- Email: [email protected]
Somatotype, size and body composition of competitive female volleyball players
Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport (2008) 11, 337—344
ORIGINAL PAPER
Somatotype, size and body composition of competitive female volleyball players Grigoris G. Malousaris a, Nikolaos K. Bergeles a, Karolina G. Barzouka a, Ioannis A. Bayios a,∗, George P. Nassis b, Maria D. Koskolou b a b
Department of Sport Games, University of Athens, Greece Department of Sport Medicine and Biology of Exercise, University of Athens, Greece
Received 20 December 2005 ; received in revised form 21 November 2006; accepted 23 November 2006 KEYWORDS Volleyball; Body composition; Somatotype; Competition level; Playing position; Female athletes
Summary The aim of this study was to describe the morphological characteristics of competitive female volleyball players. For this purpose, body weight and height, breadths and girths as well as skinfold thickness at various body sites were assessed in 163 elite female volleyball players (age: 23.8 ± 4.7 years, years of playing: 11.5 ± 4.2, hours of training per week: 11.9 ± 2.9, means ± S.D.). Seventy-nine of these players were from the A1 division and the rest from the A2 division of the Greek National League. Two-way ANOVA was used to compare the differences in these characteristics between competition level and playing position. Body height ranged from 161 cm to 194 cm, and the mean value (177.1 ± 6.5 cm) was not inferior to that of international players of similar calibre. Adiposity of these players (sum of 5 skinfolds: 51.8 ± 10.2 mm, percent body fat: 23.4 ± 2.8) was higher than that reported in other studies in which, however, different methodology was used. Volleyball athletes of this study were mainly balanced endomorphs (3.4-2.7-2.9). The A1 division players were taller and slightly leaner with greater fat-free mass than their A2 counterparts. Significant differences were found among athletes of different playing positions which are interpreted by their varying roles and physical demands during a volleyball game. The volleyball players who play as opposites were the only subgroup of players differing between divisions; the A2 opposites had more body fat than A1 opposites. These data could be added in the international literature related to the anthropometric characteristics of competitive female volleyball players. © 2007 Sports Medicine Australia. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Introduction Identification of specific characteristics of physique that may contribute to success in sports as well ∗
Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (I.A. Bayios).
as the possible structural differences among athletes in various sports has been a subject of high interest for sport scientists and coaches. For instance, the importance of players’ tall stature in some team sports (e.g., volleyball, basketball) is accepted as it is well known that body height influences positively all body segment lengths and,
1440-2440/$ — see front matter © 2007 Sports Medicine Australia. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jsams.2006.11.008
338 in turn, athletic performance.1—3 Within a team sport, however, certain positions may require more specific physique characteristics based on the physiological demands set on the players during the game. In volleyball, similarly to other team sports, special attention has been paid to the morphological characteristics of Olympic athletes, whereas few data exist on national level athletes. The few studies in the literature dealing with morphological characteristics of female volleyball players do not examine the whole spectrum of them, since they lack either anthropometric or body composition or somatotype measurements. Some studies report only body height and mass,4 some others only certain body composition indices,1,5—11 and a small number of studies describe the somatotype variables.2,6,8,10—13 There are only three studies reporting both body composition and somatotype data,6,8,10 but the small number of subjects (19—25 players) threaten the practical applications of these findings. From the existing data it appears that the percent body fat of female volleyball players varies widely among studies ranging between 11.7% and 27.1%.1,5—10 As for their somatotype, volleyball players have been mainly reported as mesomorph—endomorph or mesomorphic—endomorph. It is of interest that there is only one study on the anthropometric characteristics and somatotype of female volleyball players according to competition level (major A1 and minor A2 national leagues) and playing position (setters, centres, spikers and opposites).12 This paper, however, refers to data collected in 1992—1993, when the volleyball game was still played with the old rules. The rules have been changed by FIVB since 1998 and the playing position named ‘‘libero’’ has been introduced. A libero is a back court player, mainly a defender who cannot serve or attack. A centre moves along the centre of the net blocking and quickly attacking the ball. A hitter attacks and blocks the ball over the net on the left side, but also receives the ball. An opposite is the main attacker of the team serving several roles; blocking the ball on the right side of the net, attacking over the net as well as from the back court, and receiving the ball. A setter does not receive the ball but runs all over the court to accept the ball from the receiver in a good position and deliver a pass to the attackers. Considering the limited number of athletes evaluated and variables examined in the existing studies dealing with the anthropometric profile of competitive female volleyball players, as well as in light of the new playing position added (‘‘libero’’),
G.G. Malousaris et al. we sought to conduct the present study. The aims of this study were: (a) to compare the mean anthropometric characteristics, body composition and somatotype of competitive Greek female volleyball players with regard to playing position; (b) to detect possible differences in relation to competition level; and (c) to provide additional data in the international literature for the determination of the anthropometric profile of competitive female volleyball players.
Material and methods Participants Greek female competitive athletes playing in volleyball teams of the first National League (79 from the A1 division and 84 from the A2) participated in the present study after having signed an informed consent. Athletes were chosen from several teams nationwide and included all the players belonging to the Women and Youth Greek National Volleyball Team. Only two teams from each division were not evaluated because of financial restrictions; these teams were based at the most distant places from Athens. These teams were ranked in the middle of each division. Ten players from each team were evaluated, being the ones who were more experienced and more often participated in the official games. The players were grouped according to their playing position as follows: 48 hitters (19 from the A1 and 29 from the A2 division), 51 centres (26 from the A1 and 25 from the A2 division), 17 opposites (8 from the A1 and 9 from the A2 division), 30 setters (17 from the A1 and 13 from the A2 division) and 17 liberos (9 from the A1 and 8 from the A2 division). A short questionnaire to elicit the number of playing and training years and hours of training per week was completed by the athletes before the start of the study. This study was approved by the Athens University’s ethical committee.
Anthropometric measures Body height (BH) and mass (BM) were measured to the nearest 0.1 cm and 0.1 kg, respectively. Skinfold measurements were taken from five sites (biceps, triceps, subscapular, suprailiac and calf) to the nearest 0.1 mm.2 The mid-upper-arm girth (cm) was measured with the arm in both tensed and relaxed positions, while calf girth (cm) was recorded with the subject sitting at the end of a table, having her legs hanging. Biepicondylar
Anthropometry of elite volleyball players humerus and femur breadths were measured to the nearest 0.1 mm (reported in cm). All variables were measured on the right side of the body following standardised procedures.14 The values reported for each site was the mean of two consecutive measurements provided that they did not differ by more than 5%; in that case the median value of three trials was used. Further to that, the technical error of measurement (TEM) was used to verify the consistency of measurement for each parameter. All skinfold measurements were obtained indoors at approximately the same time of the day.
339
Results Comparisons by competition level A significant effect of the competition level was found in BH (p < 0.001), in body composition variables (p < 0.01) (except for the BMI), as well as in somatotype variables (p < 0.02) (Table 1). Volleyball players from the A2 division were younger (p < 0.001) and shorter (p < 0.01) than players from the A1 division. Moreover, a trend for higher BM (p = 0.036) was observed in the A1 players. The mean somatotype of all players is presented in Fig. 1.
