llllllllllHllllllllilllflllllllllllllllllHlllllllllllfllllll

31293 01579 6018

 

LITERARY
Michigan State
University 1

 

 

PLACE II RETURN BOX to roman this checkout 1mm your "cord.
TO AVOID FINES Mum on or baton date duo.

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE ll
7&3 I |
MSU I. An Afflrmdlvo Action/Equal Opponunlly Imam

WM!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A FAMILIAL STUDY OF GROWTH AND HEALTH-RELATED FITNESS AMONG
CANADIAN S OF ABORIGINAL AND EUROPEAN ANCESTRY

By
Peter Todd Katzmarzyk

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Physical Education and Exercise Science
1997

ABSTRACT

A FAMILIAL STUDY OF GROWTH AND HEALTH-RELATED FITNESS AMONG
CANADIAN S OF ABORIGINAL AND EUROPEAN ANCESTRY

By

Peter Todd Katzmarzyk

The purpose of this study was to compare Canadians of First Nation (FN) and
European ancestry (BA) in terms of body size, physique, and indicators of health-
related fitness, and to determine the familial resemblance in these variables. A total of
624 subjects, 130 FN, 494 BA from the Northern Ontario communities of Temagami
and Bear Island participated. The results indicated significant differences between FN
and EA Canadians, and significant familial resemblance in body size, physique and
health-related fitness. Generally, FN subjects were fatter and had a more central
subcutaneous fat distribution than EA subjects. In both groups, males had less
subcutaneous adiposity, but had a greater tendency to store proportionally more fat on
the trunk than females. Few differences were evident for stature and skeletal
dimensions between FN and EA subjects. The results also indicated that FN subjects
were more endomorphic than EA subjects. The prevalence of obesity in FN was
generally higher than in BA. Among males and females 5- 19 years, the prevalence of

obesity (285th percentile age-specific NHANES II BMI) was 38.1% and 29.4% in FN
males and females, respectively, and 21.3% and 16.9% in BA males and females,
respectively. In FN adults 20—75 years, the prevalence of obesity (285th percentile

NHANES II BMI for 20-29 year old people) was 51.4% in FN males, 58.8% in FN
females, 39.0% in BA males, and 35.0% in BA females. Analyses of secular changes
indicated a positive secular trend for stature of 1.0 cur/decade in EA males. Estimated

secular changes in the other groups were not significant. Correlations between first
degree relatives indicated significant familial resemblance in body size, physique,
adiposity, relative fat distribution, grip strength and trunk flexibility. Spousal
correlations showed little assortative mating in this sample. The results suggest that the
increased prevalence of several metabolic diseases in FN Canadians may in part be
explained by morphological characteristics which are associated with increased risk for
disease, and that these differences are apparent in childhood.

For Brenda and Bradley

iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Any project of this magnitude is a team effort. I would like to thank all of those who
have assisted me in this endeavor. Firstly, this project could not have been completed
if it were not for the participants. I would like to thank the residents of Temagami and
Bear Island for taking the time to participate in this project. In particular Wayne Adair,
Reeve of Temagami, Holly Charyna, past Chief, and J immy Twain, current Chief of
the Temagami First Nation, made special efforts in getting this study off of the ground.
Special mention must also be made of the Education Committee of the Timiskaming
Board of Education and the teachers of the public schools in Temagami and Bear Island
for their assistance during data collection. Within the academic realm, I would like to
thank first and foremost Dr. Robert Malina for his guidance and friendship throughout
the past three years, which allowed me to complete my degree in a timely manner. I
would also like to acknowledge the efforts of my dissertation committee; Drs. Crystal
Branta, Sharon Hoerr, and James Pivamik for their constructive criticism and
commentary. Special thanks also to Dr. Claude Bouchard for providing comparative
data from the Quebec Family Study. Last but definitely not least, I would like to thank
my wife Brenda for her support throughout this long journey. Also, Brenda has acted
as an unpaid research assistant throughout the entire research process. Without her
efl'orts, I am sure I would still be in the field collecting data.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ........................................................ ix

LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................... xiv

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
Introduction .................................................................
Rationale and Purpose of Study .......................................... 3
Research Hypotheses ...................................................... 4
Limitations of Study ....................................................... 4
Significance of Study ...................................................... 5

CHAPTER 11

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
Introduction ................................................................. 6

Section 1: Growth and Adult Characteristics of Native North Americans
Introduction ................................................................. 6
Growth Data ................................................................ 8
Body Size ................................................................... 8
Fatness and Relative Fat Distribution .................................. 1 l
Physique .................................................................. l6
Secular Trends ........................................................... 17
Summary .................................................................. 19

Section II: Familial Aggregation of Body Size, Physique, and
Indicators of Heath-Related Fitness

Introduction ................................................. ~ .............. 20
Types of Studies ......................................................... 20
Body Size ................................................................. 22
Circumferences and Skeletal Dimensions ............................. 24
Fatness and Relative Fat Distribution .................................. 26
Physique .................................................................. 28
Strength and Flexibility ................................................. 29
Summary .................................................................. 30

vi

CHAPTER III

METHODS
Introduction ............................................................... 31
Research Location and Study Population ............................. 31
Ethnographic Background .............................................. 32
Study Design ............................................................. 34
Sample ............................................................. q ....... 3 5
Anthropometry ........................................................... 36
Anthropometric Indices ................................................. 40
Strength, Flexibility and Motor Fitness ............................... 42
Measurement Variability and Reliability ............................... 44
Data Management ........................................................ 46
Statistical Analyses ...................................................... 48
CHAPTER IV
RESULTS
Introduction ............................................................... 53
Descriptive Statistics ..................................................... 53
Anthropometric Z-Score Analysis ..................................... 61
Secular Trend Analysis for Stature .................................... 63
Stature, Skeletal Dimensions and Circumferences ................... 64
Body Mass, Fatness and Relative Fat Distribution .................. 66
Prevalence of Obesity ................................................... 68
Physique .................................................................. 70
Grip Strength, Trunk Flexibility and Motor Fitness ................. 73
Interrelationships Among Body Size, Fatness,
Physique and Health-Related Fitness .................................. 75
CHAPTER V
DISCUSSION
Introduction ............................................................... 77
Stature and Skeletal Dimensions ....................................... 77
Fatness and Relative Fat Distribution .................................. 80
Prevalence of Obesity ............................... , .................... 84
Physique .................................................................. 88
Grip Strength, Trunk Flexibility and Motor Fitness ................. 92
Secular Trends ........................................................... 94
Body Size, Fatness, Physique and Health-Related Fitness ......... 98
CHAPTER VI
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Summary ................................................................. 107
Conclusions ............................................................. 1 1 1
Recommendation for Future Research ............................... 114
TABLES ...................................................................... 116
FIGURES ..................................................................... 171

vii

APPENDIX A:
COMMUNITY CORRESPONDENCE ........................ 298

LIST OF REFERENCES ............................................. 301

viii

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 2.1 Comparison of stature, mass and estimated BMI among
selected samples of adult Native North Americans. BMIs are

estrmated from means for stature and mass in each sample .................. 116
TABLE 2.2 Components of health-related fitness .......................... 117
TABLE 2.3 Evidence for familial resemblance in stature .................. 118
TABLE 2.4 Evidence for familial resemblance in body mass ............. 119
TABLE 2.5 Evidence for familial resemblance in circumferences ........ 120
TABLE 2.6 Evidence for familial resemblance in skeletal dimensions . . 121
TABLE 2.7 Evidence for familial resemblance in the BMI ................ 122
TABLE 2.8 Evidence for familial resemblance in fatness and
relative fat distribution ............................................................. 123
TABLE 2.9 Evidence for familial resemblance in somatotype ............ 124
TABLE 2.10 Evidence for familial resemblance in grip strength
and trunk flexibility ............................................................... q. 125
TABLE 3.1 Age and sex distribution of subjects compared to
reported populations of Temagami and Bear Island ........................... 126
TABLE 3.2 Age and sex distribution of the subsample .
participating in the analysis of measurement variability ....................... 127

TABLE 3.3 Mean differences (3,), intraobserver technical errors
of measurement (TEM) and intraclass correlation coefficients (fl...)
between replicate measurements (n=64) ........................................ 127

TABLE 3.4 Comparison of intraobserver technical errors of
measurement (TEM) with those reported in selected studies ................. 128

TABLE 3.5 Sample sizes, age ranges, and intraclass correlations
(Ti...) for replicate motor performance tests ..................................... 129

ix

TABLE 3.6 Comparison of reliability coefficients for replicate

performance tests .................................................................. 129
TABLE 3.7 Least squares regression equations for the prediction

of individual skinfolds in a sample of Canadians .............................. 129
TABLE 3.8 Skewness statistics for variables with skewed distributions
and skewness statistics after log ,0 transformation of the variables... ........ 130
TABLE 3.9 Effects of age, by gender, on skeletal dimensions,
circumferences, and AMA ........................................................ 131
TABLE 3.10 Effects of age, by gender, on fatness, relative fat
distribution, physique, grip strength, and trunk flexibility ................... 132
TABLE 3.11 Distribution of sibship size among 266 families ........... 133

TABLE 3.12 Effects of age, mass, stature and the BMI,
by gender, on grip strength and flexibility ...................................... 134

TABLE 4.] Sample sizes, means and standard deviations
for age and indicators of body size .............................................. 135

TABLE 4.2 Sample sizes, means and standard deviations for
indicators of fatness and relative fat distribution ............................... 136

TABLE 4.3 Sample sizes, means, medians, and standard _
deviations for extremity skinfolds ............................................... 137

TABLE 4.4 Sample sizes, means, medians, and standard
deviations for trunk skinfolds .................................................... 138 -

TABLE 4.5 Sample sizes, means and standard deviations
for skeletal breadths ............................................................... 139

TABLE 4.6 Sample sizes, means and standard deviations
for circumferences and AMA ..................................................... 140

TABLE 4.7 Sample sizes, means and standard deviations
for Heath-Carter anthropometric somatotype components .................... 141

TABLE 4.8 Sample sizes, means and standard deviations
for grip strength and trunk flexibility .......... ‘ .................................. 1 42

TABLE 4.9 Sample sizes, means and standard deviations
for age and motor fitness in children 5-15 years of age ....................... 143

TABLE 4.10 Anthropometric z-scores"2 and results of
t-tests for differences between males and females, and between
EA and FN samples ............................................................... 144

TABLE 4.11 Anthropometric z-scoresl for FN adults 20-75 yrs
standardized using FN reference data from Canada and results
of t-tests for differences between males and females .......................... 145

X

TABLE 4.12 Results of the secular trend regression
analysis for stature ................................................................. 145

TABLE 4.13 Results of AN COVAs for differences in stature,
skeletal dimensions, and AMA between EA and EN subjects, .
with age as the covariate .......................................................... 146

TABLE 4.14 Results of ANCOVAs for differences in
stature, skeletal dimensions, and AMA between males
and females, with age as the covariate ........................................... 147

TABLE 4.15 Intraclass sibling correlations for stature,
skeletal dimensions, circumferences, and AMA ............................... 148

TABLE 4.16 Interclass spousal and parent-offspring correlations
for stature, skeletal dimensions, circumferences, and AMA .................. 149

 

TABLE 4.17 Heritability estimates for stature, skeletal
dimensions, circumferences and AMA based on regression
analyses of offspring on mid-parent values ..................................... 150

TABLE 4.18 Results of ANCOVAs for differences in body mass,
fatness, and relative fat distribution between EA and EN subjects,
with age as the covariate .......................................................... 151

TABLE 4.19 Results of ANCOVAs for differences in body mass,
fatness, and relative fat distribution between males and females,

with age as the covariate .......................................................... ‘ 152
TABLE 4.20 Intraclass sibling correlations for fatness, and .
relative fat distribution ............................................................. 153
TABLE 4.21 Interclass spousal and parent-offspring for fatness

and relative fat distribution ........................................................ 153
TABLE 4.22 Heritability estimates based on regression analyses of
offspring on mid-parent values for fatness and relative fat distribution ..... 154
TABLE 4.23 Prevalence of obesity .......................................... 155
TABLE 4.24 Differences between adult subjects classified

as obese by different criteria ...................................................... 156

TABLE 4.25 Results of MANCOVAs and univariate F-tests for
Heath-Carter anthropometric somatotype components between
EA and FN subjects, with age as the covariate ................................. 157

TABLE 4.26 Summary of forward stepwise discriminant function
analyses for the pairwise comparisons in the analysis of somatotype
differences between EA and FN subjects: Entries show the component
entered on each step and the F-value to enter ................................... 158

xi

TABLE 4.27 Results of MANCOVAs and univariate F-tests for
Heath-Carter anthropometric somatotype components between
males and females, with age as the covariate ................................... 159

TABLE 4.28 Summary of forward stepwise discriminant function
analyses for the pairwise comparisons in the analysis of somatotype
differences between males and females: Entries show the component

entered on each step and the F-value to enter ................................... 160
TABLE 4.29 Intraclass sibling correlations for '
somatotype components ........................................................... 161
TABLE 4.30 Interclass Spousal and parent-offspring correlations

for somatotype components ...................................................... 161

TABLE 4.31 Heritability estimates based on regression analyses
of offspring on mid-parent values for components of somatotype ........... 161

TABLE 4.32 Results of AN COVAs for differences in grip strength,
trunk flexibility, and motor performance between EA and FN
subjects, with age as the covariate ............................................... 162

TABLE 4.33 Results of ANCOVAs for differences in grip strength,
trunk flexibility, and motor performance between males and females,
with age as the covariate .......................................................... 163

TABLE 4.34 Intraclass sibling correlations for grip strength
and trunk flexibility ................................................................ 164

TABLE 4.35 Interclass spousal and parent-offspring
correlations for grip strength and trunk flexibility ............................. 164

TABLE 4.36 Heritability estimates for grip strength and trunk flexibility
based on regression analyses of offspring on mid-parent values ............ 164

TABLE 4.37 First-order gartial correlations between body size and
fatness, and grip strength, exibility, and performance
variables, controlling for age ..................................................... 165

TABLE 4.38 Third-order partial correlations between somatotype
components and grip strength, flexibility, and performance variables,
controlling for age and the other two somatotype components ............... 166

TABLE 4.39 Results of familial aggregation analyses of flexibility
and grip strength examining the effects of controlling for body size ........ 167

TABLE 5.1 Partial correlations between TER, WHR and SUM,
controlling for age ................................................................. 168

TABLE 5.2 Results of familial aggregation analyses of TER and
controlling for SUM ..................................................... 169

xii

TABLE 5.3 Means and, standard deviations for Heath-Carter
anthropometric somatotype components with comparative data
from two Canadian samples ...................................................... 170

xiii

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1.1 General model outlining the hypothesized relationships among
activity, fitness and health (adapted from Bouchard and Shephard, 1994).. 171

FIGURE 1.2 Proposed model for the study of the genetics of
body size and performance ........................................................ 172

FIGURE 2.1 Stature among selected samples of Native North

American males 4-18 years plotted relative to Canadian reference

data (Health and Welfare Canada, 1980). Solid lines represent

10th and 90th percentiles .......................................................... 173

FIGURE 2.2 Stature among selected samples of Native North

American females 4-18 years plotted relative to Canadian reference

data (Health and Welfare Canada, 1980). Solid lines represent

10th and 90th percentiles .......................................................... 174

FIGURE 2.3 Body mass among selected samples of Native North
American males 4-18 years plotted relative to Canadian reference

data (Health and Welfare Canada, 1980). Solid lines represent

10th and 90th percentiles .......................................................... 175

FIGURE 2.4 Body mass among selected samples of Native North
American females 4-18 years plotted relative to Canadian reference

data (Health and Welfare Canada, 1980). Solid lines represent

10th and 90th percentiles .......................................................... 176

FIGURE 2.5 Estimated body mass index among selected samples

of Native North American males 4-18 years plotted relative to

US. reference data (Must et al., 1991). Solid lines represent

5th and 95th percentiles ........................................................... 177

FIGURE 2.6 Estimated body mass index among selected samples

of Native North American females 4-18 years plotted relative to

US. reference data (Must et al., 1991). Solid lines represent

5th and 95th percentiles ........................................................... 178

FIGURE 3.1 Map of research location in Northern Ontario ............... 179

FIGURE 4.1 Stature of EA males (0) 5-19 years and five-year

age group means (A :h SD) plotted relative to Canadian reference

data (Fitness Canada, 1985). Horizontal bars are :1: SD for age.

Solid lines represent 10th, 50th, and 90th percentiles .......................... 180

xiv

FIGURE 4.2 Stature of FN males (0) 5-19 years and five-year

age group means (A 1 SD) plotted relative to Canadian reference

data (Fitness Canada, 1985). Horizontal bars are :1: SD for age.

Solid lines represent 10th, 50th, and 90th percentiles .......................... 181

FIGURE 4.3 Stature of EA females (0) 5-19 years and five-year

age group means (A :1: SD) plotted relative to Canadian reference a

data (Fitness Canada, 1985). Horizontal bars are :1: SD for age.

Solid lines rcpresent 10th, 50th, and 90th percentiles .......................... 182

FIGURE 4.4 Stature of FN females (0) 5—19 years and five-year

age group means (A :1: SD) plotted relative to Canadian reference

data (Fitness Canada, 1985). Horizontal bars are :1: SD for age.

Solid lines represent 10th, 50th, and 90th percentiles .......................... 183

FIGURE 4.5 Stature of EA males (0) 20-75 years and ten-year

age group means (A :1: SD) plotted relative to Canadian reference

data (Fitness Canada, 1986). Horizontal bars are :t SD for age.

Solid lines represent 10th, 50th, and 90th percentiles .......................... 184

FIGURE 4.6 Stature of FN males (0) 20-75 years and ten-year age
group means (A :1: SD) plotted relative to Canadian reference data

(Fitness Canada, 1986). Horizontal bars are 1: SD for age.

Solid lines represent 10th, 50th, and 90th percentiles .......................... 185

FIGURE 4.7 Stature of EA females (0) 20-75 years and ten-year age
gzroup means (A :1: SD) plotted relative to Canadian reference data

(Fitness Canada, 1986). Horizontal bars are i SD for age.

Solid lines represent 10th, 50th, and 90th percentiles .......................... 186

FIGURE 4.8 Stature of FN females (0) 20-75 years and ten-year age
mup means (A :1: SD) plotted relative to Canadian reference data

(Fitness Canada, 1986). Horizontal bars are :1: SD for age.

Solid lines represent 10th, 50th, and 90th percentiles ......................... 187

FIGURE 4.9 Body mass of EA males (0) 5-19 years and five-year
age group means (A i SD) plotted relative to Canadian reference
. data (Fitness Canada, 1985). Horizontal bars are :1: SD for age.
Solid lines represent 10th, 50th, and 90th percentiles .......................... 188

FIGURE 4.10 Body mass of FN males (0) 5-19 years and five-year

age group means (A i SD) plotted relative to Canadian reference

data (Fitness Canada, 1985). Horizontal bars are :1: SD for age.

SOlid lines represent 10th, 50th, and 90m percentiles .......................... 189

1FIGURE 4.11 Body mass of EA females (0) 5-19 years and five-year
389 group means (A :1: SD) plotted relative to Canadian reference data
(Fatness Canada, 1985). Horizontal bars are :1: SD for age.

SOlid lines represent 10th, 50th, and 90th percentiles .......................... 190

XV

Fr .Q.‘ 92.14. Insulin

FIGURE 4.12 Body mass of FN females (0) 5—19 years and five-year

age group means (A :1: SD) plotted relative to Canadian reference data

(Fitness Canada, 1985). Horizontal bars are :1: SD for age.

Solid lines represent 10th, 50th, and 90th percentiles .......................... 191

FIGURE 4.13 Body mass of EA males (0) 20—75 years and ten-year age
group means (A :1: SD) plotted relative to Canadian reference data

(Fitness Canada, 1986). Horizontal bars are i SD for age. -

Solid lines represent 10th, 50th, and 90th percentiles .......................... 192

FIGURE 4.14 Body mass of FN males (0) 20-75 years and ten-year age
group means (A :1: SD) plotted relative to Canadian reference data

(Fitness Canada, 1986). Horizontal bars are :1: SD for age.

Solid lines represent 10th, 50th, and 90th percentiles .......................... 193

FIGURE 4.15 Body mass of EA females (0) 20—75 years and ten-year
age group means (A :1: SD) plotted relative to Canadian reference data
(Fitness Canada, 1986). Horizontal bars are :1: SD for age.

Solid lines represent 10th, 50th, and 90th percentiles ......................... 194

FIGURE 4.16 Body mass of FN females (0) 20-75 years and ten-year
age group means (A :1: SD) plotted relative to Canadian reference data
(Fitness Canada, 1986). Horizontal bars are i SD for age.

S olid lines represent 10th, 50th, and 90th percentiles ......................... 195

FIGURE 4.17 Sitting height of EA males (0) 5-19 years and five-year
age group means (A :1: SD) plotted relative to US. reference data

(Hamill ct al., 1973; Malina et al., 1974). Horizontal bars are :1: SD for age.
S (slid lines represent 10th, 50th, and 90th percentiles .......................... 196

FIGURE 4.18 Sitting height of FN males (0) 5-19 years and five-year
age group means (A :1: SD) plotted relative to US. reference data
(Hamill et al., 1973; Malina et al., 1974). Horizontal bars are :1: SD for age.

Solid lines represent 10th, 50th, and 90th percentiles .......................... 197

F1 GURE 4.19 Sitting height of EA females (0) 5-19 years and five-year
age group means (A :1: SD) plotted relative to US. reference data
(Hamill et al., 1973; Malina et al., 1974). Horizontal bars are :1: SD for age.

Solid lines represent 10th, 50th, and 90th percentiles .......................... 198

IFIGURE 4.20 Sitting height of FN females (0) 5-19 years and five-year
age group means (A :1: SD) plotted relative to US. reference data

(Hamill et al., 1973; Malina et al., 1974). Horizontal bars are i SD for age.
Solidlinesrepresent 10th, 50th, and90thpercentiles .......................... r99

IFIGURE 4.21 Sitting height of EA males (0) 20-75 years and ten-year
age group means (A :1: SD) plotted relative to Canadian reference data
(Health and Welfare Canada, 1980). Horizontal bars are :r so for age.

Solid lines represent 10th, 50th, and90thpercentiles .......................... 200

I“IGURE 4.22 Sitting height of FN males (0) 20-75 years and ten-year
age group means (A :1: SD) plotted relative to Canadian reference data

(Health and Welfare Canada, 1980). Horizontal bars are :1: SD for age.

SOlid lines represent 10th, 50th, and 90th percentiles .......................... 201

xvi

FIGURE 4.23 Sitting height of EA females (0) 20—75 years and ten-year
age group means (A :1: SD) plotted relative to Canadian reference data

(Health and Welfare Canada, 1980). Horizontal bars are :1: SD for age.

Solid lines represent 10th, 50th, and 90th percentiles .......................... 202

FIGURE 4.24 Sitting height of FN females (0) 20-75 years and ten-year
age aggroup means (A :1: SD) plotted relative to Canadian reference data

(Health and Welfare Canada, 1980). Horizontal bars are :1: SD for age.

Solid lines represent 10th, 50th, and 90th percentiles .......................... 203

FIGURE 4.25 Estimated subischial length of EA males (0) 5-19 years

and five-year age group means (A :1: SD) plotted relative to US. reference
data (Hamill et al., 1973; Malina et al., 1974). Horizontal bars are :1: SD

for age. Solid lines represent 10th, 50th, and 90th percentiles ............... 204

FIGURE 4.26 Estimated subischial length of FN males (0) 5-19 years
and five-year age group means (A :1: SD) plotted relative to US. reference
data (Hamill et al., 1973; Malina et al., 1974). Horizontal bars are :1: SD

for age. Solid lines represent 10th, 50th, and 90th percentiles ............... 205

FIGURE 4.27 Estimated subischial length of EA females (0) 5-19 years
and five-year age group means (A i SD) plotted relative to US. reference
data (Hamill et al., 1973; Malina et al., 1974). Horizontal bars are :1: SD
for age. Solid lines represent 10th, 50th, and 90th percentiles ............... 206 .

FIGURE 4.28 Estimated subischial length of FN females (0) 5-19 years
and five-year age group means (A i SD) plotted relative to US. reference
data (Hamill et al., 1973; Malina et al., 1974). Horizontal bars are :1: SD
for age. Solid lines represent 10th, 50th, and 90th percentiles ............... 207

FIGURE 4.29 Sitting height/stature ratio of EA males (0) 5-19 years
and five-year age group means (A i SD) plotted relative to US.

mference data (Hamill et al., 1973; Malina et al., 1974). Horizontal bars
are :1: SD for age. Solid lines represent 10th, 50th, and 90th percentiles. . . . 208

FIGURE 4.30 Sitting height/stature ratio of FN males (0) 5- 19 years
and five-year age group means (A :1: SD)p lotted relative to U. S.

reference data (Hamill et al., 1973; Malina et al.,1974). Horizontal bars
are :1; SD for age. Solid lines represent 10th, 50th, and 90th percentiles... .209

FIGURE 4.31 Sitting height/stature ratio of EA females (0) 5-19 years
and five-year age group means (A :1: SD) plotted relative to U. S.

reference data (Hamill et al., 1973, Malina et al.,1974). Horizontal bars

are :1: SD for age. Solid lines represent 10th, 50th, and 90th percentiles... 2.10

Fl(IURE 4.32 Sitting height/stature ratio of FN females (0) 5- 19 years
aIncl five-year age group means (A :1: SD)p lotted relative to U. S.

lfifterencre data (Hamill et al., 1973; Malina et al.,1974). Horizontal bars

are :1: SD for age. Solid lines represent 10th, 50th, and 90th percentiles... .211

xvii

FIGURE 4.33 Sitting height/stature ratio of EA males (0) 20—75 years

and ten—year age group means (A :1: SD) groups plotted relative to Canadian
reference data (Health and Welfare Canada, 1980). Horizontal bars

are :1: SD for age. Solid lines represent 10th, 50th, and 90th percentiles. . .. 212

FIGURE 4.34 Sitting height/stature ratio of FN males (0) 20-75 years

and ten-year age group means (A 1 SD) plotted relative to Canadian

reference data (Health and Welfare Canada, 1980). Horizontal bars

are :1: SD for age. Solid lines represent 10th, 50th, and 90th percentiles. . .. 213

FIGURE 4.35 Sitting height/stature ratio of EA females (0) 20-75 years
and ten-year age group means (A :1: SD) plotted relative to Canadian

reference data (Health and Welfare Canada, 1980). Horizontal bars

are :1: SD for age. Solid lines represent 10th, 50th, and 90th percentiles.... 214

FIGURE 4.36 Sitting height/stature ratio of FN females (0) 20-75 years
and ten-year age group means (A :1: SD) plotted relative to Canadian
reference data (Health and Welfare Canada, 1980). Horizontal bars

are :1: SD for age. Solid lines represent 101b, 50th, and 90th percentiles. . . . 215

FIGURE 4.37 Estimated arm muscle area of EA males (0) 5-19 years
and five-year age group means (A :1: SD) plotted relative to US.
reference data (Frisancho, 1990). Horizontal bars are :1: SD for age.

Solid lines represent 10th, 50th, and 90th percentiles .......................... 216

FIGURE 4.38 Estimated arm muscle area of FN males (0) 5-19 years
and five-year age group means (A :1: SD) plotted relative to US.

reference data (Frisancho, 1990). Horizontal bars are :1: SD for age.

Solid lines represent 10th, 50th, and 90th percentiles .......................... 217

FIGURE 4.39 Estimated arm muscle area of EA females (0) 5-19 years
an d five-year age group means (A 1 SD) plotted relative to US

reference data (Frisancho, 1990). Horizontal bars are :1: SD for age.

Solid lines represent 10th, 50th, and 90th percentiles .......................... 218

FIGURE 4.40 Estimated arm muscle area of FN females (0) 5-19 years
and five-year age group means (A :1: SD) plotted relative to US.
reference data (Frisancho, 1990). Horizontal bars are :1: SD for age.

Solidlinesrepresent 10th, 50th, and90thpercentiles .......................... 219

I“I(}URE 4.41 Estimated arm muscle area of EA males (0) 20-75 years
and ten-year age group means (A :1; SD) plotted relative to US.
reference data (Frisancho, 1990). Horizontal bars are :1: SD for age.

Sclid linesrepresent 10th, 50th, and90thpercentiles .......................... 22o

I‘~I(IURE 4.42 Estimated arm muscle area of FN males (0) 20-75 years
a11d ten-year age group means (A :1: SD) plotted relative to US. reference

data (Frisancho, 1990). Horizontal bars are :1: so for age.
Solid lines represent loth, 50th, and90thpercentiles .......................... 221

FIGURE 4.43 Estimated arm muscle area of EA females (0) 20-75 years
al'ld ten-year age group means (A :t SD) plotted relative to US. reference
data (Frisancho, 1990). Horizontal bars are :1: SD for age.

Solid lines represent 10th, 50th, and90thpercentiles .......................... 222

xviii

FIGURE 4.44 Estimated arm muscle area of FN females (0) 20-75 years
and ten-year age group means (A :1: SD) plotted relative to US. reference

data (Frisancho, 1990). Horizontal bars are :1; SD for age.

Solid lines represent 10th, 50th, and 90th percentiles .......................... 223

FIGURE 4.45 BMI of EA males (0) 5-19 years and five-year age group
means (A :1: SD) plotted relative to US. reference data .
(Najjar and Rowland, 1987). Horizontal bars are :1: SD for age.

Solid lines represent 10th, 50th, and 90th percentiles .......................... 224

FIGURE 4.46 BMI of FN males (0) 5-19 years and five-year age group

means (A :1: SD) plotted relative to US. reference data
(Najjar and Rowland, 1987). Horizontal bars are :1: SD for age.

Solid lines represent 10th, 50th, and 90th percentiles .......................... 225

FIGURE 4.47 BMI of EA females (0) 5-19 years and five-year age group

mm (A :1: SD) plotted relative to US. reference data
(Najjar and Rowland, 1987). Horizontal bars are i SD for age.

Solid lines represent 10th, 50th, and 90th percentiles .......................... 226

FIGURE 4.48 BMI of FN females (0) 5-19 years and five-year age group
means (A :1: SD) plotted relative to US. reference data

(Najjar and Rowland, 1987). Horizontal bars are i SD for age.

Solid lines represent 10th, 50th, and 90th percentiles .......................... 227

FIGURE 4.49 BMI of EA males (0) 20-75 years and ten-year age group

means (A :1: SD) plotted relative to US. reference data
(Najjar and Rowland, 1987). Horizontal bars are 1: SD for age.
Solid lines represent 10th, 50th, and 90th percentiles .......................... 228

FIGURE 4.50 BMI of FN males (0) 20-75 years and ten-year age group

means (A :1: SD) plotted relative to US. reference data
(N ajjar and Rowland, 1987). Horizontal bars are :1: SD for age.

Solid lines represent 10th, 50th, and 90th percentiles .......................... 229

FIGURE 4.51 BMI of EA females (0) 20-75 years and ten-year age group

means (A 1 SD) plotted relative to US. reference data
ajjar and Rowland, 1987). Horizontal bars are 1 SD for age.

