were higher than basketball

players and track and field athletes. In both basketball and volleyball players, “Length from crista to ground” and

“Length from the root of the penis to below the foot” values were significantly higher than track and field

athletes.

Our results also showed that, in basketball players, “Length from chin to breast values” values were higher than

volleyball players and track and field athletes. In volleyball players, “Length from the top of head to the bottom

of the chin” andn“Length from breast to abdomen” values were higher than basketball players and track and field

athletes.

In volleyball player group, “Height /length from the top of head to the bottom of the chin” ratio was lower than

Basketball players. As shown in Table 1, height of the volleyball players was not lower than the other groups.

Vol 21, No. 2;Feb 2014


Therefore, the lower ration of “Height /length from the top of head to the bottom of the chin” may be related to

higher “length from the top of head to the bottom of the chin” values.

In the present study, length from the top of the forehead to the bottom of the chin, length from chin to chest

upper, length from chest to abdomen and length from abdomen to the inner side of the leg body ratios were

evaluated as upper body measurements. According to the proportions of da Vinci it is concluded that these four

lengths are equal according to literature (Ashrafian, 2011; Maloney, et al., 2011). As it will be seen in Table 2

proportions of basketball players, volleyball players and track and field athletes are not similar with literature.

According to da Vinci, the ratio of the height to length from the top of head to the bottom of the chin is eight;

height to length from above the chest to the top of the head is four; and height to length from the root of the

penis to below the foot is two. Because of basketball players are tall the ratio of the height to length from the top

of head to the bottom of the chin is very high when compare with the da Vinci’s ratio as shown in the Table 3.

This ratio of volleyball players is lower. This result shows that basketball players are taller and height is not

reflecting the length from the top of head to the bottom of the chin. Length from the root of the penis to below

the foot of track and field athletes is more than volleyball and basketball players and results are close to da

Vinci’s ratios (Ashrafian, 2011; Maloney, et al., 2011).

In our study, length from the top of head to the bottom of the chin is the parameter shows differences among

three groups. Length from chin to breast of basketball players is significantly longer than other groups. Also

length from breast to abdomen of basketball players is significantly longer than other groups (Table 2). Heights

of basketball players are more than other groups. This can be the reason of longer upper body lengths. So it can

be said that people have a long height also have the longer upper body lengths. Length from breast to abdomen

and length from abdomen to the inner side of the leg of volleyball players are more than other groups. Volleyball

players started sport life early. This situation can effect these measurements.

Waist circumference of volleyball players (88.91 cm) is more than basketball players (81.04 cm) and track and

field athletes (79.14 cm) (p<0.0175). Waist circumferences of athletes are expected to be low. But they are

thicker because of the exercise effect the entire body. According to Nande et al. (2009) mean waist

circumferences of different sport disciplines including male athletics, badminton, cricket, judo, volleyball

players, gymnastics, weight lifting noticed less differences and found to be in range of 76.5 to 81.5. Waist

circumferences of athletes who are participated in our study are in range of 82.5 to 95.4. Differences can be

related with different sport disciplines.

Hip circumferences of volleyball players (106.3 cm) are more than basketball players (101.3 cm) and track and

field athletes (100.18 cm) (p<0.0175). According to Nande, et al. (2009) mean hip circumferences of male

athletes found between 88.7 and 93.3. Range of hip circumferences of our athletes was between 100.18 cm and

106.3 cm. Differences also can be related with different sport disciplines.

Waist to hip ratio volleyball players (0.83) is more than basketball players (0.79) and track and field athletes

(0.79) (p<0.0175). There is a geographic variation of waist to hip ratio among different populations like Hadzas,

Americans, Polands and Scottishes (Marlove et al, 2005). So the results of this study reflect the Anatolian

population. Waist to hip ratio of Anatolian population was found 0.9 and 0.8 in previous research (Arslantas et

al, 2008). Results supported each other.

