- Email: [email protected]
Systemic changes in body structure of 17–18-year-old schoolboys
HOMO Vol. 53/2, pp. 157–169 © 2002 Urban & Fischer Verlag http://www.urbanfischer.de/journals/homo
HOMO
Systemic changes in body structure of 17–18-year-old schoolboys M. LINTSI, H. KAARMA, L. SALUSTE, V. VASAR Centre of Physical Anthropology, University of Tartu, Lossi 36, Tartu 51 003, Estonia
Summary The purpose of this study was to assess the systemic structural changes in the body build of 17–18-yearold schoolboys in the final years of Tartu secondary schools within a height-weight classification dividing anthropometric variables into 5 SD-classes. Weight and height, 9 length, 8 breadth and 2 depth measurements, 16 circumferences and 12 skinfolds were measured. From these 5 length measurements and 53 indices were computed, which characterise the ratios of various parts of the body to body height, to upper and lower limbs’ length and body composition. The subjects (n = 253) were divided into five standard deviation classes according to height and weight (Kaarma 1981, 1995). In the first three classes height and weight were proportional: (1) small height – small weight, (2) medium height – medium weight and (3) big height – big weight. In the fourth and the fifth class height and weight were non-proportional. In the fourth class weight was preponderant over height, and in the fifth class height was preponderant over weight. It was proved that a statistical difference exists between the opposite classes – the fourth and the fifth class. It was also revealed that the three proportional classes differ from each other significantly. Increase in body height and weight leads also to an increase in length, breadth and depth measurements, bone thicknesses, circumferences and skinfolds. Rohrer index, body mass index, total percentage of fat by Siri, absolute and relative mass of fat tissue increased from the small to the large class. The relationship of the length, width, and depth measurements, circumferences and bone thicknesses to height remains almost unchanged throughout the proportional classes. These investigations support the position that the whole body model may be reconstructed from body height and weight.
Introduction «The somatotype story has been lengthy, sometimes stormy, always interesting» (Carter & Heath 1990). Many researchers have contributed to this field. Sometimes seemingly very simple questions are hard to answer (Kretschmer 1922, 1961, Shtefko & Ostrovski 1929, Strömgren 1937, Bunak 1940, Conrad 1941, Sheldon et al 1970, Knussmann 1961, 1988, Kliorin & Tshtetsov 1979, Flügel et al 1986, Greil 1987, 1988, 1991, 1996, 1997a, 1997b, Carter & Heath 1990; Greil & Trippo 1998). Since 1974 the Department of Obstetrics at the University of Tartu and for the last 6 years the Centre for Physical Anthropology at the same university have fostered the use of weight-height standard deviation (SD) classes for systematisation of anthropometric data. By multivariate statistical analysis it has been demonstrated that changes in the SD classes of weight-height also cause systemic structural 0018-442X/02/53/02–157/$ 15.00/0
158
M. Lintsi, H. Kaarma, L. Saluste, V. Vasar
changes in most anthropometric variables investigated. The validity of these hypotheses has been studied on young women (Kaarma 1981, 1995, Kaarma et al 1996), healthy neonates (Kaarma et al 1997), 8–11-year-old girls of Belarus (Polina et al 1992) and on 15–18-year-old Estonian schoolgirls (Kaarma et al 1997, Kaarma et al 1997, Saluvere et al 1998, Peterson & Saluvere 1998, Maiste et al 1999). Linear correlation analysis has shown that body height and weight have the greatest number of high correlations with the other measurements (Kaarma 1981, 1995). This indicated the possibility that body weight and height might to be considered the leading anthropometric characteristics. This hypothesis was statistically proven in the following way: the influence of body weight and height was eliminated, and then the correlation structure was investigated. The result was a surprisingly changed picture – the system of correlations had disintegrated. The leading role of body weight and height was also proved by factor analysis. It appeared that 50% of the total variability of the whole set of characteristics measured could be described by weight and height (Kaarma 1995). An anthropometric multivariate model for young women was recommended (Kaarma1981, 1994 ), the quintessence of which was the application of 5 × 5 or 35 × 3 SD-classes of body height and weight. This system prepares the way for observing systemic changes of single anthropometric measurements, indices and proportions in various height-weight combinations. The advantage of the model of SD-classes is that it takes into consideration the body size. In this study the model of SD-classes was for the first time applied for investigating schoolboys aged 17–18 years. The aim of the study was to analyse their body build structure and to investigate changes in single measurements, proportions and body composition characteristics, using a height-weight classification consisting of five SD-classes.
Methods The investigation uses the anthropometric data of 253 schoolboys from the town of Tartu. All schoolboys of the final years of Estonian-language secondary schools of Tartu who were present on the day of the investigation were measured anthropometrically in the school doctor’s consulting room. The measurements were taken according to the classical method of Martin (Martin 1928, Knussmann 1988). In addition, midthigh circumference according to the recommendations of Lohman (Lohman et al 1988) and pelvis circumference according to Gross (Gross et al 1980) were measured. Pelvis circumference was obtained on the level of Michaelis rhombus upper corner, iliac crest and the upper edge of symphysis as it is frequently used in obstetrics. Abdomen depth was measured at the level of umbilicus in sagittal projection plane at the end of expirium, individuals being in an orthostatic position. It is analogous to the abdomen depth measured in a sitting position (Flügel et al 1986). Weight, 10 measures of length, 10 measures of breadth and depth, 16 circumferences and 12 skinfolds were taken from every person. Skinfolds thicknesses were measured at 12 sites using skinfold calipers with a constant 10 g/mm2 pressure applied at right angles to the fold defined between the observer’s thumb and index finger. Skinfold thicknesses were measured at standardised sites –
Systemic changes in body structure of 17–18-year-old schoolboys
159
Figure 1. Classification of 17–18year-old boys by five height/eight SD classes.
cheek and chin (Parizkova 1977), chest, midaxillary, suprailiac, supraspinal, abdominal, subscapular, biceps, triceps, thigh, and calf (Lohmann et al.1988, Heyward & Stolarczyk 1996). From these data we calculated 58 indices, 5 segments’ lengths, Rohrer and body mass index, body surface area according to the formula of D DuBois and EF DuBois (1916), body density (Wilmore & Behnke 1969), relative mass of fat (Siri 1956), absolute and relative mass of subcutaneous fat. In addition we calculated local subcutaneous fat and the bone-muscle component on the cross-sectional areas of the arm and the thigh (De Koning et al 1986). Lower-limb length was calculated by the formula of Jatsuta (1923). Body height and weight values were divided into three classes each, the middle one – between –0.5 and 0.5 SD from the respective mean, the other classes containing the respective outer values. All the subjects were assigned into one of the following categories: 1 – small (small weight and height), 2 – medium (medium weight and height), 3 – large (big height and weight), 4 – pycnics and 5 – leptosomes (height/weight-disconcordant). Categories 4 and 5 thus contained 3 height/weight subclasses each, as shown in figure 1. For these five height-weight classes the mean values and standard deviations of all the measured and calculated anthropometric variables were computed. The statistical significance of the difference between them was assessed by ANOVA and Bonferroni test. The level of significance was set at p < 0.05. The statistical package Systat for Windows was used. The consultant on data processing was Mrs. S. de Koskel M. Sc. from the Institute of Mathematical Statistics at the University of Tartu.
Results Primary statistical analysis of the anthropometric data is presented in table 1. The average height of 17–18-year-old boys is 179.31 ± 6.12 cm, and their weight is 69.26 ± 9.06 kg. The coefficient of variation of height is 3.41. The variability of weight was bigger (CV = 13.98). Skinfolds and relative mass of subcutaneous fat also formed a group with a great degree of variability.
160
M. Lintsi, H. Kaarma, L. Saluste, V. Vasar
Table 1: Basic statistics of Tartu gyms boy school-leavers anthropometric measurements and indices (n=253) No.
Variable
Mean
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55.
weight (kg) 69.26 standing-height (cm) 179.31 sternum length 16.46 abdomen length 36.86 trunk length 53.32 upper limb length 78.84 lower limb length 94.44 biacromial breadth 39.63 chest breadth 27.08 waist breadth 25.13 bicristal breadth 27.70 chest depth 18.73 abdomen depth 17.41 femur breadth 9.59 ankle breadth 7.77 elbow breadth 7.28 wrist breadth 5.93 head circumference 57.38 neck circumference 36.25 chest circumference 91.77 waist circumference 75.61 pelvis cicumference 82.18 hip circumference 88.68 proximal thigh circumference 56.39 midthigh circumference 48.06 calf circumference 36.34 ancle circumference 23.36 arm circumference 28.37 forearm circumference 26.12 wrist circumference 17.34 cheek skinfold 0.62 chin skinfold 0.44 chest skinfold 0.56 midaxillary skinfold 0.69 suprailiac skinfold 0.92 supraspinale skinfold 0.59 abdominal skinfold 0.90 subscapular skinfold 0.88 biceps skinfold 0.44 triceps skinfold 0.84 thigh skinfold 1.34 calf skinfold 1.03 Rohrer index 1.20 body mass index 21.54 body surface area (m2) 1.87 mean skinfold 0.78 mass of subcutaneous fat(kg) 6.68 relative mass of subcutaneous fat (%) 9.45 body density (g/cm3) 1.07 relative mass of fat by Siri(%) 14.62 relative trunk length(%) 29.70 relative abdomen length 20.56 relative upper limb length 43.97 relative lower limb length 52.66 relative biacromial breadth 22.11
Minimum
Maximum
SD
V
49.25 160.20 11.00 26.90 37.00 60.70 48.15 34.00 18.00 15.00 18.00 14.50 13.50 7.20 6.10 5.90 5.10 51.50 32.10 77.20 60.50 70.20 74.80 46.10 37.80 28.70 20.00 20.40 21.10 15.20 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.30 0.30 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.15 0.30 0.50 0.10 0.92 16.48 1.56 0.36 2.52 4.95 1.03 7.74 23.86 14.78 33.20 26.76 17.88
102.50 191.90 28.00 47.60 67.70 94.40 106.05 45.00 33.00 33.00 33.50 25.00 22.50 10.90 9.40 8.30 7.40 61.60 41.30 110.70 97.30 101.30 105.70 72.90 63.80 43.70 28.90 36.10 31.10 19.30 1.00 1.30 1.40 2.20 2.70 2.90 4.10 3.30 1.90 2.10 3.40 1.90 1.74 29.45 2.28 2.13 20.77 22.22 1.08 31.26 35.03 25.73 51.22 58.05 25.60
9.06 6.12 1.74 2.80 3.58 4.27 5.00 1.93 2.04 2.37 1.57 1.66 1.46 0.50 0.50 0.37 0.35 1.46 1.80 6.16 6.46 5.42 4.72 4.42 3.78 2.52 1.33 2.71 1.75 0.72 0.14 0.15 0.21 0.32 0.43 0.31 0.54 0.37 0.22 0.34 0.44 0.30 0.15 2.54 0.13 0.27 2.74 2.68 0.01 3.16 1.45 1.41 1.80 2.01 0.99
13.98 3.41 10.57 7.60 6.71 5.41 5.29 4.87 7.53 9.43 5.66 8.86 8.38 5.21 6.43 5.08 5.90 2.54 4.96 6.71 8.54 6.59 5.32 7.83 7.86 6.93 5.69 9.55 6.69 4.15 22.58 34.09 37.50 46.37 46.74 52.54 60.00 42.04 50.00 40.47 32.83 29.13 12.50 11.79 6.95 10.25 40.99 28.35 0.66 21.58 4.88 6.86 4.09 3.82 4.48
Systemic changes in body structure of 17–18-year-old schoolboys
161
Table 1: Continued No.