(N
S<>lid lines represent 10th, 50th, and 90th percentiles .......................... 230

IFIGURE 4.52 BMI of FN females (0) 20-75 years and ten-year age group

means (A :1: SD) plotted relative to US. reference data
ajjar and Rowland, 1987). Horizontal bars are :1: SD for age.

(N
Solid linesrepresent 10th, 50th, and90thpercentiles .......................... 231

FIGURE 4.53 Triceps skinfold of EA males (0) 5-19 years and five-year
age group means (A :1: SD) plotted relative to US. reference data
ajjar and Rowland, 1987). Horizontal bars are :1: SD for age.

(N
SOlid lines represent 10th, 50th, and 90th percentiles .......................... 232

xix

f?

M1 '23.—

1

OT
...—
m

[7

_' r»;-

V
r-'

FIGURE 4.54 Triceps skinfold of FN males (0) 5-19 years and five-year
age group means (A :1: SD) plotted relative to US. reference data

(Najjar and Rowland, 1987). Horizontal bars are :1: SD for age.

Solid lines represent 10th, 50th, and 90th percentiles .......................... 233

‘ FIGURE 4.55 Triceps skinfold of EA females (0) 5-19 years and
five-year age group means (A :1: SD) plotted relative to US. reference
data (Najjar and Rowland, 1987). Horizontal bars are i SD for age.

Solid lines represent 10th, 50th, and 90th percentiles .......................... 234

FIGURE 4.56 Triceps skinfold of FN females (0) 5-19 years and
five-year age group means (A :1: SD) plotted relative to US. reference

data (Najjar and Rowland, 1987). Horizontal bars are 1: SD for age.

Solid lines represent 10th, 50th, and 90th percentiles .......................... 235

FIGURE 4.57 Triceps skinfold of EA males (0) 20-75 years and
ten-year age group means (A :1: SD) plotted relative to US. reference

data (Najjar and Rowland, 1987). Horizontal bars are :1: SD for age.

Solid lines represent 10th, 50th, and 90th percentiles .......................... 236

FIGURE 4.58 Triceps skinfold of FN males (0) 20-75 years and
. ten-year age group means (A :1: SD) plotted relative to US. reference
data (Najjar and Rowland, 1987). Horizontal bars are :1: SD for age.
Solid lines represent 10th, 50th, and 90th percentiles .......................... 237

FIGURE 4.59 Triceps skinfold of EA females (0) 20-75 years and
ten-year age group means (A :1: SD) plotted relative to US. reference

data (Najjar and Rowland, . 1987). Horizontal bars are :1: SD for age.

Solid lines represent 10th, 50th, and 90th percentiles .......................... 238

FIGURE 4.60 Triceps skinfold of FN females (0) 20-75 years and
ten-year age group means (A :1: SD) plotted relative to US. reference

data (Najjar and Rowland, 1987). Horizontal bars are :1: SD for age.

S olid lines represent 10th, 50th, and 90th percentiles .......................... 239

FIGURE 4.61 Subscapular skinfold of EA males (0) 5-19 years and
five-year age group means (A 1: SD) plotted relative to US. reference
ta (Najjar and Rowland, 1987). Horizontal bars are :1: SD for age.

da
Solid lines represent 10th, 50th, and 90th percentiles .......................... 240

FIGURE 4.62 Subscapular skinfold of FN males (0) 5-19 years and
five-year age group means (A i SD) plotted relative to US. reference
ta (Najjar and Rowland, 1987). Horizontal bars are :1: SD for age.

da
Solid lines represent 10th, 50th, and90thpercentiles .......................... 241

1FIGURE 4.63 Subscapular skinfold of EA females (0) 5-19 years
a131d five-year age group means (A :1: SD) plotted relative to US.

l"tfrference data (Najjar and Rowland, 1987). Horizontal bars are :1: SD

for age. Solid lines represent 10th, 50th, and 90th percentiles ............... 242

IFIGURE 4.64 Subscapular skinfold of FN females (0) 5-19 years and
five—year age group means (A :1: SD) plotted relative to US. reference
ta (Najjar and Rowland, 1987). Horizontal bars are :1: SD for age.

da
SOlid lines represent 10th, 50th, and 90th percentiles .......................... 243

xx

FIGURE 4.65 Subscapular skinfold of EA males (0) 20—75 years and
ten-year age group means (A :|: SD) plotted relative to U.S. reference

data (Najjar and Rowland, 1987). Horizontal bars are i SD for age.

Solid lines represent 10th, 50th, and 90th percentiles .......................... 244

FIGURE 4.66 Subscapular skinfold of FN males (0) 20-75 years and
ten-year age group means (A :l: SD) plotted relative to U.S. reference

data (Najjar and Rowland, 1987). Horizontal bars are :l: SD for age.

Solid lines represent 10th, 50th, and 90th percentiles .......................... 245

FIGURE 4.67 Subscapular skinfold of EA females (0) 20—75 years

and ten-year age group means (A :l: SD) plotted relative to U.S. reference

data (Najjar and Rowland, 1987). Horizontal bars are 1: SD for age.

Solid lines represent 10th, 50th, and 90th percentiles .......................... 246

FIGURE 4.68 Subscapular skinfold of FN females (0) 20—75 years

and ten-year age group means (A :l: SD) plotted relative to U.S. reference
data (N ajjar and Rowland, 1987 ). Horizontal bars are :l: SD for age.

Solid lines represent 10th, 50th, and 90th percentiles .......................... 247

FIGURE 4.69 Combined grip strength (right + left) of EA
males (0) 5-19 years and five-year age group means (A i SD) plotted
relative to Canadian reference data (Fitness Canada, 1985).

Horizontal bars are :l: SD for age.
Solid lines represent 10th, 50th, and 90th percentiles .......................... 248

FIGURE 4.70 Combined grip strength (right + left) of FN
urales (0) 5-19 years and five-year age group means (A :1: SD) plotted
relative to Canadian reference data (Fitness Canada, 1985).

Horizontal bars are :l: SD for age.
S olid lines represent 10th, 50th, and 90th percentiles .......................... 249

FIGURE 4.71 Combined grip strength (right + left) of EA

females (0) 5-19 years and five-year age group means (A :1: SD) plotted
relative to Canadian reference data (Fitness Canada, 1985).

Horizontal bars are :|: SD for age.

Solid lines represent 10th, 50th, and 90th percentiles .......................... 250

FIGURE 4.72 Combined grip strength (right + left) of FN
females (0) 5-19 years and five-year age group means (A :l: SD) plotted
relative to Canadian reference data (Fitness Canada, 1985).

orizontal bars are 1 SD for age.
Solid lines represent 10th, 50th, and 90th percentiles .......................... 251

FIGURE 4.73 Combined grip strength (right + left) of EA
lbales (0) 20-75 years and ten-year age group means (A :l: SD) plotted
r‘elative to Canadian reference data (Fitness Canada, 1986).

Horizontal bars are :1: SD for age.

Solid lines represent 10th, 50th, and 90th percentiles .......................... 252

FIGURE 4.74 Combined grip strength (right 4» left) of FN

males (0) 20-75 years and ten-year age group means (A i SD) plotted

relative to Canadian reference data (Fitness Canada, 1986).

Horizontal bars are :l: SD for age.

Solid lines represent 10th. 50th, and 90th percentiles .......................... 253

FIGURE 4.75 Combined grip strength (right + left) of EA
females (0) 20-75 years and ten-year age group means (A :l: SD) plotted
relative to Canadian reference data (Fitness Canada, 1986).
.Horizontal bars are 1 SD for age.
Solid lines represent 10th, 50th, and 90th percentiles .......................... 254

FIGURE 4.76 Combined grip strength (right + left) of FN

females (0) 20-75 years and ten-year age group means (A i SD) plotted
relative to Canadian reference data (Fitness Canada, 1986).

Horizontal bars are :1: SD for age.

Solid lines represent 10th, 50th, and 90th percentiles .......................... 255

FIGURE 4.77 Trunk flexibility of EA males (0) 5-19 years and

five-year age group means (A :l: SD) plotted relative to Canadian

reference data (Fitness Canada, 1985). Horizontal bars are 1 SD for age.
Solid lines represent 10th, 50th, and 90th percentiles .......................... 256

FIGURE 4.78 Trunk flexibility of FN males (0) 5-19 years and

five-year age group means (A :l: SD) plotted relative to Canadian

reference data (Fitness Canada, 1985). Horizontal bars are :l: SD for age.
Solid lines represent 10th, 50th, and 90th percentiles .......................... 257

FIGURE 4.79 Trunk flexibility of EA females (0) 5-19 years and
five-year age group means (A :l: SD) plotted relative to Canadian

x‘teference data (Fitness Canada, 1985). Horizontal bars are 2!: SD for age.
Solid lines represent 10th, 50th, and 90th percentiles .......................... 258

FIGURE 4.80 Trunk flexibility of FN females (0) 5-19 years and
five-year age group means (A :1: SD) plotted relative to Canadian

I‘cference data (Fitness Canada, 1985). Horizontal bars are :l: SD for age.
Solid lines represent 10th, 50th, and 90th percentiles .......................... 259

FIGURE 4.81 Trunk flexibility of EA males (0) 20-75 years and
ten-year age group means (A :l: SD) plotted relative to Canadian

reference data (Fitness Canada, 1986). Horizontal bars are :l: SD for age.
Solid lines represent 10th, 50th, and 90th percentiles .......................... 260

FIGURE 4.82 Trunk flexibility of FN males (0) 20-75 years and
ten-year age group means (A 1 SD) plotted relative to Canadian

reference data (Fitness Canada, 1986). Horizontal bars are :l: SD for age.
Solid lines represent 10th, 50th, and 90th percentiles .......................... 261

FIGURE 4.83 Trunk flexibility of EA females (0) 20-75 years and
ten-year age group means (A :1: SD) plotted relative to Canadian

reference data (Fitness Canada, 1986). Horizontal bars are :l: SD for age.
Solid lines represent 10th, 50th, and 90th percentiles .......................... 262

xxii

FIGURE 4.84 Trunk flexibility of EA males (0) 20-75 years and

ten-year age group means (A i SD) plotted relative to Canadian

reference data (Fitness Canada, 1986). Horizontal bars are i SD for age.
Solid lines represent 10th, 50th, and 90th percentiles .......................... 263

FIGURE 4.85 Sit-ups in BA males (0) 5-19 years and five-year age

group means (A :1: SD) plotted relative to Canadian reference data

(Fitness Canada, 1985). Horizontal bars are :1: SD for age.

Solid lines represent 10th, 50th, and 90th percentiles ............... -. .......... 264

FIGURE 4.86 Sit-ups in FN males (0) 5-19 years and five-year age

group means (A i SD) plotted relative to Canadian reference data

(Fitness Canada, 1985). Horizontal bars are :1: SD for age.

Solid lines represent 10th, 50th, and 90th percentiles .......................... 265

FIGURE 4.87 Sit-ups in BA females (0) 5-19 years and five-year age
group means (A :1: SD) plotted relative to Canadian reference data

(Fitness Canada, 1985). Horizontal bars are :1: SD for age.

Solid lines represent 10th, 50th, and 90th percentiles .......................... 266

l‘IGURE 4.88 Sit-ups in FN females (0) 5-19 years and five-year age
group means (A :1: SD) plotted relative to Canadian reference data

(Fitness Canada, 1985). Horizontal bars are :1: SD for age.

Solid lines represent 10th, 50th, and 90th percentiles .......................... 267

FIGURE 4.89 Flexed arm hang in EA males (0) 5-19 years and five-year
age group means (A :1: SD) plotted relative to Michigan State University
Notor Performance Study data (Haubenstricker et al., 1991). Horizontal bars

are :1: SD for age. Solid lines represent 10th, 50th, and 90th percentiles. . . . 268

FIGURE 4.90 Flexed arm hang in FN males (0) 5-19 years and five-year
age group means (A :1: SD) plotted relative to Michigan State University ‘
Motor Performance Study data (Haubenstricker et al., 1991). Horizontal bars
are :1: SD for age. Solid lines represent 10th, 50th, and 90th percentiles. . . . 269

FIGURE 4.91 Flexed arm hang in EA females (0) 5-19 years and five-year
age group means (A :1: SD) plotted relative to Michigan State University
Motor Performance Study data (Haubenstricker et al., 1991). Horizontal bars
are 1 SD for age. Solid lines represent 10th, 50th, and 90th percentiles. . . . 270

FIGURE 4.92 Flexed arm hang in FN females (0) 5-19 years and five-year
age group means (A :1: SD) plotted relative to Michigan State University
Motor Performance Study ~data (Haubenstricker et al., 1991). Horizontal bars
are :1: SD for age. Solid lines represent 10th, 50th, and 90th percentiles. . . . 271

FIGURE 4.93 35-meter dash speed in BA males (0) 5-19 years and
five-year age group means (A :1: SD) plotted relative to Michigan State
University Motor Performance Study data (Haubenstricker et al., 1991).
orizontal bars are :1: SD for age.
Solid lines represent 10th, 50th, and 90th percentiles. . . .‘ ...................... 272

xxiii

iflll‘i

FIGURE 4.94 ,35-meter dash speed in FN males (0) 5-19 years and
five-year age group means (A i SD) plotted relative to Michigan State
University Motor Performance Study data (Haubenstricker et al., 1991).
Horizontal bars are i SD for age.

Solid lines represent 10th, 50th, and 90th percentiles .......................... 273

FIGURE 4.95 35-meter dash speed in BA females (0) 5-19 years and
five-year age group means (A :1: SD) plotted relative to Michigan State
University Motor Performance Study data (Haubenstricker et al., 1991).
Horizontal bars are :t SD for age.

Solid lines represent 10th, 50th, and 90th percentiles .......................... 274

FIGURE 4.96 35-meter dash speed in FN females (0) 5-19 years and
five-year age group means (A :1: SD) plotted relative to Michigan State
University Motor Performance Study data (Haubenstricker et al., 1991).
Horizontal bars are :l: SD for age.

Solid lines represent 10th, 50th, and 90th percentiles .......................... 275

FIGURE 4.97 Standing long jump in BA males (0) 5-19 years and
five-year age group means (A :1: SD) plotted relative to Michigan State
University Motor Performance Study data (Haubenstricker et al., 1991).
Horizontal bars are :1: SD for age.

Solid lines represent 10th, 50th, and 90th percentiles .......................... 276

FIGURE 4.98 Standing long jump in FN males (0) 5-19 years and
five-year age group means (A :1: SD) plotted relative to Michigan State
University Motor Performance Study data (Haubenstricker et al., 1991).
Horizontal bars are :1: SD for age.

Solid lines represent 10th, 50th, and 90th percentiles .......................... 277

FIGURE 4.99 Standing long jump in BA females (0) 5-19 years and
five-year age group means (A :1: SD) plotted relative to Michigan State
University Motor Performance Study data (Haubenstricker et al., 1991).
Horizontal bars are :1: SD for age.

Solid lines represent 10th, 50th, and 90th percentiles .......................... 278

FIGURE 4.100 Standing long jump in FN females (0) 5-19 years and
five-year age group means (A :1: SD) plotted relative to Michigan State
University Motor Performance Study data (Haubenstricker et al., 1991).
Horizontal bars are 3: SD for age.

Solid lines represent 10th, 50th, and 90th percentiles .......................... 279

FIGURE 5.1 Age-specific TER means for males 5-19 years
(A EA, A FN) plotted relative to the median ofthe
Quebec Family Study ............................................................... 280

FIGURE 5.2 Age-specific TER means for females 5-19 years
(A EA. A FN) plotted relative to the mdian ofthe
Quebec Family Study ............................................................... 281

FIGURE 5.3 Ten-year age group TER means for males 20-75 years

(4 EA, A FN) plotted relative to the median of the
Quebec Family Study ............................................................... 282

xxiv

FIGURE 5.4 Ten-year age group TER means for females 20-75 years
(A EA, A FN) plotted relative to the median of the
Quebec Family Study ............................................................... 283

FIGURE 5.5 Ten-year age group WHR means for males (A EA, A FN)
plotted relative to French data (Tichet et al., 1993).
Solid lines represent 5th, 50th and 95th percentiles ............................ 284

FIGURE 5.6 Ten-year age group WHR means for females (A EA, A FN)
plotted relative to French data (Tichet et al., 1993).

Solid lines represent 5th, 50th and 95th percentiles ............................ 285
FIGURE 5.7 Stature in EA Canadian males 5-19 years from

studies ranging from 1953 to 1996 ............................................... 286
FIGURE 5.8 Stature in BA Canadian males 20—75 years from

studies ranging from 1953 to 1996 ............................................... 287
FIGURE 5.9 Stature in EA Canadian females 5-19 years from

studies ranging from 1953 to 1996 ............................................... 288
FIGURE 5.10 Stature in BA Canadian females 20-75 years from

studies ranging from 1953 to 1996 ............................................... 289
FIGURE 5.11 Body mass in BA Canadian males 5-19 years from

studies ranging from 1953 to 1996 ............................................... 290
FIGURE 5.12 Body mass in BA Canadian males 20-75 years from

studies ranging from 1953 to 1996 ............................................... 291
FIGURE 5.13 Body mass in BA Canadian females 5-19 years from

studies ranging from 1953 to 1996 ............................................... 292
FIGURE 5.14 Body mass in BA Canadian females 20-75 years from
studies ranging from 1953 to 1996 ............................................... 293
FIGURE 5.15 BMI in BA Canadian males 5-19 years from studies

ranging from 1953 to 1996 ........................................................ 294
FIGURE 5.16 BMI in BA Canadian males 20-75 years from studies
ranging from 1953 to 1996 ........................................................ 295
FIGURE 5.17 BMI in EA Canadian females 5-19 years from studies
ranging from 1953 to 1996 ........................................................ 296

FIGURE 5.18 BMI in BA Canadian females 20-75 years from studies
ranging from 1953 to 1996 ........................................................ 297

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

Introduction

Studies of growth and health-related fitness, by design, are generally
comparative. For example, growth status is often compared to reference data collected
for a representative sample of the population. Alternatively, two subgroups of the
population may be compared to each other in any of several growth and fitness
parameters.

Aboriginal North Americans have a higher prevalence of obesity, diabetes and
gall bladder disease than is observed in the general population. This syndrome of
diseases, which falls under the rubric of the "New World Syndrome", is hypothesized
to have a significant genetic component, as there is an apparent relationship between
degree of Native American admixture and the syndrome (West, 1974; Gardner et al.,
1984; Weiss et al., 1984; Szathmary, 1994). Among Aboriginal groups in Ontario, the
estimated prevalence rates of diabetes are 6.1% for males and 9.2% for females (Young
et al., 1990), which is considerably higher than national rates for Canada which have
been reported at 1.7% (Statistics Canada, 1981) and 2.4% (Statistics Canada, 1987).

A question which is central to the study of the New World Syndrome is
Whether the high prevalence of diseases observed in Native groups is the result of a
greater genetic susceptibility, or from a greater exposure to environmental stresses.
Also of interest is the role of risk factors in the progression of degenerative diseases
such as obesity and diabetes, and genetic and environmental influences on the risk

factors. Obesity and the distribution of fat within the body are important risk factors
1

2

for disease (NIH, 1985; Ducimetiere et al., 1986; Ducimetiere and Richard, 1989;
Després et al., 1990). Physique is also implicated as being associated with disease risk
(Malina et al., 1997). Thus, the cause of high prevalence rates for metabolic diseases
in North American Aboriginals is likely multifactorial, and a better understanding of
risk factors such as obesity, relative fat distribution and physique may be important in
understanding the etiology of the New World Syndrome among these groups.

In general, the growth of Native North Americans, and in particular, the
Canadian First Nation groups, has not been extensively studied. Studies which have
been done to date, with a few exceptions, have focused on the nutrition and health of
the adult population, with little emphasis on growth. Since it is realized that diseases
such as adult-onset diabetes and obesity have their roots in childhood and adolescence,
it seems appropriate that emphasis be placed on studying the growth and health
characteristics of Aboriginal children and youth. Thus, a study of growth in body size,
physique, and indicators of health-related fitness among Canadians of First Nation and
European ancestry may provide valuable insights into the observed prevalence rates of
the New World Syndrome.

Given the proposed relationship between health-related fitness and health,
outlined in Figure 1.1, an understanding of how much variation in health-related fitness
is due to genetic and environmental factors is important. Studies concerned with
estimating familial resemblance in fitness and motor performance phenotypes are
confounded by the interrelationships between body dimensions and fitness. Typically

studies have not taken into account the influence of body size on fitness when
estimating the impact of familial factors on these traits. A key question which remains
to be addressed is: given the relationship between anthropometry and fitness (Malina,
1975, 1994), what is the genetic contribution to health-related fitness once the effects of
body size have been controlled?

3

Rationale and Purpose of the Study

The rationale for this study is three-fold. The first comes from the specific
health concerns of First Nation people (Health and Welfare Canada, 1992). Perhaps
the adult-onset diseases associated with the adoption of a westernized diet and lifestyle
have their roots in childhood and adolescence, such that differences in body size and
morphology (morphological fitness) between First Nation and European Canadians
may be evident in this period of life. There are little data available describing relative fat
distribution and physique in First Nation Canadians, which limits discussions of
disease and risk factor prevention in these groups (Young, 1993).

The second rationale for this study stems from indications that secular trends in
body size have occurred in Canada over the past 35 years. It is estimated that a national
secular trend of about 1 cm/decade for stature has occurred from 1956 to 1986
(Shephard, 1986). Persistence of this secular trend limits interpretations of
comparisons with reference data collected in 1970-72 (Health and Welfare Canada,
1980) and in 1981 (Fitness Canada, 1983, 1985, 1986).

The third rationale for this study is the need for a better understanding’of the
interrelationships among genetics, body morphology, and health-related fitness, as
outlined in Figure 1.2. The interrelationships among body morphology and fitness
phenotypes will be determined using correlational analyses. The family resemblance of
body size and morphology will also be determined using correlation and regression
techniques, as will the heritability of indicators of health-related fitness, taking into
account body morphology as a covariate.

The purpose of this study is thus to (1) compare Canadians of European and
First Nation ancestry in terms of body size, physique, and indicators of health-related
fitness, (2) evaluate secular trends in body size in Canadians of European and First
Nation ancestry, and (3) estimate familial resemblance in body size, physique, and

indicators of health-related fitness in Canadians of European and First Nation ancestry.

4

Research Hypotheses
The specific research hypotheses are as follows:
1) There are significant differences between Canadians of First Nation (FN) and
European ancestry (BA) in body size, physique, and indicators of health-related fitness.
la) FN Canadians are heavier and demonstrate greater subcutaneous fatness than EA
Canadians throughout childhood into adulthood.
1b) There are significant differences in relative fat distribution and physique between
FN and EA Canadians.
1c) There are no differences in stature and other skeletal dimensions between FN and
EA Canadians.
2) Secular trends in body size are evident in FN and EA Canadians.
2a) There are significant secular increases in stature, mass and the BMI in FN and EA
Canadians.
3) There is significant familial resemblance in body size, physique and indicators of
health-related fitness in FN and EA Canadians.
3a) There is significant familial resemblance in body size, physique and indiCators of
health-related fitness in FN and EA Canadians.
3b) Estimated heritabilities for strength and flexibility are greater after body
morphology is factored into the analyses as a covariate.

Limitations of Study

The study population is unique in that all participants are from the same small

community in northern Ontario. This allows a certain control over environmental
factors; however, it also limits the applicability of the results to other population
groups. The results of this study carry significance for the residents of Temagami and
Bear Island, but caution must be used when extrapolating the results to other
communities. Given that regional data are not available from the national Canadian
surveys (Health and Welfare Canada, 1980; Fitness Canada, 1983, 1985, 1986) for

5

comparison, the results from this study should not be considered representative of the
general Canadian population.

This study was conducted over only the summer season, limiting the extension
of results to other seasons. Anecdotal references by several subjects indicate that there
is seasonal variation in body fatness and strength in this population between the
summer and winter months. Subjects indicated that both FN and EA people are less
active and may accumulate fat in the winter months; thus, the results of this study
should be viewed as status during the summer months only.

Data on physical activity and dietary intake were not obtained, which limits
interpretations about energy balance and speculations regarding differences in body size
and fatness between EA and FN subjects.

The assignment of racial affinity was made by the participants themselves, such
that concrete biological groupings were not possible. Difficulties arose in assigning
hybrids with differing degrees of admixture to a specific group. Thus, results of
comparisons between FN and EA subjects should be viewed as conservative, as the
inclusion of hybrids may temper the results. A I

Significance of Study

This study has the potential of providing important information on the
covariance among health-related phenotypes and the variation in these phenotypes
which can be attributed to familial factors. In addition, the growth characteristics of FN
children and youth are described and compared to national reference data, adding to the
understanding of Aboriginal growth. Little data are available on relative fat distribution
and physique in FN Canadians; thus, this study will provide important information on
these characteristics. Although the results of this study may not be generalizable to the
rest of Canada, the detailed observations from this region are valuable in and of

themselves.

CHAPTER II _
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

Introduction
This study compares growth and adult morphology among groups of First
Nation (FN) and European (EA) ancestry, while flaming the data within a familial
design which allows inferences about familial resemblance in parameters of growth and
health-related fitness. Thus, the literature review is divided into two sections; the first
examines body size, fatness, fat distribution, physique and secular trends among
Aboriginal groups with comparisons to the general North American population, and the
second reviews the current methodologies and understanding of the familial
resemblance in body size and health-related fitness.
.. e ‘1‘. 3,,‘. '1':_-~ ‘. \; -‘,‘,‘H- 3,1
Introduction
Although there is considerable knowledge about the growth of children in
general, there is a lack of data describing the growth characteristics of Native North
Americans. Several anthropometric studies have been conducted; however, such
studies have more often focused on the health and nutrition of adults rather than on the
growth of children. Indeed, the first edition of Eveleth and Tanner's W
W (1976) cites data from only four descriptive growth studies
on Amerindian groups from North America. The subsequent edition (Eveleth and
Tanner, 1990) includes growth data from only three more recent studies among
Amerindians. This general lack of growth data represents a lacuna in understanding
Amerindian health and variability.

7

The study of the growth of Amerindian children is important from several
perspectives. First, growth studies are important to understand the nature of the
growth process itself. This most basic rationale suggests that a knowledge of growth
and maturation is important for understanding the findings of research within the
clinical and scientific communities which work with children. Given the lack of data
for Amerindian children, a growth study is important in its own right to provide basic
information.

Second, there are a disproportionately high number of health problems among
adult Native Americans compared to the general population which may perhaps be
better explained in the context of growth and maturation. Diabetes, obesity, and gall
bladder disease, which are particularly problematic for Amerindian groups (West,
1974; Weiss et al., 1984; Young, 1993), may have their origins in processes occurring
during the growth period, beginning prenatally and extending through adolescence.

Third, a more theoretical approach to the study of human growth has been the
association between patterns of growth and specific environmental influences, such as i
residence in cold climates or high altitudes, which may help to explain the origins of
human variability (Leonard et al., 1994, 1995). Thus, the study of diverse ethnic
groups is important for the formulation of evolutionary theories about human
variability.

Fourth, the realization that growth parameters can serve as indicators of the
quality of the physical environment has led many investigators to consider childhood
growth as an important index of health and the standard of living for entire populations
(Tanner, 1994). Such a rationale indicates that the health status of the Native American
population may be reflected in the growth of children in these groups.

This review summarizes the available data on the growth of North American
Aboriginals and compares the data to reference data for Canada and the U.S. The
rcference data are derived largely from samples of European ancestry.

8

Growth Data

The available data on the growth of Aboriginal North Americans are largely
limited to health studies in which the main focus is the health and nutritional status of
the population. Considerably more data are available on the anthropometry of adult
Natives than on children; however, the main focus of this review is the work completed
with children and adolescents. Data on adults are presented for the purpose of
comparing the end product of growth, i.e., adult morphology.

Descriptive growth studies have been conducted among the Navajo (Darby et
al., 1956), Apache (Kraus, 1961), Gros Ventres and Assiniboin (ICNND, 1964b),
Blackfeet (ICNND, 1964a), Nootka and Chilcotin (Birkbeck et al., 1971), Athapaskan
(Lee and Birkbeck, 1977), Chippewa, Sioux and Winnebago (Johnston et a1. 1978),
and Cree (Coodin et al., 1980). The Alaskan Eskimos are among the most studied of
the North American groups, and several studies have been published characterizing
their growth (Heller et al., 1967; Jamison, 1970; Johnston et al., 1982; Rode and
Shephard, 1994).

Body Size
W

Growth studies among Native North Americans generally demonstrate few
differences in stature and body mass between children of Aboriginal and European
ancestry. Comparisons of stature and body mass between the Navajo and a nationally
represented Canadian sample revealed no significant differences between the groups
(Darby et al., 1956). Similarly, a comparison of growth rates among the Apache,
African Negroes, and American Whites (Irish ancestry) found no differences based on
regression lines (Kraus, 1961). A study among Cherokee adolescents demonstrated
that mean statures of youths 13-17 years were similar to National reference data;
however, mean body masses were significantly greater than the reference data in both
boys and girls (Story et al., 1986).

9

The United States Interdepartmental Committee on Nutrition for National
Defense (ICNND, 1964a; 1964b) conducted nutrition surveys on the Indian
reservations at Fort Belknap, Montana (Gros Ventres and Assiniboin) and the Blackfeet
Reservation located to the west of Fort Belknap (Moore, 1972). Statures and body
masses of children 6-11 years of age were compared to Iowa reference data. All of the
children in both studies tended to be at or above the reference mdians in stature and
body mass. The Gros Ventres/Assiniboin boys tended to deviate the most in body
mass fiom the reference children.

In a study of urbanization of Chippewa, Sioux, and Winnebago in Minneapolis,
Johnston et al. (1978) noted that Native children were similar in stature to U.S.
reference values until 12 years of age in boys, when the native sample began to lag
behind. By 17 years of age, the reference mean was 6 cm taller than the Minneapolis
Native boys samme. Body masses, however, showed a clear and consistent
difference, with the Native boys and girls being heavier than the reference means
beginning with age 2.

Data from Canadian Aboriginal groups parallel those fiom studies conducted in
the United States. Coodin et al. (1980) reported that both the stature and body mass of
Northern Manitoba Cree from birth to 6 years of age were similar to those reported for
U.S. children; however, weight-for-height of the girls exceeded the reference. Studies
among Athapaskan Aboriginals in British Columbia and the Yukon Territory indicated
that they were shorter than Iowa reference values; however, all of the children were
within 2 standard deviations of the reference (Birkbeck et al., 1971; Lee and Birkbeck,
1977). In some samples there was a tendency for the statures and body masses to lag,
relative to the Iowa reference during adolescence (Lee and Birkbeck, 1977). The
authors suggested that the results were consistent with moderate growth retardation
during late adolescence; however, the biochemical data failed to reveal any signs of

nutrient deficiencies.

10

Eskimo children are consistently shorter than other Aboriginal groups and
nationally representative reference data. Heller et al. (1967) reported that the mean
stature of the Eskimo children followed the 5th percentiles for White children until 16
years of age. Mass, however, was as great as that for White children until about 6
years of age; thereafter, Eskimo children weighed less. Similarly, St. Lawrence Island
Eskimo children were shorter than both White and Black U.S. reference means, but
body mass in the Eskimos was similar to U.S. reference values (Johnston et al., 1982).
Jamison’s (1970) analysis of the growth characteristics of a sample of Wainwright
Eskimos indicated that adults were, on average, 12 cm shorter than North American
Whites, and that they did not reach final adult height until they were in their mid-
twenties.

