s," A COMPARISON OF MEREDITH'S HEIGHT-WEIGHT CHART, SHELDON'S TRUNK INDEX, PARNELL’S PHENOTYPE AND THE PONDERAL INDEX Thesis for the Degree of M. A MICHIGAN STATE UNWERSITY Norman K. Mizuguchi 196b LIBRA R ‘2" Nicki: . Stats J 012.3145 , U11“, a ’ Qty ABSTRACT A COMPARISON OF MEREDITH'S HEIGHT-WEIGHT CHART. SHELDON'S TRUNK INDEX, PARNELL'S PHENOTYPE AND THE PONDERAL INDEX by Norman K. Mizuguchi This study was undertaken to compare Meredith's Height- Weight Chart, the ponderal index, and Sheldon's trunk index using Parnell's phenotype as the criterion since it's ap— proach has been less ambiguous and the data can be easily obtained. The purpose of this study was to apply Sheldon's trunk index and Parnell's phenotype independently in the analyses of body build and to compare them with Meredith's Height- Weight Chart which has been a technique applicable to a junior high school evaluation program. Similarities in the ratings of the subjects would indicate that age, height, and weight tables can be useful in relating structure to physio- logical and psychological functions. The comparison of the anthropometric techniques was determined by utilizing photographs and body measurements of ninety-eight East Lansing Junior High School seventh and eighth grade boys ranging in ages from 12 to 14 years old. No statistical analysis was used; only mean values were Norman K. Mizuguchi obtained of each component score for endomorphy, mesomorphy, and ectomorphy. The data was placed on tables and a graph to make understanding of the problem more meaningful. The tables which were constructed showed the twenty-five possible combinations of Meredith's height-weight body types. Parnell's phenotype scores were placed into the proper chan- nels and the mean values were used to support the similarities of both systems. A graph was used to show the comparison of Parnell's phenotype score with the ponderal index and Sheldon's trunk ratio. Major findings of the study can be stated as follows: 1. The Meredith Height-Weight Chart indicated a high comparison with Parnell's system. The comparison merits the use of the Meredith grid in a junior high school evaluation program since it is economical from the standpoint of time and the students are able to rate themselves with full knowl- edge of the system. 2. The ponderal index proved to be useful in the classi- fication of body types. Although it has not been sufficient when used alone, the ponderal index can provide an accurate guide in rating each subject by Parnell's system. 3. Sheldon's revised and unpublished trunk index data was the only disparity which existed among the comparisons of the four selected techniques. The trunk index did not indicate the relative strength of the mesomorphic component Norman K. Mizuguchi while it has been assumed that mesomorphs tend to have a greater trunk index than the other endomorph and ectomorph groupings. Findings revealed that the ectomorphic group had relatively high trunk indexes. 4. The subjects of this study tended to be more toward the endomorph-mesomorph component but the distribution was considered normal. The boys who scored high in the endomorph component (741,72fi1) by Parnell's method were rated in the heavy-weight channels on the Meredith grid and obtained low trunk index scores. Subjects of linear build (536,3fi36) were channeled as moderately light to light in weight by Meredith and displayed unusually high trunk indexes. A COMPARISON OF MEREDITH'S HEIGHT-WEIGHT CHART, SHELDON'S TRUNK INDEX, PARNELL'S PHENOTYPE AND THE PONDERAL INDEX BY Norman K. Mizuguchi A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Health, Physical Education, and Recreation 1966 DEDICATION To my loving wife, Harriet, who generously helped and encouraged me during my graduate study at Michigan State University. ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The investigator acknowledges Dr. Wayne Van Huss, Director of the Human Energy Research Laboratory and advisor, for his expert assistance and guidance throughout this study. The c00peration and efforts of Mr. Neil Winebrenner, principal of East Lansing Junior High School, James Oestriech, and Theodore Guthard, physical education instructors of East Lansing Junior High School, have also been appreciated. Recognition should also be given to Michael Marshall for his time and assistance in administering the anthropo- metric tests and his continuous enthusiasm towards this study. Special thanks is given to Frank Hartman for develop- ing and processing the films used in this study. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS DEDICATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LIST OF APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Definition of Terms II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . III. METHOD OF RESEARCH . . . . . . . . . . . . Description of the Subjects Method of Appraising Physique Securing AnthrOpometric Data Description of Methodology IV. PRESENTATION OF RESULTS. . . . . . . . . . Meredith's Height-Weight Chart as Compared to Parnell‘s Phenotype Ponderal Index as Compared to Parnell's Phenotype Sheldon's Trunk Index as Compared to Parnell's Phenotype V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS. BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . APPENDIX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv Page ii iii vi vii 15 25 55 37 41 Table 1. LIST OF TABLES Meredith-Parnell Comparisons of Body Type Scores in the Tall Category . . . . . . Meredith—Parnell Comparisons of Body Type Scores in the Moderately Tall Category. Meredith-Parnell Comparisons of Body Type Scores in the Average Category. . . . . Meredith-Parnell Comparisons of Body Type Scores in the Moderately Short Category Meredith-Parnell Comparisons of Body Type Scores in the Short Category. . . . . . The Distribution of Parnell Phenotype Scores Compared with Ponderal Index. . . . . . The Distribution of Parnell‘s Phenotype Scores Compared with Sheldon's Trunk Index . . Page 24 25 26 27 28 29 31 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Figure Page 1. Comparison of Parnell's Phenotype Scores With the Ponderal Index and Sheldon's Trunk Index. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 vi LIST OF APPENDICES Page Letter for Parental Permission . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Parental Reply Form. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Anthropometric Measurement Form. . . . . . . . . . . 44 Meredith's Body Type, Ponderal Index, Sheldon's Trunk Ratio, and Parnell's Phenotype Scores of Ninety-eight East Lansing Junior High School Boys. 45 Parnell's Standard Deviation (M-4) Chart for Children Eleven Years Old. . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 vii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION In the field of physical education, the use of anthro- pometric measures combined with other information has provided the teacher with a better understanding of the individual. Anthropometric information has been used as a measure of physical growth, nutrition, and development; as a measure of body symmetry and mechanics; and as a measure of body structural proportions or body build.l Evidence has also been available to support the theory that anthropometric data can describe an athlete's physical performance according to his body type. Sheldon and his associates have found that psychological aspects of human behavior have been related to the morphology of the body.2 In addition, Parnell's research with body measurements has revealed that indices can be derived so as to expressly 1Leonard A. Larson and Rachael D. Yocom, Measurement and Evaluation in Physical, Health and Recreation Education (St. Louis: C. V. Mosby Company, 1951), p. 102. 