Variable
56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74.
relative chest breadth relative waist breadth relative bicristal breadth relative chest depth relative abdominal depth relative femur breadth relative ankle breadth relative elbow breadth relative wrist breadth relative chest circumference relative waist circumference relative pelvis circumference relative hip circumference relative proximal thigh circumference relative calf circumference relative arm circumference relative forearm circumference relative wrist circumference arm circumference/ upper limb length (%) forearm circumference/ upper limb length wrist circumference/upper limb length elbow breadth/upper limb length wrist breadth/upper limb length proximal thigh circumference/ lower limb length calf circumference/lower limb length femur breadth/lower limb length ankle breadth/lower limb length chest depth/chest breadth biacromial breadth/bicristal breadth biacromial breadth/ chest circumference total cross-sectional area of arm (cm2) bone-muscle rate of the cross-sectional area of arm (cm2) fat rate of the cross-sectional area of arm (cm2) total cross-sectional area of thigh (cm2) bone-muscle rate of the crosssectional area of thigh (cm2) fat rate of the cross-sectional area of thigh (cm2) bone-muscle rate of the crosssectional area of arm/ total cross sectional area of arm fat rate of the cross-sectional area of arm/cross-sectional area of arm bone-muscle rate of the crosssectional area of thigh /total cross-sectional area of thigh fat rate of the cross-sectional area of thigh/total cross-sectional area of thigh
75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. 95.
Mean
Minimum
Maximum
SD
V
15.12 14.02 15.45 10.45 9.71 5.35 4.33 4.06 3.31 51.21 42.20 45.85 49.48 31.47 20.28 15.84 14.58 9.68 36.09
10.00 8.45 11.34 8.28 7.70 3.29 3.29 3.20 2.79 42.14 32.77 39.89 42.09 25.86 16.84 11.94 12.02 8.62 27.45
18.28 18.28 17.99 14.59 12.71 5.10 5.10 4.60 4.09 63.03 54.94 57.23 58.92 38.74 25.12 20.28 17.48 10.95 50.36
1.16 1.31 0.76 0.88 0.82 0.25 0.25 0.20 0.18 3.48 3.68 2.95 2.56 2.58 1.45 1.60 1.03 0.42 4.04
7.67 9.34 4.91 8.42 8.44 4.67 5.77 4.93 5.44 6.80 8.72 6.43 5.17 8.19 7.15 10.10 7.06 4.34 11.19
33.22
26.05
43.50
2.82
8.49
22.05 9.25 7.54 59.90
18.33 7.20 6.14 47.15
28.50 12.03 9.95 105.09
1.36 0.59 0.54 5.97
6.12 6.38 7.16 9.97
38.60 10.18 8.25 69.48 143.38 144.77
31.52 8.09 6.11 53.70 113.43 100.00
70.20 17.03 15.58 69.48 192.11 188.89
3.61 0.72 0.71 7.65 8.47 12.70
9.35 7.07 8.61 11.01 5.91 8.77
64.65 55.77
33.13 30.63
103.76 87.32
12.61 9.95
19.51 17.84
8.88
2.50
29.14
4.27
48.08
254.68
169.20
423.12
40.72
15.99
217.86
140.57
311.76
31.53
14.47
36.82
12.95
114.86
14.20
38.56
0.87
0.68
0.94
0.04
4.59
0.13
0.06
0.32
0.04
30.77
0.86
0.73
0.94
0.04
4.65
0.14
0.06
0.27
0.04
28.57
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29.
1 small n=39 –––––––––––––––– mean SD
weight (kg) 59.08 3.60 standing-height(cm) 171.25 3.79 sternum length 15.94 1.48 abdomen length 35.12 2.78 trunk length 50.90 2.35 upper limb length 75.08 3.34 lower limb length 89.99 3.27 biacromial breadth 37.51 1.74 chest breadth 26.23 1.36 waist breadth 23.64 2.10 bicristal breadth 26.40 1.63 chest depth 17.40 1.11 abdomen depth 16.47 0.89 femur breadth 9.30 0.51 ancle breadth 7.47 0.41 elbow breadth 7.03 0.31 wrist breadth 5.67 0.33 head circumference 56.77 1.20 minimal neck circumference 35.09 1.41 chest circumference 86.06 3.30 waist circumference 71.32 4.35 pelvis circumference 77.23 3.24 hip circumference 84.65 2.93 proximal thigh circumference 53.65 1.98 midthigh circumference 45.41 2.04 calf circumference 34.53 1.98 ancle circumference 22.63 1.44 arm circumference 26.68 1.81 forearm circumference 24.90 1.42
No Variable
69.10 179.10 16.37 36.62 52.98 79.36 94.58 39.95 26.92 24.92 27.73 18.78 17.33 9.57 7.80 7.37 5.96 57.24 36.55 91.99 74.87 81.84 88.88 56.50 48.73 36.41 23.33 28.36 26.15
2.44 1.77 1.25 1.86 1.97 2.38 2.33 1.17 2.16 1.95 1.26 1.49 1.05 0.44 0.44 0.31 0.30 1.34 1.33 3.66 2.81 3.02 3.25 3.02 2.59 1.28 0.99 1.63 0.85
2 medium n=41 –––––––––––––––– mean SD 82.31 186.16 17.61 38.49 55.80 81.37 97.81 41.22 28.74 27.22 29.13 20.18 18.54 9.98 8.13 7.52 6.16 58.69 38.13 97.81 81.42 87.65 93.85 60.96 51.96 38.96 24.61 30.52 28.01
7.20 2.15 1.51 2.60 2.95 3.60 2.28 1.59 1.44 1.86 1.54 1.65 1.70 0.49 0.46 0.47 0.25 1.36 1.41 6.27 6.35 5.44 4.48 4.00 3.01 1.72 0.90 2.52 1.36
3 large n=34 –––––––––––––––– mean SD 74.97 175.56 15.99 36.29 51.87 77.28 92.36 40.07 27.56 26.24 27.38 19.37 18.25 9.66 7.68 7.27 5.90 57.75 37.65 96.12 80.36 85.53 90.76 60.02 50.64 37.85 23.81 30.77 27.36
6.93 4.56 1.64 2.71 3.11 3.77 3.21 1.77 2.37 2.58 1.31 1.63 1.44 0.49 048 0.31 0.28 1.38 1.42 5.33 6.11 5.34 4.68 3.51 3.28 2.52 1.41 2.42 1.44
4 pycnics n=57 –––––––––––––––– mean SD 64.82 182.99 16.85 37.54 54.64 80.44 96.53 39.52 26.56 24.31 27.93 18.28 16.83 9.53 7.80 7.26 5.98 56.94 35.44 88.84 72.31 80.09 86.91 53.49 45.56 35.04 22.89 26.61 25.04
5.28 4.17 2.07 2.81 4.05 4.44 6.25 1.69 1.74 1.76 1.32 1.31 1.14 0.43 0.49 0.04 0.40 1.33 1.39 4.20 4.98 3.66 3.40 2.74 2.66 1.91 1.03 1.68 1.25
5 leptosomes n=82 –––––––––––––––– mean SD *** *** ** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
p-
*** *** ns ns * *** *** *** *** ns *** *** * ns * *** ** ns *** *** * *** *** *** *** *** ns ** ***
*** *** ns *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
1–2 1–3 value
*** *** ns * ** ns * ** *** *** *** *** *** ** * ns ns *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
2–3
*** *** ns * *** *** *** ns * *** ns *** *** ns ns ns ns ** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
4–5
Table 2: Basic statistics of anthropometrical measurements, indices and body composition data of 17-18-year-old boys grouped into 5 height-weight classes.