The distribution of statures among Native North Arrrerican groups generally
overlaps those of the general Canadian population. Figures 2.1 and 2.2 illustrate
growth in stature for Native American boys and girls, respectively, from age 4 to 18
years. The solid curves represent the 10th and 90th percentiles of Canadian children in
the 1970s (Health and Welfare Canada, 1980). In both boys and girls, age-specific
means fall between the 10th and 90th percentiles. Eskimos from Alaska (Heller et al.,
1967) and specifically from Wainwright (Jamison, 1970) are among the shortest of the
native groups; the Alaskan Eskimos fall below the 10th percentile in the older age
groups in both boys and girls. The Gros Ventres/Assiniboin from Fort Belknap
(ICNND, 1964b) are among the tallest of the groups depicted in the figures between the
ages of 6 and 10 (the age range for that study), tracking between the 50th and 75th
Percentiles for both boys and girls (note: the 50th and 75th percentiles are not shown).

As with stature, there is considerable overlap in the mean body masses of

Native groups. Figures 2.3 and 2.4 illustrate growth in body mass from 4 to 18 years
in Amerindian boys and girls, respectively. The solid curves represent the 10th and
90th percentiles of Canadian children in the 19705 (Health and Welfare Canada. 1980).

11

All age-specific means fall between the 10th and 90th percentiles. The Gros
Ventres/Assiniboin (ICNND, 1964b) and the Chippewa, Sioux and Winnebago
(Johnston et al., 1978) are among the heaviest girls and boys in the older age groups.
Among males, the Apache and Navajo are among the lightest groups at younger ages,
whereas Alaskan Eskimos are the lightest at older ages. In girls, Alaskan Eskimos are
the lightest group throughout the age range represented.

mummies!

Considerable diversity in adult stature and body mass exists among selected
Amerindian groups (Table 2.1). It is difficult to compare adult values to a nationally
representative sample of Canadians (or to each other), as the age ranges vary and possible
secular variation is not controlled (Jamison, 1970; Miller, 1970; Sugarrnan et al., 1990:
Knowler et al., 1991; Rode and Shephard, 1994). Blackfeet men and women appear to be
tallest, while the Eskimos are shortest. This difference appears to be quite real, as it is
unlikely that a secular trend over one generation could have accounted for the observed
difference of 11.1 cm in men and 9 cm in women between these two groups.

The Eskimo women measured by Jamison and Zegura (1970) in Wainwright,
Alaska are the heaviest group; however, they are also the shortest. The heaviest men in
are the Chilcotins from British Columbia, while the lightest are the Alaskan Eskimo
men.

Fatness and Relative Fat Distribution
Fatness
' Body fatness is generally estimated in anthropological studies fiom skinfolds or
the BMI. The former indicates subcutaneous adipose tissue, while the latter is an
indirect indicator of obesity. In the general adult population, the BMI is correlated with
fatness (Roche et al., 1981) and is independent of stature, but its utility in children is
limited since it is correlated with stature (68111 et al., 1986). However, the BMI is

commonly used in children as it is simple to calculate from stature and body mass.

12
WW

There are little data available on the BMI and subcutaneous fatness of
Amerindian children and youth. Johnston et al. (1978) reported that among
Minneapolis school children 6-17 years, urban Natives had greater weight-for-height
indices than national reference data Among Navajo schoolchildren 5-17 years, mean
BMIs also exceeded national reference data (Sugannan et al., 1990). Similarly, Story
et a1. (1986) indicated that in Cherokee youth 13-17 years, mean BMIs were
consistently greater than reference values in all age and sex groups.

Estimated BMIs were calculated from the stature and mass means presented in
the previous section. Figures 2.5 and 2.6 present estimated BMIs for boys and girls,
respectively, for ages 4 to 18 years. Solid lines represent the 5th and 95th percentiles
for the BNII in U.S. children (Must et al., 1991). All age-specific estimates for the
BMI fall between the 5th and 95th percentiles in both boys and girls. There is
considerable overlap in the distributions among groups in both sexes. It is thus
difficult to determine population differences based on these estimates.

The prevalence of obesity among Amerindian children and youth varies by
geographic location and tribal affiliation. Malina (1993) examined prevalences of
obesity in North American children and youth (defined as 285th percentile NHANES II
BMI) fi’om 11% in Chippewa females to 78.3% in Southwestern Arizona Native
females. There was also a trend over time, with older samples having lower estimated
prevalences of obesity than more recent samples. These results are similar to those
presented by Broussard et al. (1991), which indicated that the estimated prevalence of
obesity among Native American schoolchildren varies considerably by region. The
review demonstrated that the average prevalence of overweight among Native American
adolescents was 24.5% in males and 25.0% in females. Compared to data from the
Ten State Nutrition Study, prevalence rates of obesity in Cherokee youth (285th

13

percentile triceps skinfold) were 49.7% in boys and 31.6% in girls 13-17 years (Story
et al., 1986).

In a review of anthropometric variation among Amerindian groups, Johnston
and Schell (1979) indicated that, in general, mean skinfold thicknesses tend to vary as
does body mass. Compared to U.S. reference data, mean subscapular skinfold
thicknesses in Chippewa males and females from infancy through 18 years of age were
significantly greater than the reference medians, whereas in males, triceps skinfold
thicknesses were significantly less than the reference medians below 6 years of age;
thereafter, they were significantly greater than the reference medians (Johnston and
Schell, 1979). Similarly, triceps skinfold thicknesses of Manitoba First Nation school
children were well within the distribution for the general U.S. population (Coodin et
al., 1980). Alternatively, Story et al. (1986) presented evidence that Cherokee youth
demonstrated significantly greater means and medians for the triceps skinfold compared
to U.S. reference data, indicating that these youngsters were somewhat fatter than the
average American child
WW

There are more data on the BMI of adult Aboriginal groups than for children.
Among selected samples of North American Aboriginals, Eskimo women have the
highest BMI, while Nootka men are the heaviest for stature (Table 2.1). Although
variable, there does not appear to be a clear pattern of variation in the BMI by
geographic location.

There is consistent evidence that the prevalence of obesity, defined by the BMI,
is greater in Aboriginal groups than the general population. In a survey of U.S. Native
groups, Broussard et al. (1991) estimated prevalences of overweight (BMI 2 27.8 in
males and BMI 2 27.3 in females) in adults 2 18 years at 33.7% in males and 40.3% in
females, which were higher than national estimates for the U.S., 24.1% and 25% in
males and females, respectively. Age specific prevalences of overweight (BMI 2 27.8

14

in males and BMI 2 27.3 in females) among the Pima ranged from 31% to 78% for
males 220 years, and fiom 48% to 87% for females 2 20 years (Knowler et al., 1991).
Navajo adults were also significantly overweight (Hall et al., 1991). The prevalence of
overweight (BMI 2 27.8 in males and BMI 2 27.3 in females) was 30.3% in males and
50.0% in females.

Prevalence data for Canadian First Nation groups parallel those from the United
States. The proportion of a Northwestern Ontario population of Cree and Ojibwa
classified as obese (BMI 2 27 in males and BMI 2 25 in females), increased with age;
70% of women 35 to 64 years and 50% of men 35 to 44 years were obese (McIntyre
and Shah, 1986). Similarly, Gittelsohn et al. (1996) estimated prevalences of obesity
fiom 22.8 % to 50.0% in Ojibwa and Cree from Northwestern Ontario (BMI 2 30);
and prevalences also increased with age. Young and Sevenhuysen (1989) surveyed
four Northern Canadian First Nation conununities. The data suggested that the
prevalence of obesity was higher in Native groups compared to Canadian national
averages; however, specific figures were not indicated.
Relative Fat Distribution

Relative fat distribution refers to the relative amount of fatness, subcutaneous or
visceral, in different regions of the body (Malina, 1996). Two common indicators of
relative fat distribution are the ratio of trunk/extremity skinfolds (TER) and the
waist/hip circumference ratio (WHR). The TER is relatively simple and is useful when
measuring large numbers of people; however, its use assumes that trunk and extremity
subcutaneous fatness increase in a linear manner (Garn et al., 1982). The WHR is
useful in adults, but its utility in children and youth has not been established (Malina,
1 996).
W

A single study considered relative fat distribution among Native North
American children (Johnston et al., 197 8). Among urban Native schoolchildren,

15

triceps skinfolds were below reference medians for the first 5 years of life in males:
thereafter, they were larger than the reference values. In contrast, subscapular
skinfolds were consistently larger than the reference medians. In females of all ages,
triceps skinfolds were consistently below, whereas subscapular skinfolds were
consistently above reference medians. The data thus suggest that Native children
accumulate proportionally more subcutaneous fat on the trunk than the extremities.
Note, however, inference on relative subcutaneous fat distribution based on only two
skinfolds must be made with caution (Malina, 1996).

was!

There are little data available on relative fat distribution among Native North
Americans. Young and Sevenhuysen (1989) indicated that the obesity among four
Northern Canadian First Nation groups was primarily of the central type as gauged by
the subscapular/triceps skinfold ratio and the WHR. Although raw data were not
presented, the authors indicated that 36% of men and 11% of women had WHRs
>0.99, which corresponds to approximately the 95th and 99th percentiles of French
reference data for men and women, respectively (Tichet et al., 1993). Also, 29.8% of
men and 22.4% of women had subscapular/triceps ratios >1.64. Among Canadian
Eskimos, a truncal fat distribution (ratio of triceps/subscapular+suprailiac skinfolds)
skinfolds was greater in women than men (Schaefer, 1977). A similar observation in
women has been made in other cold adapted populations such as the Evenki reindeer
herders of the central Siberian taiga (Leonard et al., 1994) and Mongolian pastoralists
(Beall and Goldstein, 1992). It has been hypothesized that a central distribution of
subcutaneous fat is an adaptation to the cold. Caution must be used when interpreting
these results, however, as relative subcutaneous fat distribution is fat dependent. In
other words, as overall fatness increases, the ratio of trunk/extremity fatness also

increases (Garn et al., 1982; Malina, 1996). On the other hand, the subscapular/triceps

16

ratio among Canadian Inuit and Siberian nGanasan 17-49 years of age was higher in
men than women (Rode and Shephard, 1995).

There is an apparent relationship between a truncal fat distribution and adult-
onset diabetes (NIDDM) among Native groups. Among female Navajo, risk of
NIDDM increased with an increase in the WHR. A similar nonsignificant trend was
evident in the males. Mean WHRs were 0.96 for males 20 years and 0.90 for females
2 20 years. These values correSpond to approximately the 75th and 95th percentiles of
French reference data for males and females, respectively (Tichet et al., 1993).
Szathmary and Holt ( 1983) used principal components analysis and hierarchical
analysis of variance to examine the association between relative fat distribution and
blood glucose levels among the Dogrib in the Northwest Territories. Although the
analysis did not provide a measurable fat distribution phenotype, there was a significant
association between truncal fat distribution (as assessed by principal components of
subscapular, midaxillary, suprailiac, abdominal, triceps, forearm, and medial calf
skinfold sites) and elevated blood glucose levels (Szathmary and Holt, 1983).

Physique

Physique refers to the configuration of the body as a whole. It is most often
quantified as a somatotype, which characterizes physique or body build in three
components: endomorphy, mesomorphy, and ectomorphy. Currently the Heath-Carter
anthropometric protocol for estimating somatotype is most widely used (Carter and
Heath, 1990).

There are very little data on the somatotypes of Native North Americans. A
single study among Wainwright Alaska Eskimos 16-75 years of age, measured by
Jamison and Zegura in 1958, using both the Heath-Carter anthropometric and
photoscopic techniques (ratings by Heath) indicated that Eskimo men and women had a
physique characterized by high endomorphy and mesomorphy, with many extreme
mesomorphs (Carter and Heath, 1990).

l7

Secular Trends

Secular trends in stature, body mass and fatness have been examined in Native
North American populations (Jamison, 1970; Miller, 1970; Knowler et al., 1981, .
1991; Sugarman et al., 1990; Rode and Shephard, 1994). Miller (1970) demonstrated
a 1.3 cm increase in stature and a 5.9 kg increase in body mass between 1940 and 1967
(one generation) of Apache men; change per decade was not estimated. The change in
stature was similar to the secular change which was occurring in military recruits over
the same time frame; however, the secular change in body mass was quite dramatic.
The secular change in body mass was attributed to shifts in dietary patterns as the
Apache adopted a "westernized" diet with acculturation into American society. This
dietary shift, in combination with a susceptible genotype, has been used to explain the
increased incidence of diabetes and obesity in Native groups (W eiss et al., 1984).

The Pima Indians of Arizona are obese, on average, compared to national
reference data for the United States (Knowler et al., 1991). Additionally, there has
been a modest increase in the BMI among adult Pima over the last 25 years. In almost
all age and sex groups, the mean BMI increased in the sampling periods 1965-72 to
1973-80 to 1981-88. The mean BMI of the youngest adult age groups were also higher
than that of the older age groups (Knowler et al., 1991). Pima children 5 through 18
years may have undergone a secular trend in body mass since the turn of the century.
Weights of Pima children, adjusted for height by linear regression, were 6 kg heavier
than children of comparable height in measured in 1908 (Knowler et al., 1981).

Navajo schoolchildren were taller and heavier in 1989 than they were in 1955
(Sugarman et al., 1990). Compared to the data collected in 1955 (Darby et al., 1956),
Navajo boys and girls in 1989 were 6.1% and 4.4% taller, respectively. Similarly,
mean weights increased 28.8% and 18.7% in boys and girls respectively, from 1955 to
1989. No estimate of change per decade was given. The authors speculated that the

18

secular changes were the result of changes in nutrition, daily energy expenditure, and
the availability of health care.

Eskimos of Wainwright, Alaska, and Northern Canada have also experienced
secular changes in stature and body mass. Jamison (1970) noted that Wainwright
Eskimos in 1969 were taller then those of 1955, and by using a regression approach on
the birthdates, an increase of 4-6 cm between the years 1880 and 1940 was estimated.

A secular trend towards earlier maturation may have occurred among the
Canadian Inuit, and this influences stature. Rode and Shephard (1994) published an
update of their ongoing work with the Canadian Inuit of Igloolik in the Northwest
Territories. The data suggested that at younger ages (10- 12 years), children were taller
in 1990 than in 1970 (+1.7%); however, in the older ages (17-19 years), there was a
trend for shorter stature in 1990 than observed in 1970 (-2.2%). The trends were the
same in both males and females. Estimates were a 1.1 cm/decade increase in the
youngest students, and a -1.7 cm/decade decrease in 17-19 year olds. The authors
suggested that the trend may be due to earlier maturation, but there are little data on
which to base this assumption. An alternative hypothesis put forth by the authors was
that high speed snowmobile driving causes vertebral compression in the older children,
resulting in relatively shorter individuals in the older age groups. This hypothesis,
however, has not been tested. The data showed no consistent “trends in body mass over
the three decades, but the sum of three skinfolds indicated that the 1990 sample was
significantly fatter than previous samples from 1970 and 1980 (Rode and Shephard,
1994).

Since few studies of Amerindians provide estimates of change per decade, it is
difficult to determine if secular changes are comparable to those in the general
population. Positive secular trends have occurred in all socioeconomic groups in
Europe, Japan and the United States (Malina, 1990). Tanner (1988) suggested that
between 1880 and 1950, a secular change of approximately 1 cm/decade in adults had

19

occurred in Europe and the U.S. Given the ever-changing demographic composition of
the U.S., it is difficult to estimate secular trends; however, data from several national
surveys in the U.S. in the 1960’s and 1970’s indicate that the trend towards larger
body size has ceased (Malina, 1990). Additionally, there is no consistent evidence for
differences in secular increases between Black and White children. Comparisons of the
BMI in Americans between 1960 and 1980 indicated no change in the BMI in males 18-
34 years, but both Black and White females showed an increase over this span (Malina,
1990).

Summary

The data suggest that among Aboriginal groups, adult Eskimos are shortest in
stature, while other groups such as the Gros Ventres/Assiniboin and Chippewa, Sioux
and Winnebago are tallest. There are no clear trends in body mass; however, Eskimo
women, as well as being the shortest, are also the heaviest.

The prevalence of obesity among Amerindian groups varies by geographic
location and tribal affiliation. There is consistent evidence that the prevalence of
obesity, defined by the BMI, is greater in Aboriginal groups than in the general North
American population. Data on relative fat distribution among Native groups are limited,
and results indicate that North American Aboriginals, particularly adults, have a more-
central or truncal fat distribution. Data are equivocal regarding sex differences in fat
distribution.

Secular trends appear to have occurred in Native North Americans. The Pima
are among the most obese of the Native groups, and the mean BMI appears to have
increased over the last 25 years. A single study of secular change in Inuit children
suggests that earlier maturation may be accounting for taller children at younger ages
and shorter older children in 1990 than in 1970 within the same community. Estimated
rates of change are rarely provided, which would aid in comparing studies.

Introduction

There is considerable interest in determining the familial resemblance in body
size and components of health-related fitness. Fitness is generally defined as an
individual’s ability to withstand stress, and is usually defined in terms of health- and
performance-related components (Caspersen et al., 1985). Performance-related fitness
refers to the individual’s ability to perform physical work optimally, whereas health-
related fitness refers to those phenotypes which relate to health status. The definition of
health-related fitness has recently been expanded to include five components (Table
2.2): morphological, muscular, motor, cardiorespiratory, and metabolic (Bouchard and
Shephard, 1994).

This section outlines the types of studies which have been used to estimate the
heritability of phenotypic characteristics as well as the evidence thus far accumulated to
suggest a familial component in the observed variability in body size and health-related
fitness. For the purpose of this review, morphological fitness phenotypes, such as the
BMI, fatness, and relative fat distribution, will be considered in the section on fatness
and relative fat distribution.

Types of Studies

Two major types of studies have been used to estimate the contribution of
genetic factors to phenotypic variation. The first design is based on studying
populations, while the second is based on studies of related individuals.

Population studies generally attempt to estimate the influence of genetic and
environmental factors for a given characteristic (Bouchard and Malina, 1983).
Anthropological studies of populations generally compare populations of similar
ancestry living under different environmental conditions, or alternatively, compare

populations of different ancestry living under similar environmental conditions

21

(Bouchard and Malina, 1983). Population studies are typically concerned with
determining the extent to which genetic and environmental influences have impacted
given characteristics within a given population; in other words, these are studies of
adaptation and accommodation (Frisancho, 1993).

Studies of relatives have a long tradition in population genetic research. Studies
of this type generally consider phenotypic variation among relatives. Basic designs
may consider only relationships among nuclear family members, whereas other designs
may involve extenkd pedigrees and complex statistical analyses aimed at investigating
genetic mechanisms associated with a given trait, or genetic associations among traits
(Bouchard and Malina, 1983; Rice et al., 1995).

Studies of relatives can generally be divided into two main types, family and
twin. Family studies usually involve examining associations among all possible
relatives, generally through the use of spouse, sibling, and parent-offspring
correlations. More complex studies may include relationships among extended relatives
(aunts, uncles, cousins, etc.). Examples of large family studies include the Quebec
Family Study (QFS, Bouchard et al., 1988), the Canada Fitness Survey (CFS, Perusse
et al., 1988), the Framingham Offspring Study (FOS, Heller et al., 1984), the
Muscatine Ponderosity Family Study (MPFS, Moll etal., 1991), and the Nord-
Trandelag Norwegian National Health Screening Service Family Study (Tambs et al.,
199 l ).

Study of adopted relatives is often useful in determining the influence of genetic
and environmental factors on a particular trait. Examples of adoption studies include
those utilizing the Montreal Adoption Survey (Annest et al., 1983; Biron et al., 1977)
and the Danish Adoption Register (Sorensen et al., 1992a, 1992b).

Twin studies are specific investigations which eXamine variation within and
among pairs of monozygotic (MZ) and dizygotic (DZ) twins. Although relatively
simple in design, the twin method is more complex than originally thought (Bouchard

22

and Malina, 1983). Significant biases may result from (1) differences in means of twin
types, and (2) associations between twin type and the phenotypic variance of the trait of
interest (Bouchard and Malina, 1983). Twin studies generally provide higher estimates
of heritability for a given phenotype than family studies, which should be taken into
account when interpreting results from different studies.

Twin studies typically present associational data in the form of intrapair
correlations for various phenotypes such as fatness, physical working capacity, and
strength (Komi et al., 1973; Engstrbm and Fischbein, 1977; Price et al., 1987). Twin
studies have also been used to study genotype-environment interactions, especially with
regard to changes in morphology following training and/or dietary manipulation
(Poehlman et al., 1986, 1987; Bouchard et al., 1990). Examples of large twin studies
include the Leuven Longitudinal Twin Study (Macs et al., 1993, 1996) and studies
utilizing the Danish Twin Register (Herskind et al., 1996), the Finnish Twin Cohort
(Korkeila et al., 1991), and the Swedish Twin Registry (Stunkard et al., 1990).

Body Size

This section focuses on familial resemblance in stature and body mass. In a
review of 24 studies presenting parent-child correlations in stature and body mass,
Mueller (1976) indicated that the heritability of stature in school aged children from 6
studies varied from 0.31 to 0.58 based on mid-parent regressions. Heritability
approximations based on twice the parent-child correlation in the same 6 studies yielded
higher estimates ranging from 0.44 to 0.88. However, the average parent-child
combined correlation for stature from 20 studies demonstrated a heritability of 0.62.
Body mass, based on parent child correlations from 9 studies had an average
heritability of 0.52 (Mueller, 1976).

There is considerable variability in estimates of the familial resemblance in
stature and body mass among family studies conducted since this early review in 1976

(Tables 2.3 and 2.4). Spousal correlations should theoretically approximate zero in the

23

absence of assortative mating, since spouses are biologically unrelated. However,
spousal correlations for stature range from 0.06 in U.S. Blacks (Malina et al., 1976) to
0.43 in the CFS (Pérusse et al., 1988). Similarly, spousal correlations for body mass
range from 0.15 in a sample of African Americans (Rotimi and. Cooper, 1995) to 0.39
in a sample of Canadians fiom Montreal (Biron et al., 1977). These results indicate
that assortative mating for stature and body mass occurred in some groups. In
addition, shared lifestyles contribute to the spousal similarities in body mass (Ramirez,
1993).

Sibling and parent-offspring correlations indicate significant familial
aggregation of stature and body mass (Tables 2.3 and 2.4). For stature, sibling
correlations range from 0.14 to 0.67, whereas parent-offspring correlations range from
0.01 to 0.67. Similarly, sibling correlations for body mass range from 0.16 to 0.61
and parent-offspring correlations range from 0.16 to 0.52. Within studies, spousal
correlations, with few exceptions, are generally lower than those for first-degree
relatives, indicating that genetic factors may be contributing to the covariation among
families. However, given that spousal correlations reach the strength of the association
among first degree relatives in some cases, common environmental (household) effects
may also be important.

It is difficult to infer genetic effects from familial correlations, since the effects
of genetic factors cannot be distinguished from common environmental factors due to
cohabitation. The purpose of most of the studies surveyed in Tables 2.3 and 2.4 was
to examine familial resemblance in stature and body mass; however, three of the
studies used additional analyses to estimate genetic and environmental contributions to
stature and body mass.

Perusse et al. (1988), using path analysis (TAU model), determined that
transmissibility fiom parent to offspring (genetic and cultural) accounted for 27% and

28% of the variability in stature and body mass, respectively. Thus, non-transmissible

24

factors such as shared sibling environment, personal lifestyle, and variation due to
unreliability of measurements accounted for over 70% of the variance in stature and
body mass in this sample.

The role of the shared environment may not be the same for both stature and
mass. Using maximum likelihood methods, Annest et al. (1983) determined that
genetic factors made a highly significant contribution to the familial aggregation of both
stature and mass, whereas common household effects contributed significantly to
variation in stature, but not in body mass. A study of adopted and natural children and
their parents indicated a significant genetic component of the variability in body mass
(Biron et al., 1977). The correlation between natural parents and their children was
significant (r=0.31, p<.001); however, the correlation between adoptive children and
adoptive parents was not significant (r=0.01, p=.85). Similarly, the correlation among
natural siblings was significant (1:039, p<.001) and the correlation among adoptive
children was not significant (r=0.01, p=.94).

Circumferences and Skeletal Dimensions
Circumferences

Circumferences are heterogeneous measurements (Bouchard et al., 1997). A
given circumference includes skin, adipose tissue, and various underlying tissues
depending on the location of the measurement. Although simple to measure, data on
the family resemblance in body circumferences are very limited.

Evidence indicates a significant familial component in the variance of several
body circumferences (Table 2.5). Spousal correlations range from 0.04 to 0.31,
indicating assortative mating in some groups. Sibling correlations for body
circumferences are generally higher than parent-offspring correlations within studies,
suggesting that shared environment is important in explaining variation in these traits.
Sibling correlations range from 0.09 to 0.50 and parent-offspring correlations range

from 0.14 to 0.53. In general, correlations are of similar strength among studies and

25

across all circumferences.

Family correlations vary with the age and sex of the subjects. Byard et al.
(1983) indicated that sibling correlations for calf circumference varied with the age of
the siblings, and that correlations decreased at 12-13 years of age in boys and at 11-12
years in girls. The decreases corresponded to periods of variable growth rates around
the pubescent growth spurt in stature. The strength of correlations was also different
when children and adult family members were compared.

Skeletal Dimensions

Familial resemblance in skeletal dimensions is supported by data from several
studies (Table 2.6). Surprisingly, few studies report spousal correlations for skeletal
dimensions, which makes it difficult to interpret sibling and parent-child correlations in
explaining genetic and environmental influences. Sibling correlations range from -0.02
to 0.68, while parent—offspring correlations range from 0.07 to 0.49. Sibling and
parent-offspring correlations are generally of similar magnitude within and among
studies.

Few studies have attempted to estimate the genetic component of the variability
in skeletal dimensions. Evidence indicates a genetic component to the variance in
skeletal breadths (Clark, 1956; Vandenburg, 1962) as well as genetic pleiotropism such
that genetic factors may work synergistically to influence the breadth and robusticity of
the skeleton (Bouchard and Lortie, 1984). Note that many anthropometric skeletal
dimensions are composites across several bones, e.g., sitting height, biacromial and
bicristal breadths, etc. (Bouchard et al., 1997). Bouchard et al. (1980b) estimated
heritabilities of 0.48 for sitting height, 0.62 for biacromial breadth, 0.22 for bicristal
breadth, 0.50 for bicondylar breadth and 0.54 for biepicondylar breadth. These
estimates were computed as two times the sibling correlation, controlling for seven
socioeconomic familial indicators. Using twin data, Kramer et al. (1986) estimated the
heritability of bicristal breadth as 0.51, which was higher than the estimate of Bouchard

26

et al. (1980b); however, twin studies generally generate higher heritability estimates
than family studies.
Fatness and Relative Fat Distribution

The genetics of body fat and relative fat distribution have recently become of
great concern, mostly because of the identification of obesity as an important risk factor
for many diseases. Variables such as the BMI, percentage body fat, skinfolds, and
trunk/extremity skinfold ratios have been utilized in several studies in an attempt to
quantify the genetic contribution to fatness, obesity and relative fat distribution.
BMI

The most frequently studied index of obesity is the BMI (mass/stature),
although the BMI is actually a measure of heaviness, as it does not distinguish between
lean and fat tissues. Any estimate of the genotypic variance of the BMI will thus be .
contaminated by the unknown genotypic effects on both fat and fat-free tissues
(Bouchard, 1989).

There is considerable variability in estimates of familial resemblance in the BMI
(Table 2.7). Spousal correlations indicate a small assortative mating effect, especially
in an Indian sample (r==0.37, Nirmala et al., 1993). With this exception, spousal
correlations for the BMI range from -0.05 to 0.19. The range of estimates probably
represents different mating strategies among world populations and different
contributions of the home environment to the BMI in different ethnic groups.

Correlations among first-degree relatives for the BMI are consistently higher
than spousal correlations. Parent-offspring correlations range from 0.02 to 0.38;
however, with the exception of two studies (Ramirez, 1993; Annest et al., 1983),
estimates of heritability based on two times the parent-offspring correlation range from
0.36 to 0.76. This agrees well with the overview of Bouchard et al. (1997),
suggesting that the heritability of the BMI derived from family studies is generally
about 0.30 to 0.50. Further, twin studies tend to produce higher estimates of

27

heritability, while adoption studies yield lower estimates. Combining research
strategies, the estimated heritability of the BMI is approximately 0.25 to 0.40
(Bouchard et al., 1997).

Body Fat

Studies investigating the genetics of direct assessments of body fatness are few
(Bouchard and Perusse, 1988). Ramirez (1993) estimated lean body mass using
bioelectrical impedance and in turn percentage body fat. Sibling correlations were 0.21
(brother-brother) and 0. 36 (sister-sister), and parent—offspring correlations ranged from
0.17 to 0.25, after adjusting for the effects of age and the BMI. Bouchard et al. (1988)
considered percentage and total body fat estimated from densitometry in 1,698 relatives
from the Quebec Family Study. Interclass correlations were 0.23 for parent-offspring
comparisons and 0.17 in siblings for percentage body fat. The results were consistent
with an additive genetic effect explaining 25% of the variance, whereas approximately
55% was transmissible (cultural+genetic) (Boucth et al., 1988).

Subcutaneous fatness (sum of skinfolds) also demonstrates aggregation within
families (Table 2.8). Spousal correlations for skinfolds range from 0.02 to 0.46. As
for the BMI, this variation may be explained by differential mating patterns and
different contributions from the living environment. Parent-offspring and sibling
correlations for the sum of skinfolds range from 0.13 to 0.68.

Fatness is a complex phenotype and is influenced by many environmental
factors, such as energy intake and physical activity. However, the incorporation of
activity levels and food intake into genetic models has only a small effect on parent-
child similarities (Bouchard et al., 1989). Indicators of fatness still exhibit a significant
genetic influence after physical activity and lifestyle variables were considered in an
Indian population (Mitchell et al., 1993) and the Quebec Family Study (Savard et al.,
1983).

28

Relative Subcutaneous Fat Distribution

The distribution of adipose tissue within the body, both subcutaneously
(external) and viscerally (internal), is as important a risk factor for many diseases as is
the total amount of fat (Ducimetiere et al., 1986; Ducimetiere and Richard, 1989;
Després et al., 1990). Evidence is available primarily for familial resemblance in
subcutaneous fat distribution in contrast to internal vs external fat distribution, for
which little data are available. Relative fat distribution shows familial aggregation
(Table 2.8). Spousal correlations are generally similar to those reported for overall
fatness, while correlations among first degree relatives vary among studies, ranging
from 0.22 to 0.36 for TER and from 0.00 to 0.24 for the WHR. Fatness and relative
fat distribution are multifactorial traits which exhibit high individual variability and
change dramatically over the lifespan (Malina, 1996). The evidence indicates that there
is a significant genetic component to variation in these complex phenotypes.

Physique

Several studies have investigated the farniliality of physique, as assessed by the
Heath-Carter anthropometric somatotype. Somatotype is a three component descriptor
of physique, the configuration of the body as a whole. Since the three components,
endomorphy, mesomorphy, and ectomorphy. are interconelated, it is important to
statistically control for the other two somatotype components in analyses (Song et al.,
1993, 1994). Recent studies have used regression analyses to control for the other two
components; however, earlier studies by Kovar (1977), Bouchard et al. (1980a) and
Perusse et al. (1988) did not control for the effects of the other two somatotype
components.

