Int. J. Cur. Tr. Res (2013) 2 (1): 178-181 ISSN: 2278-8042
www.injctr.com
Analysis of Anthropometric and Physiological variables among Shot-put and Discuss throw Athletes- A Comparative study Rather Mohd. Ramzan* Sant Gadge Baba Amravati University, Amravati, Maharashtra- 444 602, India. Received: 24 April 2013/ Accepted: 24 May 2013/ Published online 31 May 2013.
© INJCTR – 2013
ABSTRACT This paper represents the analyses of anthropometric and physiological variables among Shot-put and Discuss throw intercollegiate athletes of Sant Gadge Baba Amravati University, Amravati Maharashtra, India in 2008. Thirty male subjects, 15 Shot-put and 15 Discuss throw athletes were selected for the present study. Five anthropometric (height, weight, fore arm length, leg length and palm girth) and three physiological (pulse rate, systolic and diastolic blood Pressure and Haemoglobin) variables were taken for the present study. Mean values ± S. E. of various anthropometric and physiological variables were calculated.
Key words: Anthropometric variables, Blood pressure, Height, Physiological variables and Weight.
Introduction Sports play a very prominent role in the modern society which is important to individuals, a group, a nation and indeed the world. Throughout the world, sport has a popular appeal among people of all ages and both sexes. Anthropometry is a series of systematized measuring techniques that express quantitatively the dimensions of the human body and the skeleton. Anthropometry is often viewed as a traditional and perhaps the basic tool of biological anthropology, but it has a long tradition of being used in forensic sciences and in medical sciences especially in the discipline of Forensic Medicine. The field of anthropometry encompasses a variety of human body measurements, such as weight, height, and size, including skin fold thicknesses, circumferences, lengths, and breadths. Anthropometry is a key component of nutritional status assessment in children and adults (Simko, 1995). Therefore, all the anthropometric traits are the result of the influence of either genetic or environmental factors, or combinations of both (Susanne, 1975). Anthropometric dimensions and morphological characteristics play an important role in determining the success of an athlete (Rico-Sanz, 1998; Wilmore and Costill, 1999; Keogh, 1999).
Corresponding author* E.mail:
[email protected]
The interest in anthropometric characteristics and body composition of sportspersons from different competitive sports has increased tremendously over the last decades. It has been well established that specific physical characteristics or anthropometric profiles indicate whether the player would be suitable for the competition at the highest level in a specific sport (Claessens et al., 1999; Bourgois et al., 2000; Reilly et al., 2000; Gabbett, 2000; Ackland et al., 2003; Slater et al., 2005). Depending on the objective, anthropometric instrumentation may include weighing scale, anthropometer, skinfold calipers, body volume tanks, and bioelectrical impedance analyzers. Similarly, radiographic instruments and x-ray scanners such as dual-energy-ray absorption meters and ultrasound densitometers are used for quantifying cortical bone density, bone mass, subcutaneous fat density, and lean body mass (Spencer, 1997). According to James Tanner, formerly Professor of Child Health at the University of London, ‘anthropometry was born not of medicine or science, but of the arts, impregnated by the spirit of Pythagorean philosophy (Tanner, 1981). There is limited availability of the literature related to anthropometric and physiological parameters of Shot-
179
Rather Mohd Ramzan
put and Discuss throw athletes. To fulfil the lacunae of literature, the present study was investigated.
Int. J. Cur. Tr. Res (2013) 2 (1): 178-181
Table 2 Descriptive analysis of anthropometric measurements of Shot-put and Discuss throw athletes
Materials and Methods
S. No.
Purpose
Anthropometric variables
Shot-Put× Mean
Discuss throw×
1
Height (cm)
146.6
S. E. 2.68
2
Weight (kg)
64.8
1.38
63.2
1.43
Subjects
3
30.6
1.03
31.2
1.63
Thirty inter-collegiate male subjects, 15 Shot-put and 15 Discuss throw athletes were selected for the present study. The anthropometric and physiological variables were recorded at track of S. G. B. Amravati University.
4
Fore arm length (cm) Leg length (cm) Palm girth (cm)
63
1.11
62.6
1.52
22.6
1.03
22.8
1.19
The purpose of this study was to analyses anthropometric and physiological variables among Shotput and Discuss throw athletes of Sant Gadge Baba Amravati University, Amravati during February 2008.