162 M. Lintsi, H. Kaarma, L. Saluste, V. Vasar
30. wrist circumference 16.73 31. cheek skinfold 0.62 32. chin skinfold 0.40 33. chest skinfold 0.50 34. midaxillary skinfold 0.55 35. suprailiac skinfold 0.68 36. supraspinale skinfold 0.52 37. abdominal skinfold 0.65 38. subscapular skinfold 0.73 39. biceps skinfold 0.35 40. triceps skinfold 0.68 41. thigh skinfold 1.23 42. calf skinfold 0.98 43. Rohrer index 1.18 44. body mass index 20.16 45. body surface area (m2) 1.69 46. mean skinfold 0.66 47. mass of subcutaneous fat (kg) 5.03 48. relative mass of subcutaneous fat (%) *** 49. body density (g/cm3) 1.07 50. relative mass of fat by Siri(%) 13.72 51. relative trunk length(%) 29.73 52. relative abdominal length 20.51 53. relative upper limb length 43.83 54. relative lower limb length 52.55 55. relative biacromial breadth 21.91 56. relative chest breadth 15.32 57. relative waist breadth 13.81 58. relative bicristal breadth 15.42 59. relative chest depth 10.16 60. relative abdomen depth 9.62 61. relative femur breadth 5.43 62. relative ankle breadth 4.36 63. relative elbow breadth 4.10 64. relative wrist breadth 3.31 65. relative chest circumference 50.27
17.24 0.59 0.42 0.56 0.65 0.87 0.50 0.81 0.78 0.39 0.81 1.32 0.97 1.20 21.55 1.87 0.73 6.17 1.83 1.07 14.03 29.59 20.45 44.28 52.81 22.31 15.03 13.91 15.48 10.49 9.68 5.34 4.36 4.11 3.33 51.37
0.65 0.13 0.13 0.14 0.19 0.21 0.20 0.20 0.17 0.10 0.23 0.34 0.28 0.09 1.22 0.06 0.15 1.10 8.52 0.01 2.61 1.22 1.56 1.45 1.45 1.00 0.82 1.23 0.90 6.63 0.52 0.28 0.24 0.18 0.18 2.10
0.01 2.00 1.18 1.07 1.29 0.97 0.73 1.21 1.10 0.69 0.83 0.57 0.26 0.25 0.17 0.17 2.21
0.44 0.13 0.12 0.17 0.24 0.31 0.12 0.27 0.11 0.11 0.26 0.40 0.24 0.06 0.89 0.03 0.16 1.32 8.92 1.06 15.60 29.81 20.68 43.71 52.54 22.15 15.44 14.62 15.65 10.84 9.96 5.36 4.37 4.04 3.31 52.55
18.22 0.65 0.51 0.65 0.90 1.14 0.70 1.21 1.18 0.54 1.04 1.58 1.20 1.28 23.76 2.07 0.96 9.04 1.83 0.01 3.81 1.43 1.37 1.96 1.11 0.88 0.79 0.99 0.81 0.88 0.90 0.25 0.23 0.25 0.12 3.38
0.56 0.17 0.21 0.29 0.48 0.55 0.49 0.76 0.53 0.25 0.37 0.54 0.37 0.12 2.11 0.08 0.37 3.85 10.76 1.06 16.34 29.68 20.67 44.01 52.60 22.83 15.71 14.95 15.60 11.03 10.40 5.50 4.38 4.14 3.36 54.77
17.60 0.69 0.50 0.68 0.90 1.27 0.78 1.29 1.17 0.57 1.04 1.56 1.18 1.39 24.31 1.91 0.99 8.59 3.63 0.01 3.96 1.33 1.52 1.63 1.06 0.91 1.40 1.46 0.75 0.89 0.82 0.26 0.23 0.17 0.16 3.10
0.58 0.12 0.18 0.22 0.32 0.47 0.37 0.71 0.43 0.32 0.41 0.46 0.29 0.12 1.90 0.10 0.31 3.07 11.30 1.07 13.72 29.72 20.49 43.96 52.74 21.60 14.51 13.29 15.27 9.99 9.20 5.21 4.26 3.97 3.27 48.55
17.14 0.58 0.39 0.48 0.54 0.71 0.48 0.69 0.72 0.37 0.70 1.15 0.92 1.06 19.34 1.85 0.65 5.43 3.11 0.01 2.27 1.74 1.43 2.18 3.12 0.87 0.92 0.92 0.68 0.69 0.60 0.22 0.27 0.17 0.22 2.18
0.66 0.13 0.09 0.16 0.13 0.20 0.15 0.20 0.16 0.15 0.24 0.31 0.25 0.07 1.21 0.09 0.13 1.20 8.33 *** *** ns ns ns ns *** *** *** ns *** *** *** * *** ns ***
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 1.49 ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns
** ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns *** *** ns ns *** ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns * ns ** ns ns ns ns ns ns
*** ns ** * *** *** ns *** *** ** *** ** * *** *** *** *** *** ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns
*** ns ns ns ns * * ** *** * ** * ** ** *** *** *** *** ** *** *** ns ns ns ns *** *** *** ns *** *** *** * *** ns *
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** * Systemic changes in body structure of 17–18-year-old schoolboys
163
86.
85.
81. 82. 83. 84.
80.
77. 78. 79.
76.
75.
70. 71. 72. 73. 74.
66. 67. 68. 69.
7.63
1.99
0.65 0.61 5.30 10.89
2.61
0.54 0.54 3.40
1.32
2.43
1.24 1.20 0.84 0.37 3.31
2.54 1.94 1.78 1.45
1 small n=39 –––––––––––––––– mean SD
relative waist circumference 41.66 relative pelvis circumference 45.11 relative hip circumference 49.44 relative proximal thigh 30.99 circumference relative calf circumference 20.17 relative arm circumference 15.59 relative forearm circumference 14.54 relative wrist circumference 9.77 arm circumference/ 35.64 upper limb length (%) forearm circumference/ 33.23 upper limb length wrist circumference/ 22.32 upper limb length elbow breadth/upper limb length 9.38 wrist breadth/upper limb length 7.57 proximal thigh circumference/ 59.04 lower limb length calf circumference/ 38.42 lower limb length femur width/lower limb length 10.34 ankle breadt/lower limb length 8.32 chest depth/chest breadth 66.51 biacromial breadth/ 142.61 bicristal breadth biacromial breadth/ 43.62 chest circumference total cross-sectional 56.92 area of arm(cm2)
No Variable
Table 2: Continued.
64.22
43.49
10.13 8.25 70.26 144.34
38.53
9.29 7.52 59.80
21.76
33.01
20.33 15.84 14.60 9.63 35.81
41.81 45.70 49.63 31.55
7.53
2.05
0.60 0.54 8.42 7.69
1.93
0.42 0.44 3.96
0.89
1.76
0.77 0.97 0.53 0.26 2.62
1.64 1.71 1.86 1.81
2 medium n=41 –––––––––––––––– mean SD
74.64
42.29
10.21 8.32 70.34 141.85
39.86
9.26 7.58 62.37
22.42
34.48
20.93 16.40 15.05 9.79 37.56
43.74 47.09 50.42 32.76
12.55
2.93
0.46 0.44 5.90 8.75
2.02
0.68 0.51 4.40
1.06
2.11
0.96 1.39 0.75 0.30 3.36
3.49 2.97 2.42 2.24
3 large n=34 –––––––––––––––– mean SD
1.42 1.38 0.84 0.38 3.81
3.37 2.94 2.53 2.06
0.50 0.47 9.82 7.32
75.85 31.06
41.76 2.18
10.47 8.32 70.92 146.52
41.01 2.90
9.43 0.54 7.64 0.44 65.04 4.17
22.82. 1.28
35.49 2.55
21.56 17.53 15.59 10.03 39.92
45.78 48.73 51.71 34.20
4 pycnics n=57 –––––––––––––––– mean SD
1.08 0.92 0.72 0.35 2.78
2.74 1.76 1.61 1.39
0.92 0.99 6.82 7.64
56.60 7.22
44.55 2.27
9.93 8.13 69.14 141.71
36.54 4.36
9.05 0.69 7.46 0.64 55.76 6.24
21.37 1.40
31.23 2.39
19.15 14.55 13.69 9.37 33.18
39.53 43.77 47.50 29.23
5 leptosomes n=82 –––––––––––––––– mean SD
***
***
*** ns ns *
***
** ns ***
***
***
*** *** *** *** ***
*** *** *** ***
p-
**
ns
ns ns ns ns
ns
ns ns ns
ns
ns
ns ns ns ns ns
ns ns ns ns
***
ns
ns ns ns ns
*
ns ns ns
ns
ns
*** * * * ns
** * ** ns
1–2 1–3 value
***
ns
ns ns ns ns
ns
ns ns ns
ns
ns
* ns ns ns ns
ns * ns ns
2–3
***
***
*** ns ns **
***
*** ns ***
***
***
*** *** *** *** ***
*** *** *** ***
4–5
164 M. Lintsi, H. Kaarma, L. Saluste, V. Vasar
254.87 218.80 36.07 0.87
0.13
0.86
0.14
15.75 8.70 0.03
0.03
0.04
0.04
8.21
2.06 16.52
56.02
7.03
ns - nonsignificant, *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001
87. bone-muscle rate of the 50.22 cross- sectional area of arm (cm2) 88. fat rate of the cross-sectional 6.70 area of arm (cm2) 89. total cross-sectional area 224.38 of thigh (cm2) 90. bone-muscle rate of the 192.88 cross-sectional area of thigh 91. fat rate of the cross-sectional 31.51 area of thigh 92. bone-muscle rate of the 0.88 cross-sectional area of arm/ total cross sectional area of arm 93. fat rate of the cross-sectional 0.12 area of arm/total crosssectional area of arm 94. bone-muscle rate of the cross0.86 sectional area of thigh/total cross-sectional area of thigh 95. fat rate of the cross-sectional 0.14 area of thigh/total crosssectional area of thigh 0.04
0.04
0.03
0.03
11.50
22.56
27.04
2.51
6.41
0.16
0.84
0.15
0.85
46.87
250.28
297.15
11.69
62.95
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
18.63
27.21
40.10
4.97
9.66
0.16 0.04
0.84 0.04
0.16 0.06
0.84 0.06
45.14 15.33
242.64 24.49
287.77 34.21
11.93 5.35
63.92 10.09
0.13 0.03
0.87 0.03
0.12 0.03
0.88 0.03
29.76 8.19
198.61 21.44
228.39 23.35
6.96 2.39
49.65 5.90
**
**
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
**
**
***
*** ***
**
ns
*
ns
ns
*
*
**
***
***
**
**
**
**
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
Systemic changes in body structure of 17–18-year-old schoolboys
165
166
M. Lintsi, H. Kaarma, L. Saluste, V. Vasar
We started the investigation of body structure with correlation analysis. Most of the anthropometric variables have statistically significant correlations with one another. Two of them – height and weight – have the strongest correlation with the other variables. Height had the strongest correlation with length measurements (r = 0.950–0.321), lower with breadth and depth (r = 0.515–0.191), somewhat stronger with bones (r = 0.362–0.413) and only a weak correlation with circumferences. Weight had even stronger correlations: with length measurements (r = 0.445–0.187), with breadth (r=0.609–0.386), with depth (r = 0.659–0.587), with bones (r = 0.510–0.356), with circumferences (r = 0.848–0.506) and skinfolds (r = 0.652–0.290) (Lintsi 1999). The correlation between height and weight was 0.430 (p < 0.001). Factor analysis gave evidence that height and weight determined nearly 50 per cent of the variability of other measurements. We also analysed the prognostic value of height and weight for other anthropometric variables (n = 55) (Lintsi et al 1997). Multiple linear regression equations were used for predicting other anthropometric variables. All these equations were statistically significant (p < 0.001). This investigation confirms that body structure can be predicted by height and weight with the reliability from 10 to 90 per cent. Thus we can argue that the integrity of body structure is determined by height and weight. Mean values (± SD) of all individual anthropological variables and indices and body composition characteristics were calculated for all the five height-weight classes (table 2). First we investigated the changes in small-medium-large classes. Body height and weight increased step by step in classes from small to medium to large. These changes are accompanied by an increase in length, breadth and depth measurements, bone thicknesses, circumferences, and skinfolds. Mean skinfold, mass of subcutaneous fat and relative mass of subcutaneous fat also increased. Correspondingly, Rohrer’s index and BMI increased gradually and significantly. Attention should be paid to local changes in tissue ratios on arm and thigh crosssectional areas. The fat and bone-muscle areas increased significantly with the increase in the total cross-sectional areas of the arm and thigh (variables 86, 87, 88 and 89, 90, 91). On the other hand, relative bone-muscle area on the arm and thigh decreases from the small class to the large class, and, on the contrary, the relative fat area increases (variables 92, 94 and 93, 95). As for the indices – relative length (variables 51–54), breadth ( variables 55–58), depth (variables 59, 60), bone thicknesses (variables 61–64), circumferences (variables 65–73) to height and limbs’ characteristics in relation to the limbs’ length (variables 74–82) – they all remain stable in small-medium-large classes. The differences between the groups of pycnics and leptosomes (classes 4 and 5 in table 2) are well known. Leptosomes are taller and pycnics heavier. In leptosomes all the length measurements are bigger; on the other hand, pycnics have bigger breadths, depths, circumferences and skinfolds. The above-mentioned differences also determine the differences in body composition – pycnics have greater Rohrer and body mass index, relative mass of fat by Siri, absolute and relative mass of subcutaneous fat. Leptosomes are characterised by greater body density. A really characteristic index differentiating pycnics – biacromial breadth/chest circumference – was smaller in pycnics (variable 85) and vice versa – the ratio between biacromial breadth/bicristal breadth was bigger in pycnics (variable 84).