There is considerable evidence for familial resemblance in somatotype (Table
2.9). Spousal correlations for specific components are generally low, ranging from -
0.08 to 0.23, whereas sibling and parent-offspring correlations are of a higher
magnitude. Sibling correlations range from 0.22 to 0.59 and parent—offspring

29

correlations range from -0.04 to 0.41. There are no apparent trends in correlations by
somatotype component; however, mesomorphy appears to demonstrate a higher degree
of familial resemblance than the other components (Song et al., 1993; Sdnchez-Andres,
1995). Since spousal correlations are generally lower than sibling and parent-offspring
correlations, the transmission of somatotype is probably under some degree of genetic
regulation. However, within studies, sibling correlations are generally greater than
parent-offspring correlations, suggesting that the shared household environment may
also be important in the familial resemblance.

Twin studies generally demonstrate higher sibling correlations than family
studies (Kovar, 1977; Song et al., 1994). Intraclass correlations among pairs of MZ
twins (0.51 to 0.90) are higher than correlations among DZ twins (0.15 to 0.64),
indicating that genetic factors are contributing to the variance in somatotype.

Strength and Flexibility

Familial resemblance in grip strength and trunk flexibility is reviewed
subsequently. For a more extensive review of the genetics of performance, the reader
is referred to Bouchard et al. (1997).

' Grip Strength

The available evidence suggests significant familial aggregation in grip strength
(Table 2.10). Spousal correlations range from low to moderate, 0.01 to 0.26, whereas
sibling correlations range from 0.10 to 0.55. Parent-offspring correlations are
generally of lower magnitude than sibling correlations, ranging from -0.05 to 0.31.
Although there is evidence for genetic effects, the role of the shared environment is also
important in the familial resemblance in grip strength.

Trunk Flexibility

Flexibility appears to be highly heritable at least in the broad sense of
transmissibility. Perusse et al. (1988) demonstrated a heritability of 0.48 for the sit-
and—reach in a stratified sample of the Canadian population, while Devor and Crawford

30

(1984) calculated a transmissibility of 0.66 for the same measure in a sample of Kansas
Mennonites.

Correlations among family members indicate significant transmissibility of
flexibility between parents and offspring, while the shared environment is also
important in explaining the variance within and among families (Table 2.10). Using
intraclass correlation within pairs of twins, Macs et al. (1993) indicated that MZ twins
(0.82) had higher correlations than DZ twins (0.53), suggesting that trunk flexibility is
in part genetically determined. The flexibility phenotype is largely a measure of the
architecture of the joint and surrounding musculature (Bouchard et al., 1997), which
may explain the high degree of concordance among studies. Flexibility is joint specific
and heritability estimates of trunk flexibility may not be applicable to other joints.

Summary

The available evidence suggests significant familial aggregation in body size,
adiposity, relative fat distribution and indicators of health-related fitness; however, the
magnitude of the family effect varies among studies. Inferences regarding the genetics
of the selected phenotypes are difficult to make based on correlational studies, but
comparisons of the magnitude of parent-offspring, sibling and spousal correlations
suggest the influence of genetic factors. Spousal correlations for all phenotypes
indicate that assortative mating may occur in some groups, and that common
environmental (household) effects may be important in explaining the familial

component of the phenotypic variance.

CHAPTER III
METHODS

Introduction

The purpose of this study was to compare Canadians of First Nation and
European ancestry in terms of body size, physique, and indicators of health-related
fitness, and to determine the familial resemblance in these variables. The protocol,
therefore, involved the collection of anthmpometric and health-related fitness data in
such a way as to allow statistical familial analyses. The most critical aspect for the
analysis is the knowledge of the familial relationships among the subjects, which is
why a family study approach was used.

Research Location and Study Population

The northern Ontario town of Temagami and the First Nation community of
Bear Island were selected as the sites for study. The nearest city to these communities
is North Bay (pop. 60,000), which is located 100 km south along a national highway.
New Liskeard is a farming town of approximately 5,500 people, located 70 km north
of Temagami (Figure 3.1).

Bear Island is approximately 24 km from Temagami, and can only be reached
by water. Each community has a public school (K-8), with 130 children attending the
Temagami Public School and 17 attending the Laura McKenzie Learning Centre on
Bear Island at the time of the study. Many children are bussed to North Bay or New
Liskeard for high school.

The exact population of the Temagami area is difficult to determine. According

to Statistics Canada, Temagami had 1,030 residents in 1993, based on tax returns with
31

32

an address using the Temagami (POH 2H0) postal code (Statistics Canada, 1995).
According to the Corporation of The Township of Temagami, the total population of
Temagami was 864 people in 1994 (Township of Temagami, 1994). These two
sources provide different estimates of the population of Temagami; however, the area
encompassed by the Statistics Canada report is larger than the Township of Temagami
proper, as there are many people living outside of the township who get their mail
delivered to Temagami. On the other hand, there are also people who are not full-time
residents of Temagami who use this address for tax returns (students, seasonal
workers, etc.). All things considered, it is likely that the true population of Temagami
is between 864 and 1,030 people.

The Temagami First Nation has accurate records of the population of Bear
Island. Each building on the Island is numbered and the occupants of each building are
known. Based on the Band records, the community of Bear Island had 174 residents
at the time of this study.

Ethnographic Background

Present day Temagami, Teme-augaming (the place of deep water),lis inhabited
by both Aboriginal and European Canadians. The history of each group in the area is
unique. The Aboriginals of the area are the Teme-Augama Anishnabai (the people of
the deep water) and are traditionally an Algonkian speaking group. The Teme-Augama
Anishnabai have documented 6,000 years of occupation of their homeland, N'Daki
Menan (Teme-Augama-Anishnabai, 1990). Their homeland at the time of European
contact encompassed approximately 3,800 square miles around Lake Temagami;
however, the band was small, numbering fewer than 200 people (Hodgins and
Benidickson, 1989). The population of Temagami (Bear Island) in 1913 was 95
people (Speck, 1915). Because of the small population size, the Temagami people had
a pattern of "migration” by intermarriage and spread outward through neighboring

33

tribes, thus leading to a distinctive grouping of Ojibwa, Cree and Algonquin settling in
the area (Hodgins and Benidickson, 1989).

The archeological record reveals a long history of occupation in the Temagami
area by prehistoric hunter-gatherers. Paleoenvironmental and geochronological studies
indicate that paleo-Indian occupation as early as 10,500 BP is a distinct possibility;
however, no sites this old have been found using current survey methods (Gordon,
1990). Evidence of human habitation at 5.0301240 years BP at a site on the Montreal
River is the earliest reliable date obtained from a reliable stratified context (Knight,
1977, as cited by Gordon, 1990).

Since deglaciation approximately 10,500 years ago, Temagami has undergone
dramatic shifts in hydrology, vegetation, and climate (Gordon, 1990). Prehistoric
groups inhabiting the area would have had to adapt to these environmental changes.
Archeologists are interested in studying cultural adaptations to the changing
environment over time using the archeological record; however, biological adaptations
to the changing environment should also be considered.

The earliest European contacts in the Temagami area were through, the fur trade,
and by the late 1800s, the Hudson's Bay Company was established in the area
(Mitchell, 1977). Following the fur trade, the late nineteenth century saw lumbermen,
missionaries, prospectors, railwaymen, sportsmen and canoeists entering the area ‘
(I-Iodgins and Benidickson, 1989). From this point on, lumbering, mining and tourism
became the chief industries of Temagami. A major blow to the recent economy of the
area was the closure of Defasco Canada's Sherman Iron Mine and William Milne and
Son's lumber mill in 1990. The main industry in Temagami is now tourism and the
spin-off labor market (hospitality, commerce, construction).

Today, individuals of Aboriginal and European ancestry are living together in
the same community: they attend the same churches, shop at the same stores, and work

alongside one another in the area's limited industries. Given the differing periods of

34

habitation of the two groups, inferences about biological adaptation to the northern
Ontario environment may be made by comparing First Nation and European Canadians
in terms of growth and health-related fitness. '

Study Design

The design of the study involved collecting anthropometric, performance, and
health-related fitness data on a sample of subjects from two ethnically distinct
populations inhabiting the same environment. The data were collected in an
overarching framework of a family study, in which the purpose was to estimate the
heritability of the anthropometric and health-related fitness variables.

Data were collected during the spring and summer of 1996 (May-August). All
residents of Temagami and Bear Island from 5-75 years of age were eligible to
participate in this study. Permission to undertake this study was obtained from the
Township Council of Temagarrri, the Temagami First Nation, the Timiskaming Board
of Education, and the University Committee for Research Involving Human Subjects
(UCRIHS) at Michigan State University. Copies of letters of permission are in
Appendix A. All adult subjects signed informed consent forms. In addition, parents
were required to sign a consent form for their children (<18 years old) to participate in
the study. Children gave their assent by signing the form along with their parents.

Subjects were recruited over the telephone and by going door to door (for
adults), and using a letter sent home from the principal of the public school (for
children 5-15 years). The majority of the children 5-15 years were measured at school,
whereas adults were generally measured in their home. Reasons for non-participation
included having other time commitments, not knowing about the study (away from
home, could not be reached by phone, etc.), and not wanting to be measured. Given
that non-participation included not getting measured, it is difficult to determine if there
were differences between participants and non-participants in body morphology or
health-related fitness which may have biased the results.

35

All subjects were measured for several anthropometric dimensions, grip
strength and trunk flexibility. Additionally, children attending the public schools (5-15
years) completed an extended battery of motor fitness tests.

Sample

A total of 624 subjects, 130 First Nation (FN), 494 European ancestry (EA)
participated in the study. The age and sex distribution of the sample is compared to
population statistics for Temagami and Bear Island in Table 3.1. Approximately 50%
of the total population of the area participated. Some FN people live on the mainland,
and some EA people also live on Bear Island. It must be noted that the population
statistics include all residents of the area; however, the present sample includes only
those individuals 5 through 75 years of age. Thus, the study sample represents more
than 50% of the individuals within this age range.

Subjects were assigned to either the FN or EA group based on self-ascribed
ethnic status, and was not based on biological markers such as blood groupings or skin
reflectance. Those who indicated admixture (hybrids) were assigned to the FN group if
they had a parent or grandparent who was FN, or if they were classified as a Status
Native by the federal government.

A higher participation rate was obtained in the public schools over the overall
participation rate. Of 130 children attending the Temagami Public School, 108
participated (83%). Additionally, all 17 children attending the Laura McKenzie
beaming Centre on Bear Island participated in the study (100%).

36

Anthropometry

Several anthropometric dimensions were taken on each subject: stature; sitting
height; body mass; skinfolds at the biceps, triceps, subscapular, abdominal, suprailiac,
supraspinale and medial calf sites; biacromial, bicristal, biepicondylar, and bicondylar
breadths; and flexed and relaxed mid-arm, maximal calf, waist and hip circumferences.
All bilateral measurements were taken on the right side of the body. Subischial length
was estimated as stature minus sitting height, and arm muscle area was estimated from
arm circumference and the triceps skinfold. Several indices were also derived: the body
mass index (BMI), Heath-Carter anthropometric somatotype, the sitting height/stature
ratio, hip/shoulder breadth ratio, sum of skinfolds, a trunk/extremity skinfold ratio, and
the waist/hip circumference ratio. The procedures for the anthropometric dimensions
were as follows (Lohman et al., 1988):
Body Size
Stature (cm) was measured using a field anthropometer (GPM, Switzerland) to the
nearest mm with the subject in bare feet, standing on a flat surface with weight evenly
distributed on both feet. The head was positioned in the Frankfort Horizontal Plane.
Sitting Height (cm) was measured using a field anthropometer to the nearest mm
with the subject seated on a table with the legs hanging freely and hands resting on the
thighs. The backs of the knees were close to but not touching the table. The subject
was sitting as erect as possible with the head in the Frankfort Horizontal Plane.
Body Mass (kg) was assessed to the nearest 0.2 kilograms using a spring scale
(Medixact Proshape, Sunbeam-Oster, Schaumburg, IL) resting on a hard flat surface.
Although the standard technique involves the use of a beam scale, the use of a spring
scale is recommended for field work when there is no practical alternative. Body mass
was optimally measured with the subject wearing only light shorts and a t-shirt. In
those cases where this was impossible, an adjustment for the mass of extra clothing
was made based on weighing several individuals in shorts and then in heavy pants or

37

jeans (heavy pants or jeans = 0.90 kg adjustment in adults, 0.45 kg adjustment in
children <18 yrs).

Skinfolds

Skinfolds were measured with Holtain (Holtain LTD, Crymych, U.K.) calipers to the
nearest 0.2 mm.

Triceps skinfold (mm) was measured over the midline of the triceps muscle,
midway between the lateral projection of the acromion process and the inferior margin
of the olecranon process. The measurement was made 1 cm proximal to the marked
level with the upper extremity hanging loosely with the palm facing forward.

Biceps skinfold (mm) was measured as the thickness of a vertical fold raised over
the belly of the biceps muscle, 1 cm superior to the line marked for the measurement of
me triceps skinfold. The upper extremity was relaxed at the side, palm pointing
forward.

Subscapular skinfold (mm) was measured just below the inferior angle of the
scapula on a diagonal, inclined infero-laterally, approximately 45 degrees to the
horizontal plane in the natural cleavage lines of the skin. . '
Abdominal skinfold (mm) was measured as a horizontal skinfold 3 cm lateral to
the umbilicus and 1 cm below it.

Suprailiac skinfold (mm) was measured in the midaxillary line immediately ~
superior to the iliac crest. The arms hung loosely, or were slightly abducted to facilitate
measurement. The skinfold was raised following the natural cleavage of the skin,
approximately 45 degrees to horizontal.

Supraspinale skinfold (mm) was measured 5 cm superior to the anterior superior

spine of the iliac crest along ‘a 45 degree angle to the horizontal in the natural cleavage
line of the skin.

38

Medial calf skinfold (mm) was measured with the subject sitting with the knee
flexed 90 degrees and the sole of the foot on the floor. This measurement was made
along the long axis of the medial aspect of the calf at the point of maximal calf girth.
Breadths and Circumferences

The following bony breadth measurements were made to the nearest mm by applying
firm pressure with the upper end of the anthropometer.

Biacrornial breadth (cm) was measured with the subject standing. The
measurement was made from behind as the distance between the most lateral aspects of
the acromial processes.

Bicristal breadth (cm) was measured with the subject standing with the feet about 5
cm apart and the arms folded across the chest. The measurement was made from
behind at the widest biiliac breadth.

Bicondylar breadth (cm) was measured with the subject seated with the knee
flexed 90 degrees. The distance between the lateral and medial condyles of the femurs
was measured.

The following measurement was made to the nearest mm by applying firm pressure
with a small sliding caliper (GPM, Switzerland).

Biepicondylar breadth (cm) was measured with the subject's arm raised to the
horizontal, and the elbow flexed 90 degrees. The measurement was made between the
lateral and medial epicondyles of the humerus.

The following measurements were made to the nearest mm with a Grafco flexible
fiberglass tape.

Relaxed mid-arm circumference (cm) was measured with the subject standing
with arms hanging at the sides, palms facing the thighs. This measurement was made
at the midpoint between the acromion process of the scapula and the inferior margin of
the olecranon process of the ulna.

39
Flexed mid-arm circumference (cm) was measured with the subject standing.

The subject was instructed to flex the biceps or to "make a muscle" with the right arm.
This measurement was made at the point of maximal circumference of the flexed arm.
Maximal calf circumference (cm) was measured with the subject standing and
weight evenly distributed on both feet. The tape was placed around the calf and moved
up or down to locate the maximal girth, at which point the measurement was recorded.
Waist circumference (cm) was measured with the subject standing and weight
distributed evenly on both feet, arms at the sides and abdomen relaxed. This
measurement was rmde over one layer of light clothing (t-shirt, dress) at the natural
waist, which is the narrowest part of the torso. In obese subjects it was necessary to
move the tape up and down and record the smallest horizontal circumference between
the ribs and the iliac crest.

Hip (buttocks) circumference (cm) was measured with the subject standing erect
with arms at the sides and feet together. The measurement was taken at the level of
maximum extension of the buttocks in a horizontal plane. This measurement was taken

through one layer of clothing.

40
Anthropometric Indices

The derived indices were as follows:

Subischial length (SIL), or estimated leg length was estimated as stature minus
sitting height.

Arm Muscle Area (AMA) was estimated using the following formula (Frisancho,
1990):

[C-(nYSFM’

AMA (cm’) = 4n:

 

where C is arm circumference (cm) and TSF is the triceps skinfold (cm).
Body mass index (BMI) was calculated as body mass/stature2 (kg/m2).

Sitting height/stature ratio (SSR) was calculated as sitting height/stature x 100.
Hip/shoulder ratio (HSR) was calculated as bicristal breadth/biacromial breadth x
100.

Sum of trunk skinfolds (TRUNK) was calculated as the sum of 3 trunk
skinfolds (subscapular, abdominal, and suprailiac).

Sum of extremity skinfolds (EXTREMITY) was calculated as the sum of 3
extremity skinfolds (biceps, triceps, and medial calf).

Sum of skinfolds (SUM) was calculated as the sum of 6 skinfolds (subscapular,
abdominal, suprailiac, biceps, triceps, and medial calf).

Trunk/extremity ratio (TER) was calculated as the ratio of the sum of the
subscapular, abdominal, and suprailiac skinfolds to the sum of the biceps, triceps, and
medial calf skinfolds.

Waist/hip ratio (WHR) was calculated as the ratio of waist circumference to hip
circumference.

4i

Somatotype

Somatotype was derived using the equations of Carter and Heath (1990).
Endomorphy

Endomorphy = -0.7182 + 0.1451 (A) - 0.00068 (A2) + 0.0000014 (A3)

where A: [(triceps (mm) + subscapular (mm) + supraspinale (mm) skinfolds) x
(1701.8lstature (cm)]

Mesomorphy

Mesomorphy = [0.858 x biepicondylar breadth (cm)] + [0.601 x bicondylar
breadth(cm)] + [0.188 x CAG] + [0.161 x CCG] - [stature (cm) x 0.131] + 4.50
where CAG = corrected arm girth = flexed arm circumference (cm) minus triceps
skinfold (cm), and CCG = corrected calf girth = maximal calf circumference (cm) -
medial calf skinfold (cm)

Ectomorphy

If SMRZ 40.75,

Ectomorphy == SMR x 0.0732 '- 28.58

If SMR < 40.75 but > 38.25,

Ectomorphy = SMR x 0.0463 - 17.63

If SMR 5 38.25,

Ectomorphy = 0.1

where SMR = stature mass ratio = eta: 3:3)

If any somatotype component is zero or negative, a value of 0.1 is assigned (Carter and
Heath, 1990).

42

Strength, Flexibility, and Motor Fitness
Adolescents and Adults (16-75 yrs)
Each adolescent and adult performed a strength test and flexibility test.
Left and right grip strength of the hand was measured with a. Stoelting adjustable
dynamometer (Stoelting Co., Chicago, IL) to the nearest 0.5 kg following the
procedures of the Canadian Standardized Test of Fitness (Fitness Canada, 1986). The
subject held the dynamometer in line with the forearm at the level of the thigh. The
dynamometer was then squeezed vigorously so as to exert maximum force. Three trials
were allowed with each hand, the best one being retained in the analysis.
Trunk flexibility was assessed using a sit-and-reach exercise following the
procedures of the AAHPERD Physical Best manual (1988). The subject was seated
with the legs fully extended and feet pressed up against the test apparatus. The subject
extended forward with the hands placed on top of one another to perform the test. Each
participant was allowed three trials in which they had to hold the position for at least.
one second. Flexibility was measured to the nearest 0.5 cm. A measurement of 23 cm
corresponds to touching the toes.
Children (5-15 years)
Children were tested on a larger number of items than adults. The following additional
fitness tests were administered during regular class time at the Temagami Public School
and the Laura McKenzie Learning Centre on Bear Island: right and left grip strength,
trunk flexibility, flexed arm hang, sit-ups, standing long jump, and 35-meter dash.
Only children with signed parental consent forms participated in this study. All items in
the battery of fitness tests were repeated 3 times and the best performance was retained
for analysis.
Right and left grip strength was assessed as in adults.
Trunk flexibility was assessed as in adults.

43

A Flexed arm hang was conducted on a bar parallel to the ground, following the
protocol of the Leuven Growth Study of Flemish Girls (Claessens et al., 1990).

Hands were in the pronated position, and the time was stopped when the eyes dropped
below the level of the bar. Time was recorded to the nearest second.

Sit-ups were assessed following the protocol of the Canadian Standardized Test of
Fitness (Fitness Canada, 1986). The subject was in a supine position with legs flexed
90 degrees at the knee. The researcher held the subject's ankles to assure that the heels
remained in contact with the floor. With hands placed beside the head with fingers over
the ears, the subject touched the knees with the elbows and returned to the starting
position as many times as possible in 60 seconds.

The Standing long jump was assessed by having the subject jump as far as possible
from the standing position into a jumping sand pit. Distance from take-off to the back
of the heels on landing was measured to the nearest 0.01 m.

A 35-meter dash was conducted from a stationary start position and was measured to

the nearest 0.1 second.

44

Measurement Variability and Reliability

In order to estimate measurement variability and demonstrate reliability, several
considerations were made in devising the protocol for this study.
Measurement Variability of Anthropometry ,

Replicate anthropometric dimensions were taken on a subsample of
approximately 10% of the study sample (64 subjects). The replicate measurements
were made at least 1 day apart and no more than 2 months apart (mean 10 days). The
intro-observer technical error of measurement was calculated using the following
formula (Malina et al., 1973):

TEM= M
where d2 is the sum of the squared differences of replicate measurements and Zn
represents twice the number of pairs. Additionally, reliability coefficients (intro-class
correlation coefficients) were calculated for the anthropometric measurements. One-
way analysis of variance was used to obtain the mean square among subjects (MS A)
and the mean square within subjects (MSW). The formula for the intraclass correlation
coefficient is as follows (Baumgartner and Jackson, 1991):
rm: (MSA - MSW) I MS A
The closer the intraclass correlation coefficient is to one, the smaller the error
introduced by the observer. Table 3.2 presents the age and sex distribution of the
subsample used in this analysis. The average age of the sample was 25.4 years,
ranging from 4.4 to 75.3 years. Descriptive statistics are not presented due to the wide
range of ages represented in the subsample.

The mean differences between replicate measures are presented with the intra-
Observer TEMs and intraclass correlation coefficients in Table 3.3. Table 3.4 compares
the intra-observer TEMs with those from selected studies (Malina, 1995). The intra-
Observer error in this study is similar to that of the Hispanic Health and Nutrition
Examination Survey (Chumlea et al., 1990) and the National Health and Nutrition

45

Examination Survey (Johnston et al., 1972; Malina et al., 1973). The TEMs reported
by Siegel (1995) and Klika (1995) are quite low; however these studies involved
athletic subjects within a small age-range. The sample of the present study is
comparable in age range to the national surveys described above; thus the intra-observer
TEM is of similar magnitude. The technical errors of measurement for the somatotype
components were 5 0.2 somatotype components, which compare to those reported for
the Quebec Family Study (5 0.3 somatotype units; Bouchard, 1985).
Reliability of Strength, Flexibility and Motor Fitness

Within day reliabilities of the fitness tests were estimated using intraclass
correlation coefficients (rm) between the best versus the second best trial of the three
trials which were achieved for each test (Baumgartner and Jackson, 1991).
Intraclass correlations for the strength, flexibility and motor fitness variables are
presented in Table 3.5 along with the sample sizes used for the calculation of each
correlation. Intraclass reliability coefficients are compared to selected studies in Table
3.6. The fitness tests in the present study are very reliable, demonstrating intraclass
correlations greater than or equal to 0.99 for all variables. Given that the intraclass
correlations were calculated over a large age range, it is not surprising that they appear
higher than those of the other studies, which use single year age groups.

46

Data Management

Each subject was identified by an ID number and data were entered into a
database management system (Dbase III). A file was created which contained the
subject id number, parental id numbers, sex, ethnicity, birth and observation dates, and
all anthropometric and performance data collected on each subject.

All data were double entered into a second Dbase 111 file, which was merged
with the original file using SPSS procedures (SPSS, 1990). An SPSS program was
written to compare the two Dbase III files and flag discrepant values. Errors were
corrected in the Dbase III files until no discrepant values were found.

The corrected Dbase 1]] file containing all anthropometric and performance data
was converted into an SPSS system file which was retained for further analysis. SPSS
programs were written to compute fractional ages and anthropometric indices based on
existing data.

Missing data were coded as system missing values with the exception of single
skinfolds. For individuals who were missing a single skinfold, this value was
predicted using multiple regression from the subject’s age, sex and the remaining six
skinfolds. This procedure resulted in increasing the sample size for anthropometric
indices which have skinfolds as a component. A total of 25 individual skinfolds were
predicted in adults, none in children. Table 3.7 demonstrates the prediction equations
and the standard errors of the estimates for the predicted skinfolds (abdominal,
subscapular, and medial calf).

For the purpose of identifying outliers, examining distributions for normality,
and adjusting values for age, the sample was split into four groups based on age and
sex. The groups were as follows: males 219.50, males $19.49 years, females 219.50
years, and females $19.49 years. Frequency distributions for all variables were
examined for normality, and those variables significantly skewed were loglo
transformed where appropriate. The variables demonstrating skewed distributions and

47

their associated skewness statistics are presented in Table 3.8. For the comparative
analyses between EA and FN samples, the log,0 transformed values were used in place
of the raw data.

Outliers were considered to be values falling beyond 4 standard deviations of
each age group mean (see above) and were eliminated from further analysis. The
elimination of outliers resulted in the loss of 29 values from 11 subjects.

Regression analyses were used to adjust raw data for the effects of age within
each of the agchex groups defined above for the purpose of the familial aggregation
analyses. Scores were adjusted by applying the following multiple regression:

Y = age + age2 + age3
The residuals of the multiple regression were retained for further analysis, and were
considered to be adjusted for the effects of age and sex . Since somatotype is a three
component descriptor, each somatotype component was further adjusted for the effects
of the other two components by regression procedures (Song et al., 1993).' Tables 3.9
and 3.10 present the variability in the original variables which was accounted for by the
adjustment procedures.

For the purpose of the familial aggregation analyses, the data were reorganized
into parent and offspring samples. A total of 266 nuclear families were differentiated
following the reorganization. Variables were then z-standardized within generations
which served to normalize the distributions of several skewed variables. The offspring
generation was further reorganized into sibships based on parental id numbers. The
distribution of sibship size is presented in Table 3.11.

 

 

48

Statistical Analyses
The analyses for the specific hypotheses are as follows:
Hmthcsiu
There are significant differences between Canadians of First Nation (FN) and European
ancestry (EA) in body size, physique, and indicators of health-related fitness.
Hypothesis 1a) FN Canadians are heavier and demonstrate greater subcutaneous

fatness than EA Canadians throughout childhood into adulthood.
Analyses:

Within age/sex groups, indicators of heaviness (body mass, BMI) and
subcutaneous fatness (SUM, TRUNK, EXTREMITY) were compared between FN
and EA subjects using AN COVA with age as a covariate. Individual anthropometric z-
scores were calculated for body mass, the BMI, triceps and subscapular skinfolds, and
AMA using the following equation (Gibson, 1990; 251):

individual’s value - median value of reference population

 

z score:
standard deviation value of reference population

The reference data used for body mass were from Health and Welfare Canada (1980),
while data fOr the BMI, and triceps and subscapular skinfolds were from the NHANES
II for the U.S. population (Najjar and Rowland, 1987). AMA was z-standardized
using the reference data of Frisancho (1990) for U.S. Whites based on NHANES I and
NHANES 11. Additionally, z—scores for body mass in FN subjects were also calculated
using First Nation reference data from Health and Welfare Canada (1980). Since the
conversion of data into z-scores theoretically eliminates the function of age,
independent samples t-tests were used to make comparisons among FN and EA
subjects, and between males and females in terms of z-transformed variables.
Prevalence rates for obesity were calculated for FN and EA samples by age and
sex group. Two indicators of obesity were used: theBMI and the triceps skinfold
(TSF). For subjects 5-19 years of age, the criteria for obesity based on the BMI and

49

TSF was greater than or equal to the respective age- and sex-specific 85th percentiles of
NHANES II data (N ajjar and Rowland, 1987). For subjects 20-75 years of age, the
criteria for BMI obesity was 2 85th percentile NHANES II data for 20-29 year old
people (BMI 2 27.8 in males and BMI 2 27.3 in females) and the criteria for TSF
obesity was 2 85th percentile NHANES II data for 18-24 year old people (TSF 2 17.5
mm in males and TSF 2 29.5 mm in females).

Subjects were classified as obese by both the BMI and TSF independently.
Additionally, subjects were classified as obese by the BMI only (BMI Obese), TSF
only (TSF Obese), or both the BMI and TSF together (BMI+TSF Obese). This
classification is based on Malina et al. (1989), which generally corresponds to the
scheme of Van Italic and Abraham (1985): “overweight not obese” - high BMI, low
skinfolds, “obese not overweight” - high skinfolds, low BMI, and “overweight and
obese” - high BMI, high skinfolds. Characteristics of subjects in each classification of
obese were compared in terms of selected bony dimensions, relative fat distribution,
and somatotype.

Hypothesis lb) There are significant differences in relative fat distribution'and
physique between FN and EA Canadians.
Analyses:

Within age/sex groups, the TER, an indicator of relative subcutaneous fat
distribution, and the WHR, an indicator of central/peripheral fat distribution, were
compared between FN and EA subjects within age/sex groups using ANCOVA, with
age as a covariate.

Heath-Carter anthropometric somatotypes were compared using the protocol of
Cressie et a1. (1986), which involves three steps. Since somatotype is a three
component index, each component should not be considered as a separate variable.
The first step in the analysis was to perform an overall MANCOVA between the groups

with age as a covariate. For those comparisons demonstrating a significant

50

MANCOVA, univariate F-tests were performed to determine which components were
contributing to the significant difference. Finally, for those groups demonstrating a
significant MAN COVA, a forward discriminant function analysis was performed to
determine which somatotype components best distinguish between the two groups.
1c) There are no differences in stature and other skeletal dimensions between FN and
EA Canadians.

Analyses:

Stature, sitting height, the SSR, the HSR, and skeletal dimensions were
compared between FN and EA subjects within age/sex groups using ANCOVA, with
age as the covariate.

Anthropometric z-scores were calculated for stature and the SSR using
reference data from Health and Welfare Canada (1980). Additionally, z-scores were
calculated for stature and the SSR among FN subjects using First Nation reference data
from Health and Welfare Canada (1980). Differences in anthropometric z-scores
between FN and EA subjects, and between males and females were assessed using
independent samples t-tests.

HmhcaiLZ

Secular trends in body size are evident in FN and EA Canadians.

Hypothesis 211) There are significant secular increases in stature, mass and the BMI
in FN and EA Canadians.