Procedure The measurements were conducted during competition season at the first semester of 2002 by expert personnel specifically educated and trained three times a week for 4 months. For all variables, the %TEM met the required target levels for within and between measurers; i.e., 0.23% for height, 0.48% for body mass, 10.76% for biceps, 3.32% for triceps, 5.95% for subscapular, 5.41% for suprailiac and 6.38% for calf skinfold thickness, 5.63% for femur and 9.66% for humerus breadth, 1.24% for calf girth, and 1.98% and 2.49% for relaxed and tensed midupper-arm girth, respectively.15 Body mass index (BMI) was calculated from BH and BM,2 while fat-free mass (FFM) was calculated from BM and fat mass. The sum of five skinfolds (5SKFS) (biceps, triceps, subscapular, suprailiac, calf) was computed as an indicator of body fatness. The sum of four skinfolds (4SKFS) (biceps, triceps, subscapular, suprailiac) was used for the determination of body density.16 Body fat percentage (BF%) was then calculated with the equation of Siri.17 Somatotype components (endomorphy—mesomorphy—ectomorphy) were calculated according to Carter and Heath.2
Comparisons by playing position The descriptive statistics (mean ± S.D.) for anthropometric, body composition and somatotype variables for the A1 and A2 divisions, as well as the differences detected in these parameters among playing positions are summarised in Table 2. There was a significant (p < 0.02) overall effect of playing position on BH, BM, FFM and mesomorphy, and a strong tendency for ectomorphy (p = 0.023).
Statistical analysis Analysis was carried out, firstly, by means of descriptive statistics of the anthropometric characteristics, body composition and somatotype. Secondly, analysis of variance (two-way ANOVA) was used to compare mean values of each measure between: (1) competition level (A1 and A2 divisions) and (2) playing position (hitters, centres, opposites, setters and libero). The Bonferroni post hoc test was used to assign specific differences in the ANOVA when a significant F-value was computed. Because of the multiple comparisons made, significance was accepted at p < 0.02.
Figure 1 Somatochart for Greek female players from different competition level (V1: mean somatotype of A1 volleyball division; V2: mean somatotype of A2 volleyball division) by playing position (H1: mean somatotype of A1 hitters, C1: mean somatotype of A1 centres; O1: mean somatotype of A1 opposites; S1: mean somatotype of A1 setters; L1: mean somatotype of A1 liberos; H2: mean somatotype of A2 hitters; C2: mean somatotype of A2 centres; O2: mean somatotype of A2 opposites; S2: mean somatotype of A2 setters; L2: mean somatotype of A2 liberos).
340
G.G. Malousaris et al.
Table 1 Characteristics, selected anthropometric data, composition indices and somatotype variables of Greek female volleyball players from all playing positions presented by competition level (mean ± S.D.) Total (n = 163) Age (years) Years of playing Hours of training per week Body height (cm) Body mass (kg) BMI (kg/m2 ) Sum of 5SKFS (mm) Body fat (%) Fat free mass (kg) Biceps skinfold (mm) Triceps skinfold (mm) Subscapular skinfold (mm) Suprailiac skinfold (mm) Calf skinfold (mm) Biceps girth (cm) (relaxed) Biceps girth (cm) (tensed) Calf girth (cm) Humerus breadth (cm) Femur breadth (cm) Endomorphy Mesomorphy Ectomorphy
23.8 11.5 11.9 177.1 69.5 22.1 51.8 23.4 53.2 5.9 12.2 11.6 9.9 12.2 27.0 28.5 36.9 6.2 9.1 3.4 2.7 2.9
± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ±
4.7 4.2 2.9 6.5 7.4 1.8 10.2 2.8 5.3 2.1 5.6 2.8 3.7 4.2 2.0 1.7 2.1 0.4 0.7 0.7 1.0 0.9
A1 division (n = 79) 25.7 13.1 13.4 179.6 71.0 21.9 48.7 22.7 54.8 5.2 12.1 10.7 8.7 11.8 27.1 28.8 36.9 6.3 9.0 3.2 2.4 3.2
± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ±
5.1 4.8 3.2 5.8 8.2 1.9 10.1 2.9 5.7 1.8 5.1 2.9 3.3 3.4 2.0 1.8 2.2 0.5 0.8 0.8 1.1 0.9
A2 division (n = 84) 22.0 9.9 10.4 174.7 68.2 22.3 54.8 24.1 51.7 6.5 12.2 12.3 11.1 12.7 26.9 28.3 36.9 6.2 9.1 3.6 2.9 2.7
± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ±
4.4*** 3.7*** 2.6*** 6.2*** 6.3 1.7 9.6** 2.6** 4.5*** 2.2*** 6.1 2.5*** 3.7** 4.8 1.7 1.7 2.0 0.3 0.5 0.7*** 1.0* 1.0**
The asterisks indicate significant difference between divisions (A1 vs. A2): *p < 0.02; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.
Liberos were shorter and lighter (p < 0.01) than hitters, centres and opposites, while centres and opposites were taller than setters and hitters. In BM and in FFM, significant differences (p < 0.01) were observed between centres and liberos, centres and setters, as well as between hitters and liberos. With regard to somatotype, hitters and setters are characterised as balanced endomorphs (3.5-3.0-2.7 and 3.6-2.5-3.0, respectively), centres and opposites as endomorph—ectomorphs (3.4-2.4-3.1 and 3.4-2.4-3.5, respectively) and liberos as mesomorph—endomorphs (3.1-3. 3-2.6). When exploring the interaction between competition level and playing position, a significant effect was found for: BF% (p = 0.01), sum of 5SKFS (p = 0.045) and endomorphy (p = 0.011) (Table 2). In general, A1 opposites were leaner than all other positions and all A2 players. In A1 division, hitters (3.3-2.5-3.3), centres (3.2-2.2-3.2) and setters (3.4-2.2-3.2) were characterised as endomorph-ectomorphs, opposites as balanced ectomorphs (2.6-2.4-3.9) and liberos as centrals (3.2-3.3-2.8). In A2 division, hitters (3.6-3.32.4) and liberos (3.0-3.3-2.4) were characterised as mesomorph—endomorphs, centres (3.6-2.7-3.1) and setters (3.7-3.0-2.7) as balanced endomorphs, and opposites (4.1-2.5-3.2) as ectomorphic endomorphs.
Discussion The results of the present study show that Greek female volleyball players competing in the National League differed in most of the somatometric variables studied with regard to their competition level and in some variables with regard to playing position. It is the first time, after the recent change of rules in volleyball by the FIBV, which introduced a new playing position, the ‘‘libero’’, that a complete examination of morphological characteristics has been performed in a large number of competitive female volleyball players from the same country. This has allowed comparisons among competition level and playing position independent of socioeconomic, cultural and environmental influences. These data are also valuable in enriching the bank of international anthropometric data on volleyball athletes.