Systemic changes in body structure of 17–18-year-old schoolboys
167
Pycnics have a bigger total cross-sectional area of the arm and the thigh, a bigger bone-muscle ratio and a bigger fat ratio on the arm and the thigh (variables 86–91). With regard to the bone-muscle ratio of the cross-sectional area of the arm and the thigh to the total cross-sectional area of the arm and the thigh, we made an interesting observation – leptosomes have a relatively bigger bone-muscle area and a smaller fat area (variables 92–95). Pycnics and leptosomes and small, medium and large subjects are similar in the proportion of the trunk, abdomen or limbs to body height (variables 51–54), and bicristal and wrist breadth (variables 58, 64). The relations of wrist to upper limb length and of bimalleolar breadth to lower limb length (variables 78 and 82) and the ratio of chest depth to chest breadth (variable 83) were also stable.
Discussion The aim of theoretical medicine and biology is to evaluate the body build of healthy and sick individuals. In this study the structure of 17–18-year-old schoolboys was investigated by multivariate statistical methods. In the literature available to us there are few studies which investigate changes in the structure of body-build as a system, where body size and somatotype are taken into account simultaneously (Kaarma 1995). Our investigation has shown that a 5-class SD classification of height and weight is genuinely fit for that purpose. On the sample of 17–18year-old schoolboys we established that systemic changes in body build in a 5-class SD-classification of height and weight that have earlier been observed only in female subjects (young women, girls from 15 to 18 years) are really valid for 17–18-year-old boys as well. We found that there exists a system of intercorrelated anthropometric measurements where body weight and height have the leading role. A classification of body height and weight also enables us to systematise other measurements, body proportions and body composition characteristics. Various methods of body build classification may be used. To compare different samples, comparative statistical investigation of body structure has to be undertaken in parallel (Kaarma 1995).
References Bunak VV (1940) Teoretitsheskie voprossy utshenija o fizitsheskom razvitii i ego tipah u tsheloveka. Utshonye zapiski MGU. Antropologia. 34: 7–57. Carter JEL, Heath BH (1990) Somatotyping – development and applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Conrad K (1941) Der Konstitutionstypus als genetisches Problem. Versuch einer genetischen Konstitutionslehre. Springer Verlag, Berlin. De Koning FL, Binkhorst RA, Kauer JMG, Thijssen HOM (1986) Accuracy of an anthropometric estimate of the muscle and bone area in a transversal cross-section of the arm. Int J Sports Med 7: 246–249. DuBois D, DuBois EF (1916) A formula to estimate the approximate surface area if height and weight be known. Arch Internal Med. 17: 863–871. Flügel B, Greil H, Sommer K (eds, 1986) Anthropologischer Atlas. Grundlagen und Daten. Verlag Tribüne Berlin.
168
M. Lintsi, H. Kaarma, L. Saluste, V. Vasar
Greil H (1987) Der Körperbau im Erwachsenenalter – DDR-repräsentative anthropologische Querschnittsstudie (1982/1984). Promot B. Humbolt-Universität, Berlin. Greil H (1988) Mehrdimensionale Variabilität von Körperbaumassen im Erwachsenalter. Wiss Z Humboldt-Universität, Berlin. Greil H (1991) Urbanization and heavy physical work as influencing factors on physique. Coll Antrop 15: 123–129. Greil H (1996) Appendix: Somatotyping based on factor analysis. 53–56. Greil H (1997a) Ontogenetic aspects of dimensions and proportions in sitting posture. Coll Anthrop 21: 367–386. Greil H (1997b) Physique, type of body shape and nutritional status. Homo 48: 33–53. Greil H, Trippo U (1998) Physique and body composition; comparisons of methods and results. Coll Antrop 22: 345–363. Gross K, Kask V, Jalviste H, Liivrand V, Leisner U, Koiv I, Kaarma H (1980) Sunnitusabi fantoom. I osa. Tartu. Heyward VH, Stolarczyk (1996) Applied Body Composition Assessement. Human Kinetics Books, Champaign, Ill. Jatsuta KZ (1923) Ob izmerenii nizhnei konetshnosti na zhivom. Rus antrop zhurnal 12: 38–47. Kaarma H (1981) Multivariate Statistical Analysis of the Women’s Anthropometric Characteristics System. Valgus, Tallinn. Kaarma H (1995) Complex statistical characterization of women’s body measurements. Anthrop Anz 53: 239–244 Kaarma H, Tapfer H, Veldre G, Thetloff M, Saluste L, Peterson J (1996) Some principles to be considered when using young women’s anthropometric data. Biol Sport 13: 127–135. Kaarma H, Saluvere K, Saluste L, Koskel S (1997) Application of a 5-class classification of height and weight to systematise anthropometric data of 16-year-old Tartu schoolgirls. In Kaarma H, Thetloff M, Peterson J, Veldre G (eds) Papers on Anthropology. Proc 8th Tartu Internat Anthrop Conf 12–16 October. Tartu University Press, Tartu, 160–173. Kaarma H, Saluvere K, Peterson J, Veldre G, Saluste L, Koskel S (1997) Multivariate anthropometric classification for secondary school girls. Acta Med Baltica 1: 33–35. Kliorin AI, Tshtetsov VP (1979) Biologitsheskie Problemy utshenija Konstitutsijah Tsheloveka. Nauka. Leningrad. Knussmann R (1961) Zur Methode der objektiven Körperbautypognose. Z Vererb Konst 36: 1–44. Knussmann R (ed, 1988) Anthropologie. Handbuch der Vergleichenden Biologie des Menschen. Vol 1: Wesen und Methoden der Anthropologie. Gustav Fischer Verlag, Stuttgart. Kretschmer E (1961) Körperbau und Character. Springer Verlag, Berlin. Lintsi M, Saluste L, Kaarma H, Koskel S, Aluoja A, Liivamägi J, Mehilane L, Vasar V (1997). Characteristic traits of anthropometry in 17–18 year old schoolboys of Tartu. In Kaarma H, Thetloff M, Peterson J, Veldre G (eds) Papers on Anthropology. Proce 8th Tartu Internat Anthrop Conf 12–16 October. Tartu University Press, Tartu, 222–231. Lintsi M (1999) Tartu Eesti Gumnaasiumide Noormeeste Abiturientide Kehaehitusstruktuur. MSc. thesis. Manuscript. Lohman TG, Roche AF, Martorell R (1988) Anthropometric Standartization Reference Manual. Human Kinetics Books. Champaign, Ill. Maiste E, Kaarma H, Thetloff M.(1999) On the prospects of multivariate systematization of separate body measurements and indices of 15-year-old Estonian schoolgirls. Homo 50: 21–32. Martin R (1928) Lehrbuch der Anthropologie. I–III. Gustav Fischer Verlag, Jena. Parizkova J (1977) Body fat and physical fitness.: Martinus Nijhoff, Hague The Netherlands. Peterson J, Saluvere K (1998) Systematisation of anthropometric data of 18 year-old girls by a statistical model. Biol Sport 15: 105–112. Polina N, Kaarma H, Thethloff M (1992) The system of body sizes and feasibility of somatotyping (girls aged 8 to 11 years from central regions of Belarus). Papers on Anthropology V. Acta et Comm. Univ Tartuensis 951, Tartu, 75–86. Saluvere K, Peterson, Saluste L, Koskel S (1998) Systematisation of anthropometric data of 17-year-old schoolgirls from Tartu, Estonia. Antrop Anz 56: 267–280. Sheldon WH, Stevens SS, Tucker WB(1970) The Varieties of Human Physique. An Introduction to Constitutional Psychology. Hafner Publishing Company, Darien, Conn. Shtefko VG, Ostrovski AD (1929) Skhema Klinitscheskoi Diagnostiki Konstitutsionalnyh tipov. Moscow-Leningrad.