Analyses:

This hypothesis was tested two ways. First, comparisons of stature among
several samples collected in Canada over the last 35 years were made. Second, the
approach of Himes and Mueller (1977a) was used for an internal analysis of statural
changes within the FN and EA samples. The technique of Himes and Mueller involves
two steps. The first step was to estimate statural losses due to aging, which was

accomplished by regressing stature on age, controlling for subischial length (SIL). The

51

partial regression coefficient was retained as the shrinkage factor. Stature of all
individuals aged 30 years and older was adjusted by the shrinkage factor. Age 30 was
chosen as the age representing maximal stature as some growth may occur into the mid-
twenties, especially in males (Trotter and Gleser, 1951; Hertzoget al., 1969). The
second step was to regress the adjusted stature estimates on age, and then to use the
regression coefficient as an estimate of the secular change.

An internal secular trend analysis of body mass and the BMI was not possible
due to the natural tendency for these variables to increase with age. This hypothesis
was tested by comparison of body mass and the BMI among several samples in Canada
over the last 35 years.

HaunthcsiLl

There is significant familial resemblance in body size, physique and indicators of
health-related fitness in FN and EA Canadians.

Hypothesis 3a) There is significant familial resemblance in body size, physique and
indicators of health-related fitness in FN and EA Canadians.

Analyses:

The assessment of familial resemblance in the traits of interest was approached
using correlation and regression analyses. The following four approaches were used:
1) Intraclass sibling correlations were computed using the ANOVA procedures of
Donner and Koval (1980, see also Donner and Eliasziw, 1991). This analysis was
limited to 106 sibships with at least 2 siblings. The following summarizes the ANOVA:

 

 

 

 

Sum of Mean -
Scarce df SQW F
Between
Sibships n -1 888 M88 MSB/MSW
Within
..Sihshins J- n SSW MSW
where

n is the number of sibships,

52

k = 2k. , the total numur of observations.

18]

The ANOVA estimator of the sibling correlations is defined as:

g MSB-MSW
MSB+(lr.-1)MSW ’

 

r1...

where
1 1"
k.=—k—— k2.
n_1( k; .1

2) Pearson interclass spousal correlations were computed between each set of parents.
3) Pearson interclass parent-offspring correlations were computed between each parent
and offspring in the following combinations: father-son, father-daughter, father-
offspring, mother-son, mother-daughter, and mother-offspring using the pairwise
estimator method (Donner, 1979).

4) The regression of offspring on mid-parent (mother + father / 2) values was done to
estimate heritability (h’). Using this approach the regression coefficient is the estimator
of h’. It must be noted that the regression coefficient obtained is not directly
comparable to the correlation coefficients obtained using the previous approaches.
Hypothesis 3b) Estimated heritabilities for strength and flexibility are greater after
body morphology is factored into the analyses as a covariate.

Analyses:

Estimates of familial aggregation for grip strength and heritability were
computed as described above. Age-adjusted grip strength and flexibility scores were
then adjusted for body mass, stature, and the BMI independently using regression
procedures. The amount of variability accounted for by age, body mass, stature, and
the BMI on grip strength and flexibility using regression techniques is presented in
Table 3.12. The four estimates of familial aggregation were then recalculated using the
values adjusted for body size.

CHAPTER IV
RESULTS

Introduction

The results are presented in two sections. The first section presents descriptive
statistics for the sample and comparisons with reference data, while the subsequent
section presents results of analyses related to specific hypotheses.

For descriptive purposes, the sample was divided into the following sex-
specific age groups: 5-9, 10-14, 15-19, 20-29, 30-39, 40—49, 50-59, 60—69, and 70-75
yrs. The age groups were chosen to correspond With those used in national Canadian
surveys (Health and Welfare Canada, 1980; Fitness Canada, 1983, 1985, 1986).
However, for the statistical analyses, the sample could not be broken down into the
same age categories due to insufficient numbers in the Fust Nation group. The age
groups used in the analyses were 5-19 years and 20-75 years and age was incorporated
into each analysis as a covariate.

Descriptive Statistics

Tables 4.1 through 4.7 present descriptive anthropometric data for all variables
measured and derived. Tables 4.8 and 4.9 present sample sizes, means and standard
deviations for the health-related fitness measures. These data are presented for
descriptive purposes and are compared to the most recently available reference data for
Canada, andattimestoU.S. datawhentherearenocorrespondingreferencedatafor
Canadians.

53

Stature

Stature was compared to Canadian reference data from the Canada Fitness
Survey (Fitness Canada. 1985, 1986). Stature of EA and FN males 5-19 years is
presented in Figures 4.1 and 4.2. Stature is between the 10th and 90th percentiles until
about ages 10-12 years, when it appears to increase relative to the reference values in
EAmales,andapproximatesthemedianinFNmales. 5-yearagegroupmeans
approximate the reference mdians (Figure 4.3 and 4.4).

Stature of EA and FN males reaches a peak between ages 20-25 and then
slowly declines throughout adulthood (Figures 4.5 and 4.6). Adult 10-year age group
means fall between the 50th and 90th percentiles. Mean stature of EA and FN females
track at the 50th percentile throughout adulthood, and the distribution of statures
overlaps the reference data (Figures 4.7 and 4.8).

Body Mass

Body mass was compared to Canadian reference data from the Canada Fitness
Survey (Fitness Canada, 1985, 1986). Body mass in BA males 5-19 years follows the
same pattern as stature (Figure 4.9). It approximates the 50th percentile tmtil about age
10-12 and then begins to climb relative to the reference data. F'N males are heavy
relative to the reference data throughout childhood (Figure 4.10).

The body mass ofEA and FN females 5-19 years (Figures 4.11 and 4.12)
generally approximates the 50th percentile in EA females until about age 10-12 when
variability increases. Body mass in FN females generally falls between the 10th and
90th percentiles.

Body mass remains high throughout adulthood in EA and FN males, with 10-
year age group means generally between the 50th and 90th percentiles of the reference
data (Figures 4.13 and 4.14). Similarly, 10-year age group means for body mass in
BA females track between the 50th and 90th percentiles (Figure 4.15). The body

55

masses of FN females are high relative to the reference data, with lO—year age group
means approximating the 90th percentiles throughout adulthood (Figure 4.16).
Sitting Height

Sitting height was compared to reference data from the U.S. for children and
youth (Hamill et al., 1973; Malina et al., 1974) and from the Nutrition Canada Survey
for adults (Health and Welfare Canada, 1980). Sitting height in BA and FN males 5-19
years follows the same trend as stature (Figures 4.17 and 4.18). The 5—year age group
means generally approximate the reference medians, but sitting height increases relative
to the reference in BA males after about age 12. Sitting height of EA females 5-19
years follows reference medians, whereas 5-year age group means in FN females 5- 19
years are between the 50th and 90th percentiles (Figures 4.19 and 4.20).

The distribution of sitting heights in adult EA and FN males overlaps the
distribution of the reference data, and values decrease throughout adulthood (Figures
4.21 and 4.22). Similarly, sitting height in adult EA and FN females approximates the
reference medians (Figures 4.23 and 4.24).

Subischial Length

Estimated leg length (SIL) was compared to reference data from the U.S. for
children and youth (Hamill et al., 1973; Malina et al., 1974). In all age and sex
groups, SIL approximates the reference medians throughout childhood and
adolescence, but in EA males, SIL climbs relative to the reference in late adolescence
(Figures 4.25 through 4.28). I
Sitting Height/Stature Ratio

The sitting height/stamre ratio (SSR) was compared to reference data from the
U.S. for children and youth (Hamill et al., 1973; Malina et al., 1974) and from the
Nutrition Canada Survey for adults (Health and Welfare Canada, 1980). A significant
number of EA and FN males 5-19 years fall below the 10th percentile for SSR,

indicating that they are relatively long-legged compared to the reference (Figures 4.29

56

and 4.30). The 5-year age group means fall between the 10th and 50th percentiles.
Figures 4.31 and 4.32 present corresponding data for the SSR in EA and FN females
5-19 years. In EA females, 5-year age group means are between the 10th and 50th
percentiles, and they are slightly higher in FN females, although there is considerable
variability in the data.

Throughout adulthood, lO-year age group means for SSR are below the 50th
percentile in BA males (Figure 4.33). There is considerable variability in the SSR of
FN males 20-75 years; however, lO-year age group means approximate the median
(Figure 4.34). The 10-year age group means for SSR in EA and FN females tend to
fall between the 10th and 50th percentiles throughout adulthood, although the
distributions overlap the reference data (Figures 4.35 and 4.36).

Arm Muscle Area

Estimated arm muscle area (AMA) was compared to U.S. reference data for
Whites from NHANES I and II (Frisancho, 1990). AMA in BA and FN males 5-19
years approximates the reference medians (Figures 4.37 and 4.38). Similarly, 5-year
AMA means in EA and FN females 5-19 years also approximate the medians (Figures
4.39 and 4.40).

The AMA of adults is presented in Figures 4.41 through 4.44. In all sex/ethnic
groups, the distribution of AMAs overlaps the distribution of the reference data.
Similarly, 10-year age group means in all sex/ethnic groups approximate the reference
medians.

BMI

The BMI was compared to U.S. reference data from NHANES II (Najjar and
Rowland, 1987). In EA males 5-19 years, the distribution of the BMI is bimodal, with
many subjects between the 10th and 50th percentiles, and many individuals at the upper
extreme of the distribution, >90th percentile (Figure 4.45). Similarly, the BMI of FN
males 5-19 years is generally between the 10th and 90th percentiles, with some subjects

57

exceeding the 90th percentile (Figure 4.46). With few exceptions, the BMI of EA
females 5-19 years falls between the 10th and 90th percentiles of the reference data, and
5-year age group means approximate the median (Figure 4.47). FN females 5-19 years
also demonstrate a distribution of the BMI that extends from the. 10th percentile to
>90th percentile (Figure 4.48).

There are a significant number of EA males 20-75 years with a BMI >90th
percentile throughout the age range (Figure 4.49). FN 20-75 years are also heavy,
with lO-year age group means falling between the 50th and 90th percentiles (Figure
4.50). The BMI of adult EA females follows the same pattern as adult EA males; 10-
yearagegroupmeansarebetweenthe 50thand90thpercentiles,andtherearealarge
number of people with a BMI >90th percentile (Figure 4.51). Similarly, FN females
20—75 years are also heavy, with lO-year age group means falling between the 50th and
90th percentiles (Figure 4.52).

Triceps Skinfold

The triceps skinfold was compared to U.S. reference data from NHANES II
(Najjar and Rowland, 1987). The distribution of the triceps skinfold in EA males 5-19
years overlaps that of the reference data, with values ranging from <10th to >90th
percentile. Similarly, 5-year age group means fall between the 50th and 90th
percentiles (Figure 4.53). FN males 5-19 years also have triceps skinfolds which
generally fall between the 10th and 90th percentiles for ages 5-19 years (Figure 4.54).
Note that the 10th and 50th percentiles of the reference data are relatively stable;
however, the 90th percentiles vary with age in males 5-19 years. As in males, the
distribution of the triceps skinfold in EA females approximates the distribution of the
referencedata,andthoseofFNfemalesaregenerallywithinthe10thand90th
percentiles (Figures 4.55 and 4.56).

Adult lO-year age-group means for the triceps skinfold approximate the
reference medians throughout adulthood in EA males and females (Figures 4.57 and

58

4.59). Although the distribution of the triceps skinfold of FN males and females
overlaps the reference distribution, 10-year age group means tend to fall above the
medians (Figures 4.58 and 4.60).

Subscapular Skinfold .

The subscapular skinfold was compared to U.S. reference data from NHANES
II (N ajjar and Rowland, 1987). The distribution of the subscapular skinfold in both
EA and FN males is bimodal in the 5-19 year age group, with most of the sample
falling between the 10th and 90th percentiles, and another group falling above the 90th
percentile (Figures 4.61 and 4.62). The distribution of subscapular skinfolds in BA
females is similar to that of EA males, such that it is skewed towards the upper
extremes (Figure 4.63). The subscapular skinfolds of FN females generally fall
between the 10th and 90th percentiles of the reference data (Figure 4.64).

In adulthood, 10-year age group means for the subscapular skinfold are
between the 50th and 90th percentiles for EA and FN males, with a large number of
subjects above the 90th percentile (Figures 4.65 and 4.66). Although the distributions
of the subscapular skinfold overlap the reference distributions, adult EA and FN female
10-year age group means are between the 50th and 90th percentiles of the reference data
(Figures 4.67 and 4.68).

Grip Strength

Combined grip strength (right-Heft grip) was compared to reference data from
the Canada Fitness Survey (Fitness Canada, 1985, 1986). There is a linear relationship
between grip strength and age in males and females 5-19 years, and no apparent
differences between EA and FN children. Values approximate the medians of the
reference data in all sex/ethnic groups (Figures 4.69 through 4.72).

Amongadults,10-yearagegroupmeansinEAmalesareabovethe50th
percentile, whereas corresponding means of FN males are below the 50th percentile,
with the exception of the 20-29 year age group (Figures 4.73 and 4.74). In contrast,

59

means for EA and FN adult females are above the 50th percentile and the distributions
overlap considerably (Figures 4.75 and 4.76).
Trunk Flexibility

Trunk flexibility was compared to reference data from the Canada Fitness
survey (Fitness Canada, 1985, 1986). There is no apparent relationship of flexibility
with age, and values generally fall between the 10th and 90th percentiles of the
reference data for children 5-19 years (Figures 4.77 through 4.80) .

The distributions of trunk flexibility in adults overlap the distributions of the
reference data, and both EA and FN 10-year age group means approximate the 50th
percentile throughout adulthood (Figures 4.81 through 4.84). There are no apparent
differences in the distribution of flexibility scores among EA and FN groups.

Sit-ups

The number of sit-ups performed in 60 seconds was compared to reference data
from the Canada Fitness Survey (Fitness Canada, 1985, 1986). The number of sit-ups
increases with age in both males and females, and the distributions of EA and FN
children overlap considerably (Figures 4.85 through 4.88). Compared to the reference
data, EA and FN children perform poorly, with 5-year age group means falling
between the 10th and 50th percentiles in all sex/ethnic groups.

Flexed Arm Hang

ThetimedflexedarmhangwascomparedtodatafromtheMichiganState
University Motor Performance Study (Haubenstricker et al., 1991). Performance
increases with age in BA males (Figure 4.89), but does not show a linear trend with age
in FN males (Figure 4.90). In females, the age related increase in the reference data is
not as marked as in the males (Figures 4.91 through 4.92). The distribution of values
in EA and FN females overlaps the distributions of the reference data, and the
distributions of EA and FN children overlap. considerably. Although low, the values of
EA and FN children fall within the range for U.S. (Michigan) children.

60

235-meter Dash

Running speed (m/s) in the 35 meter dash was compared to running speed (m/s)
for a 27.5 ureter dash in the Michigan State University Motor Performance Study
(Haubenstricker et al., 1991). Running speed increases linearly with age in boys and
girls (Figures 4.93 through 4.96). There are no apparent differences between EA and
FN children in speed; however, mean running speed is at or below the 10th percentile
of the reference data in both EA and FN boys and girls.
Standing Long Jump

The standing long jump was also compared to data from the Michigan State
University Motor Performance Study (Haubenstricker et al., 1991). Performance
increases linearly with age in BA and FN boys and girls, but the s10pes vary (Figures
4.97 through 4.100). There are no apparent differences between EA and FN children.
Relative to U.S. (Michigan) children, performance of the EA and FN children generally
falls between the 10th and 50th percentiles.

6i

Anthropometric Z-Score Analysis

Anthropometric z-scores indicate that both EA and FN males are tall and heavy
relative to Canadian reference data (Health and Welfare Canada, 1980). Mean z-scores
for stature in males range from 0.42 to 0.98, and those for mass in males range from
0.68 to 1.44 (Table 4.10). Relative to U.S. NHANES II data (N ajjar and Rowland,
1987), male BMIs are also greater, demonstrating mean z-scores ranging from 0.40 to
0.82. Mean z-scores for stature in females are consistently positive and similar in
magnitude as males, ranging from 0.41 to 0.75. Female z-scores for mass are more
variable among age and ethnic groups, ranging from -0.43 in EA females 20-75 years
to 1.11 in FN females 5-19 years. Female BMI z-scores are also similar in direction
and magnitude as males. BMI z-scores range from 0.26 to 0.99 in females. Table 4.10
demonstrates that the SSR is consistently lower than Canadian reference data in all age
and ethnic groups, values ranging from —0. 10 to -0.73, indicating that the subjects have
relatively long lower extremities compared to the reference.

Subcutaneous fatness shows considerable variability in distribution of z-scores
of the triceps and subscapular skinfolds. Triceps skinfold z-scores are similar to those
for the BMI in 5-19 year males (EA 0.45, FN 0.80). In males 20-75 years, triceps z—
scores are lower than in the younger age group (EA 0.13, FN 0.31). Subscapular
skinfold z-scores are also positive in males, ranging from 0.44 in BA 5-19 year males
to 1.47 in FN 5-19 year old males. Among females, triceps skinfold z-scores are low
and positive, whereas subscapular z-scores are positive and greater in magnitude within
each age/sex group.

There are significant ethnic differences in anthropometric z-scores within age
groups. In 5-19 year old males, FN boys are significantly taller, heavier and
demonstrate greater subscapular skinfolds relative to the reference values (p50.05). In
20-75 year old females, the FN sample demonstrates a significantly higher mass, BMI,

62

triceps and subscapular skinfolds, and AMA than the EA sample relative to the
reference (p50.05).

There are also significant sex differences in anthropometric z-scores within age
groups. In the 5-19 year old EA sample, males are significantly taller than females
relative to the reference (pS0.05). In 5-19 year old FN subjects, males have
significantly greater triceps and subscapular skinfolds than females relative to the
reference (p50.05). In the 20-75 year old EA and FN samples, males are significantly
heavier than females relative to the reference (pS0.05).

Anthropometric z-scores of FN adults standardized against Canadian FN
reference data (Health and Welfare Canada, 1980) are presented in Table 4.11. Mean
z-stature in FN males is 0.70 standard deviations above the Canadian national
reference. Similarly, mass in FN males is 1.38 standard deviations above the
reference. In FN females, z-scores for stature and mass are also positive (z-
staturmO.98, z-mass=0.69). The mean z-score for mass in males is significantly
greater than in females (p50.05). There are no sex differences in FN SSR z-scores,
which are zero and negative in both males and females, respectively (males 0.01,
females -0.37).

Caution must be used in interpreting z-scores derived from reference data from
various sources such as above. Secular trends may have occurred between studies
which make interpretation of the absolute values of z-scores difficult. Given that
comparisons within a given trait were made using the same reference, the temporal

trends in the reference data do not play a role in interpreting the results.

63

Secular Trend Analysis for Stature

The regression of stature on age in adults 20-75 years indicates a significant
decrease in stature with age in EA males and females (Table 4.12). Estimated rates of
decrease are 0.21 cm/year in BA males (p<0.001) and 0.10 cm/year in EA females
(p=0.002). The regression coefficients for FN adults, in contrast, are not significant,
suggesting no secular change in stature.

Based on partial regression coefficients for stature on age, controlling for SIL,
shrinkage estimates are significant in BA males and females. Statural loss due to aging
is estimated at 0.12 cm/year in males (p<0.001) and 0.06 cm/year in females
(p<0-001).

After adjustment for shrinkage due to aging, a significant secular trend for
stature is apparent in BA males. Estimated secular increases in stature adjusted for age-
related shrinkage are 1.0 cmldecade in EA males (p<0.005) and 0.4 cmldecade in EA
females (p=0.19, ns).

64

Stature, Skeletal Dimensions and Circumferences

Ethnic Differences

Table 4.13 presents results of the ANCOVAs for differences in stature, skeletal
dimensions and AMA between EA and FN. There are few differences in stature and
skeletal dimensions. Stature, the SSR and AMA are not different in any age and sex
group. Among males 5-19 years, the FN sample demonstrates significantly greater
biacromial breadth and HSR (p50.03). In males 20-75 years, the only significant
difference is biepicondylar breadth, which is greater in the FN sample (p=0.05).

Among females, only the 20-75 year age group demonstrates significant
differences in skeletal dimensions. Bicondylar, biepicondylar, biacromial, and bicristal
breadths, as well as the HSR are greater in FN females (p50.02).
Sex Differences

Males are significantly taller in all age and ethnic groups, except for the 5-19
year FN subjects, where the difference is not significant (Table 4.14). Females
demonstrate higher SSRs than males in all groups; however, only the 20-75 year EA
sample shows a significant difference in the SSR (p<0.001). In all age and ethnic
groups, males have significantly greater biepicondylar, bicondylar and biacromial
breadths than females (p50.05). Bicristal breadth is only greater in males in the 20-75
year EA sample (p=0.003). In all age and ethnic groups, females have a higher HSR
than males, and males have greater estimated AMA (p50.05).
Familial Resemblance

Stature, skeletal dimensions, circumferences, and AMA were examined for
familial resemblance. Intraclass sibling correlations for stature are 0.53 in the total
sample, 0.66 in the EA sample, and 0.79 in the FN sample (p<0.001), indicating
significant aggregation of stature within sibships (Table 4.15). Similarly, sibling
correlations for sitting height, SSR, SIL, biacromial breadth, and AMA also
demonstrate significant aggregation within sibships in the EA, FN, and total sample

65

(p<0.05). Sibling correlations are also significant for all of the other skeletal breadths
and circumferences in the EA and total samples, but not the FN sample (Table 4.15).
The non-significant results in the FN group are probably related to the small samples.

There is no evidence for assortative mating for stature, skeletal dimensions,
circumferences or AMA in this Northern Ontario population. Spousal correlations are
low and generally not significant in both ethnic groups (Table 4.16). Interclass
correlations between parents and offspring are also presented in Table 4.16. In the EA
sample, stature correlations range from 0.29 to 0.43 (pS0.05). The correlations for
stature in the total sample are somewhat lower, and the father-son correlation is not
significant. Familial conelations for stature in the FN sample are low and generally not
significant except for motherodaughter (r--0.51, p50.05) and mother-offspring (tr-0.29,
p50.05) pairs.

Patterns of familial correlations indicate significant familial resemblance in all
skeletal breadths, circumferences and AMA. Significant correlations vary with sample
sizes, as larger correlations are required to reach significance in small samples. This
probably explains the large number of non-significant correlations in the FN sample.

Estimates of heritability based on mid-parent regression indicate that stature,
skeletal breadths, and circumferences are significantly heritable in me EA and total
samples, but not in the FN sample (Table 4.17). AMA does not show significant
heritability in any group. Estimated heritabilities for stature are 0.68 (p<0.001) in the
EA sample and 0.40 (p<0.001) in the total sample. Significant heritabilities range from
0.25 to 0.59 in the total sample for these measurements.

66

Body Mass, Fatness and Relative Fat Distribution
Ethnic Differences

Table 4.18 presents the results of ANCOVAs for differences in body mass,
fatness and fat distribution between EA and FN samples within age and sex groups.
There are several significant differences. In the 5-19 year males, the FN sample has
significantly higher means for SUM, TRUNK. EXTREMITY, TER, and WHR
(p50.05), indicating that they have greater subcutaneous fatness and relatively more
truncal or central subcutaneous fat.

In males 20-75 years, EXTREMITY, TER and WHR are significantly higher in
the FN sample. Other indicators of fatness are also higher in the FN sample; however,
they are not statistically significant due to a large amount of variability and small sample
sizes in the FN sample. The results suggest that FN adult men have a greater
propensity to store subcutaneous fat on the trunk.

In females 5-19 years, FN subjects have a significantly higher TER, indicating
that they store relatively more fat on the trunk than EA females (p=0.006). Adult FN
females differ from EA females in every indicator of fatness and relative fat
distribution. Body mass, BMI, SUM, TRUNK, EXTREMITY, TER and WHR are
significantly higher in FN females than in EA females 20-75 years (p50.05). The
results indicate that FN females 20-75 years have more subcutaneous fatness and a
more central pattern of subcutaneous fat distribution than EA females.

Sex Differences

Table 4.19 presents the results of the ANCOVAs for differences in body mass,
fatness, and relative fat distribution between males and females within age and ethnic
groups. In the 5-19 year EA sample, females have significantly higher means for
EXTREMITY and SUM, indicating that they are storing more subcutaneous fat than

males, possibly due to adolescent loss of fatness on the extremities in males.

67

EA males 20-75 years are heavier and have a greater BMI than females;
however, females have higher values for SUM, EXTREMITY and TRUNK, indicating
greater subcutaneous fatness. Similarly, FN females 20-75 years are lighter than
males, and they have higher means for SUM, TRUNK and EXTREMITY (p50.002).

In every age and ethnic group, males have significantly higher TERs and
WHRs than females. The results indicate that males accumulate proportionally more
subcutaneous fat on the trunk than the extremities than females.

Familial Resemblance

There is significant aggregation of fatness and relative fat distribution within
sibships (Table 4.20). In the EA and total samples, significant intraclass sibling
correlations are evident for all indicators of fatness and relative fat distribution.
Correlations range from 0.40 to 0.57 in the EA sample, and from 0.13 to 0.38 in the
total sample. In the FN group, indicators of fatness do not aggregate within sibships;
however, indicators of relative fat distribution show significant intraclass correlations,
0.25 for the TER and 0.50 for the WHR (pS0.05).

There is also significant familial resemblance in fatness and relative fat
distribution between generations (Table 4.21). There does not appear to be assortative
mating for body mass, fatness or relative fat distribution in this sample. Spousal
correlations are low and not significant for all variables. Significant parent-ofi‘spring
correlations range from 0.20 to 0.57. All variables, with the exception of the WHR,
demonstrate significant father-offspring and mother-offspring correlations in the EA
sample, and with the exception of TRUNK and WHR in the father-offspring
correlations, all correlations are significant for father-offspring and mother-offspring in
the total sample. Correlations in the FN sample are low and rarely reach significance
probably due to small sample sizes. It appears as though there are several spurious
negative correlations, particularly in the father-son category which has only 10 pairs of
FN subjects.

68

Heritability estimates from regression of offspring on mid-parent values are
presented in Table 4.22. The estimates in the FN sample are generally low and none
are significant. With the exception of the WHR, all heritability estimates are significant
in the EA and total samples (p50.003). Estimates of h2 range from 0.30 to 0.45 in the
EA sample and from 0.25 to 0.42 in the total sample.

Prevalence of Obesity

The prevalence of obesity using the BMI and triceps skinfold as criteria are
presented in Table 4.23. Prevalence of obesity using the BMI is higher in FN subjects
of all age and sex groups, ranging from 29.4% in FN females 5-19 years to 58.8% in
FN females 20-75 years. However, the prevalence of obesity using the BMI is also
high in the EA sample, ranging from 16.9% in BA females 5-19 years to 39.0% in EA
males 20-75 years. The prevalence of obesity, based on the triceps skinfold, is highest
in females 20-75 years. Prevalences of obesity based on the triceps skinfold range
from 11.8% in FN females 5-19 years to 47.1% in FN females 20-75 years.

The prevalences of obesity based on the triceps alone (TSF Obese), the BMI
alone (BMI Obese), and the triceps and BMI together (TSF+BMI Obese). are also
presented in Table 4.23. Estimated prevalences of TSF Obesity range fiom 0.0% in
FN females 5-19 years to 8.5% in EA females 5-19 years. In contrast, the estimated
prevalences of BMI Obesity range from 2.7% in BA males 5-19 years to 40.0% in FN
males 20-75 years. Estimated prevalences of TSF+BMI Obesity range from 10.2% in
BA females to 43.1% in FN females 20-75 years.

Prevalences of obesity differ significantly between EA and FN females 20-75
years. The estimated prevalences are higher in the FN sample (pS0.05) for triceps
independently, the BMI independently, and TSF+BMI Obese (Table 4.23).

Differences between adult subjects classified as BMI Obese and TSF-t-BMI
Obese are presented in Table 4.24. There were insufficient numbers in the 5-19 year
old groups to make comparisons. Also, there were too few subjects classified as TSF

69

Obese to compare to the other groups. In all sex and ethnic groups except EA females,
BMI Obese subjects have greater TERs than the TSF+BMI Obese (pS0.05). In all
groups, except FN males, there were significant somatotype differences between the
groups classified as obese by different criteria. In general, endomorphy is greater in
the TSF+BMI Obese group, and in the EA sample, mesomorphy is greater and
ectomorphy is lower in the TSF+BMT Obese sample. In EA males, the TSF-t-BMI
Obese group has a greater mean biepicondylar breadth, while both EA male and female
TSF+BMI Obese have greater bicondylar breadths.

70

Physique
Ethnic Differences

There are significant differences in Heath-Carter anthropometric somatotypes
between FN and EA subjects (Table 4.25). Significant MANCOVAs, with age as the
covariate, are apparent for males 5-19 years (p=0.002), and 20-75 years (p=0.04), and
for females 20-75 years (p<0.001). The MANCOVA for females 5-19 years is not
significant (p=0. 10).

Results of the univariate somatotype component F-tests for pairwise
comparisons are also presented in Table 4.25. In males 5-19 years, FN subjects are
significantly more endomorphic than the EA subjects (p=0.004). In males 20—75 years,
endomorphy (p=0.03) is significantly greater and ectomorphy (p=0.01) is significantly
lower in the FN sample. In 20-75 year old females, endomorphy (p<0.001) and
mesomorphy (p=0.001) are significantly greater, and ectomorphy (p<0.001) is
significantly less in the FN sample. Although not significant, somatotype differences
between EA and FN females 5-19 years are in the same direction as in the other age and
sex groups (greater endomorphy).

Forward discriminant function analyses indicate that endomorphy is the most
important discriminator between FN and EA subjects in all age and sex groups,
entering the analysis fust in all groups (Table 4.26). In males 5-19 years and females
20-75 years, ectomorphy enters the analysis as the second most important
discriminator, followed by mesomorphy. In males 20-75 years and females 5-19
years, mesomorphy enters second, followed by ectomorphy.

Sex Differences

Somatotypes of males and females differ in both the EA and FN samples.
Table 4.27 presents the results of the overall MANCOVAs for sex differences, which
are determined for all age and ethnic groups (pS0.004). Table 4.27 also presents the
results of pairwise comparisons for somatotype component differences between males

71

and females. EA males 5- 19 years and 20-75 years are significantly less endomorphic
and significantly more mesomorphic than females (p50.003). FN males 5-19 years are
significantly more mesomorphic than females (p=0.02), and FN females 20-75 years
are significantly more endomorphic than males (p<0.001).

The results of forward discriminant function analyses for discriminating
between males and females are presented in Table 4.28. In the EA sample,
endomorphy is the most important discriminator, followed by mesomorphy and
ectomorphy in both age groups. Similar results are evident in the 20-75 year FN
sample; however, in the 5-19 year age group, the best discriminator is mesomorphy,
followed by endomorphy and ectomorphy.

Familial Resemblance

Intraclass sibling conelations indicate significant aggregation of somatotype
within sibships (Table 4.29). The EA sample demonstrates significant correlations for
mesomorphy (rim=0.57, p<0.001) and ectomorphy (rm=0.55, p<0.001), whereas the
correlation for endomorphy is not significant (rim=0.07, p=0.374). The total sample
follows a similar pattern; rim=0.29 for mesomorphy (p<0.001) and rim=0.27 for
ectomorphy (p<0.001), and rm=0.07 for endomorphy (p=0.171). The FN
correlations are IOWCI’ in magnitude and not significant.