2William H. Sheldon and Stanley S. Stevens, The Varieties of Temperament (New York: Harper Publishing Company, 1945). correlate temperament, behavior, and achievement to physique.1 Through the classification of physique, lifelong implications can be predicted. Statement of thegproblem.—-Throughout our school sys- tem, the use of anthropometric tests should constitute a major objective in the physical education curriculum. The problem of this study was to compare Meredith's Height-Weight Chart, the ponderal index, and Sheldon's trunk index using Parnell's phenotype as the criterion. Purpose of the study.--This study was intended to apply the two most widely used and recent anthropometric techniques, Sheldon's trunk index and Parnell‘s phenotype, independently in the analyses of body build and to compare them with Meredith's Height-Weight Chart which has been a technique applicable to a junior high school evaluation program. Similarities in the ratings of the subjects would indicate that age, height, and weight tables can be useful in relating body structure to physiological and psychological functions. Need for the study.--Some administrators, teachers, students, and parents have been confused as to what the impli- cations for measurement and evaluation have been in physical education. The individual's body type should become increas- ingly important within a program of physical education. 1Richard W. Parnell, Behaviour and Physique (London: Edward Arnold Publishers Ltd., 1958). The junior high school level should represent one of the most important levels for physical development and under- standing on the part of the individual. This has been the period in which a youngster has tended to either reject or accept the program of physical education for reasons, such as, constant defeat in competition and continuous poor scores attained in physical fitness tests. Frustration or rejection of physical activity may have resulted from an inadequacy to understand body type and maturity along with their implications. Sheldon‘s photographic technique and Parnell's physical anthropometric technique have been time consuming in their administration and too costly for a junior high school evalu— ation program. A more practical method for objective ranking of students must be sought by the physical educator. A simple approach in which students will be able to rate themselves with full knowledge of the system has yet to be developed. Willgoose has stated: Interest in measurement and evaluation in health and physical education has grown in an orderly fashion. Teachers and research workers have had ample opportu— nity to think about and explore the usefulness of specific tests and measures. The current emphasis is not too much on tests themselves as static things but on their application to problems in health and physi- cal education.1 Limitations of the study.--Anthr0pometric measurements utilizing Sheldon's and Parnell's techniques have not always 1Carl E. Willgoose, Evaluation in Health Education and Physical Education (New York: McGraw~Hill Book Company, 1961), p. 11. been feasible in the classroom situation. Despite this draw- back, a study of this type has been justified since there has been popular agreement that somatotyping has been an important aspect of pupil and program evaluation. The Meredith Height- Weight Chart was used since it has been simple to use and because it might reflect the student's body type. This study was limited to a survey of anthropometric measures of 98 junior high school boys attending East Lansing Junior High School between the ages of 12 to 14 years old. Time and finances prevented evaluation of all the students in the physical education program. The greatest limitation was that of subjectivity in ratings. Long training must be required to become an expert in somatotyping. This would normally decrease the reliability of the study. It has been the investigator's hope to carry out a re- search study of this nature ever since his teaching experiences in the belief that it will help to improve measurement and evaluation in physical education. The validity or justification of the conclusions and recommendations has been limited by the investigator's knowledge and eXperience. Definition of Terms Anthropometry.--The branch of anthropology that is con- cerned with taking of measurements of the human body. Meredith Height—Weight Chart.--A physical growth record which is used to appraise pupil growth. The pupil's height and weight are plotted separately against his age and these result in charts of average height—age and weight—age curves. The chart is divided into five "normal“ zones for height and weight. Tall, moderately tall, average, moderately short, and short comprise the zones for height; the five "normal" zones for weight include heavy, moderately heavy, average, moderately light, and light.1 Ponderal index.--The ponderal index is considered by researchers to be one of the best indices for classifying the body build of adults and children. It also gives a quick estimate of the varieties of body build. The ponderal index is expressed as: Ponderal Index =,322i3§£ Kl weight The use of height-cube root of weight ratio is valid if the body is assumed to have a constant density. The cube root of weight yields a value proportional to the length of the side of a cube equal to the body in volume.2 The ponderal index was used by Sheldon in comparing the somatotype ratings of his subjects to an objective rating of lHoward Meredith, ”A Physical Growth Record for Use in Elementary and High Schools," American Journal of Public Health, 59 (July, 1949), 878-885. 2Willgoose, 69. build.l Meredith used this index to obtain an overall ap— praisal of the physique of children four to eight years of age.2 Sheldon's trunk ratio.--Sheldon's revised and still un- published system permits an objective means of obtaining the somatotype. The standard somatotype photograph (back view) is outlined to illustrate the ratio of the areas of the thorax trunk over that of the abdominal trunk...3 A planimeter (an engineering instrument used for measuring the area of any plane figure by passing a tracer around its perimeter) is used to measure separately the thoracic and abdominal areas of the trunk. The range of values is from 0.85 to 2.05 and the mean for males is 1.45. This figure is used to determine the ratio of mesomorphy to endomorphy.4 Parnell's phenotype.—-Parnell's system takes into account three kinds of anthropometric measurements: 1William H. Sheldon, The Varieties of Human Physique (New York: Harper Publishing Company, 1940). 2Howard V. Meredith and Stanley Culp, "Body Form in Childhood; Ratios Quantitatively Describing Four Slender-to- Stocky Continus on Boys Four to Eight Years of Age," Child DevelOpment, XXII (March, 1951), 5-14. 3Donald K. Mathews, Measurement in Physical Education (Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders, 1965), p. 228. 