Systemic changes in body structure of 17–18-year-old schoolboys
169
Siri WE (1956) Body composition from fluid spaces and density. MSUCRL, 3349, Donner Lab. UCLA. Strömgren E (1937) Über anthropometrische Indizes zur Unterscheidung von Körperbautypen. Z Ges Neurol Psychiatr 159: 75–81. Trippo U, Greil H (1998) Body composition, nutrition and nutritional habits of young and elderly adults. Coll Antrop 22: 365–384 Wilmore JH, Behnke AR (1969) An anthropometric estimation of body density and lean body weight in young men. J Appl Physiol 27: 25–31. Authors’ address: MART LINTSI, MD, HELJE KAARMA, MD, Prof., Dr. Sc., LIIDIA SALUSTE, MD, Cand. Sc.,Centre of Physical Anthropology, University of Tartu, Lossi 36, Tartu 51 003, Estonia. Tel: +37 27 448 916, Fax: + 37 27 448 902. Ms received 16.05.98, accepted 19.07.99, resubmitted 30.03.00
HOMO
Systemic changes in body structure of 17–18-year-old schoolboys M. LINTSI, H. KAARMA, L. SALUSTE, V. VASAR Centre of Physical Anthropology, University of Tartu, Lossi 36, Tartu 51 003, Estonia
Summary The purpose of this study was to assess the systemic structural changes in the body build of 17–18-yearold schoolboys in the final years of Tartu secondary schools within a height-weight classification dividing anthropometric variables into 5 SD-classes. Weight and height, 9 length, 8 breadth and 2 depth measurements, 16 circumferences and 12 skinfolds were measured. From these 5 length measurements and 53 indices were computed, which characterise the ratios of various parts of the body to body height, to upper and lower limbs’ length and body composition. The subjects (n = 253) were divided into five standard deviation classes according to height and weight (Kaarma 1981, 1995). In the first three classes height and weight were proportional: (1) small height – small weight, (2) medium height – medium weight and (3) big height – big weight. In the fourth and the fifth class height and weight were non-proportional. In the fourth class weight was preponderant over height, and in the fifth class height was preponderant over weight. It was proved that a statistical difference exists between the opposite classes – the fourth and the fifth class. It was also revealed that the three proportional classes differ from each other significantly. Increase in body height and weight leads also to an increase in length, breadth and depth measurements, bone thicknesses, circumferences and skinfolds. Rohrer index, body mass index, total percentage of fat by Siri, absolute and relative mass of fat tissue increased from the small to the large class. The relationship of the length, width, and depth measurements, circumferences and bone thicknesses to height remains almost unchanged throughout the proportional classes. These investigations support the position that the whole body model may be reconstructed from body height and weight.
Introduction «The somatotype story has been lengthy, sometimes stormy, always interesting» (Carter & Heath 1990). Many researchers have contributed to this field. Sometimes seemingly very simple questions are hard to answer (Kretschmer 1922, 1961, Shtefko & Ostrovski 1929, Strömgren 1937, Bunak 1940, Conrad 1941, Sheldon et al 1970, Knussmann 1961, 1988, Kliorin & Tshtetsov 1979, Flügel et al 1986, Greil 1987, 1988, 1991, 1996, 1997a, 1997b, Carter & Heath 1990; Greil & Trippo 1998). Since 1974 the Department of Obstetrics at the University of Tartu and for the last 6 years the Centre for Physical Anthropology at the same university have fostered the use of weight-height standard deviation (SD) classes for systematisation of anthropometric data. By multivariate statistical analysis it has been demonstrated that changes in the SD classes of weight-height also cause systemic structural 0018-442X/02/53/02–157/$ 15.00/0
158
M. Lintsi, H. Kaarma, L. Saluste, V. Vasar
changes in most anthropometric variables investigated. The validity of these hypotheses has been studied on young women (Kaarma 1981, 1995, Kaarma et al 1996), healthy neonates (Kaarma et al 1997), 8–11-year-old girls of Belarus (Polina et al 1992) and on 15–18-year-old Estonian schoolgirls (Kaarma et al 1997, Kaarma et al 1997, Saluvere et al 1998, Peterson & Saluvere 1998, Maiste et al 1999). Linear correlation analysis has shown that body height and weight have the greatest number of high correlations with the other measurements (Kaarma 1981, 1995). This indicated the possibility that body weight and height might to be considered the leading anthropometric characteristics. This hypothesis was statistically proven in the following way: the influence of body weight and height was eliminated, and then the correlation structure was investigated. The result was a surprisingly changed picture – the system of correlations had disintegrated. The leading role of body weight and height was also proved by factor analysis. It appeared that 50% of the total variability of the whole set of characteristics measured could be described by weight and height (Kaarma 1995). An anthropometric multivariate model for young women was recommended (Kaarma1981, 1994 ), the quintessence of which was the application of 5 × 5 or 35 × 3 SD-classes of body height and weight. This system prepares the way for observing systemic changes of single anthropometric measurements, indices and proportions in various height-weight combinations. The advantage of the model of SD-classes is that it takes into consideration the body size. In this study the model of SD-classes was for the first time applied for investigating schoolboys aged 17–18 years. The aim of the study was to analyse their body build structure and to investigate changes in single measurements, proportions and body composition characteristics, using a height-weight classification consisting of five SD-classes.
Methods The investigation uses the anthropometric data of 253 schoolboys from the town of Tartu. All schoolboys of the final years of Estonian-language secondary schools of Tartu who were present on the day of the investigation were measured anthropometrically in the school doctor’s consulting room. The measurements were taken according to the classical method of Martin (Martin 1928, Knussmann 1988). In addition, midthigh circumference according to the recommendations of Lohman (Lohman et al 1988) and pelvis circumference according to Gross (Gross et al 1980) were measured. Pelvis circumference was obtained on the level of Michaelis rhombus upper corner, iliac crest and the upper edge of symphysis as it is frequently used in obstetrics. Abdomen depth was measured at the level of umbilicus in sagittal projection plane at the end of expirium, individuals being in an orthostatic position. It is analogous to the abdomen depth measured in a sitting position (Flügel et al 1986). Weight, 10 measures of length, 10 measures of breadth and depth, 16 circumferences and 12 skinfolds were taken from every person. Skinfolds thicknesses were measured at 12 sites using skinfold calipers with a constant 10 g/mm2 pressure applied at right angles to the fold defined between the observer’s thumb and index finger. Skinfold thicknesses were measured at standardised sites –
Systemic changes in body structure of 17–18-year-old schoolboys
159
Figure 1. Classification of 17–18year-old boys by five height/eight SD classes.
cheek and chin (Parizkova 1977), chest, midaxillary, suprailiac, supraspinal, abdominal, subscapular, biceps, triceps, thigh, and calf (Lohmann et al.1988, Heyward & Stolarczyk 1996). From these data we calculated 58 indices, 5 segments’ lengths, Rohrer and body mass index, body surface area according to the formula of D DuBois and EF DuBois (1916), body density (Wilmore & Behnke 1969), relative mass of fat (Siri 1956), absolute and relative mass of subcutaneous fat. In addition we calculated local subcutaneous fat and the bone-muscle component on the cross-sectional areas of the arm and the thigh (De Koning et al 1986). Lower-limb length was calculated by the formula of Jatsuta (1923). Body height and weight values were divided into three classes each, the middle one – between –0.5 and 0.5 SD from the respective mean, the other classes containing the respective outer values. All the subjects were assigned into one of the following categories: 1 – small (small weight and height), 2 – medium (medium weight and height), 3 – large (big height and weight), 4 – pycnics and 5 – leptosomes (height/weight-disconcordant). Categories 4 and 5 thus contained 3 height/weight subclasses each, as shown in figure 1. For these five height-weight classes the mean values and standard deviations of all the measured and calculated anthropometric variables were computed. The statistical significance of the difference between them was assessed by ANOVA and Bonferroni test. The level of significance was set at p < 0.05. The statistical package Systat for Windows was used. The consultant on data processing was Mrs. S. de Koskel M. Sc. from the Institute of Mathematical Statistics at the University of Tartu.
Results Primary statistical analysis of the anthropometric data is presented in table 1. The average height of 17–18-year-old boys is 179.31 ± 6.12 cm, and their weight is 69.26 ± 9.06 kg. The coefficient of variation of height is 3.41. The variability of weight was bigger (CV = 13.98). Skinfolds and relative mass of subcutaneous fat also formed a group with a great degree of variability.
160
M. Lintsi, H. Kaarma, L. Saluste, V. Vasar
Table 1: Basic statistics of Tartu gyms boy school-leavers anthropometric measurements and indices (n=253) No.
Variable
Mean
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55.
weight (kg) 69.26 standing-height (cm) 179.31 sternum length 16.46 abdomen length 36.86 trunk length 53.32 upper limb length 78.84 lower limb length 94.44 biacromial breadth 39.63 chest breadth 27.08 waist breadth 25.13 bicristal breadth 27.70 chest depth 18.73 abdomen depth 17.41 femur breadth 9.59 ankle breadth 7.77 elbow breadth 7.28 wrist breadth 5.93 head circumference 57.38 neck circumference 36.25 chest circumference 91.77 waist circumference 75.61 pelvis cicumference 82.18 hip circumference 88.68 proximal thigh circumference 56.39 midthigh circumference 48.06 calf circumference 36.34 ancle circumference 23.36 arm circumference 28.37 forearm circumference 26.12 wrist circumference 17.34 cheek skinfold 0.62 chin skinfold 0.44 chest skinfold 0.56 midaxillary skinfold 0.69 suprailiac skinfold 0.92 supraspinale skinfold 0.59 abdominal skinfold 0.90 subscapular skinfold 0.88 biceps skinfold 0.44 triceps skinfold 0.84 thigh skinfold 1.34 calf skinfold 1.03 Rohrer index 1.20 body mass index 21.54 body surface area (m2) 1.87 mean skinfold 0.78 mass of subcutaneous fat(kg) 6.68 relative mass of subcutaneous fat (%) 9.45 body density (g/cm3) 1.07 relative mass of fat by Siri(%) 14.62 relative trunk length(%) 29.70 relative abdomen length 20.56 relative upper limb length 43.97 relative lower limb length 52.66 relative biacromial breadth 22.11
Minimum
Maximum
SD
V
49.25 160.20 11.00 26.90 37.00 60.70 48.15 34.00 18.00 15.00 18.00 14.50 13.50 7.20 6.10 5.90 5.10 51.50 32.10 77.20 60.50 70.20 74.80 46.10 37.80 28.70 20.00 20.40 21.10 15.20 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.30 0.30 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.15 0.30 0.50 0.10 0.92 16.48 1.56 0.36 2.52 4.95 1.03 7.74 23.86 14.78 33.20 26.76 17.88
102.50 191.90 28.00 47.60 67.70 94.40 106.05 45.00 33.00 33.00 33.50 25.00 22.50 10.90 9.40 8.30 7.40 61.60 41.30 110.70 97.30 101.30 105.70 72.90 63.80 43.70 28.90 36.10 31.10 19.30 1.00 1.30 1.40 2.20 2.70 2.90 4.10 3.30 1.90 2.10 3.40 1.90 1.74 29.45 2.28 2.13 20.77 22.22 1.08 31.26 35.03 25.73 51.22 58.05 25.60
9.06 6.12 1.74 2.80 3.58 4.27 5.00 1.93 2.04 2.37 1.57 1.66 1.46 0.50 0.50 0.37 0.35 1.46 1.80 6.16 6.46 5.42 4.72 4.42 3.78 2.52 1.33 2.71 1.75 0.72 0.14 0.15 0.21 0.32 0.43 0.31 0.54 0.37 0.22 0.34 0.44 0.30 0.15 2.54 0.13 0.27 2.74 2.68 0.01 3.16 1.45 1.41 1.80 2.01 0.99
13.98 3.41 10.57 7.60 6.71 5.41 5.29 4.87 7.53 9.43 5.66 8.86 8.38 5.21 6.43 5.08 5.90 2.54 4.96 6.71 8.54 6.59 5.32 7.83 7.86 6.93 5.69 9.55 6.69 4.15 22.58 34.09 37.50 46.37 46.74 52.54 60.00 42.04 50.00 40.47 32.83 29.13 12.50 11.79 6.95 10.25 40.99 28.35 0.66 21.58 4.88 6.86 4.09 3.82 4.48
Systemic changes in body structure of 17–18-year-old schoolboys
161
Table 1: Continued No.