Spousal and parent-offspring interclass correlations for somatotype are
presented in Table 4.30. Spousal correlations are low and not significant, indicating no
assortative mating for somatotype. Only 8, 2, and 9 of 18 parent-offspring correlations
are significant in the EA, FN and total samples, respectively. Significant correlations
range from 0.20 to 0.49 across all samples. Correlations in the FN sample are
generally of the same magnitude as in the EA sample; however, correlations are not

significant due to small samples (9-34 pairs). Significant correlations do not follow an

apparent pattern.

72

Heritability estimates based on mid-parent regression indicate significant
familial resemblance in somatotype in the EA and total samples (Table 4.31).
Heritability estimates in the FN sample are low and not significant, probably due to
small sample sizes. For endomorphy, h2=0.27 inthe EA sample (p=0.027) and
h’=0.26 in the total sample (p=0.022). Similarly, h2=0.34 in the EA sample
(p=0.001) and h2=0.24 in the total sample (p=0.012) for mesomorphy. Heritability

estimates for ectomorphy are slightly lower and not significant.

73

Grip Strength, Trunk Flexibility and Motor Fitness

Ethnic Differences

There are few differences between EA and FN subjects in grip strength, trunk
flexibility and motor fitness (Table 4.32). The only age and sex group which shows
significant differences is males 20-75 years. Adult EA males are stronger in both right
and left grip strength, and are more flexible in the lower trunk than FN males (p50.02).
Sex Differences

Males and females of European and FN ancestry consistently differ in grip
strength and flexibility (Table 4.33). Males in all age and ethnic groups are
significantly stronger than females in grip strength (p50.03). On the other hand, EA
and FN males 20—75 years are not as flexible as females of the same age (p50.05).
Familial Resemblance .

Intraclass sibling correlations for strength and flexibility are presented in Table
4.34. With the exception of flexibility in the EA sample, all variables demonstrate
significant aggregation within sibships. Sibling correlations for right grip strength are
0.36, 0.30 and 0.28 in the EA, FN and total samples, respectively (p50.02).
Similarly, sibling correlations for left grip strength are 0.49, 0.26, and 0.25 in the EA,
FN and total samples, respectively (p50.04). Sibling correlations for flexibility are
0.27 and 0.15 in the FN and total samples (p50.03). The correlation is of similar
magnitude in the EA sample (rim=0. 16); however, it was not significant (p=0.21).

Spousal correlations for grip strength and flexibility are low and not significant
(Table 4.35), indicating no assortative mating for these variables. Generally, parent-
offspring correlations indicate significant familial resemblance between generations for
grip strength and flexibility (Table 4.35). In the total sample, 16 of 18 correlations are
significant and range from 0.00 to 0.48. There is no apparent pattern to the

correlations; however, due to small sample sizes in the FN group, few correlations are

significant.

74

Table 4.36 presents heritability estimates based on regression of offspring on
mid-parent values. Grip strength and flexibility are significantly heritable in all
samples. Estimates of h2 for right grip are 0.28, 0.62, and 0.34 for the EA, FN and
total samples, respectively (pS0.03). For left grip, h2 estimates are 0.29, 0.57 and
0.36 for the EA, FN and total samples respectively (p50.03). Heritabilities for
flexibility are 0.49, 0.38 and 0.49 for the EA, FN and total samples, respectively

(p<0.001).

75

Interrelationships Among Body Size, Fatness,
Physique and Health-Related Fitness

Body Size, Fatness and Health-Related Fitness

Table 4.37 presents first order partial correlations between indicators of body
size and fatness, and motor fitness, controlling for age. In all age groups, body size
(stature, mass and the BMI) is positively associated with right and left grip strength;
larger people are stronger. SUM is consistently positively related to right and left grip
strength. but the association only reaches statistical significance in 20-75 year males
and 5-19 year females (p50.05). Correlations between body size, fatness and
flexibility are generally negative, and are significant in females 20-75 years.

Correlations among body size, fatness and motor fitness in males and females
5-19 years are variable in magnitude and follow few patterns. In males, all indicators
of body size and fatness are negatively associated with the flexed arm hang but
correlations in females are not consistent. In both sexes, SUM is negatively related to
distance covered in the standing long jump (p50.05). Body mass, the BMI and the
TER are also negatively related to the standing long jump in females (pS0.05).
Correlations for the 35-meter dash show different results for males and females.
Indicators of fatness and relative fat distribution are negatively related to time to cover
35 meters, i.e., positively related to performance in males. In females, indicators of
fatness and relative fat distribution are significantly positively related to the time to
cover 35 meters, i.e., negatively related to performance.
Physique and Health-Related Fitness

Third-order partial conelations between somatotype components and fitness
measures, controlling for age and the other two somatotype components are given in
Table 4.38. Significant correlations appear only sporadically in the table, with few
patterns apparent. Mesomorphy is positively related to right and left grip strength in all
age and sex groups, with correlations ranging from 0.20 to 0.35 (pS0.05).

76

Endomorphy is negatively related to flexibility, demonstrating significant correlations in
three of the four age and sex groups. Correlations between endomorphy and flexibility
are -0.17 (as) in males 5-19 years, -0.20 (p50.05) in males 20-75 years, —0.37
(p50.05) in females 5-19 years, and -0.30 (pS0.05) in females 20-75 years.
Endomorphy is also negatively related to right and left grip strength in females 20-75
years, r=-0.17 and =-0.15, respectively (p50.05).

In the 5-19 year group, endomorphy is negatively related to the number of sit-
ups performed in 60 seconds. Correlations between endomorphy and sit-ups are -0.31
in males and —0.35 in girls (p50.05). There are no other trends apparent in the analysis
of motor fitness.
Body size and Familial Resemblance in Grip Strength and Flexibility

Table 4.39 presents the results of analyses aimed at investigating the effect of
incorporating body size into familial analyses of grip strength and flexibility. Intraclass
sibling correlations do not increase once the effects of body size (mass, stature or BMI)
are controlled using regression techniques. In the case of flexibility, the intraclass
correlations decrease below the level of significance once body size is accounted for.
An examination of parent—offspring correlations reveals that incorporating body size
into the analyses has little effect on the magnitude of the familial resemblance.
Similarly, heritability estimates based on regression of offspring on mid-parent values
are not improved by the incorporation of body size in the regression.

CHAPTER V
DISCUSSION

Introduction

The results indicated significant differences between Canadians of First Nation
(FN) and European (EA) ancestry, and significant familial resemblance in body size
and indicators of health-related fitness. This chapter discusses the results in terms of
stature and skeletal dimensions; fatness and relative fat distribution; physique; grip
strength and flexibility, and the interrelationships among body size, fatness, physique
and familial resemblance in health-related fitness. Due to small numbers in the FN
sample, familial correlations were generally not significant for most variables.
Likewise, differences in familial resemblance between EA and FN could not be
determinedduetosmall numbersintheFNgroup,althoughtheredidnotappcartobe
any differences in EA and FN correlations. Therefore, the discussion focuses on
familial resemblance in the total combined sample of EA and FN.

Stature and Skeletal Dimensions

Phenotypic Comparisons

Stature did not differ among EA and FN subjects within age and sex groups.
Also, z-scores for stature indicated no differences between EA and FN subjects relative
to reference data. An examination of the distribution of stature by age in males and
females did not demonstrate any apparent differences between EA and FN groups;
however, the stature of EA males and females increased relative to the reference data in
late adolescence into early adulthood. As expected, males of all age and ethnic groups

were significantly taller than females. The results are consistent with the findings of
77

78

several studies which indicate that stature of Aboriginal North Americans is not
significantly different from the general population (Table 2.1).

There were few differences in skeletal dimensions between EA and FN
subjects. The exception is the 20-75 year old females who had significantly greater
biacromial, bicristal, bicondylar, and biepicondylar breadths than EA females (Table
4.13), indicating that there were ethnic differences in skeletal robusticity. Perhaps the
greater adiposity and BMI of the FN females has had an effect on the skeleton. Adult
FN females Males generally had greater skeletal breadths than females who had
significantly greater HSRs than males of all ages. Additionally, there were no
significant sex differences in bicristal breadth, with the exception of EA adults, in
whom males had a greater mean than females (Table 4.14). These results are consistent
with findings that males have broader shoulders than females, relative to the hips, but
absolute hip breadths are not different between the sexes (Malina and Bouchard, 1991).
Familial Resemblance

Several studies have indicated significant positive assortative mating for stature
based on spousal correlations (Tables 2.3 and 2.4). However, spousal correlations
were low and not significant in the present study (Table 4.16). Spousal correlations for
stature in the CFS were 0.43 (Perusse etal., 1988), while in a sample from Montreal,
spousal correlations were 0.25 (Annest et al., 1983). Correlations of a similar
magnitude have been reported for samples from the U.S. (Ramirez, 1993; Rotimi and
Cooper, 1995, Heller et al., 1984; Malina et al., 1976). The spousal correlation for
stature in the present sample (r=-0.01) is similar in magnitude to the value of 0.06
reported for Black Americans from Philadelphia (Malina ct al., 1976).

The pattern of correlations among relatives indicates that both genetic and
environmental factors are important in explaining familial resemblance in stature. The
intraclass sibling correlation for stature is higher (r=0.53) than parent-offspring
correlations, which range from 0.16 to 0.37 (Tables 4.15 and 4.16), indicating that the

79

shared family environment is important in the familial aggregation of stature. The
estimated heritability based on offspring-midparcnt regression is 0.40, while the parent-
offspring correlations are significant (with the exception of father-son), indicating that
genetic factors are also probably important.

Spousal similarities in skeletal dimensions and circumferences are rarely
reported; however, sibling and parent-offspring conelations suggest genetic factors are
important in explaining the phenotypic variability in these traits (Tables 2.5 and 2.6).
The sibling correlation for sitting height in the present study (r=0.47) is similar to those
reported for Belgians (#040; Susanne, 1975), U.S. Whites (0.34 to 0.61; Mueller
and Malina, 1980), and U.S. Blacks (0.39 to 0.61; Mueller and Malina, 1980).
Similarly, sibling correlations for skeletal breadths fall within the range of those
reported in Table 2.6. Parent-offspring correlations for skeletal dimensions and
circumferences also fall within the range of values reported in other studies. The
magnitude of sibling and parent-offspring correlations are similar, which makes it
difficult to speculate about genetic and environmental influences on these traits.

80

Fatness and Relative Fat Distribution
Phenotypic Comparisons

EA and FN subjects differed significantly in fatness and relative fat distribution
phenotypes. Generally, FN subjects were fatter and had a more central fat distribution
that EA subjects. The differences between ethnic groups were greatest among adult
females; however, there were differences apparent in each age and sex group. Some
differences were not statistically significant in all groups, but the direction of the
difference was consistent.

FN females 20-75 years had a greater mean body mass than EA females of the
same age, while body mass did not differ between ethnic groups in the other age and
sex groups. A comparison of adult body mass relative to reference data indicated that
FN females were heavy throughout adulthood, tracking at the 90th percentile. These
results suggest that FN females are at increased risk of overweight and/or obesity
during adulthood.

Males generally had less subcutaneous adiposity, but had a greater tendency to
store proportionally more fat on the trunk than females. These differences are.
particularly evident in the adults of both ethnic groups; the trends are also apparent in
the younger age groups, especially for relative fat distribution.

The finding of greater central fat deposition in males is consistent with
observations among the Canadian Inuit and the Siberian nGanasan (Rode and
Shephard, 1995). Similarly, Hall et al. (1991) indicated that mean WHRs among the
Navajo were 0.90 for females and 0.96 for males 2 20 years of age. Corresponding
WHRs in the present study of FN are 0.85 for females and 0.93 for males, indicating a
similar relative fat distribution.

According to anthropometric z-scores in each age and sex group, EA and FN
subjects carried more subcutaneous fat on the trunk versus the extremity relative to
reference data (NHANES II; Najjar and Rowland, 1987). In all groups except FN

81

males 5-19 years, anthropometric z-scores for the triceps skinfold were consistently
lower than those for the subscapular skinfold in each group. The results are somewhat
consistent with the data presented by Johnston ct al. (197 8) for urban Native American
school children, which indicated that Native American females tend to carry
proportionally more subcutaneous fat on the trunk relative to reference data, while boys
do not. In the present sample, both EA and FN groups had higher z-scores for the
subscapular skinfold than for the triceps skinfold.

The TER was compared to values from the Quebec Family Study (QFS) in
Figures 5.1 through 5.4. In EA males and females 5-19 years, mean TERs
approximate the medians from the QFS, whereas FN TERs are higher. Among adults,
the TERs of EA subjects are higher than the QFS values, and FN TERs are higher still.
These comparisons suggest that adults in the present sample have a more central or
truncal subcutaneous fat distribution than the Quebec sample.

There are little North American reference data available for the WHR. The
WHRs of the present sample of adults were compared to a study fi'om France (Tichet ct
al., 1993). In general, the WHRs of EA adults approximated the medians of the
reference data (Figures 5.5 and 5.6), whereas the WHRs of FN adults were between
the 50th and 95th percentiles. In both males and females, FN adults demonstrated
greater WHRs than EA adults, and the difference was more apparent in the females.

The comparisons of relative fat distribution indices to other studies indicate that
the present sample have a proportionally greater amount of subcutaneous fatness on the
trunk than on the extremities. Although males have greater TERs and WHRs than
women, FN adult females appear to deviate the most from reference values.

Familial Resemblance

There is significant familial resemblance for all indicators of fatness and relative

fat distribution, however, spousal correlations for all variables are low and not

significant, ranging from 0.01 to 0.11 (Table 4.21), which suggests that assortative

82

mating for fatness has not occurred, and that the role of the living environment has had
only minimal effects on spousal similarities in fatness and relative fat distribution in this
population. These results are somewhat consistent with the spousal conelations
presented in Table 2.8, which indicate that some populations have significant spousal
correlations and some do not. Possible explanations for this finding include a sexual
division of labor and changing activity patterns in this population. There appears to be
a significant sexual division of labor such that men are occupied in activities which may
be more energy expensive (construction work, guiding etc.), whereas females may be
involved more in less energy expensive activities (housework, clerical professions).
The FN people of Temagami and Bear Island are acculturated and they do not have to
rely on traditional lifeways to survive. The acculturation process has probably resulted
in changing activity patterns in both men and women, such as has been demonstrated in
other populations (Godin and Shephard, 1973). Thus, a sexual division of labor, as
well as perhaps differential effects of acculturation on FN men and women may explain
the lack of significant spousal correlations for fatness.

Intraclass correlations among siblings indicate significant sibship effects. The
magnitude of the correlations are similar across the BMI, SUM and TRUNK; 0.28,
0.23, and 0.29, respectively. The sibling correlation is lower for EXTREMITY, 0.13,
and higher for TER and WHR, 0.38 and 0.37, respectively.

Parent-offspring correlations are generally of similar magnitude as the sibling
correlations. Mother-offspring correlations are the strongest and most significant, but
this may reflect larger sample sizes for mother—offspring than for father-offspring
conelations. Alternatively, the maternal influence on fatness and relative fat
distribution may be greater than the paternal influence. A greater maternal influence
could operate through genetic or environmental pathways, or both. However, there is
no clear evidence from the literature for a specific maternal or paternal effect on fatness
(Bouchard et al., 1997).

83

Correlations for all indicators of fatness are of similar magnitude, but TER and
WHR demonstrate lower correlations. Similarly, heritability estimates based on
offspring mid-parent regressions are higher for fatness indicators than for TER and
WHR. The results suggest that both genetic and environmental effects are important
for the familial aggregation of body fatness. Relative fat distribution may have a greater
influence from the living environment, based on high sibling correlations. The results
for relative fat distribution are not consistent with studies in the literature (Bouchard et
al., 1997). Using the twin model, Selby et al. (1989) indicated that the level of
heritability for central deposition of subcutaneous fat was quite high (0.77). Similarly,
the transmissibility of the TER and the WHR across generations was 37% and 28%,
respectively, in the CFS (Perussc ct al., 1988). Perhaps greater environmental effects
on fatness were operating in the present sample- which increased the familial
resemblance. Such an effect might overshadow a possible greater influence from
genetic factors on fat distribution.

Relative fat distribution is dependent on overall fatness (Garn et al., 1982;
Malina, 1996). In the present study, there was a positive association between SUM
and the TER and WHR which indicated that relative central subcutaneous fat
distribution increased as fatness increased (Table 5.1). With the exception of FN
females (rs-0.32, p<.05), correlations between SUM and indices of relative fat
distribution were generally positive and significant (0.18 to 0.80). The results in the
FN females should be viewed with caution, as this sample is significantly fatter than
any other group studied, and interrelationships among fatness indicators may differ in
the markedly obese. .

Given that there is a relationship between subcutaneous fatness and relative fat
distribution (Table 5.1), family correlations for fat distribution (TER, WHR) were
recalculated after controlling for subcutaneous fatness (SUM) (Table 5.2). With few
exceptions, the recalculated correlations are similar to the original ones. Differences do

34

not follow a pattern. Thus, the use of regression to adjust indicators of relative fat
distribution for the effects of fatness does not appear to affect estimates of familial
aggregation.

The estimate of heritability for body mass is 0.26 based on mid-parent
regression, which is lower than that for stature; however, parent-offspring correlations
for body mass are higher than for stature, ranging from 0.10 to 0.45. The intraclass
sibling correlation for body mass is 0.29, which is lower than the correlation for
stature, and generally lower than the parent-offspring correlations for body mass.
Thus, it appears as though genetic factors are more important than the living
environment in explaining the familial resemblance in body mass.

Prevalence of Obesity

The prevalence of obesity in FN is generally higher than in EA. Among children
and youth 5-19 years, estimated prevalences of obesity (285th percentile age-specific
NHANES II BMI; Najjar and Rowland, 1987) are 2.3% in BA males, 38.1% in FN
males, 16.9% in BA females, and 29.4% in FN females. These prevalences were
greater than those reported by Broussard et al. (1991) among Native American
adolescents: 24.5% in males and 25.0% in females (285th percentile age-specific
NHANES II BMI; Najjar and Rowland, 1987). Based on comparisons to 95th
percentiles of the BMI in the NCHS data set, 11.2% and 12.5% of Navajo girls and
boys, respectively, exceeded the cut-off (Sugarman et al., 1990).

Prevalences of obesity in FN subjects 5- 19 years based on the triceps skinfold
(285th percentile age-specific NHANES II triceps skinfold; Najjar and Rowland, 1987)
were 28.6% in males and 11.8% in females. Corresponding estimates in Cherokee
youth (285th percentile triceps skinfold, Ten State Nutrition Study) were 49.7% in
boys and 31.6% in girls 13-17 years (Story et al., 1986). These statistics are not

directly comparable though as the present sample encompasses a wider age range.

85

Significant differences in the prevalence of obesity were evident only in the 20-
75 year old females. In adult females the estimated prevaleirce of obesity based on the
BMI (BMI 2 27.8 in males and BMI 2 27.3 in females) was 58.8% in the FN and
35.0% in the EA (p=0.002). Corresponding prevalences in adult males were 51.4%
FN and 39.0% BA for the BMI (Table 4.23).

Broussard et al. (1991) estimated that prevalences of overweight (BMI 2 27.8
in males and BMI 2 27.3 in females) in Native American adults 2 18 years at 33.7% in
males and 40.3% in females, which are lower than those estimated in the present study.
The prevalence of overweight among the Navajo (BMI 2 27.8 in males and BMI 2
27.3 in females) was estimated at 30.3% in males and 50.0% in females (Hall et al.,
1991), which is similar for females but lower than that for males in the present study.
Age specific prevalence rates for overweight (BMI 2 27.8 in males and BM] 2 27 .3 in
females) among the Pima ranged from 31% to 78% for males 220 years, and from 48%
to 87% for females 2 20 years (Knowler etal., 1991).

The estimated prevalence of obesity based on the triceps skinfold (triceps
skinfold 2 17.5 mm in males and triceps skinfold 2 29.5 mm in females) was 47.1% in
FN and 29.9% in BA females 20-75 years (p=0.03). Corresponding prevalences in
males were and 17.1% FN and 14.1% EA.

There is considerable variability in the cut-off point used to define
overweight/obesity among studies. Estimated prevalences will vary by the percentile
cut-off used (ex. 85th, 95th percentile) as well as the reference data used to define the
cut-off. Although different criteria were used among studies, the evidence indicates
that Native Americans have a greater prevalence of obesity than the general North
American population.

Studies of the prevalence of overweight among Native groups generally indicate
higher prevalences in females than males (Broussard et al., 1991; Hall et al., 1991;
Knowlcr et al., 1991; McIntyre and Shah, 1986; Young and Sevenhuysen, 1989).

86

Results of the present study indicate that adult FN males have a similar rate of obesity
as females, 51.4% and 58.8%, respectively. This trend is also evident in EA adults.
Males have a rate of 39.0% and the females have a rate of 35.0%. Females 5-19 years
demonstrate lower prevalences of obesity than males of the same ethnic group.

The results suggest that adult males in the present sample are heavy for their
stature, but they are not overly fat, as BMI Obese rates are more than double triceps
obese rates, and TSF+BMI Obese rates are 11.4% FN and 13.0% EA (Table 4.23). In
contrast, adult females are both heavy and fat, as indicated by high prevalences of BMI
Obesity and TSF Obesity, with TSF+BMI Obesity rates of 43.1% FN and 26.0% EA.

Using the classification scheme of Van Italic and Abraham (1985), prevalence
rates of obesity differ by the criteria used, i.e., BMI, triceps skinfold, or both (Table
4.23). There are also morphological differences between adult subjects classified as
obese by the different criteria (Table 4.24). In all sex and ethnic groups except FN
males 20-75 years, BMI Obese subjects have greater TERs than TSF+BMI Obese
(p50.05). In general, endomorphy was also greater in the TSF+BMI Obese group,
and in the EA sample, mesomorphy was greater and ectomorphy was lower in the
TSF+BMI Obese sample. In EA males and females, the TSF+BMI Obese group also
demonstrated greater bicondylar breadths.

Comparisons between TSF Obese and BMI Obese may not be equivalent for
FN and EA groups. Given that FN has a significantly greater truncal subcutaneous fat
distribution, the use of the triceps skinfold to assess obesity may not be valid, and may
underestimate the prevalence. Likewise, the use of the subscapular skinfold may
overestimate the prevalence of obesity in FN groups. A combination of
triceps+subscapular may be the best alternative. A similar question can be raised when
comparing obesity rates between men and women because men have a greater truncal

subcutaneous fat distribution than women.

87

A study among U.S. school children from Philadelphia also demonstrated
differences among subjects classified as obese by similar criteria as used in the present
study (Malina et al., 1989). The TSF+BMI Obese children were heavier and taller, had
greater alrn muscle circumferences, and had greater bicondylar and biepicondylar
breadths than the TSF obese group. The characteristics of the TSF+BMI Obese EA
samples in the present study had greater bicondylar and biepicondylar breadths than the
BMI obese group, but comparisons to a TSF obese group could not be made due to
small numbers.

Physique
Phenotypic Comparisons

The results indicated that FN subjects were significantly more endomorphic
than EA subjects in all groups except 5-19 year old females, in whom differences in
somatotype were small but in the same direction as the other groups (greater
endomorphy). Females were consistently more endomorphic than males within age
groups; however, the somatotype difference was not significant in the FN 5-19 years.
Also, males were significantly more mesomorphic in all age and ethnic groups, except
FN adults, where the difference was small and did not reach significance. Thus, FN
females were the most endomorphic in the present study.

The results are consistent with a study of Alaskan Eskimos which demonstrated
that Eskimo men and women had a physique characterized by high endomorphy and
mesomorphy (Carter and Heath, 1990). Mean adult somatotypes in Eskimos were 3.4-
5.9—1.3 in males and 6.4-4.8-0.8 in females. These data suggest that females are more
endomorphic than males, and that males are more mesomorphic than females. Mean
adult somatotype in this study was 5.2-6.2-1.0 in FN males and 7.4-5.9-0.7 in FN
females. Corresponding values for EA subjects were 4.6-6.014 for males and 6.1-
5.1-1.3 for females.

There are three major sources of comparative somatotype data for Canadians:
the YMCA-LIFE program (Bailey, 1982), the Canada Fitness Survey ( CFS, Perusse
et al., 1988), and the Quebec Family Study (Katzmarzyk et al., 1997; Malina ct al.,
1997). The YMCA-IJFE program was a nation-wide testing program conducted in
1976—78 to characterize the lifestyle and fitness of Canadians (Bailey etal., 1982). A
large sample (13,599 subjects) of Canadians were somatotypcd by the Heath-Carter
anthropometric protocol as part of the YMCA-LIFE program The CFS was conducted
in 1981 and involved collecting anthropometric and fitness data on 13, 804 subjects 7
to 69 years of age from across Canada (Pérusse et al., 1988). The anthropometric

89

battery of the CFS included the dimensions necessary for the calculation of Heath-
Carter anthropometric somatotypes. Phase I of the Quebec Family Study (QFS) was
conducted from 1978-82, which involved collecting anthropometric, activity, dietary,
fitness, and metabolic data on a sample of French Canadian subjects from the Greater
Quebec City area (Bouchard, 1989). Heath-Carter anthropometric somatotype was
assessed as part of the anthropometric battery of the QFS, and the data used in the
analyses of Katzmarzyk et al. (1997) and Malina et al (1997) were reanalyzed according
to the age groups used in the present study for the purpose of providing comparative
data.

Little data have been presented on the somatotypes calculated in the CFS.
Perusse ct al. (1988) present mean somatotypes for the entire CFS sample, from 7 to
69 years of age. The mean somatotypes were 3.6-4.9-2.2 for males and 4.4-4.2—2.1
for females (Perussc et al., 1988). These results compare to mean somatotypes of 4.2-
5.6-1.8 and 5.0-5.7-1.5 for EA and FN males, respectively, and 5.7-4.7-1.7 and 6.7-
5.3—1.3 for EA and FN females, respectively, from 7 to 69 years in the present sample.
The EA sample in the present study is more endomorphic and mesomorphic, and
slightly less ectomorphic than the CFS sample. The FN sample is considerably more
endomorphic and mesomorphic, and less ectomorphic than the CFS sample.

Table 5.3 presents mean Heath-Carter anthropometric somatotypes for this
study, the YMCA-LIFE program (Bailey et al., 1982), and the QFS (Katzmarzyk et al.,
1997; Malina et al., 1997) by age and sex. The QFS group is less endomorphic and
more ectomorphic than the other studies in the 15-19 and 20-29 year age groups;
thereafter the QFS means are similar to those for the YMCA-LIFE program The FN
sample is consistently more endomorphic and mesomorphic, and less ectomorphic than
the other samples, especially in the older age groups. Similarly, the EA group tends to
approximate the means of the YMCA-LIFE program in the 15—19 and 20-29 year age

90

groups; thereafter, the EA sample consistently demonstrates higher endomorphy and
mesomorphy than the other samples, with the exception of the FN.
Familial Resemblance

Spousal correlations for somatotype are uniformly low and not significant,
demonstrating correlations of 0.14 for endomorphy, 0.08 for mesomorphy, and 0.02
for ectomorphy. These are comparable to the spousal correlations of 0.14, 0.10, and
0.12 for endomorphy, mesomorphy, and ectomorphy, respectively, in the CFS
(Pénrssc etal., 1988). Low spousal correlations have also been demonstrated in the
QFS: 0.05, 0.10, and 0.06 for endomorphy, mesomorphy and ectomorphy,
respectively (Song et al., 1993). Corresponding spousal correlations based on
maximum likelihood estimations in a sample from Spain were 0.19, -0.08, and 0.14
for endomorphy, mesomorphy, and ectomorphy, respectively (Sénchez-Andres,
1995): Thus, the available evidence suggests that assortative mating for physique, as
assessed by the Heath-Carter anthropometric somatotype, is quite small; however, there
may be differences among other cultures.

Parent-offspring and sibling correlations are generally higher than spousal
correlations indicating significant familial resemblance in somatotype. Intraclass
correlations within sibships are 0.29 for mesomorphy and 0.27 for ectomorphy,
whereas the correlation for endomorphy was low and not significant. Resemblance
between fathers and sons, based on interclass correlations, was quite low, whereas
mother-daughter correlations for all three somatotype components were significant.
Correlations among fathers and offspring are low and not significant for endomorphy,
while those among mothers and offspring are significant, indicating that there may be a
maternal effect in the transmission of endomorphy between generations. Since
endomorphy generally indicates a preponderance of fatness, the maternal effect could
be explained by cohabitation and the mother’s role in providing nutrition for her
Children, rather than a maternal genetic effect.

91

Parent-offspring correlations in the present study are similar in magnitude to
those reported in the literature (Table 2.9). Parent-offspring correlations in the present
study ranged from 0.00 to 0.45, which compares to ranges of -0.04 to 0.30 in a
Spanish population (Sénchez-Andrés, 1995), 0.15 to 0.41 in the QFS (Song et al.,
1993), and 0.21 to 0.24 in the CFS (Perusse ct al., 1988). Heritability estimates,
based on mid-parent regression, indicate that 18% to 26% of the phenotypic variance in
somatotype is explained by familial factors. Using a path analysis, Perusse et al.

( 1988) indicated that the transmissibility from parents to offspring (cultural and genetic
factors) accounted for between 36% to 45% of the variance in somatotype in the CFS.

The pattern of familial correlations and regressions of offspring on the mid-
parent values indicate that mesomorphy demonstrates the most consistent pattern of
familial resemblance. Parent-offspring correlations for mesomorphy ranged from 0.15
to 0.22, and the intraclass sibling correlation is 0.29, while the regression coefficient
for the offspring-midparent regression was 0.24. The other somatotype components
did not show a consistent pattern of association among relatives. These results are
consistent with those of Song et a1. (1993), which also demonstrated that the familial
aggregation for mesomorphy was the most consistent and strongest of the three
components. Similarly, sanchcz-Andrés ( 1995) demonstrated that parent-offspring
correlations for mesomorphy tended to be greater than for endomorphy or ectomorphy.
Thus, available evidence suggests that familial aggregation for mesomorphy may be
greater than for the other somatotype components; however, the results from the studies

surveyed cannot separate genetic from environmental effects.

92

Grip Strength, Trunk Flexibility and Motor Fitness
Phenotypic Comparisons

The distributions of trunk flexibility and combined grip strength were generally
between the 10th and 90th percentiles of the reference data in all age and sex poups
(Fitness Canada, 1985, 1986). Ten-year age-specific means for combined grip
strength (right + left) in BA males 20-75 years were peatcr than the 50th percentile of
the reference data. Similarly, EA males 20-75 years are significantly stronger than FN
males. All other ethnic comparisons in performance were not significant, with the
exception of males 20-75 years, in which EA males demonstrated greater trunk
flexibility than FN males.

EA and FN children 5-15 years did not differ significantly in sit-ups, flexed arm
hang, 35-mcter dash, and standing long jump. The distributions of performance scores
generally were between the 10th and 50th percentiles of the reference data for both
ethnic groups (Fitness Canada, 1985; Haubenstricker et al., 1991), indicating that the
EA and FN children were not performing as well in these events as children in the
Canada Fitness Survey (sit-ups) and the Michigan State University MotOr Performance
Study (flexed arm hang, dash, and standing long jump). Motor skills are not taught as
part of physical education of the Temagami children which may explain some of the
observed differences between this sample and the reference data.