4Frank Haronian and A. Arthur Sugerman, I‘A Comparison of Sheldon's and Parnell‘s Methods for Quantifying Morpho- logical Differences," American Journal of Physical Anthro- pology, 25 (June, 1965), 156. (1) epicondylar breadths of knees and elbows; (2) girths of biceps and calves; (5) skinfold thicknesses on the triceps, scapula, and abdomen. All of these measurements are uti- lized to determine a set of phenotype component scores by fitting them into the M-4 chart which also accounts for age and sex.1 lParnell, 21. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE In physical anthropometry, there have been two methods of assessing body build: (1) the subjective classification of the total body into two or more categories, and (2) the objective method which has used two or more anthropometric measurements to obtain a ratio or index of body build. This review has presented a selection of literature of constitu- tional studies used for quantifying human morphological dif- ferences. Sheldon introduced the trend towards the objective method of somatotyping.l Standard photographs showing front, back, and side views were used in rating each subject into three components. These ratings of the three components were made by assessing certain characteristic appearances which were known to the investigator. The three components were described as follows: 1. Endomorphy: relative predominance of soft round tissue throughout the body. 2. Mesomorphy: relative predominance of muscle, bone, and connective tissue throughout the body. 5. Ectomorphy: relative predominance of linearity and fragility throughout the body. lSheldon. Each dimension was rated on a seven point scale and the three—numeral index which was formed labeled the indi- l The most common type found by Sheldon vidual somatotype. among students was a 544 which showed the dominance of mesomorph-ectomorph characteristics. In a latter study, it was found that the body type 445 was common with a frequency of 60 per 1,000. In 1958, Parnell modified Sheldon's system by using a less rigorous photographic procedure and utilized a set of 2 Somatotype dominance was scores which became the phenotype. estimated by the ”Standard Deviation (M-4) Chart." The chart included standard scales for height, weight, ponderal index, standard scales for two bone sizes, bicondylar measurements of humerus and femur, two limb girths around the biceps and calf muscles, and three skinfold measurements of subcutaneous fat with the total of these three fat measurements. The scales were plotted around the mean value with column units equivalent to one-half standard deviations giving a thirteen point scale. The phenotype was revealed by finding the appro— priate measurements on these standard scales.3 Dupertuis studied thirty extreme somatotypes in a group of ten endomorphs, ten mesomorphs, and ten ectomorphs. 1William H. Sheldon, Atlas of Men (New York: Harper and Brothers Publishers, 1954). 2Parnell. 3Ibid., 13. 10 The investigation showed an extraordinary difference between means of the ectomorphic group as compared with the endo-meso group.1 The ectomorphic group differed in all anthropometric measurements while endo—meso differences occurred mainly in trunk diameters and circumferences. Dupertuis“ study indicated that head and face measure— ments and body limb lengths failed to differentiate well between the three groups of extreme somatotypes. In conclusion, anthrOpometric measurements by photog- raphy on the living have been only moderately successful in demonstrating anatomical differences between extreme somato- types and have been of questionable value in differentiating between the mid-ranges and closely related somatotypes. Ratios obtained from various anthropometric measure- ments divided by height, breadth or girth measures have been developed to describe body build. Many height—weight indices have been develOped for evaluation purposes because they have been the two measures most frequently available and obtainable. McCloy in his studies assumed that weight was a measure of volume which increased according to the cube of the linear dimension. Therefore, weight gave a better estimate of body build.2 lC. Wesley Dupertuis, “Anthropometry of Extreme Somato— types," American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 8 (1950), 567-86. 2Charles H. McCloy, Appraising Physical Status: Methods and Norms (Iowa City, Iowa: University of Iowa Press, 1958). 11 Massler used height-girth ratios to estimate body build 1 A correlation between these ratios, the Wetzel of children. Grid, Sheldon's technique, and age was sought. However, the conclusion resulted in a lack of correlation between height- calf-girth ratio and age was a significant indication of the possibility that the ratio might be a typical characteristic related to the somatotype of the individual. Later, as a result of experimental studies, ratios describing body build showed that characteristics representing one part of the body prevailed in the rest of the body. For example, linearity in one part of the body characterized the person's remaining body parts. This hypothesis was assumed to be true by some researchers. Still, more general methods of assessing body characteristics were developed. Meredith devised a method of classifying children into physical categories based on measures of height and weight 2 Meredith assumed that the basic constitutional with age. make-up of the child was inherent in the pattern of growth and that physiques did not normally change during pre-puberty and puberty years. The height and weight measurements used for the construction of the grid were collected in 1961-1965. 1Maury Massler and Theodore Suehr, "Calculations of 'Normal' Weight in Children," Child Development, XXII (June, 1951), 75-94. 2Howard V. Meredith, "Interpreting Growth: Ways to Use Height and Weight Measures of School Children," Saskatchewan Recreation (Fall, 1947), 1. The subjects were white boys attending public schools in Iowa City, Iowa. Meredith subdivided age distribution for height and weight into the following categories: (1) Upper 10 percent (Tall, Heavy); (2) next 20 percent and middle 40 percent (Average); (5) next 20 percent and lower 10 percent (Short, Light). Using Meredith's data, Stuart prepared percentile charts for weight and height by age for boys and girls.1 These charts were a valid representation of a child‘s body build because the child's position in weight and height for each age was evident. There has been agreement between the subjective and ob- jective methods of somatotyping. Coefficients of correlation between Sheldon's technique and objective body indices have ranged from 0.65 to 0.80. Correlations among the objective indices have ranged from 0.70 to 0.90. Haronian and Sugerman compared Sheldon‘s somatotype technique and Parnell's phenotype scores on 102 normal male university students. The findings revealed significant dif- ferences between all three matched pairs of components. Shared variances were 55 percent for endomorphy and fat, 44 percent for mesomorphy and muscularity, and 74 percent for ectomorphy and linearity.2 lHarold Stuart and Howard V. Meredith, “Use of Body Measurements in the School Health Program," American Journal of Public Health, XII (December, 1946), 1565-86. 2Haronian and Sugerman, 155-141. 