Variable
56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74.
relative chest breadth relative waist breadth relative bicristal breadth relative chest depth relative abdominal depth relative femur breadth relative ankle breadth relative elbow breadth relative wrist breadth relative chest circumference relative waist circumference relative pelvis circumference relative hip circumference relative proximal thigh circumference relative calf circumference relative arm circumference relative forearm circumference relative wrist circumference arm circumference/ upper limb length (%) forearm circumference/ upper limb length wrist circumference/upper limb length elbow breadth/upper limb length wrist breadth/upper limb length proximal thigh circumference/ lower limb length calf circumference/lower limb length femur breadth/lower limb length ankle breadth/lower limb length chest depth/chest breadth biacromial breadth/bicristal breadth biacromial breadth/ chest circumference total cross-sectional area of arm (cm2) bone-muscle rate of the cross-sectional area of arm (cm2) fat rate of the cross-sectional area of arm (cm2) total cross-sectional area of thigh (cm2) bone-muscle rate of the crosssectional area of thigh (cm2) fat rate of the cross-sectional area of thigh (cm2) bone-muscle rate of the crosssectional area of arm/ total cross sectional area of arm fat rate of the cross-sectional area of arm/cross-sectional area of arm bone-muscle rate of the crosssectional area of thigh /total cross-sectional area of thigh fat rate of the cross-sectional area of thigh/total cross-sectional area of thigh
75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. 95.
Mean
Minimum
Maximum
SD
V
15.12 14.02 15.45 10.45 9.71 5.35 4.33 4.06 3.31 51.21 42.20 45.85 49.48 31.47 20.28 15.84 14.58 9.68 36.09
10.00 8.45 11.34 8.28 7.70 3.29 3.29 3.20 2.79 42.14 32.77 39.89 42.09 25.86 16.84 11.94 12.02 8.62 27.45
18.28 18.28 17.99 14.59 12.71 5.10 5.10 4.60 4.09 63.03 54.94 57.23 58.92 38.74 25.12 20.28 17.48 10.95 50.36
1.16 1.31 0.76 0.88 0.82 0.25 0.25 0.20 0.18 3.48 3.68 2.95 2.56 2.58 1.45 1.60 1.03 0.42 4.04
7.67 9.34 4.91 8.42 8.44 4.67 5.77 4.93 5.44 6.80 8.72 6.43 5.17 8.19 7.15 10.10 7.06 4.34 11.19
33.22
26.05
43.50
2.82
8.49
22.05 9.25 7.54 59.90
18.33 7.20 6.14 47.15
28.50 12.03 9.95 105.09
1.36 0.59 0.54 5.97
6.12 6.38 7.16 9.97
38.60 10.18 8.25 69.48 143.38 144.77
31.52 8.09 6.11 53.70 113.43 100.00
70.20 17.03 15.58 69.48 192.11 188.89
3.61 0.72 0.71 7.65 8.47 12.70
9.35 7.07 8.61 11.01 5.91 8.77
64.65 55.77
33.13 30.63
103.76 87.32
12.61 9.95
19.51 17.84
8.88
2.50
29.14
4.27
48.08
254.68
169.20
423.12
40.72
15.99
217.86
140.57
311.76
31.53
14.47
36.82
12.95
114.86
14.20
38.56
0.87
0.68
0.94
0.04
4.59
0.13
0.06
0.32
0.04
30.77
0.86
0.73
0.94
0.04
4.65
0.14
0.06
0.27
0.04
28.57
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29.
1 small n=39 –––––––––––––––– mean SD
weight (kg) 59.08 3.60 standing-height(cm) 171.25 3.79 sternum length 15.94 1.48 abdomen length 35.12 2.78 trunk length 50.90 2.35 upper limb length 75.08 3.34 lower limb length 89.99 3.27 biacromial breadth 37.51 1.74 chest breadth 26.23 1.36 waist breadth 23.64 2.10 bicristal breadth 26.40 1.63 chest depth 17.40 1.11 abdomen depth 16.47 0.89 femur breadth 9.30 0.51 ancle breadth 7.47 0.41 elbow breadth 7.03 0.31 wrist breadth 5.67 0.33 head circumference 56.77 1.20 minimal neck circumference 35.09 1.41 chest circumference 86.06 3.30 waist circumference 71.32 4.35 pelvis circumference 77.23 3.24 hip circumference 84.65 2.93 proximal thigh circumference 53.65 1.98 midthigh circumference 45.41 2.04 calf circumference 34.53 1.98 ancle circumference 22.63 1.44 arm circumference 26.68 1.81 forearm circumference 24.90 1.42
No Variable
69.10 179.10 16.37 36.62 52.98 79.36 94.58 39.95 26.92 24.92 27.73 18.78 17.33 9.57 7.80 7.37 5.96 57.24 36.55 91.99 74.87 81.84 88.88 56.50 48.73 36.41 23.33 28.36 26.15
2.44 1.77 1.25 1.86 1.97 2.38 2.33 1.17 2.16 1.95 1.26 1.49 1.05 0.44 0.44 0.31 0.30 1.34 1.33 3.66 2.81 3.02 3.25 3.02 2.59 1.28 0.99 1.63 0.85
2 medium n=41 –––––––––––––––– mean SD 82.31 186.16 17.61 38.49 55.80 81.37 97.81 41.22 28.74 27.22 29.13 20.18 18.54 9.98 8.13 7.52 6.16 58.69 38.13 97.81 81.42 87.65 93.85 60.96 51.96 38.96 24.61 30.52 28.01
7.20 2.15 1.51 2.60 2.95 3.60 2.28 1.59 1.44 1.86 1.54 1.65 1.70 0.49 0.46 0.47 0.25 1.36 1.41 6.27 6.35 5.44 4.48 4.00 3.01 1.72 0.90 2.52 1.36
3 large n=34 –––––––––––––––– mean SD 74.97 175.56 15.99 36.29 51.87 77.28 92.36 40.07 27.56 26.24 27.38 19.37 18.25 9.66 7.68 7.27 5.90 57.75 37.65 96.12 80.36 85.53 90.76 60.02 50.64 37.85 23.81 30.77 27.36
6.93 4.56 1.64 2.71 3.11 3.77 3.21 1.77 2.37 2.58 1.31 1.63 1.44 0.49 048 0.31 0.28 1.38 1.42 5.33 6.11 5.34 4.68 3.51 3.28 2.52 1.41 2.42 1.44
4 pycnics n=57 –––––––––––––––– mean SD 64.82 182.99 16.85 37.54 54.64 80.44 96.53 39.52 26.56 24.31 27.93 18.28 16.83 9.53 7.80 7.26 5.98 56.94 35.44 88.84 72.31 80.09 86.91 53.49 45.56 35.04 22.89 26.61 25.04
5.28 4.17 2.07 2.81 4.05 4.44 6.25 1.69 1.74 1.76 1.32 1.31 1.14 0.43 0.49 0.04 0.40 1.33 1.39 4.20 4.98 3.66 3.40 2.74 2.66 1.91 1.03 1.68 1.25
5 leptosomes n=82 –––––––––––––––– mean SD *** *** ** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
p-
*** *** ns ns * *** *** *** *** ns *** *** * ns * *** ** ns *** *** * *** *** *** *** *** ns ** ***
*** *** ns *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
1–2 1–3 value
*** *** ns * ** ns * ** *** *** *** *** *** ** * ns ns *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
2–3
*** *** ns * *** *** *** ns * *** ns *** *** ns ns ns ns ** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
4–5
Table 2: Basic statistics of anthropometrical measurements, indices and body composition data of 17-18-year-old boys grouped into 5 height-weight classes.