Given the associations between body size and motor fitness (Malina, 1975,
1994), body morphology in the present sample may help explain the apparent
differences between the EA and FN children and the reference data. There is a positive
association between body size and grip strength (Table 4.37). Since the body size
(stature, mass, BMI) of children in this sample is similar to the children in the Canadian
Fitness Survey (see descriptive results), it seems appropriate that the combined pip
strength is also similar, although there may be dynamometer differences between the
present study and the CFS (Figures 4.69 through 4.72). There is generally a negative

93

association between fatness and performance in events which require the subject to
move the body through space, such as in the dash or standing long jump, or to support
their body mass, as in the flexed arm hang (Malina, 1994). Triceps and subscapular
skinfolds were consistently peatcr than reference data for US. children (N ajjar and
Rowland, 1987), demonstrating anthropometric z-scores ranging from 0.08 to 0.80 for
triceps and 0.39 to 1.47 for subscapular (Table 4.10). Perhaps the peatcr adiposity of
the sample may lead to poorer performance in sit-ups, flexed arm hang, standing long
jump, and the 35-meter dash. These associations are explored in the subsequent
section on body size, fatness, physique and motor fitness.

Familial Resemblance

There was significant agpegation of pip strength and flexibility within
families. Spousal correlations approximated zero, indicating no assortative mating for
these variables. Spousal correlations for grip strength and flexibility in selected studies
are also low (Table 2.10), with the exception of studies from Czechoslovakia (Kovar,
1981) and Poland (Szopa, 1982), which demonstrate spousal correlations of 0.26, and
0.15 to 0.26, respectively, for measures of grip strength. Malina ct al. (1983) also
reported significant spousal correlations for right grip (r=0.29) and left pip (r=0.27) in
a rural Zapotec community; however, second order partial correlations controlling for
the ages of husband and wife were not significant (right pip m—O. 12, left grip r=-
0.04). .

Sibling conelations for pip strength were within the range of correlations
reported in other studies (Table 2.10), and the sibling correlation for flexibility (0.15)
was lower than those reported in a Mennonite community (0.44, Devor and Crawford,
1984) and,in the CFS (0.36, Perusse et al., 1988). Parent-offspring correlations for
grip strength and flexibility were generally significant, and were of similar magnitude to

those reported in selected studies across all variables.

94

Heritability estimates based on the regression of offspring on mid-parent values
were 0.34, 0.36, and 0.49 for right grip, left grip, and flexibility, respectively. These
values compare well with transmissibility estimates of 0.37 for pip strength/body mass
and 0.48 for flexibility in the CFS (Pérussc et al., 1988).

Secular Trends
Stature

There were significant decreases in stature with age in EA males and females,
but not in the FN group. Statural loss due to aging (shrinkage) was estimated at 0.12
cm/year and 0.06 cm/year in BA males and females, respectively. These estimates are
peatcr than those obtained in Colombian women, which were 0.024 cmldecade in a
lower socioeconomic status (SES) group and 0.013 cmldecade in an upper SES poup
. (Dufour et al., 1994). The estimated statural loss due to shrinkage in rural Colombian
women was 0.027 cm/year, whereas that for men was 0.121 cm/year (Himes and
Mueller, 1977a, 1977b). There was also an association between SES and age-related
statural loss in the rural Colombian sample, such that individuals from higher SES lost
stature at a slower rate than those from lower SES (Himes and Mueller, 1977b).
Trotter and Glcscr (1951) estimated an average rate of decline in stature with age of
0.06 cmldecade and suggested that it may be applicable to the general population. The
shrinkage effect in EA females was the same as reported by Trotter and Gleser;
however, the EA males lost stature at twice this rate.

The analysis of secular change in stature indicated that within this sample of
Canadians, there was an estimated secular increase of 1.0 cmldecade (p<0.05) and 0.4
cmldecade (us) in BA males and females, respectively. Shephard (1986) reviewed
several studies conducted in Canada from 1953 to 1981, and suggested that a secular
trend of approximately 1.0 cmldecade in both males and. females has occurred in
Canada over the past 25 years; however, there may have been some regional variation
(Shephard, 1986). The data also suggested that urban centers in Canada may have

95

experienced a lesser secular gain than rural areas. It must be noted that statistical
analyses of the data were not performed, and conclusions were based on examining
trends in means among studies.

The results of the present study were compared of data collected in 1953 (Pett
and Ogilvie, 1956), 1970-72 (Health and Welfare Canada, 1980), and 1981 (Fitness
Canada, 1983). Figure 5.7 presents the mean statures of Canadian males 5—19 years
from four studies conducted since 1953. It is apparent that stature has increased from
1953 to the present; however, stature in the present study is similar to the 1981 Canada
Fitness Survey, with the exception of late adolescence, where the present sample is
taller. Figure 5.8 presents the results of four studies of adult males conducted since
1953. There is thus a secular increase in stature over time.

Stature among Canadian females folloWs a similar trend as in males. Stature
increases with time among the various studies (Figures 5.9 and 5.10). Among females
5-19 years, the present sample is similar in stature to the 1981 Canada Fitness Survey
(Fitness Canada, 1983), allowing for sampling variation. Adult female stature is ,
peatcr in this study than in any previous Canadian study.

Body Mass

Since body mass has a tendency to increase with age, an internal statistical
analysis of secular changes in body mass was not possible. Age specific means for
body mass in males 5-19 years are presented in Figure 5.11 with corresponding values
from Canadian surveys conducted in 1953 (Pctt and Ogilvie, 1956), 1970-72 (Health
and Welfare Canada, 1980), and 1981 (Fitness Canada, 1983). In general, body mass
has increased from 1953 to the present; however, the age-specific means of the present
study are similar to the 1981 CFS, with the exception of the older age poups, which
are heavier (Fitness Canada, 1983). This trend is similar to that observed for stature in
the same samples. Among adult males, the current sample is heavier than observed in

96

any study in Canada since 1953 (Figure 5.12). Body mass has generally increased
with time in Canada.

Body mass of females follows the same trend as in males (Figures 5.13 and
5.14). There has been an increase in the mean body mass of Canadian women since
1953. There is considerable overlap among studies, and the increase does not appear to
be as peat as in Canadian males. However, the mean body masses of adult females in
the present study are consistently higher than those presented in any previous study.

In a review of body mass among selected studies from 1953 to 1981, Shephard
(1986) indicated that there had been an increase in body mass among Canadian males
and females. Sampling problems and changes in lifestyle (smoking) over the past 35
years made it hard to interpret changes in body mass relative to stature; however, it was
noted that the increase in body mass was not peatcr than what would be expected due
to the increase in stature which had been observed.

Although increases in body mass are apparent with time, this does not mean that
there is increasing obesity in the population, as stature has also increased over time.
The question which must be addressed is whether stature and body mass have
increased in a complimentary manner, or whether body mass has increased
proportionally more. To answer this question, secular trends in the BMI were
examined.

BMI

Given recent concern over increasing obesity in the North American population
(NIH, 1985), the BMI was estimated from mean statures and body masses in studies
from 1953 and 1970-72, and the derived BMI from 1981, and were compared to the
BMI in the present study. Figures 5.15 and 5.16 illustrate the BMI in males 5-19 years
and 20—75 years, respectively. The trend over time is difficult to interpret from these
figures as the distributions overlap considerably. In adult males (Figure 5.16), the

97

present sample has considerably higher BMIs than previous studies, but the previous
studies overlap considerably.

The BMI of females hour the studies is presented in Figures 5.17 and 5.18. As
in males, there is considerable overlap in the distributions of the various studies, and
there is no apparent trend over time. . Among adult females, the present sample
demonstrates higher BMIs than in any of the previous studies, especially in young
adults.

The temporal comparisons of the BMI demonstrate that, although body mass
has increased in Canada since 1953, it has apparently increased proportionally with the
increase in stature. Overall, body size of Canadians has increased from 1953 to 1981;
however this increase has not resulted in an increase in the BMI. The exception to this
trend is the significant increase in the BMI in the present sample of adults over any
previous study. There are two possible explanations for this finding: (1) the population
of Temagami demonstrates siprificantly higher values for the BMI than the general
population ofCanada,or(2) therehasbeenasignificantincreascintheBhflof
Canadians over the past 15 years (1981 to 1996), and the population of Temagami is
representative of the rest of Canada. It is difficult to extrapolate these findings to the
national level, due to regional differences in body size among Canadians (Shephard,
1986). It is likely that a combination of both explanations could explain the higher
BMlsinTemagami, suchthattheremay havebcenanoverall increaseintheBMIin
Canada over the past 15 years, and the population of Northern Ontario demonstrates
peatcr BMI values relative to Canadians in general.

98

Body Size, Fatness, Physique and Health-Related Fitness
Body Size and Health-Related Fitness

The results of this study are consistent with established relationships among
stature, body mass and health-related fitness (Malina 1975, 1994). In all age and sex
poups, stature and body mass were positively associated with right and left grip
strength, which has been demonstrated in numerous studies spanning the ages of early
childhood through adulthood (Malina, 1975).

Greater stature is generally associated with peatcr strength. Partial correlations
between stature and right and left pip strength were 0.52 and 0.47 in males 5-19 years,
respectively, and 0.59 and 0.69 in females 5-19 years, respectively, controlling for
age. Among Philadelphia children 6-11 years, age-specific conelations between stature
and right pip strength range from 0.26 to 0.76 in boys and 0.01 to 0.75 in girls
(Malina, 1994). Corresponding correlations for left grip strength range from 0.22 to
0.82 and from —0.23 to 0.54 in boys and girls 6-1 1 years, respectively (Malina, 1994).
Correlations between stature and right and left pip strength were somewhat lower in a
sample of 4-5 year old children (sexes combined), ranging from 0.12 to 0.46 (Merrctt,
1992).

Correlations between body mass and pip strength are similar to those reported
for stature. Among males and females 5-19 years, partial correlations between body
mass and right pip strength, controlling for age were 0.53 in males and 0.58 in
females. Corresponding partial correlations for left pip strength are 0.51 and 0.67 in
males and females, respectively. Among Philadelphia schoolchildren, age-specific
correlations between body mass and right pip strength ranged from 0.34 to 0.79 in
boys and from 0.16 to 0.77 in girls (Malina, 1994). Similarly, correlations between
body mass and left grip strength ranged from 0.24 to 0.91 in boys and from 0.06 to
0.76 in girls (Malina, 1994). Corresponding correlations among 4-5 year old children

99

(sexes combined) ranged from 0.05 to 0.29 for right and left grip strength (Merrctt,
1992).

Partial correlations between stature and body mass, and flexibility, controlling
for age followed no consistent pattern, ranging from -0.22 to 0.00 in the present study.
There are few comparative data available relating body size to trunk flexibility (Malina,
1994). In boys 5- 19 years, correlations between trunk flexibility and stature and mass
were -0.22 (P<0.05) and -0. 16 (ns) respectively. The results are consistent with those
of Montoye et al. (1972), who reported age-specific correlations ranging from -0.17 to
0.18 for stature, body mass and trunk flexibility in boys 9-18 years. In girls,
correlations were -0.05 (ns) and -0.09 (ns) between flexibility and stature and mass,
respectively. Corresponding age-specific correlations for girls 9-18 years ranged from
-0.19 to 0.05 (Montoye etal., 1972). |

Relationships between body size and sit-ups were low. In boys, correlations
between sit-ups and stature and mass were —0.12 and -0. 14, respectively.
Corresponding age-specific values for sit-ups were —0.04 to 0.06 for stature and -0. 13
to —0.05 for mass in boys 10-17 years (Espenschade, 1963). Similarly, Montoye et al
(1972) reported age-specific correlations ranging from -0.09 to 0.23 for stature and -
0.30 to 0.02 for mass in boys 9-18 years. Correlations between body size and sit-ups
were low and positive in girls: 0.18 for stature and 0.16 for mass. Espenschade (1963)
reported age-specific correlations of —0.09 to 0.07 for stature and -0. 18 to 0.10 for
mass in girls 10-17 years, while Montoye et al. (1972) indicated age-specific
correlations ranging from -0.18 to 0.04 for stature and -0.33 to -0.08 for mass in girls
9-18 years.

Thee is considerable variability in reported correlations between body size and
the dash (Espenschade, 1963; Rarick and Oyster, 1964; Montoye ct al., 1972; Malina,
1975, 1994). In the present study, correlations between stature and the dash were 0.20

(us) in boys and 0.16 (ns) in girls. Corresponding correlations for mass were 0.21

100

(ns) in boys and -0.33 (p<.05) in girls. In 8 year old boys, Rarick and Oyster (1964)
reported correlations of 0.19 and 0.07 between the 30-yard dash and stature and mass,
respectively. Age specific correlations between the 50-yard dash and stature ranged
from ~0.35 to 0.18 in 10-17 year old boys (Espenschade, 1963) and -0.41 to 0.01 in 9-
18 year old boys (Montoye et al., 1972). Corresponding correlations in boys for mass
were -0. 14 to 0.30 and -0.11 to 0.26, respectively. Among girls, a similar pattern is
evident. Age-specific correlations ranged from -0. 13 to 0.02 for stature and 0.04 to
0.24 for mass in 10-17 year olds (Espenschade, 1964), and from -0.26 to 0.08 for
stature and 0.09 to 0.45 for mass in 9-18 year olds (Montoye et al., 1972). It must be
noted that neither Montoye ct al. (197 2) nor Espenschade (1963) indicated whether the
correlation for the dash had been inverted as in the present study.

Age-specific correlations between body size and performance in the 35-yard
dash ranged from moderately negative to moderately positive in a sample of
Philadelphia school children (Malina, 1994). Correlations in boys from -0.33 to 0.34
for stature and -0.56 to 0.21 for mass. Similarly, correlations in girls ranged from -
0.28 to 0.60 for stature and -0.32 to 0.68 for mass.

Correlations between body size and the flexed alrn hang differ by sex in the
present study. In boys, correlations between the flexed arm hang and stature and mass
were -0.32 (p<0.05) and -0.42 (p<0.05) for stature and mass, respectively. The
corresponding correlations for girls were 0.30 and -0.07 for stature and mass,
respectively. Comparative data for the flexed arm hang are limited. Montoye et a1.
(1972) reported age-specific correlations ranging from -0.26 to 0.08 for stature and -
0.47 to -0.35 for mass in girls 9-18 years. Although not directly comparable,
Espenschade (1963) reported age-specific correlations ranging from -0.24 to 0.01 for
stature and -0.35 to -0. 10 for mass and number of pull-ups in boys. The available
evidence suggests that there is generally a negative relationship between body size and
performance in the flexed arm hang, particularly in boys.

101

The standing long jump demonstrates low correlations with body size. Stature
was positively related to performance in boys (r=0.25, ns) and negatively related to
performance in girls (r=-O.12, ns). Similarly, mass was positively related to
performance in boys (r=0.13, ns) and negatively related to performance in girls (m-
0.44, P<0.05). Among Philadelphia school children (Malina, 1994), age-specific
correlations between the standing long jump and stature ranged hour 027 to 0.41 and
-0. 12 to 0.57 in boys and girls, respectively. Corresponding correlations for mass
ranged from -0.39 to 0.39 and —0.34 to 0.41 in boys and girls, respectively.
Espenschade (1963) showed positive correlations between stature and the standing long
jump, ranging from 0.04 to 0.34 and 0.05 to 0.22 in boys and girls, respectively. Age
specific correlations between mass and the standing long jump ranged from -0. 13 to
0.14 in boys and -0.22 to -0.03 in girls. Similarly, age-specific correlations between
stature and the standing long jump were generally positive in 9-18 year old children
(Montoye et al., 1972). Correlations ranged from -0.02 to 0.42 in boys and -0.02 to
0.34 in girls. Correlations were more negative for mass, ranging fi'om -0.30 to 0.22 in
boysand -0.35 to 0.02 in girls.

The low-to-moderatc correlations suggest that there is a relationship between
body size and motor fitness; however, the relationships vary by sex and age. In
general, body mass is negatively associated with performance in events in which the
body is propelled through space, and positively associated with strength (Malina,
1994).

Fatness, Relative Fat Distribution and Health-Related Fitness

In all age and sex poups, there are significant associations between fatness,
relative fat distribution and performance. Partial correlations between the BMI, SUM,
and grip strength, controlling for age, are consistently positive, although they are of
lower magnitude than the correlations between stature, mass and pip strength.
Correlations ranged from 0.26 to 0.43 for the BMI and grip strength and from 0.11 to

102

0.28 for SUM. The results are consistent with those among Philadelphia
schoolchildren 6-11 years, which indicated that the sum of three skinfolds were
generally positively related to right and left grip strength (range -0.21 to 0.72; Malina,
1994). The results suggest that fatness per se does not negatively influence strength;
the positive correlations reflect the larger size of fatter children (Malina ct al., 1989).

Fatness was weakly and negatively associated with trunk flexibility.
Correlations ranged from -0.16 to -0.05 for the BMI, and from «0.26 to -0.12 for
SUM. The results are consistent with those reported for Belgian males 12-20 years,
which demonstrated correlations between 0.00 and -0. 13 for the sum of four skinfolds
and trunk flexibility (Beunen et al., 1983).

The associations among fatness and motor performances in males and ferrules
5-15 years were variable in mapritudc, and followed few apparent patterns. SUM was
negatively related to the standing long jump in both males and females, with partial
correlations, controlling for age of -0.32 and -0.66, respectively. The BMI was also
negatively related to the standing long jump in females (@4147), but not in males
(1:002). Since the BMI does not distinguish between lean and fat tissue, it may not be
representing the same thing in male and female children. The adolescent powth spurt
in mass is characterized by increases in muscle mass in boys moreso than in girls
(Malina and Bouchard, 1991); thus, the negative association between the BMI and the
long jump in girls may be due to increased fatness with a higher BMI in girls but not
boys. This explanation is also suggested by the negative association between SUM and
the standing long jump in both boys and girls. Similar associations between the sum of
three skinfolds and the standing long jump have been reported in Philadelphia children
6-11 years (Malina, 1994). Age-specific correlations ranged from -0.61 to -0.05 in
boys and girls (Malina, 1994). SUM was also negatively related to sit-ups in males
and females, although the correlations were not significant. Similarly, SUM was
negatively related to the flexed arm hang in males (r=-0.43) and females (r=-0.21),

103

which is consistent with results in Belgian males 12-20 years, in whom the sum of four
skinfolds had correlations of —0.44 to -0.28 with the flexed arm hang (Beunen ct al.,
1 983).

Results relating indicators of fatness to the 35-metcr dash are puzzling. In
males, there was a positive association between fatness, central fat distribution, and
performance in the dash. In females, there was a negative association between fatness
and central fat distribution and the dash (Table 4.37). Results of other studies generally
indicate a negative association between fatness and the dash or shuttle run (Malina,
1975, 1994).

In events which require the subject to propel the body through space (standing
long jump, dash) or support the body (flexed arm hang), there is a negative association
with fatness (Malina, 1994). Additionally, some evidence suggests that'a more central
distribution of subcutaneous fat may have a negative effect on the motor performances
of children (Malina and Pena Reyes, 1994). The results of the present study generally
fit this suggestion, taking into account a few spurious correlations.

Physique and Health-Related Fitness

The results of this study generally indicate that endomorphy is negatively
associated with fitness and mesomorphy is positively related with fitness, while
ectomorphy is not related to fitness. The results are consistent with those from other
studies, although not completely comparable, as many studies report zero order
correlations within narrow age ranges, and do not control for the other two somatotype
components (Malina, 1975).

Partial correlations between endomorphy and pip strength ranged from -0. 17 to
-0.08, and from -0.37 to -0.17 for flexibility, controlling for age and the other two
somatotype components. In a longitudinal study of boys 12-17 years, Clarke (1971)
reported correlations ranging from 0.07 to 0.21 between endomorphy and a composite

strength score. Generally, correlations between endomorphy and strength are low and

104

positive (Malina, 1975). There was also a negative association between endomorphy
and sit-ups in males and females 5- 19 years, controlling for age and the other two
somatotype components (—0.31 and -0.35, respectively). Partial correlations between
endomorphy and other performance measures showed no consistent pattern.

Mesomorphy was positively related to grip strength (r=0.20 to 0.35) and
showed no relationship with flexibility. Similarly, Clarke (1971) demonstrated positive
correlations ranging from 0.27 to 0.40 between mesomorphy and a composite strength
measure in boys 12-17 years. Mesomorphy was not consistently related to other
performance measures in the Medford Boys Study (Clarke, 1971).

Ectomorphy was not related to strength, flexibility or motor fitness in this
study. Generally, correlations between ectomorphy and motor performance variables
are low and variable in direction (Malina, 1975). Ectomorphy did, however,
demonstrate negative associations with strength, indicating that high ectomorphy was
related to a deficit in strength (Malina, 1975). Ectomorphy was generally quite low in
the present sample, which could explain the absence of associations with strength and
performance.

Body size and Familial Resemblance in Strength and Flexibility

The results of this study indicate that including measures of body size in
correlation and repession analyses does not appreciably alter estimates of familial
resemblance (Table 4.39). Sibling correlations were virtually unchanged while
heritability estimates from repessions on mid-parent values varied somewhat for pip
strength. Table 3.11 presents the amount of variation explained by age-r-agc’+agc3 as
well as that explained by adding mass, stature, and the BMI into the repessions
independently. In each instance, the incorporation of body size into the repession
increased the amount of variance explained; however, the increase was not very peat,
since age explained a considerable amount of the variability, particularly in the 5-19
year poups as would be expected. Given that the pr0portion of the total phenotypic

105

variance in performance measures explained using multiple repession did not increase
appreciably by incorporating body size into the repession it does not seem surprising
that the familial correlations did not change (Table 3.12).

The results are not consistent with those of a study in which stature and body
mass were partialled out of correlations for performance measures between siblings
(Malina and Mueller, 1981). Sibling correlations for strength and motor performance
were reduced slightly when body size was controlled by partial correlation, suggesting
that removing body size removes some of the covariation due to environmental factors
(Malina and Mueller, 1981). However, the results are not directly comparable since
different analytical strategies were used in adjusting the variables for the effects of age
and sex, and interclass conelations were used to estimate sibling effects rather than
intraclass correlation, which was used in the present study.

Grip strength is sometimes expressed as a ratio with body mass, i.e., kg/kg
body mass. Pérusse ct al. (1988) indicated a parent-offspring correlation of 0.20 and a
sibling correlation of 0.29 for grip strength/kg body mass in the CFS. Similarly,
Perusse et al. ( 1987) reported a parent-child correlation of 0.32 and a sibling correlation
of 0.28 for the same measure in the QFS. These values fall within the range of
reported values for unadjusted grip strength (Table 2.10).

Grip strength was expressed as right pip, left pip, and relative pip in a study
of Polish families (Szopa, 1982). Relative pip strength was calculated a
(right+left)/body mass. Familial correlations for left pip and right pip were of similar
mapritude as relative pip strength. The variability among correlations for right and left
was as peat as between relative pip strength and either right or left. Thus, as in the
present study, adjusting pip strength for body mass did little to alter the family
correlations.

Adjusting performance measures for body size may impact inferences regarding

sources of variation in a given trait; however, familial correlations may not be sensitive

106

enough to demonstrate siplificant differences. Additionally, measurement variability
will increase the error in the familial correlations. A study which incorporates low
measurement error and large numbers of subjects may be needed to estimate the effects

of incorporating body size into the estimation of familial effects on performance.

CHAPTER VI
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Summary

The purpose of the study was to compare Canadians of First Nation (FN) and
European (EA) ancestry in terms of body size, physique, and indicators of health-
relatcd fitness, and to determine the familial resemblance in these variables. Data were
collected during the Spring and Summer of 1996 (May-August) in the Northern Ontario
communities of Temagami and Bear Island. All residents 5-75 years of age were
eligible to participate.

A total of 624 subjects (130 FN, 494 EA) participated in the study. Nineteen
anthropometric dimensions were taken on each subject: stature; sitting height; body
mass; skinfolds at the biceps, triceps, subscapular, abdominal, suprailiac, supraspinale
and medial calf sites; biacromial, bicristal, biepicondylar, and bicondylar breadths; and
flexed and relaxed mid-amt, maximal calf, waist and hip circumferences. Eight indices
were derived: subischial length; the body mass index (BMI); Heath-Carter
anthropometric somatotype; the sitting height/stature ratio; hip-to-shoulder breadth ratio;
sum of skinfolds; a trunk to extremity skinfold ratio; and the waist-to-hip circumference
ratio. Grip strength and trunk flexrhility (sit-and-reach) were also measured as .
components of health-related fitness. Additionally, children attending the public
schools (5-15 years) completed a battery of motor fitness tests which included the
standing long jump, flexed arm hang, sit-ups, and the 35-meter dash. Technical errors
of measurement for the anthropometry were similar to those reported for national

Surveys in the United States (Johnston et al., 1972; Malina et al., 1973; Chumlea et al.,
107

108

1990; Malina, 1995). Reliability coefficients for the fitness tests exceeded 0.99 for all
tests.

The results indicated significant differences between EA and FN Canadians and
significant familial resemblance in body size and health-related fitness. Generally, FN
subjects were fatter and had a more central or truncal subcutaneous fat distribution than
EA subjects. The differences between ethnic poups were peatest in the 20-75 year
sample of females; however, there were differences apparent in each age and sex
poup. Some differences were not statistically significant in all poups, but the
direction of the differences was consistent. Males generally had less subcutaneous
adiposity, but had a peatcr tendency to store proportionally more subcutaneous fat on
the trunk than females. There were few differences for stature and skeletal dimensions.

FN subjects were generally more endomorphic than EA subjects. Results were
significant for all poups except the 5-19 year old females, in whom differences in
somatotype were small but in the same direction as the other poups (peatcr
endomorphy).

. The estimated prevalence of obesity in FN was generally higher than in BA.
However, siprificant differences in prevalences of obesity were evident only in the 20-
75 year old females. Among males and females 5-19 years, the prevalence of obesity
(285th percentile age-specific NHANES II BMI) was 38.1% and 29.4% in FN males
and females, respectively, and 21.3% and 16.9% in EA males and females,
respectively. In FN adults 20-75 years, the prevalence of obesity (285th percentile
NHANES II BMI for 20-29 year old people) was 51.4% in FN males, 58.8% in FN
females, 39.0% in EA males, and 35.0% in EA females.

There were differences between adult subjects classified as obese by the BMI
only and the BMI+t1iceps skinfold in combination; however, the numbers were
inadequate in the 5-19 year old poups to make comparisons. Also, there were too few
subjects classified as obese by the triceps only to compare to the other poups. In

109

males, BMI obese subjects had greater TERs than the BMI-{triceps obese (p50.05). In
general, endomorphy was also greater in the BMI+t1iceps obese group, and in the EA
sample, mesomorphy was greater and ectomorphy was lower in the BMI+t1iceps obese
sample. In EA males, the BMI-{triceps obese group also had greater bicondylar and
biepicondylar breadths.

Analyses of secular changes indicated significant decreases in stature with age
inEAmales andfemalesbutnotinFN. Theestimateddecreasesinstaturewithagein
FN were similar in magnitude to EA, but due to small numbers, the estimates were not
significant. The statural loss due to aging (shrinkage) was estimated at 0.12 cm/year
and 0.06 cm/year in EA males and females, respectively. Taking into account the
estimated statural loss due to aging, positive secular trends of 1.0 cmldecade (p50.05)
and 0.4 cmldecade (ns) in EA males and females, respectively, were estimated. A
comparison of studies from 1953 to 1981 indicated that a secular trend in stature had
occurred in Canada, and that the temporal trend in body mass appeared to mirror that of
stature; however, there was no secular trend in the BMI.

Mean BMIs of adults in the present study were greater than any reported study
in Canada since 1953. There are two possible explanations for this finding: (1) the
population of Temagami demonstrates significantly higher values for the BMI than the
general population of Canada, and/or (2) there has been a significant increase in the
BMI of Canadians over the past 15 years (1981 to 1996), and the population of
Temagami is representative of the rest of Canada. It is possible that both scenarios may
help explain the high BMls in the present sample.

The results indicated significant familial resemblance in body size, physique,
adiposity, relative fat distribution, grip strength and flexibility. Spousal correlations
showed a lack of assortative mating (positive or negative) in this population. Further,
the role of a shared living environment has apparently had minimal effects on spousal
similarities in this population.

110

Interclass correlations between parents and offspring were significant and
demonstrated familial resemblance for all variables, suggesting that genetic factors were
operating on the familial associations. Additionally, intraclass correlations indicated
significant sibship effects. Sibling conelations were typically higher or of the same
magnitude as parent-offspring correlations, which suggested that the shared living
environment may be important in explaining some of the variation within families.

Results of partial correlation analyses indicated that mesomorphy was positively
associated with right and left grip strength, whereas endomorphy was negatively
associated with flexibility. There were few consistent correlations between body size
and motor performance in children. The sum of skinfolds was negatively associated
with the standing long jump in both sexes, and all measures of body size were
negatively related to the flexed arm hang in boys. There was significant familial
resemblance in grip strength and flexibility, and the inclusion of body size as a
covariate in the correlation and regression analyses did not appreciably affect me

results.

11]

Conclusions

The conclusions are best framed within the explicit hypotheses presented in

Chapter 1.

Hypothesis 1

There are significant differences between Canadians of First Nation (FN) and European
ancestry (BA) in body size, physique, and indicators of health-related fitness.

la) FN Canadians are heavier and demonstrate greater subcutaneous fatness than EA
Canadians throughout childhood into adulthood.

This hypothesis was partially supported. FN subjects were not significantly
heavier in terms of body mass and the BMI, except in females M75 years. FN males
5-19 years were significantly fatter than EA males, and FN females 20-75 years were
significantly fatter than EA females, in terms of subcutaneous fatness. There were few
statistically significant differences among males 20-75 years and females 5-19 years;
however, FN subjects were consistently fatter in all indicators of subcutaneous fatness.
lb) There are significant differences in relative fat distribution and physique between
FN and EA Canadians.

This hypothesis was supported. In all age and sex groups, FN subjects had
significantly greater TERs, and in all groups except females 5-19 years, FN subjects
had greater WHRs. These results indicated that FN subjects had a more cenu'al
subcutaneous fat distribution than EA subjects. Additionally, FN subjects were
significantly more endomorphic than EA subjects in all groups except females 5—19
years. Among females 5-19 years, FN females were also more endomorphic, but the
difference was not statistically significant.
1c) There are no differences in stature and other skeletal dimensions between FN and
EA Canadians.

This hypothesis was partially supported. Significant differences in stature and
skeletal dimensions appeared only sporadically among the comparisons, with the

112

exception of females 20-75 years. Among adult females, all skeletal breadths were
significantly greater in the FN group. FN adult females had a larger overall frame size
than EA females.

Hypothesis 2

Secular trends in body size are evident in FN and EA Canadians.

2a) There are significant secular increases in stature, mass and the BMI in FN and EA
Canadians.

This hypothesis was partially supported. There was a significant secular trend
towards increasing stature in EA males; however, the secular trend in EA females and
FN males and females was not significant. Comparisons among selected studies from
1953 to 1981 indicated that body mass had increased over time in a similar manner as
stature. However, the BMI had not increased significantly over time in the Canadian
population, with the exception of the present study, indicating that body mass has not
increased more than would be expected given the secular trend in stature. The EMS in
the present study were greater than earlier surveys in Canada, which could mean that a
recent secular trend in the BMI has occurred in Canada since the last national survey
(1981), or that this sample is not representative of the general Canadian population.
Hypothesis 3
There is significant familial resemblance in body size, physique and indicators of
health-related fitness in FN and EA Canadians.
3a) There is significant familial resemblance in body size, physique and indicators of
health-related fitness in FN and EA Canadians.