Effect of competition level Body height is considered a determinant factor for good performance in volleyball and, together with its relation to BM, is used as a criterion for the selection of promising volleyball players. The differences seen in BH and BM between the two examined divisions in the present study were expected, since
Hitters (n = 48)
Main effect D Main effect P Interaction D × P
Centres (n = 51) Opposites (n = 17) Setters (n = 30)
Liberos (n = 17)
180.4 ± 4.9 182.0 ± 4.6 178.7 ± 4.9*
181.2 ± 5.1 183.6 ± 5.0 179.1 ± 4.3
174.2 ± 5.1 bc 176.9 ± 4.1 170.9 ± 4.2***
169.9 ± 4.8 abc 0.001 171.0 ± 5.1 168.7 ± 4.6
Body height (cm)
Total 176.5 ± 6.7 bc A1 181.2 ± 4.5 A2 173.4 ± 6.2***
Body mass (kg)
Total A1 A2
70.5 ± 7.3 72.8 ± 8.4 69.0 ± 6.1
72.4 ± 7.8 74.3 ± 8.4 70.4 ± 6.8
70.7 ± 7.9 71.4 ± 9.5 70.2 ± 6.7
66.3 ± 4.9 b 67.8 ± 4.8 64.3 ± 4.4
BMI (kg/m2 )
Total A1 A2
22.2 ± 1.9 22.2 ± 2.2 22.9 ± 1.8
22.2 ± 1.9 22.4 ± 2.1 22.0 ± 1.8
21.5 ± 1.7 21.1 ± 1.9 21.9 ± 1.5
Body fat (%)
Total A1 A2
23.5 ± 2.5 22.9 ± 3.5 24.4 ± 2.1
23.4 ± 2.5 22.8 ± 2.4 24.2 ± 2.5
Total Fat free mass (kg) A1 A2
55.3 ± 5.6 56.0 ± 5.3 52.2 ± 5.0*
Sum of 5SKFS (mm)
Total A1 A2
Endomorphy
0.001
NS
63.2 ± 3.2 a b NS 63.3 ± 3.6 63.2 ± 2.9
0.001
NS
22.9 ± 1.8 21.7 ± 1.8 22.1 ± 1.9
21.9 ± 1.3 21.7 ± 1.0 22.3 ± 1.7
NS
NS
NS
23.2 ± 4.1 20.5 ± 3.0 25.7 ± 3.4**
23.6 ± 2.7 23.2 ± 3.1 24.2 ± 2.1
22.2 ± 2.5 22.9 ± 1.6 21.4 ± 3.1
0.002
NS
0.010
55.3 ± 5.6 57.3 ± 5.9 53.3 ± 4.7**
54.2 ± 5.6 56.6 ± 6.5 52.0 ± 3.9
50.5 ± 3.3 b 51.9 ± 2.9 48.7 ± 3.0**
49.2 ± 2.7 a b 0.001 48.8 ± 2.7 49.7 ± 2.9
0.001
NS
52.6 ± 10.8 48.9 ± 11.5 54.0 ± 8.3
52.6 ± 10.8 49.7 ± 10.8 55.6 ± 10.2
50.6 ± 14.9 40.2 ± 6.9 59.9 ± 14.2**
52.7 ± 8.9 51.3 ± 9.1 54.7 ± 8.9
49.4 ± 6.0 48.8 ± 5.7 50.1 ± 6.6
0.001
NS
0.045
Total A1 A2
3.5 ± 0.7 3.3 ± 1.0 3.6 ± 0.6
3.4 ± 0.7 3.2 ± 0.8 3.6 ± 0.7
3.4 ± 1.0 2.6 ± 0.4 4.1 ± 0.9***
3.6 ± 0.7 3.4 ± 0.8 3.7 ± 0.6
3.1 ± 0.6 3.2 ± 0.5 3.0 ± 0.8
0.001
NS
0.011
Total A1 A2
3.0 ± 1.0 2.5 ± 1.0 3.3 ± 1.0*
2.4 ± 1.3 2.2 ± 1.5 2.7 ± 1.0
2.4 ± 0.5 2.3 ± 0.6 2.5 ± 0.5
2.5 ± 1.0 2.2 ± 0.9 3.0 ± 1.1*
3.3 ± 0.7 b 3.3 ± 0.8 3.3 ± 0.8
0.016
0.020
NS
Mesomorphy
Total A1 A2
2.7 ± 1.0 3.3 ± 1.0 2.4 ± 0.9**
3.1 ± 0.9 3.2 ± 1.0 3.1 ± 0.9
3.5 ± 0.8 3.9 ± 0.8 3.2 ± 0.7
3.0 ± 1.1 3.2 ± 1.1 2.7 ± 1.1
2.6 ± 0.8 2.8 ± 0.7 2.4 ± 1.0
0.003
NS
NS
Ectomorphy
Anthropometry of elite volleyball players
Table 2 Anthropometric characteristics and somatotype for female volleyball players of A1 and A2 divisions of the Greek National League presented by playing position (mean ± S.D.)
Over the two divisions; a significantly different from hitters, b significantly different from centres, c significantly different from opposites. The asterisk (*) indicate significant difference between divisions A1 and A2 within a playing position: *p < 0.02, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001. D: division, P: playing position, NS: non-significant difference.
341
342 the players of A1 division go through a stricter selection procedure and may follow more closely professional advice regarding training and diet. When comparing the volleyball players of this study to other female volleyball teams of comparable level, our subjects are not inferior with regard to BH.12,13 The mean value of BH in our study was 177.1 ± 6.5 cm, with a range from 161 cm to 194 cm, and is similar to BH reported by GualdiRusso and Zaccagni12 and Papadopoulou et al.,13 but different to those presented by others. In particular, the BH values of the present study are lower only than those investigating National Team athletes1,4,6 but higher than others in the literature evaluating competitive female volleyball players. 2,4,6,8,10,11
When comparing the BF% calculated in the present study with corresponding values of other volleyball players who were of different age and competition level, it seems that our subjects had higher body fat.1,6,7,8,13,18 Similar values, however, have been recorded in one study with amateur volleyball players.10 Only one study has reported higher BF% than our study,5 but the players in that report had been active in volleyball only for 4.8 (range 2—9) years. One has to be careful, however, when comparing data in the literature since different methods have been used to determine BF% in the various studies. Thus, for example, the lower BF% seen in two of the aforementioned studies7,13 testing volleyball athletes could be accounted for by the use of the Jackson and Pollock method,19 which has been shown20 to give lower values than the Durnin and Womersley method which was used in our study. Alternatively, lower values have also been observed in one study which used the same method as in our study.6 FFM was higher in the A1 compared to the A2 division players. This was an expected finding since FFM seems to be the best estimate for body size with regard to physical performance as it is the best measure of the amount of muscle.21 The BMI values seen in the literature for female volleyball players of different age, nationality and competition level vary between 20.5 kg/m2 and 22.5 kg/m2 .1,2,5—8,10,11,13 The mean value in BMI found in the present study (22.1 kg/m2 ) is very close to the corresponding values reported in two recent investigations12,13 which have studied volleyball players with similar characteristics to ours (mean BMI values of 22.5 kg/m2 and 21.9 kg/m2 , respectively). The somatotype of the female volleyball players in the present study varied as a function of their competition level. As a total, our athletes were characterised as balanced endomorphs (3.4-2.7-2.9), whereas the A1 players were char-
G.G. Malousaris et al. acterised as endomorph-ectomorphs (3.2-2.4-3.2) and the A2 players as balanced endomorphs (3.62.9-2.7), as portrayed in Fig. 1. In comparison with somatotype data of National Team female volleyball players reported in the last two decades,2,11,22 the component of mesomorphy in our volleyball players is notably lower and this is in accordance with the mesomorphy observed in a similar sample of Italian volleyball athletes.12 Furthermore, it is of interest that the ectomorphy of the A1 division players is quite high, and this finding is in accordance with previously reported data for the Greek National Team athletes.6 Thus, it appears that, although the mesomorphy used to be the primary component of competitive female volleyball players somatotype in the last two decades, in the latest studies it appears that the ectomorphy may be taking over at the expense of mesomorphy.