162 M. Lintsi, H. Kaarma, L. Saluste, V. Vasar
30. wrist circumference 16.73 31. cheek skinfold 0.62 32. chin skinfold 0.40 33. chest skinfold 0.50 34. midaxillary skinfold 0.55 35. suprailiac skinfold 0.68 36. supraspinale skinfold 0.52 37. abdominal skinfold 0.65 38. subscapular skinfold 0.73 39. biceps skinfold 0.35 40. triceps skinfold 0.68 41. thigh skinfold 1.23 42. calf skinfold 0.98 43. Rohrer index 1.18 44. body mass index 20.16 45. body surface area (m2) 1.69 46. mean skinfold 0.66 47. mass of subcutaneous fat (kg) 5.03 48. relative mass of subcutaneous fat (%) *** 49. body density (g/cm3) 1.07 50. relative mass of fat by Siri(%) 13.72 51. relative trunk length(%) 29.73 52. relative abdominal length 20.51 53. relative upper limb length 43.83 54. relative lower limb length 52.55 55. relative biacromial breadth 21.91 56. relative chest breadth 15.32 57. relative waist breadth 13.81 58. relative bicristal breadth 15.42 59. relative chest depth 10.16 60. relative abdomen depth 9.62 61. relative femur breadth 5.43 62. relative ankle breadth 4.36 63. relative elbow breadth 4.10 64. relative wrist breadth 3.31 65. relative chest circumference 50.27
17.24 0.59 0.42 0.56 0.65 0.87 0.50 0.81 0.78 0.39 0.81 1.32 0.97 1.20 21.55 1.87 0.73 6.17 1.83 1.07 14.03 29.59 20.45 44.28 52.81 22.31 15.03 13.91 15.48 10.49 9.68 5.34 4.36 4.11 3.33 51.37
0.65 0.13 0.13 0.14 0.19 0.21 0.20 0.20 0.17 0.10 0.23 0.34 0.28 0.09 1.22 0.06 0.15 1.10 8.52 0.01 2.61 1.22 1.56 1.45 1.45 1.00 0.82 1.23 0.90 6.63 0.52 0.28 0.24 0.18 0.18 2.10
0.01 2.00 1.18 1.07 1.29 0.97 0.73 1.21 1.10 0.69 0.83 0.57 0.26 0.25 0.17 0.17 2.21
0.44 0.13 0.12 0.17 0.24 0.31 0.12 0.27 0.11 0.11 0.26 0.40 0.24 0.06 0.89 0.03 0.16 1.32 8.92 1.06 15.60 29.81 20.68 43.71 52.54 22.15 15.44 14.62 15.65 10.84 9.96 5.36 4.37 4.04 3.31 52.55
18.22 0.65 0.51 0.65 0.90 1.14 0.70 1.21 1.18 0.54 1.04 1.58 1.20 1.28 23.76 2.07 0.96 9.04 1.83 0.01 3.81 1.43 1.37 1.96 1.11 0.88 0.79 0.99 0.81 0.88 0.90 0.25 0.23 0.25 0.12 3.38
0.56 0.17 0.21 0.29 0.48 0.55 0.49 0.76 0.53 0.25 0.37 0.54 0.37 0.12 2.11 0.08 0.37 3.85 10.76 1.06 16.34 29.68 20.67 44.01 52.60 22.83 15.71 14.95 15.60 11.03 10.40 5.50 4.38 4.14 3.36 54.77
17.60 0.69 0.50 0.68 0.90 1.27 0.78 1.29 1.17 0.57 1.04 1.56 1.18 1.39 24.31 1.91 0.99 8.59 3.63 0.01 3.96 1.33 1.52 1.63 1.06 0.91 1.40 1.46 0.75 0.89 0.82 0.26 0.23 0.17 0.16 3.10
0.58 0.12 0.18 0.22 0.32 0.47 0.37 0.71 0.43 0.32 0.41 0.46 0.29 0.12 1.90 0.10 0.31 3.07 11.30 1.07 13.72 29.72 20.49 43.96 52.74 21.60 14.51 13.29 15.27 9.99 9.20 5.21 4.26 3.97 3.27 48.55
17.14 0.58 0.39 0.48 0.54 0.71 0.48 0.69 0.72 0.37 0.70 1.15 0.92 1.06 19.34 1.85 0.65 5.43 3.11 0.01 2.27 1.74 1.43 2.18 3.12 0.87 0.92 0.92 0.68 0.69 0.60 0.22 0.27 0.17 0.22 2.18
0.66 0.13 0.09 0.16 0.13 0.20 0.15 0.20 0.16 0.15 0.24 0.31 0.25 0.07 1.21 0.09 0.13 1.20 8.33 *** *** ns ns ns ns *** *** *** ns *** *** *** * *** ns ***
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 1.49 ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns
** ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns *** *** ns ns *** ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns * ns ** ns ns ns ns ns ns
*** ns ** * *** *** ns *** *** ** *** ** * *** *** *** *** *** ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns
*** ns ns ns ns * * ** *** * ** * ** ** *** *** *** *** ** *** *** ns ns ns ns *** *** *** ns *** *** *** * *** ns *
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** * Systemic changes in body structure of 17–18-year-old schoolboys
163
86.
85.
81. 82. 83. 84.
80.
77. 78. 79.
76.
75.
70. 71. 72. 73. 74.
66. 67. 68. 69.
7.63
1.99
0.65 0.61 5.30 10.89
2.61
0.54 0.54 3.40
1.32
2.43
1.24 1.20 0.84 0.37 3.31
2.54 1.94 1.78 1.45
1 small n=39 –––––––––––––––– mean SD
relative waist circumference 41.66 relative pelvis circumference 45.11 relative hip circumference 49.44 relative proximal thigh 30.99 circumference relative calf circumference 20.17 relative arm circumference 15.59 relative forearm circumference 14.54 relative wrist circumference 9.77 arm circumference/ 35.64 upper limb length (%) forearm circumference/ 33.23 upper limb length wrist circumference/ 22.32 upper limb length elbow breadth/upper limb length 9.38 wrist breadth/upper limb length 7.57 proximal thigh circumference/ 59.04 lower limb length calf circumference/ 38.42 lower limb length femur width/lower limb length 10.34 ankle breadt/lower limb length 8.32 chest depth/chest breadth 66.51 biacromial breadth/ 142.61 bicristal breadth biacromial breadth/ 43.62 chest circumference total cross-sectional 56.92 area of arm(cm2)
No Variable
Table 2: Continued.
64.22
43.49
10.13 8.25 70.26 144.34
38.53
9.29 7.52 59.80
21.76
33.01
20.33 15.84 14.60 9.63 35.81
41.81 45.70 49.63 31.55
7.53
2.05
0.60 0.54 8.42 7.69
1.93
0.42 0.44 3.96
0.89
1.76
0.77 0.97 0.53 0.26 2.62
1.64 1.71 1.86 1.81
2 medium n=41 –––––––––––––––– mean SD
74.64
42.29
10.21 8.32 70.34 141.85
39.86
9.26 7.58 62.37
22.42
34.48
20.93 16.40 15.05 9.79 37.56
43.74 47.09 50.42 32.76
12.55
2.93
0.46 0.44 5.90 8.75
2.02
0.68 0.51 4.40
1.06
2.11
0.96 1.39 0.75 0.30 3.36
3.49 2.97 2.42 2.24
3 large n=34 –––––––––––––––– mean SD
1.42 1.38 0.84 0.38 3.81
3.37 2.94 2.53 2.06
0.50 0.47 9.82 7.32
75.85 31.06
41.76 2.18
10.47 8.32 70.92 146.52
41.01 2.90
9.43 0.54 7.64 0.44 65.04 4.17
22.82. 1.28
35.49 2.55
21.56 17.53 15.59 10.03 39.92
45.78 48.73 51.71 34.20
4 pycnics n=57 –––––––––––––––– mean SD
1.08 0.92 0.72 0.35 2.78
2.74 1.76 1.61 1.39
0.92 0.99 6.82 7.64
56.60 7.22
44.55 2.27
9.93 8.13 69.14 141.71
36.54 4.36
9.05 0.69 7.46 0.64 55.76 6.24
21.37 1.40
31.23 2.39
19.15 14.55 13.69 9.37 33.18
39.53 43.77 47.50 29.23
5 leptosomes n=82 –––––––––––––––– mean SD
***
***
*** ns ns *
***
** ns ***
***
***
*** *** *** *** ***
*** *** *** ***
p-
**
ns
ns ns ns ns
ns
ns ns ns
ns
ns
ns ns ns ns ns
ns ns ns ns
***
ns
ns ns ns ns
*
ns ns ns
ns
ns
*** * * * ns
** * ** ns
1–2 1–3 value
***
ns
ns ns ns ns
ns
ns ns ns
ns
ns
* ns ns ns ns
ns * ns ns
2–3
***
***
*** ns ns **
***
*** ns ***
***
***
*** *** *** *** ***
*** *** *** ***
4–5
164 M. Lintsi, H. Kaarma, L. Saluste, V. Vasar
254.87 218.80 36.07 0.87
0.13
0.86
0.14
15.75 8.70 0.03
0.03
0.04
0.04
8.21
2.06 16.52
56.02
7.03
ns - nonsignificant, *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001
87. bone-muscle rate of the 50.22 cross- sectional area of arm (cm2) 88. fat rate of the cross-sectional 6.70 area of arm (cm2) 89. total cross-sectional area 224.38 of thigh (cm2) 90. bone-muscle rate of the 192.88 cross-sectional area of thigh 91. fat rate of the cross-sectional 31.51 area of thigh 92. bone-muscle rate of the 0.88 cross-sectional area of arm/ total cross sectional area of arm 93. fat rate of the cross-sectional 0.12 area of arm/total crosssectional area of arm 94. bone-muscle rate of the cross0.86 sectional area of thigh/total cross-sectional area of thigh 95. fat rate of the cross-sectional 0.14 area of thigh/total crosssectional area of thigh 0.04
0.04
0.03
0.03
11.50
22.56
27.04
2.51
6.41
0.16
0.84
0.15
0.85
46.87
250.28
297.15
11.69
62.95
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
18.63
27.21
40.10
4.97
9.66
0.16 0.04
0.84 0.04
0.16 0.06
0.84 0.06
45.14 15.33
242.64 24.49
287.77 34.21
11.93 5.35
63.92 10.09
0.13 0.03
0.87 0.03
0.12 0.03
0.88 0.03
29.76 8.19
198.61 21.44
228.39 23.35
6.96 2.39
49.65 5.90
**
**
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
**
**
***
*** ***
**
ns
*
ns
ns
*
*
**
***
***
**
**
**
**
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
Systemic changes in body structure of 17–18-year-old schoolboys
165
166
M. Lintsi, H. Kaarma, L. Saluste, V. Vasar
We started the investigation of body structure with correlation analysis. Most of the anthropometric variables have statistically significant correlations with one another. Two of them – height and weight – have the strongest correlation with the other variables. Height had the strongest correlation with length measurements (r = 0.950–0.321), lower with breadth and depth (r = 0.515–0.191), somewhat stronger with bones (r = 0.362–0.413) and only a weak correlation with circumferences. Weight had even stronger correlations: with length measurements (r = 0.445–0.187), with breadth (r=0.609–0.386), with depth (r = 0.659–0.587), with bones (r = 0.510–0.356), with circumferences (r = 0.848–0.506) and skinfolds (r = 0.652–0.290) (Lintsi 1999). The correlation between height and weight was 0.430 (p < 0.001). Factor analysis gave evidence that height and weight determined nearly 50 per cent of the variability of other measurements. We also analysed the prognostic value of height and weight for other anthropometric variables (n = 55) (Lintsi et al 1997). Multiple linear regression equations were used for predicting other anthropometric variables. All these equations were statistically significant (p < 0.001). This investigation confirms that body structure can be predicted by height and weight with the reliability from 10 to 90 per cent. Thus we can argue that the integrity of body structure is determined by height and weight. Mean values (± SD) of all individual anthropological variables and indices and body composition characteristics were calculated for all the five height-weight classes (table 2). First we investigated the changes in small-medium-large classes. Body height and weight increased step by step in classes from small to medium to large. These changes are accompanied by an increase in length, breadth and depth measurements, bone thicknesses, circumferences, and skinfolds. Mean skinfold, mass of subcutaneous fat and relative mass of subcutaneous fat also increased. Correspondingly, Rohrer’s index and BMI increased gradually and significantly. Attention should be paid to local changes in tissue ratios on arm and thigh crosssectional areas. The fat and bone-muscle areas increased significantly with the increase in the total cross-sectional areas of the arm and thigh (variables 86, 87, 88 and 89, 90, 91). On the other hand, relative bone-muscle area on the arm and thigh decreases from the small class to the large class, and, on the contrary, the relative fat area increases (variables 92, 94 and 93, 95). As for the indices – relative length (variables 51–54), breadth ( variables 55–58), depth (variables 59, 60), bone thicknesses (variables 61–64), circumferences (variables 65–73) to height and limbs’ characteristics in relation to the limbs’ length (variables 74–82) – they all remain stable in small-medium-large classes. The differences between the groups of pycnics and leptosomes (classes 4 and 5 in table 2) are well known. Leptosomes are taller and pycnics heavier. In leptosomes all the length measurements are bigger; on the other hand, pycnics have bigger breadths, depths, circumferences and skinfolds. The above-mentioned differences also determine the differences in body composition – pycnics have greater Rohrer and body mass index, relative mass of fat by Siri, absolute and relative mass of subcutaneous fat. Leptosomes are characterised by greater body density. A really characteristic index differentiating pycnics – biacromial breadth/chest circumference – was smaller in pycnics (variable 85) and vice versa – the ratio between biacromial breadth/bicristal breadth was bigger in pycnics (variable 84).