According to anatomical drawings of Leonardo; length from below the foot to below the knee is a quarter of the

height of a man and length from below the knee to the root of the penis is a quarter of the height of a man

(Pollio, 2006). So length from the root of the penis to below the foot is half of a man. Research results are

parallel with the literature (Height/ Length from the root of the penis to below the foot of basketball

players=2.10; volleyball players=2.08; track and field athletes=2.14).

According to anatomical drawings of Leonardo; length from the top of the forehead to the bottom of the chin is

one-eight of the height of a man (Pollio, 2006). When compare this literature with this study all of the groups are

close to literature value (ratio of basketball players=8.29, volleyball players=8.01 and track and field

athletes=8.21). But most close value is belonging to volleyball players.

According to anatomical drawings of Leonardo; length from above the chest to the top of the head is quarter of

the height of a man (Pollio, 2006). All of the groups are very close to literature value (ratio of basketball

players=3.87, volleyball players=3.93, and track and field athletes=3.85). But most close value is belonging to

volleyball players.

Singal et al. (2006), investigated the anthropometric profile of male athletes who actively participated track and

field. They found a regular increase in all anthropometric measurements between the ages of 10 and 18 in both

athlete and control boys. The adolescent spurt has occurred earlier in athlete boys in most of the anthropometric

measurements. Musaiger et al. (1994), compared the body composition between athletes (football, handball,

volleyball and basketball) and non-athlete adults. They found differences in body composition among basketball,

volleyball and handball players. Rahmawati et al. (Rahmawati et al, 2007), determined the specific

morphological characteristics of young male athletes (badminton, soccer and volleyball players) compared with

non-athlete students in Indonesia. They also found differences among different sport branches. Pollock et al.

(1997), determined the aerobic power and body composition of older track athletes after a 20-yr follow-up.

Vol 21, No. 2;Feb 2014


In the present study, in basketball players, “Height”; and “Difference of inspiration and expiration chest

circumference” and “Length from chin to breast values” were higher than volleyball players and track and field

athletes. These results suggest that chest circumference and respiratory capacities of the sportmen were improved

in basketball players.

In volleyball players, “Length from the top of head to the bottom of the chin” and“Length from breast to

abdomen” values were higher; and “Height /length from the top of head to the bottom of the chin” ratio was

lower showing higher “length from the top of head to the bottom of the chin” values. As a result, in volleyball

players, upper part of the body growth more than the lower part of the body and leg-length. In volleyball players,

“Waist circumference”, “Hip circumference” and “Waist/hip circumference” values were also higher than

basketball players and track and field athletes. In volleyball players, the body circumference was wider; whereas

in basketball players, the body and the arms might have been elongated by the reaching the ball movement.

What extent Turkish men fit the Vitruvius square and its equations were investigated in Turkey. As a conclusion

it was observed that a great majority of Turkish men do not fit ‘‘Vitruvius square’’ and its equations (Cikmaz et

al., 2007). This data may be explained as the interaction of various civilizations through out the history of

Anatolia. Turkish population is not only continuation of a population but a combination of many different

populations. So it is impossible to speak about unique genetic structure of Turkish men. As Turkish population

have so many civilizations, male athletes from specific sport disciplines were included into this study.

5.References

1- Ashrafian, H. (2011). Leonardo da Vinci’s Vitruvian Man: a renaissance for inguinal hernias. Hernia,

15 (5), 593-594.

2- Maloney, W.J., Fried, J. (2011). Vitruvian Man - Leonardo da Vinci's Interpretation of the Golden

Proportion and its Application in Modern Dentistry. WebmedCentral Dentistry, 2(4), WMC001879.

3- Pollio, V. (2006) Vitruvius, the Ten Books on Architecture, Book III, Chapter I, ‘On Symmetry: In

Temples and in the Human Body’.,Gutenberg.org., pp. 12-31.

4- Hooliday, T.W. (1997) Body proportions in Late Pleistocene Europe and modern human origins,

Journal of Human Evolution, 32, 423–447.

5- Wagner, D.R., Heyward, V.H. (2000) Measures of body composition in blacks and whites: a

comparative review, The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 71, 1392-402.