Effect of playing position With regard to differences in anthropometric variables of volleyball athletes playing in different positions, a general observation is that the liberos had smaller body size (BH and BM) than the rest of the players. In addition, setters were shorter than opposites and centres and had lower BM and FFM than centres. Similar results for the setters compared to the other positions were observed in the work of GualdiRusso and Zaccagni,12 but liberos did not exist when that study was conducted to allow further comparisons. It appears that for liberos the primary requirement is certainly not height, since their role during the game is to defend their court playing close to the ground, for which they need to have good technical skills, strategy and reaction time. Their high value in mesomorphy with the low fat mass are indicative of a good muscular system necessary for playing good defence. Setters also need high speed and agility as well as technical and organisational skills to serve their role in the game, whereas body size is not so crucial. Opposites exhibit strong tendency for higher ectomorphy compared to hitters, reflecting their different duties during the game. The opposites, being the main attackers of the team, attack and block the opposing team’s attacks over the net and therefore have to be tall with long arms and legs. Hitters have significant contribution in the game, playing over the net (attacking and blocking) but also close to the ground, in receiving the ball. Therefore, technical skills in receiving the ball and effective attacking combined with good jumping
Anthropometry of elite volleyball players abilities are more important elements than height in hitters. Body fat expressed either as BF% or as sum of 5SKFS as well as endomorphy was different in the two divisions and also showed significant interaction with playing position (Table 2). This observed difference between competition levels was solely attributed to the body fat of the volleyball athletes playing in the position ‘‘opposites’’. These players exhibited the lowest values among the five groups of players in the A1 division but the highest in the A2 division. As a matter of fact, the number of volleyball athletes who possess the combined capabilities needed to play as opposites is relatively small. The best ones are selected to play in A1 division, thus contributing, to a bigger extent than the volleyball athletes of the other positions, to the higher performance of A1 division teams. One of the limitations of this study was that body fatness was indirectly assessed. Although skinfold measurement is the most appropriate approach for large-scale evaluations, the validity and reliability of the study are threatened by the skinfold site selection, the experimenter’s ability and by other factors. In addition, calculation of body fat using equation contains some error since the equations are age — and ethnicity — specific. More direct body composition assessment methods such as dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry would be of great value in future studies.23 In summary, the results of this study showed that the somatometric characteristics of Greek competitive female volleyball players are similar to those measured in female volleyball athletes of comparable calibre from other countries. The athletes competing in the A1 division possess characteristics which justify their superior performance; i.e., they are taller with less fat, more FFM and higher ectomorphy than their counterparts playing in the A2 division. Significant differences were also found among players of different positions, which are interpreted by their varying roles and demands during a volleyball game. Liberos, the new playing position, appear to be of smaller body size than their co-players in other positions, except setters. Interestingly, opposites are the only subgroup of players differing between divisions and the morphological characteristic they differ in is body fat, thus suggesting that more careful selection and training of opposites are needed in A2 division. Further research is needed regarding position-by-position analysis of anthropometric characteristics within a volleyball team including correlations with players’ physical performance.
343
Practical implications • Consideration of ectomorphy should be included in the talent selection program for female volleyball players.
Acknowledgments The authors thank the following persons for their assistance in anthropometric data collection: Prevena G., Aravidou E., Kakka K., Vergi C., Argiriou M. and Katsirou A. Also, special thanks are addressed to all the volleyball players and coaches participating in this study, whose cooperation made this project possible.
References 1. Fleck JS, Case S, Puhl J, et al. Physical and physiological characteristics of elite women volleyball players. Can J Sport Sci 1985;10(3):122—6. 2. Carter JEL, Heath HB. Somatotyping—–development and application. Cambridge University Press; 1990. 3. Apostolidis N, Nassis GP, Bolatoglou T, et al. Physiological and technical characteristics of elite young basketball players. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 2004;44:157—63. 4. Spence WD, Disch CJ, Fred LH, et al. Descriptive profiles of highly skilled women volleyball players. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1980;12(4):299—302. 5. Alfredson H, Nordstrom R, Lorentzon R. Bone mass in female volleyball players: a comparison of total and regional bone mass in female volleyball players and nonactive females. Calcif Tissue Int 1997;60:338—42. 6. Geladas N, Maridaki M. Kinanthropometric profile of Greek female volleyball players. Kinesiology 1996;1:46—55 [In Greek: English abstract]. 7. Hassapidou MN, Mastrantoni A. Dietary intakes of elite female athletes in Greece. J Hum Nutr Dietet 2001;14:391—6. 8. Kovaleski EJ, Parr BR, Hornak EJ, et al. Athletic profile of women college volleyball players. Phys Sportsmed 1980;8(2):112—8. 9. Papadopoulou DS, Papadopoulou KS, Gallos G, et al. Anthropometric differences of top Greek and foreign volleyball players. Int J Volleyball Res 2002;5(1):26—9. 10. Viviani F, Baldin F. The somatotype of ‘‘amateur’’ Italian female volleyball players. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 1993;33:400—4. 11. Eiben O. Physique of female athletes—–anthropological and proportional analysis. In: Borms J, Hebbelinck M, Venerando A, editors. The female athlete, vol 15. Basel: Karger Press; 1981. p. 127—41. 12. Gualdi-Russo E, Zaccagni I. Somatotype, role and performance in elite volleyball players. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 2001;41:256—62. 13. Papadopoulou DS, Gallos KG, Paraskevas G, et al. The somatotype of Greek female volleyball athletes. Int J Volleyball Res 2002;5(1):22—5.
344
G.G. Malousaris et al.
14. Heyward HV, Stolarczyk ML. Applied body composition assessment. Human Kinetics 1996:1—43. 15. Ulijaszek JS, Kerr DA. Anthropometric measurement error and the assessment of nutritional status. Br J Nutr 1999;82:165—77. 16. Durnin GA, Womersley J. Body fat assessed from total body density and its estimation from skinfold thickness: measurement on 481 men and women aged from 16 to 72 years. Br J Nutr 1974;32:77—97. 17. Siri WE. The gross composition of the body. In: Lawrence J, Tobias C, editors. Advanced in biological and medical physics. London: Academic Press; 1956. p. 239—80. 18. Puhl J, Case S, Fleck S, et al. Physical and physiological characteristics of elite volleyball players. Res Quart Exerc Sport 1982;53(3):257—62.
19. Jackson S, Pollock ML. Generalized equations for predicting body density of men. Br J Nutr 1978;49:497— 504. 20. Carey D. The validity of anthropometric regression equations in predicting percent body fat in collegiate wrestlers. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 2000;40:254—9. 21. van den Tillaar R, Ettema G. Effect of body size and gender in overarm throwing performance. Eur J Appl Physiol 2004;91:413—8. 22. Carter JEL. Somatotypes of female athletes. In: Borms J, Hebbelinck M, Venerando A, editors. The female athlete, vol 15. Basel: Karger Press; 1981. p. 85—116. 23. Lohman TG, Houtkooper L, Going SB. Body fat measurement goes high-tech. ACSM’s Health Fitness J 1997;1: 30—5.