15 Measurements varying from height-weight records to the complex measurements of estimating body development have been 1 There have kept by schools during the last fifty years. been two schools of thought concerning somatotyping. Some researchers have believed that somatotyping or indices of body build do not give a true estimation of a child's basic physique. Others have believed that an adult's somatotype has been established by age six. At the Iowa Research Station, chronological age was found to be the most outstanding factor in growth.2 However, within a group of one year age range, the size of one part of the body correlated higher with height than with age. This indicated that growth in body parts tended to be sym- metrical.3 Significant results and conclusions of a selection of related studies on somatotyping have been presented in this chapter. These studies have made it apparent that there have been differences of Opinion in reSpect to the techniques em- ployed in providing the basis for body indices. An attempt will be made by the investigator to show the comparisons of the Meredith Height-Weight Chart, the Ponderal 1Stuart and Meredith, 1565~86. 2C. Wesley Dupertuis and Nancy B. Michael, "Comparison of Growth in Height and Weight Between Ectomorphic and Meso— morphic Boys," Child Development, XXIV (September-December, 1955), 205-14. 3Ruth Wallis, “How Children Grow-—An Anthropometric Study of Private School Children From Two to Eight Years of Age,” University of Iowa Studies in Child Welfare, V (1951). 14 Index, Sheldon's trunk index, and Parnell's phenotype scores in the following chapters. Chapter III will discuss the method of research with special emphasis on the description of the subjects, the method of appraising physique, and the deScription of methodology. CHAPTER I I I METHOD OF RE SEARCH Description of The Subjects East Lansing Junior High School was chosen for this study. The school was considered above average in the sense of students, personnel, curriculum, and facilities since it was located in a highly professional populated community. Two male staff members maintained a regular physical education program within the junior high school. Ninety-eight seventh and eighth grade boys ranging from twelve to fourteen years old were randomly selected from the total enrollment of the junior high school boys. Method of Appraising Physique After initial contact was made with the administrative personnel of the East Lansing school system and their per- mission had been secured for the study, the investigator held the following meetings with all subjects during their regular physical education class periods: 1. An orientation meeting at which time the study was previewed in general terminology suited for the subjects. In addition, posing techniques were demonstrated by the investi- gator with the aid of assistants and practiced by the subjects. 15 16 2. Testing sessions and photographic sessions with the aid of testing assistants. Body measures and photographs for each subject were obtained. 5. Re-testing periods at which time all body measures were taken again of all subjects. Securing Anthropometric Data Weight.--The subject was weighed with minimum under~ clothing. The subject stood in a steady position on the center of a scale platform while a small weight was moved until the balance arm was in a steady position. The weight was read and recorded to the nearest one—half pound. Height (support against measuring plane).--The subject was placed against the measuring plane and directed to hold himself erect. The subject's heels, sacral region, and upper part of the back touched the vertical with the head erect and eyes horizontally forward. The investigator passed the square along the plane to the top of the head where the measurement was recorded in inches. Meredith height-weight-age data After securing height—weight measurements, the subject was asked for his age. From this information, each one was given a Meredith Body Type. Photographs for Sheldon's technique A 55 mm. camera was used to take the standard three- view photographs of each subject. A roll of Kodak plus X 56 17 exposures permitted twelve subjects to be photographed with back, side, and front views. A white projection screen was used for the background. The subject's code name, age, height, weight, and date of examinatbmn were recorded on a restaurant type black- board with three-fourths of an inch white letters. A pedestal and turntable which locked at right angles were used. Once the subject placed his feet in position on the wooden V—shaped block with heels separated by six centi- meters, he did not move his feet; only the turntable was moved between taking the three-view photographs. The investigator will not mention the method of posing each subject in detail here, but will refer the reader to an article by Dupertuis and Tanner.l Sheldon's trunk ratio Three length dimensions were taken to obtain the trunk and buttocks measures for each subject. The measures were as follows: Cervicle height (7th cervicle).--Using an anthro- pometer, the subject was measured from his superior surface of the 7th cervicle spine to the floor. A piece of tape was 1C. Wesley Dupertuis and J. M. Tanner, ”The Pose of the Subject for Photogrammetric Anthropometry, with ESpecial Reference to Somatotyping," American Journal of Physical Anthropology N. S. 8 (1950), 27—58. 18 placed on the 7th cervicle so it would be shown in the back~ view photograph. Recording was made in centimeters. Right iliocristale height.--The subject, standing erect throughout the measurements, was then measured for iliocristale height. Here the measurement was taken from the most laterally projecting point on the crest of the right ilium to the floor. Tape was used to designate the height for photographic pur- poses. Recording was done in centimeters. Right gluteal furrow.--The measurement was taken from the inferior border of the gluteal furrow to the floor. Tape was placed to identify the buttocks area for photographic and evaluation purposes. Again the measurement was recorded in centimeters. Finding the trunk ratio.--The standard somatotype back view photograph was used to find the trunk ratio for all sub- jects. The negative was placed in a slide projector and placed 55 inches away from the screen. The negative was re- flected onto a piece of graph paper which was quadrille ruled and measured five squares to an inch. The subject's back view was traced onto the graph paper; using the tape markings as guides, a line was drawn to separate the thoracic and abdominal sections. Other lines were drawn to define the boundaries of the trunk. The trunk index was determined by the ratio of thoracic trunk area to abdominal trunk area. 19 Parnell's system Skinfold measurements were taken with the Lange Skinfold Calipers and two measurements were taken on each subject's right side and averaged. Skinfold measurements were recorded in millimeters. Upper arm skinfold.-—The skinfold was located at the back of the right upper arm (over the triceps) at the level midway between the tip of the acromial process of the scapula and the tip of the elbow. The level was located with the .forearm flexed at ninety degrees. In making the skinfold measurement, the subject's arm hung down freely. The skinfold was lifted parallel to the long axis of the arm. Scapula skinfold.--The subject stood and a measurement was taken of the skinfold below the tip of the right scapula. It was noted that the skinfold ran downwards and outwards in the direction of the ribs. Supra—iliac.-—The measurement was taken on the subject's mid-axillary line. The subject stood and the skinfold was raised one to two inches above the anterior-superior iliac spine resulting in the fold running forward and slightly downward. Muscle girth measurements.