5
Mean 149.2
S. E. 1.29
X
Discuss throw
15
Total
30
Variables: Five anthropometric (height, weight, fore arm length, leg length and palm girth) and three physiological (pulse rate, systolic and diastolic blood pressure and haemoglobin) variables were taken for the present study. The instruments and equipments used were Steadiometer, weighing machine, spigmomanometer and stethoscope. Haemoglobin was measured by Sahil’s method.
Results and Discussion Results showed that discuss throw athletes were taller than Shot-put athletes (Table 2). Mean values of the height (cm) of shot-put and discuss throw athletes were recorded as 146.6 ± 2.68 and 149.2 ± 1.29 respectively. Several studies have examined the relationships between anthropometric and physiological characteristics of volleyball players (Gladden and Colacino, 1978; Morrow et al., 1979; Kovaleski et al., 1980; Spence et al., 1980; Fleck et al., 1985; Fry et al., 1991).
Figure 1 Relation between Anthropometric variables of Shot-put and Discuss throw athletes. 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0
Shot-put Palm girth
2
There was slight difference in weight between the two athlete groups. Mean value of body weight of Shotput and Discuss throw athletes were recorded as 64.8 ± 1.38 and 63.2 ± 1.42 respectively (Figure 1). Results showed that Mean values of fore arm length (cm) for Shot-put and Discuss throw athletes were 30 ± 1.03 and 31.2 ± 1.63. Reilly and Secher (1980) showed that the mean height of female hockey players tends to range from 1.62 to 1.65m. This is taller than cross country skiers, alpine skiers and gymnasts, but shorter than the mean values for netball and softball.
Leg length
Sample size 15
Fore arm length
Sport Event Shot-put
Weight
Sr. No. 1
Mean ± standard error. Values are mean ± SE of three replicates.
Height
Table 1 Sample size of Shot-put and Discuss throw athletes
Discuss throw
Int. J. Cur. Tr. Res (2013) 2 (1): 178-181
Rather Mohd Ramzan
Table 3 Descriptive analysis of physiological variables of Shot-put and Discuss throw athletes Sr. No.
Physiological variables
1
Pulse Rate
2
Blood Pressure (mm of Hg) Systolic Diastolic
Shot-Put×
Discuss throw× Mean S. E. 68.6 1.03
Mean 66.8
S. E. 1.29
119.8
1.38
118
0.79
75.6
1.20
78.8
0.96
Haemoglobin 14.56 0.53 15.26 (mg/dl) X Mean ± standard error. Values are mean ± SE of three replicates.
0.71
4
Table 3, reveals that mean value of the resting heart rate of the Shot-put and Discuss throw athletes were 66.8 and 68.6 beats per minute and S. E were 1.29 and 1.03 respectively. Mean values of Haemoglobin for Shotput and Discuss throw athletes were 15.6 and 16.26 and S. E. 0.53 and 0.71 respectively (Figure 2).
Figure 2: Relation between Physiological variables of Shot-put and Discuss throw athletes. 120 100 80 60 40 20 0
Shot-put Discuss throw
The elite South African players had a mean weight of 75kg (Scott, 1991). The mean body weight values for female players range from 58 to 63kg (Reilly and Borrie, 1992) however, in the Asian teams (notably Indian and Malaysian) the mean weight was 51 kg (Verma et al., 1979). Changes in the physiological and anthropometric characteristics of volleyball players in response to training and over the course of a season have also been documented (Fardy et al., 1976; Franks & Moore, 1969; Gabbett & Georgieff, 2007; Hascelik et al., 1989).
180
CONCLUSION From the data analysis, it was shown that Shot-put athletes are taller than Discuss throw athletes. Discuss throw athletes are lighter than Shot-put athletes. There is slight difference between leg length of Shot-put and Discuss throw athletes. Diastolic blood pressure of Discus throw athletes is greater than Shot-put athletes. Haemoglobin value of Discus throw athletes is higher than Shot-put athletes.