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ORIGINAL PAPER
Somatotype, size and body composition of competitive female volleyball players Grigoris G. Malousaris a, Nikolaos K. Bergeles a, Karolina G. Barzouka a, Ioannis A. Bayios a,∗, George P. Nassis b, Maria D. Koskolou b a b
Department of Sport Games, University of Athens, Greece Department of Sport Medicine and Biology of Exercise, University of Athens, Greece
Received 20 December 2005 ; received in revised form 21 November 2006; accepted 23 November 2006 KEYWORDS Volleyball; Body composition; Somatotype; Competition level; Playing position; Female athletes
Summary The aim of this study was to describe the morphological characteristics of competitive female volleyball players. For this purpose, body weight and height, breadths and girths as well as skinfold thickness at various body sites were assessed in 163 elite female volleyball players (age: 23.8 ± 4.7 years, years of playing: 11.5 ± 4.2, hours of training per week: 11.9 ± 2.9, means ± S.D.). Seventy-nine of these players were from the A1 division and the rest from the A2 division of the Greek National League. Two-way ANOVA was used to compare the differences in these characteristics between competition level and playing position. Body height ranged from 161 cm to 194 cm, and the mean value (177.1 ± 6.5 cm) was not inferior to that of international players of similar calibre. Adiposity of these players (sum of 5 skinfolds: 51.8 ± 10.2 mm, percent body fat: 23.4 ± 2.8) was higher than that reported in other studies in which, however, different methodology was used. Volleyball athletes of this study were mainly balanced endomorphs (3.4-2.7-2.9). The A1 division players were taller and slightly leaner with greater fat-free mass than their A2 counterparts. Significant differences were found among athletes of different playing positions which are interpreted by their varying roles and physical demands during a volleyball game. The volleyball players who play as opposites were the only subgroup of players differing between divisions; the A2 opposites had more body fat than A1 opposites. These data could be added in the international literature related to the anthropometric characteristics of competitive female volleyball players. © 2007 Sports Medicine Australia. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Introduction Identification of specific characteristics of physique that may contribute to success in sports as well ∗
Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (I.A. Bayios).
as the possible structural differences among athletes in various sports has been a subject of high interest for sport scientists and coaches. For instance, the importance of players’ tall stature in some team sports (e.g., volleyball, basketball) is accepted as it is well known that body height influences positively all body segment lengths and,
1440-2440/$ — see front matter © 2007 Sports Medicine Australia. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jsams.2006.11.008
338 in turn, athletic performance.1—3 Within a team sport, however, certain positions may require more specific physique characteristics based on the physiological demands set on the players during the game. In volleyball, similarly to other team sports, special attention has been paid to the morphological characteristics of Olympic athletes, whereas few data exist on national level athletes. The few studies in the literature dealing with morphological characteristics of female volleyball players do not examine the whole spectrum of them, since they lack either anthropometric or body composition or somatotype measurements. Some studies report only body height and mass,4 some others only certain body composition indices,1,5—11 and a small number of studies describe the somatotype variables.2,6,8,10—13 There are only three studies reporting both body composition and somatotype data,6,8,10 but the small number of subjects (19—25 players) threaten the practical applications of these findings. From the existing data it appears that the percent body fat of female volleyball players varies widely among studies ranging between 11.7% and 27.1%.1,5—10 As for their somatotype, volleyball players have been mainly reported as mesomorph—endomorph or mesomorphic—endomorph. It is of interest that there is only one study on the anthropometric characteristics and somatotype of female volleyball players according to competition level (major A1 and minor A2 national leagues) and playing position (setters, centres, spikers and opposites).12 This paper, however, refers to data collected in 1992—1993, when the volleyball game was still played with the old rules. The rules have been changed by FIVB since 1998 and the playing position named ‘‘libero’’ has been introduced. A libero is a back court player, mainly a defender who cannot serve or attack. A centre moves along the centre of the net blocking and quickly attacking the ball. A hitter attacks and blocks the ball over the net on the left side, but also receives the ball. An opposite is the main attacker of the team serving several roles; blocking the ball on the right side of the net, attacking over the net as well as from the back court, and receiving the ball. A setter does not receive the ball but runs all over the court to accept the ball from the receiver in a good position and deliver a pass to the attackers. Considering the limited number of athletes evaluated and variables examined in the existing studies dealing with the anthropometric profile of competitive female volleyball players, as well as in light of the new playing position added (‘‘libero’’),
G.G. Malousaris et al. we sought to conduct the present study. The aims of this study were: (a) to compare the mean anthropometric characteristics, body composition and somatotype of competitive Greek female volleyball players with regard to playing position; (b) to detect possible differences in relation to competition level; and (c) to provide additional data in the international literature for the determination of the anthropometric profile of competitive female volleyball players.
Material and methods Participants Greek female competitive athletes playing in volleyball teams of the first National League (79 from the A1 division and 84 from the A2) participated in the present study after having signed an informed consent. Athletes were chosen from several teams nationwide and included all the players belonging to the Women and Youth Greek National Volleyball Team. Only two teams from each division were not evaluated because of financial restrictions; these teams were based at the most distant places from Athens. These teams were ranked in the middle of each division. Ten players from each team were evaluated, being the ones who were more experienced and more often participated in the official games. The players were grouped according to their playing position as follows: 48 hitters (19 from the A1 and 29 from the A2 division), 51 centres (26 from the A1 and 25 from the A2 division), 17 opposites (8 from the A1 and 9 from the A2 division), 30 setters (17 from the A1 and 13 from the A2 division) and 17 liberos (9 from the A1 and 8 from the A2 division). A short questionnaire to elicit the number of playing and training years and hours of training per week was completed by the athletes before the start of the study. This study was approved by the Athens University’s ethical committee.
Anthropometric measures Body height (BH) and mass (BM) were measured to the nearest 0.1 cm and 0.1 kg, respectively. Skinfold measurements were taken from five sites (biceps, triceps, subscapular, suprailiac and calf) to the nearest 0.1 mm.2 The mid-upper-arm girth (cm) was measured with the arm in both tensed and relaxed positions, while calf girth (cm) was recorded with the subject sitting at the end of a table, having her legs hanging. Biepicondylar
Anthropometry of elite volleyball players humerus and femur breadths were measured to the nearest 0.1 mm (reported in cm). All variables were measured on the right side of the body following standardised procedures.14 The values reported for each site was the mean of two consecutive measurements provided that they did not differ by more than 5%; in that case the median value of three trials was used. Further to that, the technical error of measurement (TEM) was used to verify the consistency of measurement for each parameter. All skinfold measurements were obtained indoors at approximately the same time of the day.
339
Results Comparisons by competition level A significant effect of the competition level was found in BH (p < 0.001), in body composition variables (p < 0.01) (except for the BMI), as well as in somatotype variables (p < 0.02) (Table 1). Volleyball players from the A2 division were younger (p < 0.001) and shorter (p < 0.01) than players from the A1 division. Moreover, a trend for higher BM (p = 0.036) was observed in the A1 players. The mean somatotype of all players is presented in Fig. 1.