-—The muscle girth measure— ments were recorded in centimeters, and like the skinfold measurements, the average was obtained from two measurements made on the subject. 20 Upper arm (Biceps girth).--The biceps girth was measured with a soft steel tape. The subject was asked to firmly flex his elbow out toward the side and the measurement was taken over tensely contracted biceps. Calf girth (lower leg).-—The subject stood with feet slightly apart and weight was equally distributed on both feet. The soft steel tape was placed around the leg at the largest circumference in a horizontal position. The tape was crossed to get the point for reading the measurement. Bone measurements.-—The bone measurements were recorded in millimeters and two measures were taken and averaged. The sliding arm calipers were used to take the measurements. Maximal breadths were taken on the left side of the subjects. Knee breadth (femural epicondyles).--The subject was seated in a chair with his feet on the floor and leg in a vertical position. The area measured was the maxi- mum bony width immediately above the level of the knee joint which was felt with the leg in the position mentioned as a horizontal groove on both the inside and outside of the knee. The fixed arm of the sliding calipers was placed against the medial side of the knee and the movable arm was placed firmly against the lateral side of the knee. Elbow breadth (humeral epicondyles).—-The subject was placed in a seating position; his upper arm was held hori- zontally forward with the forearm bent upwards at a ninety [\3 (.2. degree angle. The distance between the medial and lateral epicondyles was measured. The measurement took place with the fixed arm of the caliper placed against the medial point and the movable arm was brought firmly against the lateral point. Finding Parnell's phenotype scores After fat, bone, and muscle measurements were secured from the ninety-eight subjects, they were placed on the M-4 Chart and the phenotype score was estimated.1 The Adult Deviation Chart for male standards was not appropriate for this study; this resulted in the use of the M-4 Deviation Chart for children of eleven years old. The ratings for fat and linearity were determined directly from the chart. Determining the muscularity component was a complex task since it required bone and muscle measurements to be placed on the chart with the mean of their positions located in relation to the height column. A provisional estimate for muscularity was allotted from the location of the mean score and it's re- lated position to height. A correction was made for fat because of the improbability of separating fat and muscle girth measurements. If an overestimation of fat was present, allow— ances were made by subtracting from the provisional estimate. Similarly, when there was less than average fat present, the correction took the form of addition. 1See Appendix, p. 48. 22 Description of Methodology As previously stated in Chapter I, this investigation was concerned with the comparison of four selected somato- typing techniques. Parnell's phenotype scores were used as the criterion for the study. Mean values for each of the component scores were computed separately. Graphic methods were also used to illustrate the simi- larities and differences in the four methods of somatotyping. Besides these observations, no other statistical analysis was performed on the data. CHAPTER IV PRESENTATION OF RESULTS Photographs and measurements have allowed the investi- gator to obtain anthropometric measures of the 98 junior high school boys in this study. The results have been discussed within the framework of tables, graphs, and statements which have made the findings more meaningful and easier to under— stand. Parnell's phenotype has been used as the criterion for the comparisons of Meredith's Height-Weight Chart, Sheldon's trunk index, and the ponderal index since it's ap- proach has been less ambiguous and the data could be obtained quickly. Meredith's Height-Weight Chart as Compared to Parnell's Phenotype Five tables were constructed illustrating twenty-five possible combinations of Meredith's height-weight body types. The ninety—eight subjects were given a Meredith body type rating and a Parnell phenotype score. Phenotype scores were composed of a three numeral index, endomorph, mesomorph, and ectomorph respectively, rated on a seven point scale from low to high tendencies. Mean values were computed to show the similarities and differences in the data of the two methods. 25 As shown in Table 1, 24 the mean of each phenotype score has not shown any differences in the two methods; this group- ing displayed a decrease of Parnell's endomorphic ratings simultaneously with the decrease of Meredith's weight channels. TABLE 1 MEREDITH-PARNELL COMPARISONS OF BODY TYPE SCORES IN THE TALL CATEGORY Tall Tall Tall Tall Tall Heavy Moderately Average Moderately Light Heavy Light 5,3,2 4 5 5 6 2335 7 5 5424' 4 545 2:4 5 5 5 24 44551 24,54 Sir 4 542 4 5 54- 544 44 4 4 51»- 5 5 5 4 545 4%5455 244444 5454-4 Mean 4 £5545 544 54: 5 4 55 The results in Table 2 on the following page have illus- trated the high interrelationship of the Meredith and Parnell systems of body typing. Again a high endomorphic rating (5&52, 45fi5) can be seen in the heavy to moderately heavy weight categories, gradually increasing in ectomorphy (556) as it approaches the moderately light to light categories. 25 TABLE 2 MEREDITH-PARNELL COMPARISONS OF BODY TYPE SCORES IN THE MODERATELY TALL CATEGORY Moderately Moderately Moderately Moderately Moderately Tall Tall Tall Tall Tall Heavy Moderately Average Moderately Light Heavy Light 454 44542:} 55254 556 \l 241 5 54 144-45 24—5 6 4 5 24 54 5454- 2 24:5 741 555 (N (N M4 04 mp 4 5 24 54» 5 24;. 5 4 5 5% 4% 5% 4%: 4 4 4% 4t 24; 2% 4 e 4% 54 24 5 5 44 5 53,; 5 14- 4 64 55 54 5%: (N #- ,p. Mean5§~52 4545 545 556 The mean range of component scores in Table 5 on the following page started from a 72é1 for the Average—Heavy channel to a 445é-for the Average-Average channel, and ended with a 2§5§5 for the Average-Light channel. Findings indi- cated the similarities of the two systems since the rating of 7 in the Average—Heavy channel indicates a high endomorph, 26 4 in the Average-Average channel a mid-point for mesomorph, and 5 in the Average-Light channel a fairly high ectomorph. TABLE 5 MEREDITH-PARNELL COMPARISONS OF BODY TYPE SCORES IN THE AVERAGE CATEGORY Average Average Average Average Average Heavy Moderately Average Moderately Light Heavy Light 7 241 642 1 5544 454 24545 72414 5451 5554- 145 44 7 51 641424 444 24 544 6141 6452 55424 5444 5424 54454 2454 5 4454- 2 5 6 4 5424 5 445 545424 5 4454 444 54- 5 4 4 24444 444 5 244 44 4 5454- 5 5444 6 5424- 544 54 5 444 Mean7 241 652 4454 544424545 27 The same pattern existed in the moderately short chart. Table 4 below presents the similarities exhibited for each Parnell phenotype score in the five height—weight channels. TABLE 4 MEREDITH-PARNELL COMPARISONS OF BODY TYPE SCORES IN THE MODERATELY SHORT CATEGORY Moderately Moderately Moderately Moderately Moderately Short Short Short Short Short Heavy Moderately Average Moderately Light Heavy ~ Light 7 5 1 4 5 2 24 44 4 24 44 54 54 54 24 2 5 2 5 4 4 54 54 5 2 44-5 54 54 44 5 4 4 4 44 5 5 4 5 4 4 24 Mean 7 5 1 5 44 24 4 44-54 5 44 5 Table 5 on the following page shows the scores related to the