6- Ilich, J.Z., Skugor, M., Hangartner, T., Baoshe, A., Matkovic, V. (1998) Relation of Nutrition, Body

Composition and Physical Activity to Skeletal Development: A Cross-Sectional Study in Preadolescent

Females, Journal of American College of Nutrition, 17 (2), 136-147.

7- Rogol, A.D., Clark, P.A., Roemmich, J.N. (2000) Growth and pubertal development in children and

adolescents: effects of diet and physical activity, Am J Clin Nutr, 72(suppl), 521S–8S.

8- Andreoli, A., Monteleone, M., Loan, M.V., Promenzio, L., Tarantino, U., Lorenzo, A.D. (2001) Effects

of different sports on bone density and muscle mass in highly trained athletes. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc.,

33 (4), 507–511.

9- Damsgaard, R., Bencke, J., Matthisen, G., Petersen, J.H., Müller, J. (2001) Body proportions, body

composition and pubertal development of children in competitive sports. Scand J Med Sci Sports, 11,

54–60.

10- Yilmaz, A., Cikmaz, S., Mesut, R. (2005) Evaluation of Turkish Males with respect to Leonardo’s

circle and Upper Extremity Ratios. Medical Journal of Trakya University, 22 (3), 137-141.

11- Cikmaz, S., Yilmaz, A., Mesut, R. (2007) “Vitruvius Square” and Related Equations in Turkish Men in

Terms of Artistic Anatomy. Medical Journal of Trakya University, 24(1), 23-27.

12- Backup, K. (2008) Clinical Tests for the Muskoskeletal System Examinations-Signs-Phenomena, 2nd

Edition: Thieme, p. 10.

13- Bjorntorp, P. (1987) Fat cell distribution and metabolism. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences,

499, 66-72.

14- Hoffman, J. (2006) Norms for Fitness, Performance and Health. Human Kinetics, p. 87.

15- World Medical Association General Assembly (2004). World Medical Association Declaration of

Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. J Int Bioethique, 15(1), 124-

9.

16- Musaiger, A.O., Ragheb, M.A., Al-Marzooq, G. (1994) Body composition of athletes in Bahrain.

British Journal of Sports Medicine, 28(3), 157-9.

17- Nande, P.J., Mudafale, V., Vali, S.A. (2009) Anthropometric Profile of Female and Male Players

Engaged in Different Sports Disciplines. The Internet Journal of Nutrition and Wellness, Volume 8

Number 1. DOI: 10.5580/2704.

18- Marlove, F., Apicella, C., Reed, D. (2005) Men’s preferences for women’s profile waist-to-hip ratio in

two societies. Evolution and Human Behavior, 26, 458 – 468.

Vol 21, No. 2;Feb 2014


19- Arslantas, D., Metintas, S., Unsal, A., Isikli, B., Kalyoncu, C., Arslantas, A. (2008) Prevalence of

osteoporosis in middle Anatolian population using calcaneal ultrasonography method. Maturitas, 59,

234–241.

20- Singal, P., Bhatnagar, D.P., Kaur, S. (2006) Anthropometric Profile and Development of Facial Hair in

Male Athletes. Journal of Exercise Science and Physiotherapy, 2, 52-58.

21- Rahmawati, N.T., Budiharjo, S., Ashizawa, K. (2007) Somatotypes of young male athletes and non-

athlete students in Yogyakarta, Indonesia. Anthropological Science, 115, 1–7.

22- Pollock, M.L., Mengelkoch, L.J., Graves, J.E., Lowenthal, D.T., Limacher, M.C., Foster, C., et al.

(1997) Twenty-year follow-up of aerobic power and body composition of older track athletes. Journal

of Applied Physiology, 82(5), 1508–1516.

COMPARISON OF BODY PROPORTIONS OF SPORTMEN FROM DIFFERENT BRANCHES

Documents

Transcript of COMPARISON OF BODY PROPORTIONS OF SPORTMEN FROM DIFFERENT BRANCHES