Procedure The measurements were conducted during competition season at the first semester of 2002 by expert personnel specifically educated and trained three times a week for 4 months. For all variables, the %TEM met the required target levels for within and between measurers; i.e., 0.23% for height, 0.48% for body mass, 10.76% for biceps, 3.32% for triceps, 5.95% for subscapular, 5.41% for suprailiac and 6.38% for calf skinfold thickness, 5.63% for femur and 9.66% for humerus breadth, 1.24% for calf girth, and 1.98% and 2.49% for relaxed and tensed midupper-arm girth, respectively.15 Body mass index (BMI) was calculated from BH and BM,2 while fat-free mass (FFM) was calculated from BM and fat mass. The sum of five skinfolds (5SKFS) (biceps, triceps, subscapular, suprailiac, calf) was computed as an indicator of body fatness. The sum of four skinfolds (4SKFS) (biceps, triceps, subscapular, suprailiac) was used for the determination of body density.16 Body fat percentage (BF%) was then calculated with the equation of Siri.17 Somatotype components (endomorphy—mesomorphy—ectomorphy) were calculated according to Carter and Heath.2
Comparisons by playing position The descriptive statistics (mean ± S.D.) for anthropometric, body composition and somatotype variables for the A1 and A2 divisions, as well as the differences detected in these parameters among playing positions are summarised in Table 2. There was a significant (p < 0.02) overall effect of playing position on BH, BM, FFM and mesomorphy, and a strong tendency for ectomorphy (p = 0.023).
Statistical analysis Analysis was carried out, firstly, by means of descriptive statistics of the anthropometric characteristics, body composition and somatotype. Secondly, analysis of variance (two-way ANOVA) was used to compare mean values of each measure between: (1) competition level (A1 and A2 divisions) and (2) playing position (hitters, centres, opposites, setters and libero). The Bonferroni post hoc test was used to assign specific differences in the ANOVA when a significant F-value was computed. Because of the multiple comparisons made, significance was accepted at p < 0.02.
Figure 1 Somatochart for Greek female players from different competition level (V1: mean somatotype of A1 volleyball division; V2: mean somatotype of A2 volleyball division) by playing position (H1: mean somatotype of A1 hitters, C1: mean somatotype of A1 centres; O1: mean somatotype of A1 opposites; S1: mean somatotype of A1 setters; L1: mean somatotype of A1 liberos; H2: mean somatotype of A2 hitters; C2: mean somatotype of A2 centres; O2: mean somatotype of A2 opposites; S2: mean somatotype of A2 setters; L2: mean somatotype of A2 liberos).
340
G.G. Malousaris et al.
Table 1 Characteristics, selected anthropometric data, composition indices and somatotype variables of Greek female volleyball players from all playing positions presented by competition level (mean ± S.D.) Total (n = 163) Age (years) Years of playing Hours of training per week Body height (cm) Body mass (kg) BMI (kg/m2 ) Sum of 5SKFS (mm) Body fat (%) Fat free mass (kg) Biceps skinfold (mm) Triceps skinfold (mm) Subscapular skinfold (mm) Suprailiac skinfold (mm) Calf skinfold (mm) Biceps girth (cm) (relaxed) Biceps girth (cm) (tensed) Calf girth (cm) Humerus breadth (cm) Femur breadth (cm) Endomorphy Mesomorphy Ectomorphy
23.8 11.5 11.9 177.1 69.5 22.1 51.8 23.4 53.2 5.9 12.2 11.6 9.9 12.2 27.0 28.5 36.9 6.2 9.1 3.4 2.7 2.9
± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ±
4.7 4.2 2.9 6.5 7.4 1.8 10.2 2.8 5.3 2.1 5.6 2.8 3.7 4.2 2.0 1.7 2.1 0.4 0.7 0.7 1.0 0.9
A1 division (n = 79) 25.7 13.1 13.4 179.6 71.0 21.9 48.7 22.7 54.8 5.2 12.1 10.7 8.7 11.8 27.1 28.8 36.9 6.3 9.0 3.2 2.4 3.2
± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ±
5.1 4.8 3.2 5.8 8.2 1.9 10.1 2.9 5.7 1.8 5.1 2.9 3.3 3.4 2.0 1.8 2.2 0.5 0.8 0.8 1.1 0.9
A2 division (n = 84) 22.0 9.9 10.4 174.7 68.2 22.3 54.8 24.1 51.7 6.5 12.2 12.3 11.1 12.7 26.9 28.3 36.9 6.2 9.1 3.6 2.9 2.7
± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ±
4.4*** 3.7*** 2.6*** 6.2*** 6.3 1.7 9.6** 2.6** 4.5*** 2.2*** 6.1 2.5*** 3.7** 4.8 1.7 1.7 2.0 0.3 0.5 0.7*** 1.0* 1.0**
The asterisks indicate significant difference between divisions (A1 vs. A2): *p < 0.02; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.
Liberos were shorter and lighter (p < 0.01) than hitters, centres and opposites, while centres and opposites were taller than setters and hitters. In BM and in FFM, significant differences (p < 0.01) were observed between centres and liberos, centres and setters, as well as between hitters and liberos. With regard to somatotype, hitters and setters are characterised as balanced endomorphs (3.5-3.0-2.7 and 3.6-2.5-3.0, respectively), centres and opposites as endomorph—ectomorphs (3.4-2.4-3.1 and 3.4-2.4-3.5, respectively) and liberos as mesomorph—endomorphs (3.1-3. 3-2.6). When exploring the interaction between competition level and playing position, a significant effect was found for: BF% (p = 0.01), sum of 5SKFS (p = 0.045) and endomorphy (p = 0.011) (Table 2). In general, A1 opposites were leaner than all other positions and all A2 players. In A1 division, hitters (3.3-2.5-3.3), centres (3.2-2.2-3.2) and setters (3.4-2.2-3.2) were characterised as endomorph-ectomorphs, opposites as balanced ectomorphs (2.6-2.4-3.9) and liberos as centrals (3.2-3.3-2.8). In A2 division, hitters (3.6-3.32.4) and liberos (3.0-3.3-2.4) were characterised as mesomorph—endomorphs, centres (3.6-2.7-3.1) and setters (3.7-3.0-2.7) as balanced endomorphs, and opposites (4.1-2.5-3.2) as ectomorphic endomorphs.
Discussion The results of the present study show that Greek female volleyball players competing in the National League differed in most of the somatometric variables studied with regard to their competition level and in some variables with regard to playing position. It is the first time, after the recent change of rules in volleyball by the FIBV, which introduced a new playing position, the ‘‘libero’’, that a complete examination of morphological characteristics has been performed in a large number of competitive female volleyball players from the same country. This has allowed comparisons among competition level and playing position independent of socioeconomic, cultural and environmental influences. These data are also valuable in enriching the bank of international anthropometric data on volleyball athletes.
