The impact of skinfolds measurement on somatotype determination in Heath-Carter method.
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2019
2019
Historique:
received:
23
04
2019
accepted:
21
08
2019
entrez:
7
9
2019
pubmed:
7
9
2019
medline:
11
3
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The study aim was to determine if a difference exists in skinfold thickness measured by two interchangeable approaches; (1) supraspinale skinfold recommended in the Heath-Carter method and (2) iliac crest skinfold measurement. The question arises as to whether each approach has a similar or different effect on endomorphy determination, and whether there is a possibility to estimate the supraspinale skinfold based on other skinfold measurements. A group of 186 male and 161 female students participated in this study. Anthropometric examination included all somatic measurements, as recommended in the Heath-Carter protocol, and the iliac crest skinfold measurement. Estimation of the supraspinale skinfold was performed based on the multiple linear regression procedure. Skinfold thickness measured in the supraspinale and iliac crest differed (p<0.001) in both men (5.41±1.65 mm and 9.55±4.05 mm, respectively) and women (8.87±4.08 mm and 15.20±6.85 mm), respectively. Endomorphy was significantly higher (0.46 in men, 0.63 in women) when the iliac crest skinfold was used. Subscapular skinfold and iliac crest skinfolds were included in the linear regression model for supraspinale skinfold estimation (R2 = 0.724, SE = 0.9 mm and R2 = 0.947, SE = 2.3 mm for men and women, respectively). Two common skinfold approaches produced different measurements between the supraspinale and iliac crest skinfolds, which subsequently affected estimated endomorphy. Regression equations for supraspinale skinfold enabled correction of endomorphy in the case of improperly applied measurement (i.e. iliac crest) and thus, could allow for uniform somatotype estimation according to Carter and Heath approach.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31491012
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0222100
pii: PONE-D-19-11543
pmc: PMC6730994
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0222100Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
Am J Phys Anthropol. 1954 Jun;12(2):209-39
pubmed: 13188958
Am J Phys Anthropol. 1963 Jun;21(2):227-33
pubmed: 14110699
Psychol Bull. 1992 Jul;112(1):155-9
pubmed: 19565683
J Strength Cond Res. 2012 Aug;26(8):2146-55
pubmed: 21997459
High Alt Med Biol. 2012 Mar;13(1):46-50
pubmed: 22429232
J Hum Kinet. 2011 Jun;28:141-54
pubmed: 23486846
J Hum Kinet. 2011 Sep;29:107-13
pubmed: 23486854
J Phys Ther Sci. 2014 Aug;26(8):1231-5
pubmed: 25202187
Biol Sport. 2014 Dec;31(4):323-6
pubmed: 25609891
J Strength Cond Res. 2015 Feb;29(2):472-7
pubmed: 25627450
Nutr Hosp. 2015 Apr 01;31(4):1738-47
pubmed: 25795966
Anat Sci Int. 2016 Mar;91(2):180-7
pubmed: 25940679
Nutr Hosp. 2015 Aug 01;32(2):799-807
pubmed: 26268114
Medicina (Kaunas). 2015;51(4):247-52
pubmed: 26424190
PLoS One. 2015 Nov 04;10(11):e0138983
pubmed: 26536030
J Voice. 2017 Jan;31(1):132.e9-132.e21
pubmed: 26791745
Coll Antropol. 2015 Sep;39(3):631-9
pubmed: 26898059
Homo. 2016 Oct;67(5):417-432
pubmed: 27129623
Am J Phys Anthropol. 2017 Apr;162(4):701-714
pubmed: 28063232
Sports Med Open. 2017 Dec;3(1):9
pubmed: 28194734
J Strength Cond Res. 2017 Apr;31(4):963-970
pubmed: 28328714
J Hum Kinet. 2017 Jun 22;57:169-179
pubmed: 28713469
J Strength Cond Res. 2019 Jul;33(7):1904-1911
pubmed: 28723818
Br J Nutr. 1974 Jul;32(1):77-97
pubmed: 4843734
Am J Phys Anthropol. 1967 Jul;27(1):57-74
pubmed: 6049820