short category and the trend was the same as the four previous tables. Ponderal Index as Compared to Parnell's Phenotype There was high agreement between the ponderal index and Parnell's phenotype scores which are illustrated in Table 6 28 TABLE 5 MEREDITH-PARNELL COMPARISONS OF BODY TYPE SCORES IN THE SHORT CATEGORY Short Short Short Short Short Heavy Moderately Average Moderately Light Heavy Light 5 4 2-4 24 545 5 5 54 Mean 5 44 4 on the following page. The individual's ponderal index was categorized into thirteen class intervals and each component score was put into the height over cube root of weight table to see what somatotype occurred at that height-weight level. The most common somatotypes were found in the area between the 5444 and the 445424 scores. Table 6 showed that these two somatotypes fell between the ponderal index of 12.7 and 15.5. The extreme somatotypes were found around the 6451 and 2457 with height over cube root of weight at 11.2 and 15.0 reSpectively. Sheldon's Trunk Index as Compared to Parnell's Phenotype There was considerable disparity between the distribu- tion of Parnell's phenotype scores and Sheldon's trunk index 29 .mucmcomfiou ms“ mo 50mm How mwuoom cmmE mumoHUcH mommnuamumm cw mmusmflma Lav gang Ans mmmm Amos epsmm 4.Ha-m.aa Ago Add A45 mmmmm A65 man” h.fifium.55 455 an ANV mam A555 5556 o.maum.aa Ami mmam A45 m5mm A545 ahm m.mfi-fi.ma Ammo mmmmmmmmmm Ammo mmmmmmvmm Ammo 4mm©fl©flm m.maua.ma 4mmv uwmmmmmwmwmmm . ammo 4mmmwmm4mm - 4445 .wmmmama m.mfi->.mfi .mm4mmmmmmmm5mmmmmm .mamwwmmmmmemwmmm .m4mmvwvmvmmmwwmmwm 4mmo mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm4m A45 vmmmwmmvwm4 4va «4m64m m.mauo.ma .MmmmmmmmmmMmmmvmm .mmm4mmmm4mam5mmw44mm «mmmmwmmmwmmmmmmmwm4aw A45 444444444444 445 mm544mmmmmme Ammo «mmmwmwmmmm m.maum.mfi 4445544444464 «44544wmmm4mwmmmmmvwm mmmmmmmwmmmmmm4mmmmm Amv mmemmmwmemmem A45 .Mm4mm4444mmemm Ammo mmamamNmmmmmmmmN m.masm.mfi Ammo mmmmmmmmowmm 4mmv mmmmwwvmwm Ammo «mammmmmmmmmm H.4aum.ma Ammo .mm A45 4 imas .mfi 4.4a-m.4a 4.aaum.4fi Ass 4 Ans m dimmv mm o.ma-m.«a wsmuofiouom wanoEOmmE hnmuofiopcm XmUCH Hmumflcom NMQZH AdmeZOm EBHB QHM¢QEOU mmmoom mmMBOZmEm AAMZMdm m0 ZOHBDQHMBmHQ HEB m WAM¢B 50 as seen in Table 7 on the following page. Assuming that meso- morphs displayed the characteristics of a large thorax and heavily muscled trunk, the investigator expected the subjects who scored high in the mesomorphic component to exhibit a greater trunk index than the endomorphs and ectomorphs. However, the comparison did not indicate this to be true. Rather, it showed the ectomorphs to diSplay the higher trunk index than the mesomorphs. Figure 1 on page 52 showed the comparison of Parnell's phenotype scores with the ponderal index and Sheldon's trunk index. The comparison resulted in a fairly even Spread of somatotypes except for a large degree of bunching at the center of the graph. The group exhibited a normal distribution with a few out at the extreme edges. 51 .mucmcomaou mnu mo Sumo How mmuoom :mmE muMUHUCH mmmmnucmumm CH mmnsmflma L Lac 5 Ana m Ammo mm 40.5-oo.d $5 mm 3.2 mm 85 o moéumoé E $3 $5 3.344 3; $443. 3.5-3.5 35 ammmmfl. AB 4mmmmmm 85 wwwmmpmm 3.4-34 B 344.53%??? 3.3 fiaflwflnflmmmm av Tmfifiifiimmfi 4m. Tom. a $3 mmmmflflfl 5mm 3.2 wmaflflflwmflm $3 flmmmmmmmmmmm mm. 73. a mfiflwmmflwmmmmm Rummflmmflfimmmmmm 533.4% «mNmEmwwmm 3. Tom. 5 $8 45434334343 :5 «3554584me 3...: mmmmmwmwmsmmfimw mm. Tan. 5 B mmmmwmflmumm $2 $354343 - 3; A}. 3.4-9.4 «44mmmmmmwmmmmamfi mmmmmmwmfimmmmm flammimmwwmafiwmflmm Ammsm$mmflmwmmfimmm a; 343.444.34.354... 3.8 www.mflwmflflfimflm 34.34 T; 35586 $3 $533... $5 mmmmmmmwmm 5.78.5. $3 «$4.45 3: «34m... $5 343 $4.34 5 4 q: a E m 5,789. $3 m3. 3; «m3 2.; mmmmm 844.54 E 4 E m 13 .4 $4-2; samuoaouom mangonmmz samuoeoncm xmwcH xcsue NMQZH MZDMB m.ZOQ_.Hmmm mBHg OmmmmeOU mmmOUm mmaozmmm wiHAmZmdm .mO ZOHBDmHMBmHQ ”NEH. h mqmdfi 52 _ meCH Hmumwcom O.mH m.¢fi w.wfi w.¢fi N.dd O.¢H m.mfi w.ma ¢.mfi N.MH O.MH w.Nfi m.mfi ¢.Nfi N.Nfi O.NH m.fifi m.fifi ¢.Hfi N.Hw _ 4 . bmma _ _ _ pw _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . .Qm. £3.33. +39 3‘3». £333 +uwm. .ramem. 52>. «23m. . . «3%me 33$. gamma. .33. TI. :2... ¥mflmfl+. ®¢&N. . ..$m¢fi¢ 33.3. 33». «*fluww. n¢m. a fix” «fin? dadvmwxmwmaww .wawmdm. NNXG mnn mmd. mflnv. Hanna” «anm. . .33 imfi‘n $3.3. 33“ an? i. . . . mumm. ++n . . ulewwm . $.33 «.38 fimmm. fiww‘wmdfln. ”3“}. $3? «2‘ $3.. «naxvfinu - mmmmmam Sn? «:5»... vflnm wmm‘mxm wag .v mwlvm. +0? mm..Ww~MMW\V . . NVM wwtnm. int... sun? . «smm .ammLV . m3: 333. £¢m¢wxm £31.. .amWN¢n «ma. w 3mm- 2%. tag». .& . .123». .miwls .wmmw AYer uxm+a§w. , it... -mfvm mama“. «352%. «3.x gwmm. .wlsmwl. in n +vm. m+wa+ . .wacH xcsufi .me. m.c0UHm£m 6cm meCH HmumUcom may nuHB mmuoom mmmuocmnm m.HHngmm we comflummEoo E? .a musmflm if) Q \‘4. (‘1 O N IIIIIITTITITTIIIITIITTTYIT LO 0.] TII1TITTL’IT1HJI F] O [‘0 IITIIII 0 L0 AllT—IJIT l IJITI117TTL‘IYIT O .\ N) Vfi LO d‘ LO LO [x \“1 vi 1“ CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS A brief summary of the preceding chapters, the conclu- sions drawn from this study, and recommendations are pre- sented in this final chapter. Summary.-—The problem of this investigation was to com- pare the Meredith's Height-Weight Chart, ponderal index, and Sheldon's trunk index using Parnell's phenotype as the criterion. This study was intended to apply Sheldon's trunk index and Parnell's phenotype independently in the analyses of body build and to compare them with Meredith's Height- Weight Chart which has been a technique applicable to a junior high school physical education evaluation program. The greatest limitation from the investigator's point of view was that of subjectivity in the rating for each sub- ject. It would have been an ideal situation to have the total male population of East Lansing Junior High School tested but time and finances were limiting factors. The more significant results and conclusions of selected related studies of somatotyping were presented in Chapter II. The review of the literature was focused on constitutional studies which were pertinent to the study. 53 54 Chapter III described the method of research in detail which was employed in this study. Limiting factors, such as, time, finances, and the lack of standardization in placing the subjects into discrete categories were reasons which justi— fied the lack of statistical analysis on the data by the investigator. The anthropometric data which was secured in this study was presented in Chapter IV. The use of tables and a graph included with explanations made for a better understanding of the study. The conclusions and recommendations of this study will terminate this chapter. Conclusions.——On the basis of the findings, several conclusions may be drawn. The Meredith—Height Chart indicated a high comparison with Parnell's system. The comparison merits the use of the Meredith grid in a junior high school evaluation program since it is economical from the standpoint of time and the students are able to rate themselves with full knowledge of the system. The ponderal index proved to be useful in the classifi- cation of body types. Although it is not sufficient when used alone, the ponderal index can provide an accurate guide in rating each subject by Parnell's system. Sheldon's revised and unpublished trunk index data was the only diSparity which existed among the comparisons of 55 the four selected techniques. This study showed a general lack of agreement between the trunk index and the three somatotype components. The trunk index did not show the relative strength of the mesomorphic component. Results indicated that the ectomorphic group had relatively high trunk indexes. The body build of the subjects used in this study tended to be more towards the endomorph-mesomorph component but the distribution was normal. The following conclusions seem to be warranted for the group which was studied: 1. Boys who scored high in the endomorphy component (741, 72fi1) by Parnell's phenotype method were rated in the heavy-weight channels on the Meredith grid and obtained low trunk index scores. 