Effect of competition level Body height is considered a determinant factor for good performance in volleyball and, together with its relation to BM, is used as a criterion for the selection of promising volleyball players. The differences seen in BH and BM between the two examined divisions in the present study were expected, since
Hitters (n = 48)
Main effect D Main effect P Interaction D × P
Centres (n = 51) Opposites (n = 17) Setters (n = 30)
Liberos (n = 17)
180.4 ± 4.9 182.0 ± 4.6 178.7 ± 4.9*
181.2 ± 5.1 183.6 ± 5.0 179.1 ± 4.3
174.2 ± 5.1 bc 176.9 ± 4.1 170.9 ± 4.2***
169.9 ± 4.8 abc 0.001 171.0 ± 5.1 168.7 ± 4.6
Body height (cm)
Total 176.5 ± 6.7 bc A1 181.2 ± 4.5 A2 173.4 ± 6.2***
Body mass (kg)
Total A1 A2
70.5 ± 7.3 72.8 ± 8.4 69.0 ± 6.1
72.4 ± 7.8 74.3 ± 8.4 70.4 ± 6.8
70.7 ± 7.9 71.4 ± 9.5 70.2 ± 6.7
66.3 ± 4.9 b 67.8 ± 4.8 64.3 ± 4.4
BMI (kg/m2 )
Total A1 A2
22.2 ± 1.9 22.2 ± 2.2 22.9 ± 1.8
22.2 ± 1.9 22.4 ± 2.1 22.0 ± 1.8
21.5 ± 1.7 21.1 ± 1.9 21.9 ± 1.5
Body fat (%)
Total A1 A2
23.5 ± 2.5 22.9 ± 3.5 24.4 ± 2.1
23.4 ± 2.5 22.8 ± 2.4 24.2 ± 2.5
Total Fat free mass (kg) A1 A2
55.3 ± 5.6 56.0 ± 5.3 52.2 ± 5.0*
Sum of 5SKFS (mm)
Total A1 A2
Endomorphy
0.001
NS
63.2 ± 3.2 a b NS 63.3 ± 3.6 63.2 ± 2.9
0.001
NS
22.9 ± 1.8 21.7 ± 1.8 22.1 ± 1.9
21.9 ± 1.3 21.7 ± 1.0 22.3 ± 1.7
NS
NS
NS
23.2 ± 4.1 20.5 ± 3.0 25.7 ± 3.4**
23.6 ± 2.7 23.2 ± 3.1 24.2 ± 2.1
22.2 ± 2.5 22.9 ± 1.6 21.4 ± 3.1
0.002
NS
0.010
55.3 ± 5.6 57.3 ± 5.9 53.3 ± 4.7**
54.2 ± 5.6 56.6 ± 6.5 52.0 ± 3.9
50.5 ± 3.3 b 51.9 ± 2.9 48.7 ± 3.0**
49.2 ± 2.7 a b 0.001 48.8 ± 2.7 49.7 ± 2.9
0.001
NS
52.6 ± 10.8 48.9 ± 11.5 54.0 ± 8.3
52.6 ± 10.8 49.7 ± 10.8 55.6 ± 10.2
50.6 ± 14.9 40.2 ± 6.9 59.9 ± 14.2**
52.7 ± 8.9 51.3 ± 9.1 54.7 ± 8.9
49.4 ± 6.0 48.8 ± 5.7 50.1 ± 6.6
0.001
NS
0.045
Total A1 A2
3.5 ± 0.7 3.3 ± 1.0 3.6 ± 0.6
3.4 ± 0.7 3.2 ± 0.8 3.6 ± 0.7
3.4 ± 1.0 2.6 ± 0.4 4.1 ± 0.9***
3.6 ± 0.7 3.4 ± 0.8 3.7 ± 0.6
3.1 ± 0.6 3.2 ± 0.5 3.0 ± 0.8
0.001
NS
0.011
Total A1 A2
3.0 ± 1.0 2.5 ± 1.0 3.3 ± 1.0*
2.4 ± 1.3 2.2 ± 1.5 2.7 ± 1.0
2.4 ± 0.5 2.3 ± 0.6 2.5 ± 0.5
2.5 ± 1.0 2.2 ± 0.9 3.0 ± 1.1*
3.3 ± 0.7 b 3.3 ± 0.8 3.3 ± 0.8
0.016
0.020
NS
Mesomorphy
Total A1 A2
2.7 ± 1.0 3.3 ± 1.0 2.4 ± 0.9**
3.1 ± 0.9 3.2 ± 1.0 3.1 ± 0.9
3.5 ± 0.8 3.9 ± 0.8 3.2 ± 0.7
3.0 ± 1.1 3.2 ± 1.1 2.7 ± 1.1
2.6 ± 0.8 2.8 ± 0.7 2.4 ± 1.0
0.003
NS
NS
Ectomorphy
Anthropometry of elite volleyball players
Table 2 Anthropometric characteristics and somatotype for female volleyball players of A1 and A2 divisions of the Greek National League presented by playing position (mean ± S.D.)
Over the two divisions; a significantly different from hitters, b significantly different from centres, c significantly different from opposites. The asterisk (*) indicate significant difference between divisions A1 and A2 within a playing position: *p < 0.02, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001. D: division, P: playing position, NS: non-significant difference.
341
342 the players of A1 division go through a stricter selection procedure and may follow more closely professional advice regarding training and diet. When comparing the volleyball players of this study to other female volleyball teams of comparable level, our subjects are not inferior with regard to BH.12,13 The mean value of BH in our study was 177.1 ± 6.5 cm, with a range from 161 cm to 194 cm, and is similar to BH reported by GualdiRusso and Zaccagni12 and Papadopoulou et al.,13 but different to those presented by others. In particular, the BH values of the present study are lower only than those investigating National Team athletes1,4,6 but higher than others in the literature evaluating competitive female volleyball players. 2,4,6,8,10,11
When comparing the BF% calculated in the present study with corresponding values of other volleyball players who were of different age and competition level, it seems that our subjects had higher body fat.1,6,7,8,13,18 Similar values, however, have been recorded in one study with amateur volleyball players.10 Only one study has reported higher BF% than our study,5 but the players in that report had been active in volleyball only for 4.8 (range 2—9) years. One has to be careful, however, when comparing data in the literature since different methods have been used to determine BF% in the various studies. Thus, for example, the lower BF% seen in two of the aforementioned studies7,13 testing volleyball athletes could be accounted for by the use of the Jackson and Pollock method,19 which has been shown20 to give lower values than the Durnin and Womersley method which was used in our study. Alternatively, lower values have also been observed in one study which used the same method as in our study.6 FFM was higher in the A1 compared to the A2 division players. This was an expected finding since FFM seems to be the best estimate for body size with regard to physical performance as it is the best measure of the amount of muscle.21 The BMI values seen in the literature for female volleyball players of different age, nationality and competition level vary between 20.5 kg/m2 and 22.5 kg/m2 .1,2,5—8,10,11,13 The mean value in BMI found in the present study (22.1 kg/m2 ) is very close to the corresponding values reported in two recent investigations12,13 which have studied volleyball players with similar characteristics to ours (mean BMI values of 22.5 kg/m2 and 21.9 kg/m2 , respectively). The somatotype of the female volleyball players in the present study varied as a function of their competition level. As a total, our athletes were characterised as balanced endomorphs (3.4-2.7-2.9), whereas the A1 players were char-
G.G. Malousaris et al. acterised as endomorph-ectomorphs (3.2-2.4-3.2) and the A2 players as balanced endomorphs (3.62.9-2.7), as portrayed in Fig. 1. In comparison with somatotype data of National Team female volleyball players reported in the last two decades,2,11,22 the component of mesomorphy in our volleyball players is notably lower and this is in accordance with the mesomorphy observed in a similar sample of Italian volleyball athletes.12 Furthermore, it is of interest that the ectomorphy of the A1 division players is quite high, and this finding is in accordance with previously reported data for the Greek National Team athletes.6 Thus, it appears that, although the mesomorphy used to be the primary component of competitive female volleyball players somatotype in the last two decades, in the latest studies it appears that the ectomorphy may be taking over at the expense of mesomorphy.