Systemic changes in body structure of 17–18-year-old schoolboys
167
Pycnics have a bigger total cross-sectional area of the arm and the thigh, a bigger bone-muscle ratio and a bigger fat ratio on the arm and the thigh (variables 86–91). With regard to the bone-muscle ratio of the cross-sectional area of the arm and the thigh to the total cross-sectional area of the arm and the thigh, we made an interesting observation – leptosomes have a relatively bigger bone-muscle area and a smaller fat area (variables 92–95). Pycnics and leptosomes and small, medium and large subjects are similar in the proportion of the trunk, abdomen or limbs to body height (variables 51–54), and bicristal and wrist breadth (variables 58, 64). The relations of wrist to upper limb length and of bimalleolar breadth to lower limb length (variables 78 and 82) and the ratio of chest depth to chest breadth (variable 83) were also stable.
Discussion The aim of theoretical medicine and biology is to evaluate the body build of healthy and sick individuals. In this study the structure of 17–18-year-old schoolboys was investigated by multivariate statistical methods. In the literature available to us there are few studies which investigate changes in the structure of body-build as a system, where body size and somatotype are taken into account simultaneously (Kaarma 1995). Our investigation has shown that a 5-class SD classification of height and weight is genuinely fit for that purpose. On the sample of 17–18year-old schoolboys we established that systemic changes in body build in a 5-class SD-classification of height and weight that have earlier been observed only in female subjects (young women, girls from 15 to 18 years) are really valid for 17–18-year-old boys as well. We found that there exists a system of intercorrelated anthropometric measurements where body weight and height have the leading role. A classification of body height and weight also enables us to systematise other measurements, body proportions and body composition characteristics. Various methods of body build classification may be used. To compare different samples, comparative statistical investigation of body structure has to be undertaken in parallel (Kaarma 1995).
References Bunak VV (1940) Teoretitsheskie voprossy utshenija o fizitsheskom razvitii i ego tipah u tsheloveka. Utshonye zapiski MGU. Antropologia. 34: 7–57. Carter JEL, Heath BH (1990) Somatotyping – development and applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Conrad K (1941) Der Konstitutionstypus als genetisches Problem. Versuch einer genetischen Konstitutionslehre. Springer Verlag, Berlin. De Koning FL, Binkhorst RA, Kauer JMG, Thijssen HOM (1986) Accuracy of an anthropometric estimate of the muscle and bone area in a transversal cross-section of the arm. Int J Sports Med 7: 246–249. DuBois D, DuBois EF (1916) A formula to estimate the approximate surface area if height and weight be known. Arch Internal Med. 17: 863–871. Flügel B, Greil H, Sommer K (eds, 1986) Anthropologischer Atlas. Grundlagen und Daten. Verlag Tribüne Berlin.
168
M. Lintsi, H. Kaarma, L. Saluste, V. Vasar
Greil H (1987) Der Körperbau im Erwachsenenalter – DDR-repräsentative anthropologische Querschnittsstudie (1982/1984). Promot B. Humbolt-Universität, Berlin. Greil H (1988) Mehrdimensionale Variabilität von Körperbaumassen im Erwachsenalter. Wiss Z Humboldt-Universität, Berlin. Greil H (1991) Urbanization and heavy physical work as influencing factors on physique. Coll Antrop 15: 123–129. Greil H (1996) Appendix: Somatotyping based on factor analysis. 53–56. Greil H (1997a) Ontogenetic aspects of dimensions and proportions in sitting posture. Coll Anthrop 21: 367–386. Greil H (1997b) Physique, type of body shape and nutritional status. Homo 48: 33–53. Greil H, Trippo U (1998) Physique and body composition; comparisons of methods and results. Coll Antrop 22: 345–363. Gross K, Kask V, Jalviste H, Liivrand V, Leisner U, Koiv I, Kaarma H (1980) Sunnitusabi fantoom. I osa. Tartu. Heyward VH, Stolarczyk (1996) Applied Body Composition Assessement. Human Kinetics Books, Champaign, Ill. Jatsuta KZ (1923) Ob izmerenii nizhnei konetshnosti na zhivom. Rus antrop zhurnal 12: 38–47. Kaarma H (1981) Multivariate Statistical Analysis of the Women’s Anthropometric Characteristics System. Valgus, Tallinn. Kaarma H (1995) Complex statistical characterization of women’s body measurements. Anthrop Anz 53: 239–244 Kaarma H, Tapfer H, Veldre G, Thetloff M, Saluste L, Peterson J (1996) Some principles to be considered when using young women’s anthropometric data. Biol Sport 13: 127–135. Kaarma H, Saluvere K, Saluste L, Koskel S (1997) Application of a 5-class classification of height and weight to systematise anthropometric data of 16-year-old Tartu schoolgirls. In Kaarma H, Thetloff M, Peterson J, Veldre G (eds) Papers on Anthropology. Proc 8th Tartu Internat Anthrop Conf 12–16 October. Tartu University Press, Tartu, 160–173. Kaarma H, Saluvere K, Peterson J, Veldre G, Saluste L, Koskel S (1997) Multivariate anthropometric classification for secondary school girls. Acta Med Baltica 1: 33–35. Kliorin AI, Tshtetsov VP (1979) Biologitsheskie Problemy utshenija Konstitutsijah Tsheloveka. Nauka. Leningrad. Knussmann R (1961) Zur Methode der objektiven Körperbautypognose. Z Vererb Konst 36: 1–44. Knussmann R (ed, 1988) Anthropologie. Handbuch der Vergleichenden Biologie des Menschen. Vol 1: Wesen und Methoden der Anthropologie. Gustav Fischer Verlag, Stuttgart. Kretschmer E (1961) Körperbau und Character. Springer Verlag, Berlin. Lintsi M, Saluste L, Kaarma H, Koskel S, Aluoja A, Liivamägi J, Mehilane L, Vasar V (1997). Characteristic traits of anthropometry in 17–18 year old schoolboys of Tartu. In Kaarma H, Thetloff M, Peterson J, Veldre G (eds) Papers on Anthropology. Proce 8th Tartu Internat Anthrop Conf 12–16 October. Tartu University Press, Tartu, 222–231. Lintsi M (1999) Tartu Eesti Gumnaasiumide Noormeeste Abiturientide Kehaehitusstruktuur. MSc. thesis. Manuscript. Lohman TG, Roche AF, Martorell R (1988) Anthropometric Standartization Reference Manual. Human Kinetics Books. Champaign, Ill. Maiste E, Kaarma H, Thetloff M.(1999) On the prospects of multivariate systematization of separate body measurements and indices of 15-year-old Estonian schoolgirls. Homo 50: 21–32. Martin R (1928) Lehrbuch der Anthropologie. I–III. Gustav Fischer Verlag, Jena. Parizkova J (1977) Body fat and physical fitness.: Martinus Nijhoff, Hague The Netherlands. Peterson J, Saluvere K (1998) Systematisation of anthropometric data of 18 year-old girls by a statistical model. Biol Sport 15: 105–112. Polina N, Kaarma H, Thethloff M (1992) The system of body sizes and feasibility of somatotyping (girls aged 8 to 11 years from central regions of Belarus). Papers on Anthropology V. Acta et Comm. Univ Tartuensis 951, Tartu, 75–86. Saluvere K, Peterson, Saluste L, Koskel S (1998) Systematisation of anthropometric data of 17-year-old schoolgirls from Tartu, Estonia. Antrop Anz 56: 267–280. Sheldon WH, Stevens SS, Tucker WB(1970) The Varieties of Human Physique. An Introduction to Constitutional Psychology. Hafner Publishing Company, Darien, Conn. Shtefko VG, Ostrovski AD (1929) Skhema Klinitscheskoi Diagnostiki Konstitutsionalnyh tipov. Moscow-Leningrad.
Systemic changes in body structure of 17–18-year-old schoolboys
169
Siri WE (1956) Body composition from fluid spaces and density. MSUCRL, 3349, Donner Lab. UCLA. Strömgren E (1937) Über anthropometrische Indizes zur Unterscheidung von Körperbautypen. Z Ges Neurol Psychiatr 159: 75–81. Trippo U, Greil H (1998) Body composition, nutrition and nutritional habits of young and elderly adults. Coll Antrop 22: 365–384 Wilmore JH, Behnke AR (1969) An anthropometric estimation of body density and lean body weight in young men. J Appl Physiol 27: 25–31. Authors’ address: MART LINTSI, MD, HELJE KAARMA, MD, Prof., Dr. Sc., LIIDIA SALUSTE, MD, Cand. Sc.,Centre of Physical Anthropology, University of Tartu, Lossi 36, Tartu 51 003, Estonia. Tel: +37 27 448 916, Fax: + 37 27 448 902. Ms received 16.05.98, accepted 19.07.99, resubmitted 30.03.00