2. Subjects of linear build (356, 2&56) were channeled as moderately light to light in weight by Meredith and dis- played an unusually high trunk index. Recommendations.-~The following recommendations have been made from the previous conclusions: 1. Subsequent studies should be made concerning the techniques of anthropometric measurements using a wider range and diversified sample of subjects. 2. The Meredith Height-Weight Chart may be used inde- pendently in analyzing body build in a junior high school physical education evaluation program. It would be desirable to use the Parnell and Sheldon techniques simultaneously with 56 the Meredith system to predict physiological and psychological functions. 5. A longitudinal study should be made using the same subjects, techniques, and Sheldon's special tables when pub- lished as the criterion for measurement. 4. A statistical approach could be used to test for significant differences by computing the correlations of each of the four body typing techniques that were used in this study. The recommendations presented are not meant to be final and conclusive suggestions for future procedures in the method of comparing anthropometric techniques. It is the in- vestigator's hope that the results which have been acquired from this study have provided useful information for the stu- dents and physical education staff at East Lansing Junior High School and for subsequent studies to follow. If this goal has been achieved, the investigator's efforts can be deemed worthwhile. B IB LI OGRAPHY 37 58 Books Brozek, J. Body Measurements and Human Nutrition. Detroit: Wayne University Press, 1956. Cureton, T. K. Physical Fitness, Appraisal, and Guidance. St. Louis: C. V. Mosby Co., 1947. . Physical Fitness of Champion Athletes. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1951. Larson, Leonard A., and Yocom, Rachael D. Measurement and Evaluation in Physical, Health, and Recreation Edu- cation. St. Louis: C. V. Mosby Co., 1951. Mathews, Donald K. Measurement in Physical Education. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Co., 1965. McCloy, C. H. Appraising Physical Status: Methods and Norms. Iowa City: University of Iowa, 1958. . Appraising Physical Status: The Selection of Measurements. Iowa City: University of Iowa, 1956. Parnell, R. W. Behavior and Physique. London: Edward Arnold Publishers Ltd., 1958. Sheldon, William H. Atlas of Man. New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1954. , Stevens, S. S. The Varieties of Temperament, New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1945. , Stevens, S. S., and Tucker, W. B. The Varieties of Human Physique. New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1940. Willgoose, Carl E. Evaluation in Health Education and Physical Education. New York: McGraw—Hill Book Co., 1961. Periodicals Carpenter, Aileen. "An AnthrOpometric Study of Masculinity and Feminity of Body Build," Research Quarterly, No. 12 (December, 1941), 712-719. 59 Cozens, F. W. ”A Study of Stature in Relation to Physical Performance," Research Quarterly, No. 1 (1950), 58-45. Damon, Albert, Bleibtreu, Herman K., Elliot, Orville, and Giles, Eugene. "Predicting Somatotype from Body Measurements," American Journal of Physical Anthro- pology, No. 20 (1962), 461-72. Di Giovanna, V. "The Relation of Selected Structural and Functional Measures to Success in College Athletics," Research Quarterly, No. 14 (1945), 2. Dupertuis, C. Wesley. "Anthropometry of Extreme Somatotypes," American Journal of Physical Anthropology, No. 8 (1950). 567-86. and Michael, Nancy B. ”Comparison of Growth in Height and Weight Between Ectomorphic and Mesomorphic Boys," Child Development, XXIV (September-December, 1955), 205-14. and Tanner, J. M. "The Pose of the Subject for Photogrammetric Anthropometry with Especial Reference to Somatotyping," American Journal of Physical Anthro- pology, No. 10 (1950), 551-351. Gavan, J. A., et al. "Photography: An Anthropometric Tool,” American Journal of Physical Anthropology, No. 8 (1951), 27-48. Geoghegan, B. "The Determination of Body Measurements, Surface Area, and Body Volume by Photography," American Journal of Physical Anthropology. No. 11 (1955), 97-12 . Haronian, Frank and Sugerman, A. Arthur. I‘A Comparison of Sheldon‘s and Parnell's Methods for Quantifying Morpho— logical Differences," American Journal of Physical AnthrOpology, No. 25 (June, 1965), 155-141. Hunt, E. E. "A Note on Growth, Somatotype, and Temperament," American Journal of Physical Anthropology, No. 7 (1949), 79-80. Massler, Maury and Suehr, Theodore. I“Calculations of 'Normal' Weight in Children," Child Development, XXII (June, 1951), 75-94. Meredith, Howard. ”A Physical Growth Record for Use in Elementary and High Schools,“ American Journal of Public Health, No. 59 (July, 1949). 4O Meredith, Howard and Culp, Stanley. “Body Form in Childhood; Ratios Quantitatively Describing Four Slender-to-Stocky Continus on Boys Four to Eight Years of Age," Child Development, XXII (March, 1951), 5-14. . "Interpreting Growth: Ways to Use Height and Weight Measures of School Children,” Saskatchewan Recreation (Fall, 1947), 1. Miller, R. D. "A Critique on the Use of Height-Weight Factors in the Performance Classification of College Men," Research Quarterly, No. 25 (1952), 402-416. Newman, R. W. "Age Changes in Body Build," American Journal of Physical AnthrOpolqu. No. 10 (1952), 75-90. Parnell, R. W. "Somatotyping by Physical Anthropometry,“ American Journal of Physical Anthropology, No. 12 (1954), 209. "Some Notes on Physique and Athletic Training," British Medical Journal, No. 1 (1951), 1292-1505. Sills, F. D. "A Factor Analysis of Somatotypes and of Their Relationships to Achievement in Motor Skills," Research Quarterly, No. 21 (December, 1950), 424-457. Stuart, Harold and Meredith, Howard V. "Use of Body Measure- ments in the School Health Program," American Journal of Public Health, XII (December, 1946), 1565-86. Tanner, J. M. and Wiener, J. S. "The Reliability of the Photogrammetric Method of Anthropometry with a Descrip- tion of a Miniature Camera Technique," American Journal of Physical Anthropology) No. 7 (1949), 145-186. Wallis, Ruth S. "How Children Grow--An Anthropometric Study of Private School Children from Two to Eight Years of Age," University of Iowa Studies in Child Welfare, V (1951). Willgoose, C. E. I‘Body Types and Physical Fitness," Journal of Health, Physical Education, and Recreation (September), 1956. and Rogers, M. R. “Relationship of Somatotype to Physical Fitness," Journal Educational Research, (May, 1949), 704-712. Zeigler, Earle F. ”Implications of the Study of Body Types for Physical Education," Journal of Health and Physical Education, No. 19 (April, 1948), 4. APPENDIX 41 42 Letter for Parental Permission EAST LANSING JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL February 15, 1966 Dear Parents: We would like permission to have your son participate in a research project being conducted in c00peration with MSU. This study will provide us with information from which we can give improved individual guidance in our health and physical education program. An important part of this study is the classification of the body type of each student. It is our interest that each student should understand his physical self and that appropriate steps should be followed to enhance the functioning of his body. Some types tend toward weight problems, both over and under weight, others may need development. It is our hope to help each student develop self insight and as a result to establish and maintain appropriate health habits. The study fits in very nicely with the normal activities of our "dynamic health" unit. To body type accurately it is necessary to take front, side and rear View photographs wearing an athletic supporter. When the photo is taken a mask will be placed over the student's face and he will not be identified by name. Please be assured that necessary precautions will be taken to insure that the students will remain anonymous. The photos and all other infor- mation will be kept in security files at the Human Energy Laboratory, M.S.U. The other measures to be made are similar to the ones usually administered in our dynamic health unit. Although we would like to obtain maximum participation in the study, please be assured that if you should decide you do not wish your son to participate, your decision, will in no way detract from your son's status in his class for grade pur- poses or otherwise. If you should have any further questions please contact Mr. Oestriech or Mr. Winebrenner at the junior high school. Principal Neil Winebrenner Director Human Energy Research Lab., M.S.U. Wayne D. Van Huss 45 EAST LANSING JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL PARENTAL REPLY FORM February 15, 1966 My son has my permission to participate in the physical education project. I do not want my son to participate in the physical education project. Student's name Parent‘s signature 44 ANTHROPOMETRIC MEASUREMENT FORM date code name Meredith body type birth date mo. day yr. ht' Wt° age: yr. mo. suprailiac skinfold mms. [Lange skinfold calipers-10gm/mm weight lbs. pressure] measurements in standing position (anthropometer) standing free cms. standing against measuring plane in. cervicle height cms. right iliocristale height cms. right gluteal fold cms. transverse and anterior-posterior dimensions (large spreading bi-acromial mms. calipers) chest breadth mms. bi-iliac mms. bi-trochanteric mms. chest depth mms. maximal breadths (small spreading calipers) face breadth (bizygomatic) mms. jaw breadth (bigonial) mms. maximal breadths taken on left side (sliding calipers) elbow breadth (humeral epicondyles) mms. wrist breadth mms. knee breadth (femural epicondyles) mms. ankle breadth (malleoli) mms. ponderal index height (InCh) = . 5 'Jweight (lbs) J Parnell's somatotyping measurements skinfolds (right side) upper arm skinfold (triceps) mms. scapular skinfold mms. supra-iliac mms. muscle girth measurements (right side) calf girth cms. upper arm (bicep girth) cms. 45 MEREDITH'S BODY TYPE, PONDERAL INDEX, SHELDON'S TRUNK RATIO, AND PARNELL'S PHENOTYPE SCORES OF NINETY-EIGHT EAST LANSING JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL BOYS Sheldon's Meredith Ponderal Trunk Parnell's Code Name Ht. Wt. Index Ratio Phenotype 1 AJB T MH 14.1 1.50 556 2 A88 Ave Ave 15.4 1.40 5544 5 ADC MS ML 15.5 1.65 24444 4 AKD T H 15.4 1.15 5424 5 ARD Ave L 15.6 1.54 24545 6 AMG T H 12.6 1.29 52424- 7 AJG MS ML 12.5 1.46 252 6 ARG Ave Ave 12.7 1.44 55424 9 APG MT Ave 15.5 1.25 5544 10 AJJ Ave Ave 15.2 1.52 5554 11 ADL T H 12.7 1.50 5524 12 AJL MS L 15.9 1.27 244454 15 AMN Ave MH 12.0 1.54 6421 14 ARN Ave H 11.5 1.17 7241 15 AJO MT Ave 15.7 1.46 14445 16 ABS Ave H 12.2 1.21 72414 17 BMA Ave Ave 12.6 1.55 44424 16 BPB T MH 15.0 1.59 4545 19 ch T MH 11.5 1.44 44541 20 BRE Ave MH 12.6 1.42 5424 21 BJG Ave Ave 15.2 1.51 54454 22 BJH Ave MH 11.4 1.01 5451 25 BAM Ave Ave 15.2 1.51 54454 24 BJM MT Ave 14.0 1.56 2454 25 BGV MT MH 12.8 1.42 445424 26 BBW Ave ML 15.5 1.45 454 27 CDB MS L 15.4 1.65 544 26 CJA Ave Ave 12.6 1.42 45424: 29 CSD T MH 15.2 1.54 4554 50 CKH Ave ML 15.6 1.59 14544 51 CDKE Ave Ave 15.0 1.52 5445 52 CDKI Ave Ave 12.7 1.16 545424 55 CAR Ave Ave 15.2 1.55 54454 54 CTSA MT MH 15.4 1.66 554 55 ccp MT Ave 15.2 1.24 54454 56 CTSE MS ML 12.9 1.21 54545 57 CJS MT MH 15.2 1.56 545454 56 CTT MT MH 15.0 1.42 55 59 CBT T H 12.4 1.44 4 2 40 CBY Ave Ave 15.1 1.24 44454 41 DAA MS Ave 12.5 1.20 452 Continued 46 Sheldon's Meredith Ponderal Trunk Parnell's Code Name Ht. Wt. Index Ratio Phenotype 42 DDB T MH 15.0 1.59 555 45 DMC T Ave 15.0 1.51 2457 44 DTD MT Ave 15.5 1.55 544 45 DNF MT H 15.5 1.74 454 46 DBG MT Ave 15.8 1.48 545 47 DRL MS H 11.2 1.57 751 46 DCM MT H 11.5 1.49 7241 49 DDO Ave H 11.4 1.21 751 50 DFP T MH 15.1 1.25 445454- 51 DMS T H 15.1 1.44 4454 52 DJU Ms ML 15.5 1.21 545444 55 EMB T H 15.0 1.55 4545 54 EJH s L 12.7 1.47 5424 55 EWM Ave Ave 15.5 1.51 544 56 EJN Ave ML 15.4 1.54 544 57 ECO Ave ML 15.4 1.44 5444 56 EMR MS ML 12.9 1.10 4445 59 EGW MT Ave 15.4 1.49 4444 60 EDR Ave Ave 15.4 1.52 24444 61 EDB Ave Ave 15.0 1.49 4445 62 FJA T Ave 15.8 1.65 2445 65 FRB Ave MH 12.7 1.29 641424 64 FJB T MH 15.5 1.46 244444- 65 FJD Ave H 12.0 1.21 64141 66 FRH Ave Ave 15.6 1.40 24444 67 FDK T Ave 14.0 1.26 24454 68 FSM Ave ML 15.5 1.56 2454 69 FJG MT H 12.8 1.46 4524 70 FMRA MT Ave 14.1 1.24 2446 71 FMRI Ave Ave 15.2 1.50 45454 72 FTS MT MH 12.8 1.44 4524 75 GCB Ave Ave 15.5 1.58 55444 74 GJB MS L 15.7 1.42 2445 75 GJCO Ave MH 12.4 1.29 6452 76 GJCR MT Ave 15.6 1.41 5544 77 GDG MS ML 12.9 1.28 545 78 GDE T MH 15.4 1.47 54544 79 GJH MS Ave 12.8 1.29 545424 80 GDP MT MH 12.6 1.19 54524 81 GTR MT H 11.6 1.19 741 82 GBS MT MH 15.2 1.59 544454 85 GSW s L 15.1 1.59 24545 84 GJW Ave Ave 12.6 1.06 65424 85 HDB T Ave 15.6 1.52 54444 Continued 47 Sheldon's Meredith Ponderal Trunk Parnell's Code Name Ht. Wt. Index Ratio Phenotype 86 HMB MT ML 14.1 1.50 556 87 HBB s L 14.0 1.57 5554 88 HGB MT MH 12.8 1.11 444424- 89 HEB MT Ave 15.7 1.54 5545 90 HMD MS L 15.4 1.46 544 91 HSG Ave ML 14.1 1.50 256 92 HDH MT Ave 14.5 1.55 14464 95 HJH Ave Ave 15.2 1.40 54454 94 HCL MT MH 12.8 1.40 445424 95 HTP Ave Ave 15.4 1.11 5444 96 HLS MT Ave 15.5 1.57 54544 97 HRW MT ML 14.1 1.48 2456 98 HDW Ms ML 12.8 1.44 4424 mmhp >009 m.HHmcumml 48 N. NQ w NW AIM Nd ”V Nah... m NN N NH. fl mHOUm :1H: no.5a Id.¢fi.&.¢d.o.¢a.m.nfi.¢.md I¢.mfi IN.mfiao.maIN.Na.¢.ma.&.NH o.ma xmch Hmumpcom O¢fi mmfi wad ©OH 5m Hm mm 05 mm mm m4 m5 mm unmflmz H mm m mm m m5 5 mm m mm N ma a muoum .2. Uwuomuuoo h mm m mm m m5 5 mm m mm N ma a hyaumHsumsz mo mumEHumm umuflm m.mm w.mm m.fim m.om m.mm m.mm m.>N w.mm m.mm m.¢m w.mm m.NN m.am mamo m.¢m N.¢N m.mm >.NN o.mN N.am m.om m.ma o.ma m.mfi m.>a m.wa a.wa mmmoflm maomsz m.oa 0.0H n.m ¢.m a.m m.w m.m N.m m.> m.> 0.5 >.m usfimm m.n o.» w.w m.© m.w H.m m.m >.m m.m m.m a.m m.¢ ©.¢ msnmfism mcom mm mm 5w mm ow mm mm 5m mm m5 m5 #4 ugmflmm 6. mm- N- m7 7 4: T o e T T. T. 44+ 9.58 .2. on coauomuuoo H mm m mm m mw 5 mm m m NH a muoom .m. woa mm mu om om m5 mm mm 5N NH 5H NH mucmfimusmmme mmusu mo Hmuoe 1.455 Apaomcflxmv "umm muma mfimz msvflmhfim omd mo uumso COHuMH>wQ Q40 mm4mfi zm>mqm meQAHmU mom emdmo Awlzv ZOHBMQ Qm¢QZ