Effect of playing position With regard to differences in anthropometric variables of volleyball athletes playing in different positions, a general observation is that the liberos had smaller body size (BH and BM) than the rest of the players. In addition, setters were shorter than opposites and centres and had lower BM and FFM than centres. Similar results for the setters compared to the other positions were observed in the work of GualdiRusso and Zaccagni,12 but liberos did not exist when that study was conducted to allow further comparisons. It appears that for liberos the primary requirement is certainly not height, since their role during the game is to defend their court playing close to the ground, for which they need to have good technical skills, strategy and reaction time. Their high value in mesomorphy with the low fat mass are indicative of a good muscular system necessary for playing good defence. Setters also need high speed and agility as well as technical and organisational skills to serve their role in the game, whereas body size is not so crucial. Opposites exhibit strong tendency for higher ectomorphy compared to hitters, reflecting their different duties during the game. The opposites, being the main attackers of the team, attack and block the opposing team’s attacks over the net and therefore have to be tall with long arms and legs. Hitters have significant contribution in the game, playing over the net (attacking and blocking) but also close to the ground, in receiving the ball. Therefore, technical skills in receiving the ball and effective attacking combined with good jumping
Anthropometry of elite volleyball players abilities are more important elements than height in hitters. Body fat expressed either as BF% or as sum of 5SKFS as well as endomorphy was different in the two divisions and also showed significant interaction with playing position (Table 2). This observed difference between competition levels was solely attributed to the body fat of the volleyball athletes playing in the position ‘‘opposites’’. These players exhibited the lowest values among the five groups of players in the A1 division but the highest in the A2 division. As a matter of fact, the number of volleyball athletes who possess the combined capabilities needed to play as opposites is relatively small. The best ones are selected to play in A1 division, thus contributing, to a bigger extent than the volleyball athletes of the other positions, to the higher performance of A1 division teams. One of the limitations of this study was that body fatness was indirectly assessed. Although skinfold measurement is the most appropriate approach for large-scale evaluations, the validity and reliability of the study are threatened by the skinfold site selection, the experimenter’s ability and by other factors. In addition, calculation of body fat using equation contains some error since the equations are age — and ethnicity — specific. More direct body composition assessment methods such as dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry would be of great value in future studies.23 In summary, the results of this study showed that the somatometric characteristics of Greek competitive female volleyball players are similar to those measured in female volleyball athletes of comparable calibre from other countries. The athletes competing in the A1 division possess characteristics which justify their superior performance; i.e., they are taller with less fat, more FFM and higher ectomorphy than their counterparts playing in the A2 division. Significant differences were also found among players of different positions, which are interpreted by their varying roles and demands during a volleyball game. Liberos, the new playing position, appear to be of smaller body size than their co-players in other positions, except setters. Interestingly, opposites are the only subgroup of players differing between divisions and the morphological characteristic they differ in is body fat, thus suggesting that more careful selection and training of opposites are needed in A2 division. Further research is needed regarding position-by-position analysis of anthropometric characteristics within a volleyball team including correlations with players’ physical performance.
343
Practical implications • Consideration of ectomorphy should be included in the talent selection program for female volleyball players.
Acknowledgments The authors thank the following persons for their assistance in anthropometric data collection: Prevena G., Aravidou E., Kakka K., Vergi C., Argiriou M. and Katsirou A. Also, special thanks are addressed to all the volleyball players and coaches participating in this study, whose cooperation made this project possible.
References 1. Fleck JS, Case S, Puhl J, et al. Physical and physiological characteristics of elite women volleyball players. Can J Sport Sci 1985;10(3):122—6. 2. Carter JEL, Heath HB. Somatotyping—–development and application. Cambridge University Press; 1990. 3. Apostolidis N, Nassis GP, Bolatoglou T, et al. Physiological and technical characteristics of elite young basketball players. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 2004;44:157—63. 4. Spence WD, Disch CJ, Fred LH, et al. Descriptive profiles of highly skilled women volleyball players. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1980;12(4):299—302. 5. Alfredson H, Nordstrom R, Lorentzon R. Bone mass in female volleyball players: a comparison of total and regional bone mass in female volleyball players and nonactive females. Calcif Tissue Int 1997;60:338—42. 6. Geladas N, Maridaki M. Kinanthropometric profile of Greek female volleyball players. Kinesiology 1996;1:46—55 [In Greek: English abstract]. 7. Hassapidou MN, Mastrantoni A. Dietary intakes of elite female athletes in Greece. J Hum Nutr Dietet 2001;14:391—6. 8. Kovaleski EJ, Parr BR, Hornak EJ, et al. Athletic profile of women college volleyball players. Phys Sportsmed 1980;8(2):112—8. 9. Papadopoulou DS, Papadopoulou KS, Gallos G, et al. Anthropometric differences of top Greek and foreign volleyball players. Int J Volleyball Res 2002;5(1):26—9. 10. Viviani F, Baldin F. The somatotype of ‘‘amateur’’ Italian female volleyball players. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 1993;33:400—4. 11. Eiben O. Physique of female athletes—–anthropological and proportional analysis. In: Borms J, Hebbelinck M, Venerando A, editors. The female athlete, vol 15. Basel: Karger Press; 1981. p. 127—41. 12. Gualdi-Russo E, Zaccagni I. Somatotype, role and performance in elite volleyball players. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 2001;41:256—62. 13. Papadopoulou DS, Gallos KG, Paraskevas G, et al. The somatotype of Greek female volleyball athletes. Int J Volleyball Res 2002;5(1):22—5.
344
G.G. Malousaris et al.
14. Heyward HV, Stolarczyk ML. Applied body composition assessment. Human Kinetics 1996:1—43. 15. Ulijaszek JS, Kerr DA. Anthropometric measurement error and the assessment of nutritional status. Br J Nutr 1999;82:165—77. 16. Durnin GA, Womersley J. Body fat assessed from total body density and its estimation from skinfold thickness: measurement on 481 men and women aged from 16 to 72 years. Br J Nutr 1974;32:77—97. 17. Siri WE. The gross composition of the body. In: Lawrence J, Tobias C, editors. Advanced in biological and medical physics. London: Academic Press; 1956. p. 239—80. 18. Puhl J, Case S, Fleck S, et al. Physical and physiological characteristics of elite volleyball players. Res Quart Exerc Sport 1982;53(3):257—62.
19. Jackson S, Pollock ML. Generalized equations for predicting body density of men. Br J Nutr 1978;49:497— 504. 20. Carey D. The validity of anthropometric regression equations in predicting percent body fat in collegiate wrestlers. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 2000;40:254—9. 21. van den Tillaar R, Ettema G. Effect of body size and gender in overarm throwing performance. Eur J Appl Physiol 2004;91:413—8. 22. Carter JEL. Somatotypes of female athletes. In: Borms J, Hebbelinck M, Venerando A, editors. The female athlete, vol 15. Basel: Karger Press; 1981. p. 85—116. 23. Lohman TG, Houtkooper L, Going SB. Body fat measurement goes high-tech. ACSM’s Health Fitness J 1997;1: 30—5.
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com