References Ackland T.R., K.B. Ong, D.A. Kerr and B. Ridge (2003). Morphological characteristics of Olympic sprint canoe and kayak paddlers. J. Sci. Med. Sports. 6: 285-294. Bourgois J., A.L. Claessens, J. Vrijens, R. Philippaerts, B.V. Renterghem, M. Thomis, M. Janssens, R. Loos and J. Lefevre (2000). Anthropometric characteristics of elite male junior rowers. British. J. Sports. Med. 34: 213-216. Claessens A.L., J. Lefevre, G. Beunen and R.M. Malina (1999). The contribution of anthropometric characteristics to performance scores in elite female gymnasts. J. Sports. Med. Phy. Fit. 39: 355-360. Fardy P.S., M.G. Hritz and H.K. Hellerstein (1976). Cardiac responses during women’s intercollegiate volleyball and physical fitness changes from a season of competition. J. Sports. Med. 16: 291-297. Fleck S., S. Case, J. Puhl and P. Van-handle (1985). Physical and physiological characteristics of elite women volleyball players. Can. J. Appl. Sport Sci.10: 122-126. Franks B.D. and G.C. Moore (1969). Effects of calisthenics and volleyball on the AAHPER fitness test and volleyball skill. Res. Quart. 40:288-292. Fry A.C., W.J. Kraemer, C.A. Weseman, B.P. Conroy, S.E. Gordon, J.R. Hoffman and C.M. Maresh (1991). The effects of an off-season strength and conditioning program on starters and non-starters in women's intercollegiate volleyball. J. Appl. Sport. Sci. Res. 5: 174-181. Gabbett T and B. Georgieff (2007). Physiological and anthropometric characteristics of Australian junior national, state, and novice volleyball players. J. Stren. Cond. Res. 21(3): 902-908. Gabbett T.J. (2000). Physiological and anthropometric characteristics amateur rugby players. British. J. Sports Med. 34: 303-307. Gladden L.B. and D. Colacino (1978). Characteristics of volleyball players and success in a national tournament. J. Sports Med.18: 57-64. Hascelik Z., O. Basgoze, K. Turker, S. Narman and R. Ozker (1989). The effects of physical training on physical fitness tests and auditory and visual reaction times of volleyball players. J. Sports Med. Phys. Fit. 29:234-239. Keogh J. (1999). The use of physical fitness scores and anthropometric data to predict selection in an elite under-18 Australian Rules football team. J. sport Sci. Med. 2: 125-133.
181
Rather Mohd Ramzan
Morrow JR, Jackson AS, Hosler WW and Kachurik JK (1979). The importance of strength, speed, and body size for team success in women's intercollegiate volleyball. Res. Quart. 50: 429-437. Reilly T and Borrie A (1992). Physiology applied to field hockey (Review). J. Sports Med. 14(1):10-26. Reilly T and Secher N. ( 1980). Physiol ogy of sports : an overview . In Reilly T et al (eds). Physiol . Sports. 465485. Reilly T., J. Bangsbo and A. Franks (2000). Anthropometric and physiological predispositions for elite soccer. J. Sports Sci. 18(9): 669-683. Rico-sanz J. (1998). Body composition and nutritional assessments in soccer. Int. J. Sport Nutr. 8(2):113-123. Scott P.A. (1991). Morphological characteristics of elite male field hockey players. J. Sports Med. Phy. Fit.31(1) : 57-61. Simko MD, Cowell C and Gilbride JA (1995). Nutrition Assessment: A Comprehensive Guide for Planning Intervention. 2nd ed. Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen Publishers. Slater G.J., A.J. Rice, I. Mujika, A.G. Hahn, K. Sharp and D.G. Jenkins (2005). Physique traits of lightweight rowers and their relationship to competitive success. British. J. Sports Med. 39: 736-741. Spence D.W., J.G. Disch, H.L. Fred and A.E. Coleman (1980). Descriptive profiles of highly skilled women volleyball players. J. Med. Sci. Sports Exe. 12:299-302. Spencer F. ed. (1997). History of Physical Anthropology. Garland, New York and London. Tanner J. M. (1981). A History of the Study of Human Growth (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Wilmore J.H. and D.L. Costill (1999). Physiol Sports Exer. 2nd ed. Human Kinetics, Champaign: Pp. 490-507.
Int. J. Cur. Tr. Res (2013) 2 (1): 178-181