This hypothesis was supported. Spousal correlations indicated an absence of
assortative mating (positive and negative) in this population. Correlations among
nuclear family members and regression of the offspring on mid-parent values indicated
significant familial resemblance in body size, physique, adiposity, relative fat
distribution, grip strength, and trunk flexibility. Ethnic differences in familial

113

resemblance could not be determined due to insufficient sample sizes in the First Nation
group.
3b) Estimated heritabilities for strength and flexibility are greater after body
morphology is factored into the analyses as a covariate. .

This hypothesis was not supported. The incorporation of stature, body mass,
and the BMI into familial aggregation analyses for grip strength and trunk flexibility did
not increase the correlation or regression coefficients. The incorporation of body size

had little to no effect on the magnitude of the associations.

114

Recommendations for Future Research

This study has demonstrated significant differences between Canadians of First
Nation and European ancestry in components of health-related fitness; in particular,
physique, fatness and relative fat distribution. Considerable evidence has been
accumulated to suggest that excess fatness and a centripetal fat distribution are both
independent risk factors for coronary heart disease and metabolic disorders. Similarly,
there is also research which suggests that physique itself is related to risk factors for
disease, or may be in and of itself, a risk factor. More research is required to better
characterize the relationships between physique, fat distribution, metabolic fitness, and
disease among First Nation Canadians, who are at increased risk for metabolic
disorders.

This study has demonstrated that differences between Canadians of European
and First Nation ancestry are apparent in childhood and adolescence. Since many
metabolic disorders such as obesity and diabetes may have their roots in childhood,
emphasis should be placed on studying the growth characteristics of Native North
Americans. The present study presents cross-sectional data on the growth of children;
however, a longitudinal study may be more appropriate such that growth rates and
other growth parameters may be estimated.

More study is needed to better characterize activity patterns and daily energy
intakes and expenditures in Native North Americans. These data are difficult to obtain,
but their value becomes increasingly great. Clinical interventions are necessary to
determine the effects of diet and activity programs among Native groups.

Particular attention should be given to the genetic aspects of fatness and relative
fat distribution, especially among Native North Americans. As the human genome
becomes better characterized, ethnic variation at specific loci may help explain the
greater susceptibility of Native North Americans to several metabolic diseases.

115

The best way to further the understanding of the etiologies of metabolic
disorders among Native North Americans is through the use of family data. The ideal
design would be a large scale longitudinal family study similar to the Quebec Family
Study, which would include measures of dietary intake, physical activity, indicators of
metabolic fitness, and anthropometry among members of extended families of Native
North Americans.

TABLES

 

 

 

 

 

 

gags. EN 42 ...8 o... can. 3N .... jam

.8. .0220. 9mm «.3 3.8 8.8 8. 838.2 832m

.8. .85 ...o 98. SN 2. 88.2 2.82

:2 ...e .o .83... new a. : 98 e... ....8. SN mm 325.8 5.5m 5.8.30

E: ...e .n .83.... «.8. an. «.8 a... «.8. SN me 295.8 5...... 9:82
k2 £885 a 8.. 98 s..: ...... e... 2.... 2a 9. 99.5.8 .25
E: 2895 a 8.. new ...... ...... .... 0...... 2A 3 5.3.

E: .89.... ... 8.. mew «d. «.6 ..m «.8. ...a .... es..; c.3895.

.3230".

82.833 ... 8.52. new a... «...... N... no... ...«N 9. 9.82 85:3

18. 6220. ...8 5.. «...... 8-8 on 898.2 screen

2.... 8...... new 8.2. «.2. Raw 8 9.8.... 2.8....

.8. .88.. new 8.8 ..u 98. SN 5 83... 289..

{.2 ...e .e .895 .....N ...... ...: am 92.. SN 8 39530 5...... 5.8.20

.5. ...n .n .89.... IN. ...... 0.2. o... .3... cum on 99:28 5...... 9:82
E: £89.... ... 8.. ......N ...: ...... on am: ...a 2 29:28 5......
2.2 189:... a. 8.. ...»... ...: «.8 a... n. 2.. 2a 2 5.3

E: 3895 a 8.. «em a. 2 ...8 m... ...8. 2a 3 es..; 5.3.2....

no...-

flaauac am am 3 : 35.3

«Bauer—Sail“; 6.3.838“

 

6.9.... ..oao :. one... u..- 228. .e. ...-o... Ea... 082...... e.-
..an 28.85... ....e: 3.3. ......- .e 83...... 8.8.8 9.2... in 85...... we. .8... .28... 3 53.858 ..u 352

116

117
TABLE 2.2 Components of health-related fitness.

 

Morphological

BMI

Body Composition
Subcutaneous Fat Distribution
Flexibility

Muscular

Power

Strength

Endurance

Motor

Agility

Balance

Coordination
Cardiorespiratory
Exercise Capacity

Heart and Lung Functions
Blood Pressure
Metabolic

Glucose Tolerance

Lipid Metabolism
W
Adapted from Bouchard & Shephard (1994)

 

118

TABLE 2.3 Evidence for familial resemblance in stature.

 

    

  

0‘0

533 0.12 0.26 to 0.54 0.01 to 0.2

American

Utah Intraclass 529 0.37 0.14 to 0.43 0.87 to 0.48

CFS Interclass 1 8073 0.43 0.34 0.20

FOS Interclass 7948 0.39 0.44 to 0.51 0.47 to 0.54

Montreal interclass 997 0.25 0.34 to 0.43

intraclass 0.37

London Interclass 1083 0.46 to 0.67

Rural Interclass 1447 0.24 to 0.29

Colombia

Belgium interclass 532 0.59 0.51

Montreal interclass 41 5 0.34

U.S. White Interclass 583 0.34 0.31 to 0.48 0.28 to 0.44
646 0.06 0.50 to 0.67 0.15 to 0.34

U.S. Black interclass

FOS: Framingham Offspring Study; CFS: Canada Fitness Survey

   

Rotimi 8r Cooper,1995
Ramirez,1993
Pérusse et al.,1988
Heller et al.,1984

Annest et al.,1983

Hawk & Brook,1979
Mueller 8 Tltcomb,1977

Susanne, 1975
Bouchard et al., 1980b

Malina et al.,1976
Mueller & Malina,1976
Mueller 8 Malina,1980

Malina. et al.,1976
Mueller 8 Malina,1976

W

119

TABLE 2.4 Evidence for familial resemblance in body mass.

 

Typeof Canalatirms
fill‘ 3 0 "

African Intraclass 533 0.15 0.30 to 0.35 0.36 to 0.52 Rotimi & Cooper,1995

    

    

   

CFS Interclass 18073 0.16 0.34 0.16 ' Pérusse et al.,1988
Montreal Interclass 997 0.18 0.22 to 0.35 Annest et al.,1983
intraclass 0.16

London Interclass 1083 0.30 to 0.47 Hawk 8 Brook,1979

Rural interclass 1447 0.28 to 0.37 Mueller 8 Titcomb,1977

Colombia

Montreal Interclass 998 0.39 0.31 Biron et al.,1977

Belgium Interclass 532 0.54 0.34 Susanne, 1975

U.S. White Interclass 583 0.17 0.21 to 0.54 Mueller & Malina,1976
Mueller 8 Malina,1980

U.S. Black interclass 446 0.23 0.43 to 0.61 Mueller & Malina,1976
MW

 

CFS: Canada Fitness Survey

120

 

. 3... d. 8... .8
82 8...... a. 5.8.2 8... e. we... :5. m3 8520.... .8... .m...
8... e. 8... .8 .
82 .232 a. 5.8.2 8.... e. 8... =5. 8... 892...... 9...; 8.:
a... e. 8... 8... 2... es.
.8. ...n .o .2: 2.... e. 8... on... 8... an; 8.. 8529:. Sea“.
a... 8... .8
mud med .....< 3.8....
we... 8:88 8... we... 52 N8 892...... 8.28
8... e. ...... 28:... :5.
S... e. 8... .8 885.8
E: .982... e .28.... 3... e. 8... ER .3: menace. as...
, 8... e. 8.8 «I. e. mu... 3... =5.
5... e. 3... 98 e. 8... B... a: 5882
m8. .888 e .E 8... e. 8... 8... e. 8... :8 In; 8.... 889.... :85.
”Aqua--. . ”in. o o ”1.4.. nu 4 C 3

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

..gflueq-e—G C— COCO-DECO..- .C—3Eg 52 8.3-)“ n.“ 325.

 

121

 

3.6 jun—gm

 

 

 

 

 

..m... o. 8... .....an 55885
8... e. 8... 582m .988
. 8... e. .8... .8an 3.8.8...
.8. 8.8... 8.28.2 ...... o. 8... . see... 8.5m 8.. 98.92... .86 .m...
«m... o. 2... 5820 8.88.85
8... 0. ...... .....an 8.888
3.... e. 8.... .88... .588
r 3... o. 8... 5.8... 3.8.85
8... 85328.88... ...... o. 3... £92. 8...... 8... 8.22:. 2...; .m...
3... 8.88288
8... seem 5.885
...c £88 .888
...... £88 .8528
88. ...n .a 2288 «a... ......o... 8.8 m ... 8.22:. 32.8.2
8... 8... .88... .88...
8... 8... 582m 3528
£8. 8:88 B... 8... .88: 8.8 N8 8992... £298
8... e. ..u... 582.. 8.8898...
B... o. 8... 589m 83885
8... e. a... .88... .380...
8... o. 8.... 5.88 3228...
3... e. B... mam
8... o. 8... 583 3.8.8.... 988.8
k... .88... e .28... 8... e. 8... 29¢... 82...... .3. 98.92... as:
”r: u n u u .. t . . o u. .4.‘ a. Jud... C 3
8829.8 .8 on...

 

6:20:25! .520... 5 8659508. 35:... .3 §>m a.“ “405—.

122
TABLE 2.7 Evidence for familial resemblance In the BMI.

 

 

  
  

  

. : : 2| :
Rotimi & Cooper,1995

  

   

=I-0u on.

African Intraclass 533 0.12 0.26 to 0.23 0.28 to 0.30

.
o

italy interclass 250 0.27 to 0.33 Antonella et al.,1994

Utah Intraclass 529 -0.05 0.21 to 0.46 0.03 to 0.29 Ramirez.1993

India Maximum 1691 0.37 0.28 to 0.55 0.24 Nirmala et al.,1993
Likelihood

MPFS Interclass 1302 0.17 0.22 Moll et al.,1991
Intraclass 0.35

Norway interclass 74994 0.12 0.21 to 0.26 0.18to 0.21 Tambs etal.,1991

LRC Intetclass 3925 0.09 0.22 0.18 Price et al.,1990

CFS Interclass 18073 0.12 0.31 0.20 Pérusse et al.,1988

QFS Interclass 1698 0.10 0.26 0.23 Bouchard et al.,1988

Jerusalem Interclass 5740 0.08 0.33 0.22 Friedlander et al.,1987

Michigan Interclass 9226 0.12 0.27 Longini et al.,1984
Intraclass 0.23 to 0.38

FOS f Interclass 7948 0.19 0.09 to 0.27 0.21 to 0.27 Heller et al.,1983

Montreal Interclass 997 0.11 0.40 0.02 to 0.18 Annest et al.,1983

___lmtaclaa

 

CFS: Canada Fitness Survey; FOS: Framingham Offspring Study, QFS: Quebec Family Study;
MPFS: Muscatine Poderosity Family Study; LFiC: Lipid Research Clinics program

123

myoEEm £§§+38$io£=8a=w+§=§a$ ”Em...

”floss. ...833.183.738.32.2oBa+..m...2..3+.a.=..83=2 Em» .2225... Eggnog... ..Esmmbm.
32...... ..a.=a83=m+8.._2a8. $.23: ”8.2%.. ..2.EoBm+.a.=§8..$+§..2§2 6.225

.22.? 5322...: 22. 82.2. .2 .62. ... mm... 2.2:...» .....o .auosiosoéootwac.EoBasgegmtasamanam. .228
"3.25.3 £§.+waoo_a+.2=nn8..am+om.__m.aa$ 6.23m ”2.6.5.3 £wo+ow___w.nam+.a_:aw8nam+38§.323m

.82 8.2228... a... 2 .22.. ”m1; 22...... 2.2.... 8.2... ”m“... 29.5 $8.... 2.8.... "w”...

 

 

 

 

 

 

...... mu... 2... FE
..m... 3.... 2.... . «mm...
mu... 3... ...... tiwmbm
. ..N... am... 9... ...zaE
82:... ... 8.22. E... a... 3... 22:... 2...... 832... m“...
...... 8... 2.... km»
mu... ...... ..u... am...
8...... ... 22.2.8 «a... mu... ...... 32m 8... «$.02... m...
um... um... ...... Rm:
...... no... 2 8... 3.... .2225 2.2.2....
82:... ... 222.2 8... 8... 2 8... 9.... 22...... ...... 22:8: 2....
a... 2 B... 5... ... 2... 3.... $5..
«8.5.2.2. mm... ... ...... ...... 2 mm... «a... 323m mum 33.... :2:
mm... 3... RE
8... R... 22...": 2.2.2....
82:... ... .....28 cm... 8... 222m 89 28.5.2 mu...
.355
manaaooo ... .222. cm... 2 8... ...... 2 ...... 2.... $5.. ...... 828.... ..8...<
”...-n u um ..-—.F:O 2.... . ..- 4‘ n .....n. C J3
and? .0 on»...

 

£223.82! .3 250.9. v...- neeg :- 8—33508. ...-.55 .5. gm ofi manfir

124

 

8...... Nos

 

 

2...... N2.
2.28 $2.... 828 8.... 2.5 2.22. 88.... 5....
.8 c .8... gm «84.8
«...... ..85 £202.82... 8 ..8
.8328. «3.5 ..8... 2.22.2.5 “8 ..8 828.... 2.8... ......
.85 ......5 28.2 .....22..2..m N... ..8
N8... ......5 22.. 2.28.25 «8 ..8
.8... ......5 22.2 2.22.85: 8.. ..8
~8... .. .m... 22.. 2.25258: .8 ..8
«8... ..85 22.2 2.25225 .218
«8...... ... 2.5 .8... ..85 23.22285 8 ..8 822...... m“... 2.2..
8... 8... 85 £22.25
8... 522.822
88...... .5 22.85 35 2.22.2.5 .8 8222... 2.2.8: 2.5..
8... 8... «.5 ....25225
85 8... ...... 2252222
85...... ... 8.2.... .8... 8... ...... 22522.5 88. 8222... m... 2.25
8... ... m... ....5 2 85 ....5 £22.25
...... ... 8... 8... 2 8... ...... 22222822
85...... .o ......w 8... ... ...... 85 ... 85 8... E25285 8.. 8522... mu... 2.2....
85 ... ...... 85 2 8... ...... £25225
8... 2 ....5. 85 ... 8... 85. 2252822 58222....
85.85.222.88 85 2 ...... 3.... 2 8... 5.5 2.22.85 8.. 5:222 2.8.2 2.2....
u‘.uu.um .....LS‘Z... «<‘ _..-.<..:. C Gan—g3;

 

 

  

 

 

.0 on»... .082...

 

62330500 5 00:03:30... .0550— 3. 52m a." 30¢...

125

was... NON

 

 

 

 

 

2.2. N2.
2.25 $2.... 2.2.8 ”w“... 225 2.22 2.5.5.8.... 825.. 8......
. . 2.59.8... 2.25.
8... .... ... 822 ...... 2 85 85 2.22.2“. .8 22532 w»... ......»
85...... ... 822 .85 ..85 2......on .... ..8 8252.... 8.... ...22
8... 8... ...... 2......on
58...... ... 828.. .....5 8... 8... 8222.5 5...... 822...... mu... 22......
8... 3.... 85- 2......on
8.5.2220 ... .26.. 85- 8... ...... 2.0 28.2.... .8 8222... 2.........22 2.2....
...... ... 8... 85 2 5.... 8... ...... ..3
N8. .....on 8... 2 8... 85 2 ...... m... ...... .....E 58. 858.... 2.2.... 2......
.8. ....2... .55 2 B5 8... ...... ..m. 8222... 2.8... 22....
....5 ...... ...: «cm 2...; .w...
8... 2.0 ...... ..8 285 .w...
t... ...... ......m «cm 2...; 5.:
8.22.8.2 ... ......22 8... 2... 2...... 8m 8.22... 22.... 5.: 2......
”a... u n n u ... _ ..l—«O : ”a n a .— J u} .4. ”a tn u... q 1... u u: o« n. . =u1 .
58.322... ... 2.... 22:8 ... 2...

 

2.2.2.8.. 2...... ...... 59...... 2... ... 85.228: .222... .... 8:225 ....a 39:

126

TABLE 3.1 Age and «x dlstl'lbutlon of sublccts compand to nportod

populations of Tommml and Bar Island.

 

 

 

   

hmmml

Number at - - Sum
<1 5 200 65 55
15-29 170 55 43
30-44 230 68 81
45-64 300 65 68
265 130 16 22

 

 

149

133

29.2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

29
15-29 52 12 1 5 27 51.9
30-44 37 6 1o 16 43.2
45-64 38 10 1o 20 52.6
255 19 2 3 5 25.3
mm 1:1 4 2 4 4 LL 4L4____
'Data from Statistics Canada (1995)

”Data from Temagami First Nation band records

127

TABLE 3.2 Age and sex distribution oi the subsample participating in the
analysis of measurement variability.

 

 

 

Mean Age Age Range
11 FN EA (years) greats)—
Males 34 5 29 22.2 4.7 - 75.3
Females 30 5 25 29.0 4.4 - 67.6
1913] 64 10 g 25.4 ’ 4.4 - 75.3

 

TABLE 3.3 Mean diiterences (X4), intraobserver technical errors of
measurement (TEM) and intraclass correlation coefficients (rm...) between
replicate measurements (n=64).

 

 

Measure n X, TEM r...
Mass 64 0.21 kg 0.72 kg 1.000
Stature 64 0.28 cm 0.54 cm 1.000
Sitting Height 63 0.63 0.95 0.997
Skinfolds 4

Triceps 63 0.19 mm 0.94 mm 0.994
Biceps 64 0.08 0.96 0.981
Subscapular 63 0.26 1.03 0.994
Suprailiac 63 0.07 1.13 0.988
Supraspinale 63 0.20 1.34 0.986
Medial Call 60 0.09 1.11 0.984
Abdominal 63 0.14 1.64 0.990
Email]:

Bicondylar 63 0.02 cm 0.18 cm 0.989
Biepicondylar 64 0.03 0.10 0.995
Biacromial 64 0.12 0.57 0.995
Bicristal 64 0.09 0.58 0.993
W

Flexed Arm 64 0.11 cm 0.40 cm 0.998
Relaxed Arm 64 0.13 0.51 0.996
Maximal Cali 60 0.01 0.34 0.998
Waist 64 0.29 1.15 0.997
Hip 64 0.22 1.43 0.996
W

Endomorphy 63 0.06 0.20 0.995
Mesomorphy 60 0.03 0.17 0.993
W 64 0.04 0.13 0.295

 

128

.35.. 88:. .58.. 9...... .68.. .32.... 5...... 559.52 2.. 8.5.2.

 

 

 

5.8.. .12 .3589 H6...... .... .5 35.2. .53.. ..a ... c286,... .68.. .... ... 8.52...

E. «N. ...... an

a... 5.. 5... 5a;

mN... ...... .N... o... 5... mo... .5... 50.5592

..N... N .... B... 5... mm... 8... .5... :5. 699.3.

...N .... .... so ...... E... 8.8.“.

$835.35

5N... ...... ...... ...... o... 3... .9305

...... ...... 9... ..m... 8... B... .8585

N .... 2.... 8... N... N .... ..N... ...... 5.5.8285

5.... N..... N.... m... .2. so ...... 5.2.855

Hausa

.4... 8... x... 5552......

...... 3.... .N... N.N ...... N.N .... .8 5.8.2

9.... 8... 3... 5.8.8653

8... .5... ...... m.N 5.. .N... N... 3.935

3... ...N... Na... 55... ....N .5. NN.N 8.. 5.5.5825

.5... ...... 8... 885

N..... ..N... mm... N5... N.N .5... ...... EE 3... 88....

«33......

NN... ...o .5... 3... B... .5 3... £95: 9.55

NN... .N... ...... 9.... o... 3... ..N. .5 E... 2335

.N... «N... .N... .N... N... .... .... N... gs.

...... _ 52...: ......wm ... . . .N...—...... 41.4 41- ’30 g
882...... 8...... 588 5.5.39.5 :85... 2...

62......

weave—ea ... corona. one... 5.3 $5.... 52:23: .o 22.8 30.5.93 ..eEoeooahc. .o coatsano

v.» ”55—.

129

TABLE 3.5 Sample sizes, age ranges, and Intraclass correlations (rm...) for
replicate motor performance tests.

 

 

Age Range
Test n (years) r...
Right grip 617 4.3 - 76.5 _ 0.997
Left grip 618 4.3 - 76.5 ‘ 0.998
Trunk flexibility 592 4.3 - 76.5 0.995
Standing long jump 102 5.9 - 14.8 0.991
W 29 5.1. 14.8 O-QQD—___.

 

TABLE 3.6 Comparison of reliability coefiicients for replicate performance
tests.

 

         

 

M : :- .5 :‘: ”.3 ‘_ : 5;:
Right grip 0.997 0.79 - 0.98 0.85 - .97 0.63 - 0.97 0.51 - .94
Left grip 0.998 0.80 - 0.97 0.79 - 0.93

Trunk flexibility 0.995 ‘

Standing long jump 0.991 0.72 - 0.95 0.50 - 0.93 0.88 - 0.84 0.82 - 0.94

‘Malina and Mueller (1981)
I'Maiina and Buschang (1985)

TABLE 3.7 Least squares regression equations for the prediction of individual
skinfolds in a sample of Canadians.

 

 

 

 

     

Males __.Eennlaa

: | : e“: 5‘ .3 ; ‘ : _:‘ 5: ‘z ‘ A : ‘2‘ .3 ‘:
Constant - .311 5.937 2.291 7.744 4.929
Age 0.059 0.073 -0.042 0.098 -0.020
Subscapular 0.383 0.034 0.216 -0.070
Abdominal 0.178 0.007 -0.020
Suprailiac 0.265 -0.021 0.246 0.494 0.127
Supraspinale 0.241 0.612 0.124 0.108 0.029 -
Medial Calf 0.082 0.036 -0.022
Triceps -0.120 0.399 0.406 0.092 0.548
Biceps 1.128 -0.264 0.354 0.043 0.169
R’ 0.77 0.66 0.63 0.76 0.61

 

u- 4-2L___L2§___2J_Q: 4.9.9 4-7L

130

TABLE 3.8 Skewness statistics for variables with skewed distributions and
skewness statistics after log", transformation of the variables.

 

 

Transformed
W 1! S.E. Z n 1 S.E. Z a
5-19 yrs
Mam
Mass 0.79 0.25 3.20 <.005 ‘ 0.19 ' 0.25 0.76 ns
BMI 0.82 0.25 3.33 <.005 ' 0.54 0.25 2.18 <.05 '
EXTREMITY 1.16 0.25 4.66 <.001 " 0.38 0.25 1.52 ns
TRUNK 1.32 0.25 5.31 <.001 " 0.42 0.25 1.70 ns
SUM ' 1.24 0.25 4.99 <.001 ‘ 0.47 0.25 1.87 ns
TER 0.84 0.25 3.39 <.005 ' 0.32 0.25 1.27 ns
Endomorphy 1.27 0.25 5.06 <.001 ‘ 0.40 0.25 1.58 ns
Mesomorphy 0.60 0.25 2.40 <.025 ‘ -0.12 0.25 -0.46 ns
Right Grip 1.01 0.25 4.11 <.001 ' 0.18 0.25 0.72 ns
Left Grip 1.06 0.25 4.34 <.001 ' 0.12 0.25 0.49 ns
Hang 1.46 0.37 4.42 <.001 ' -0.05 0.33 1.36 ns
Eflmfllfifi
Mass 1.47 0.27 5.43 <.001 ' -0.02 0.27 -0.08 ns
BMI 1.52 0.27 5.50 <.001 ' 0.98 0.27 3.62 <.001 ‘
EXTREMITY 1.39 0.28 5.02 <.001 f 0.61 0.28 2.19 <.05 '
TRUNK 1.43 0.28, 5.11 <.001 ' 0.34 0.28 1.21 ns
SUM 1.36 0.28 4.88 <.001 ' 0.53 0.28 1.91 ns
TER 0.55 0.28 1.98 <.05 ' -0.19 0.28 -0.69 ns
Endomorphy 1.09 0.28 3.92 <.001 ‘ 0.40 0.28 1.45 ns
Mesomorphy 1.08 0.28 3.91 <.001 " -0.25 0.28 -0.88 ns
Right Grip 0.58 0.27 2.11 <.05 " -0.41 0.27 -1.49 ns
Left Grip 0.82 0.27 3.00 <.005 " -0.35 0.27 -1.27 ns
Hang 1.29 0.37 3.49 <.001 ' 0.12 0.37 0.32 ns
20-75 yrs 9
Males
Mass 0.70 0.17 4.18 <..001 " 0.17 0.17 1.02 ns
BMI 0.65 0.17 3.89 <.001 ' 0.14 0.17 0.81 ns
EXTREMITY 0.99 0.17 5.90 <.001 ' 0.00 0.17 -0.02 ns
TER 0.60 0.17 3.64 <.001 " -0.01 0.17 -0.04 ns
Ectomorphy 1.11 0.17 6.63 <.001 " -0.46 0.17 2.75 <.01 ‘
Bicondylar 0.44 0.17 2.63 <.01 ' 0.23 0.17 1.40 ns
Biepicondylar 0.46 0.17 2.78 <.01 " 0.22 0.17 1.33 ns
Eamales
Mass 0.85 0.16 5.33 <.001 ' 0.35 0.16 2.16 <.05 '
BMI 0.81 0.16 5.00 <.001 ' 0.39 0.16 2.43 <.025 '
EXTREMITY 0.44 0.16 2.72 <.01 ‘ -0.30 0.16 -1.83 ns
TER 2.23 0.17 13.40 <.001 ' 0.14 0.17 0.82 ns
Ectomorphy 0.89 0.17 5.24 <.001 " -0.22 0.17 -1.32 ns
Bicondylar 1.07 0.16 6.69 <.001 ' 0.77 0.16 4.78 <.001 '
y skewness statistic

Z: standardized skewness statistic (skewness statistic / S.E.)

131

TABLE 3.9 Effects of age, by gender, on skeletal dimensions, circumferences,
and AMA.

 

 

 

Males Eamam

B” x 100' R” x 109'
5-19 yrs
Stature 93.4 ‘ 90.5 '
Sitting Height 90.9 " 88.4 ‘
SSR 22.2 ‘ 14.4 "
SIL 90.1 ‘ 86.5 '
Biacromial Breadth 87.9 ' 83.5 "
Bicristal Breadth 90.1 ' 74.7 '
Bicondylar Breadth 81.2 ' 48.9 "
Biepicondylar Breadth 81.1 ‘ 66.6 ‘
Flexed Arm Circumference 70.8 ' 52.5 "
Relaxed Arm Circumference 67.0 * 48.3 “
Maximal Calf Circumference 78.3 ’ 61.7 "
Waist Circumference 64.7 ' 38.5 '
Hip Circumference 79.7 ' 65.1 "
AMA 82.7 ' 53.5 '
20-75 yrs
Stature 15.3 ' 6.4 "
Sitting Height 20.9 * 11.0 '
SSR 3.0 7.2 "
SIL 4.6 " 1.4
Biacromial Breadth 8.8 ' 0.3
Bicristal Breadth 8.2 ‘ 9.5 '
Bicondylar Breadth 0.9 2.6
Biepicondylar Breadth 3.9 " 11.7 ‘
Flexed Arm Circumference 5.5 * 3.0
Relaxed Arm Circumference 6.0 ' 2.5
Maximal Calf Circumference 4.0 * 2.4
Waist Circumference 16.1 " 4.6 "
Hip Circumference 2.8 2.7
AMA 5.8 ‘ 1.0
‘Regressions significant at p50.05

'Ysage+age’+age’

132

TABLE 3.10 Effects of age, by gender, on fatness, relative fat distribution,
physique, grip strength, and trunk flexibility.

 

 

 

Males Eemales

R3 xJQO' R2 x 199'
5-19 yrs
Body Mass 85.2 ' 60.1 ‘
BMI 42.9 ' 32.6 '
SUM 11.0 " 18.3 "
TRUNK 15.2 ' 20.4 '
EXTREMITY 5.3 12.6 ‘
TER 35.1 ‘ 25.3 "
WHR 28.8 ' 40.6 '
Endomorphy” 71.9 ' 76.4 ‘
Mesomorphy” 82.1 ' 72.5 '
Ectomorphy” 90.1 ' 83.2 '
Right Grip 86.7 r 74.9 *
Left Grip 87.3 ‘ 70.8 “
Flexibility 2.4 6.3
20-75 yrs
Body Mass 3.7 " 2.5
BMI 10.5 ‘ 2.6
SUM 6.4 " 3.4
TRUNK 9.6 ' 2.9
EXTREMITY 1.9 2.7
TER 6.9 ' 2.8
WHR 33.7 ' 6.4 '
Endomorphy” 54.2 ‘ 71.4 ‘
Mesomorphy" 68.8 ' 65.7 "
Ectomorphyb 76.6 ‘ 75.9 "
Right Grip 25.6 * 19.7 1
Left Grip 22.6 ' 19.2 '
Elaxibilifv 24.4 ' 9.5 ’
'Regressions significant at ps0.05
'Y-age+age’+age’

”Adjusted for the effects of age( as in note above), and the other somatotype components

133
TABLE 3.11 Distribution of sibship size among 266 families.

 

 

m 1 2 3 4 5 6 Tom N

EA 114 50 23 2 - 1 190 297
FN 46 21 6 3 - - 76 118
mm 160 71 29 5 - 1 266 .415

 

134

TABLE 3.12 Effects of age, mass, stature and the BMI, by gender, on grip
strength and flexibility.

 

 

 

Males Eemales

R2 x 100 R2 x 100
5-19 yrs
Fiexibility‘ 2.4 6.3
Flexibility” 4.5 6.7
Flexibility‘ 6.2 6.6
Flexibility” 2.9 7.3
Right Grip‘ 86.7 ‘ 74.8 ‘
Right Grip” 90.9 ' 95.9 '
Right Grip“ 99.0 ' 93.0 .
Right Grip” 88.8 ' 81.9 "
Left Grip' 87.3 " 70.8 "
Left Grip” 92.0 ' 83.5 '
Left Grip" 89.2 ‘ 80.8 ‘
Left Grip“ 90.1 “ 79.0 '
20-75 yrs
Flexibliity' 24.4 * 9.5 '
Flexibility” 25.9 * 13.1 *
Flexibility‘ 25.0 * 9.6 *
Flexibility“ 25.3 ' 13.3 '
Right Grip‘ 25.6 ' 19.7 "
Right Grip” 43.6 * 33.9 '
Right Grip° 33.9 ' 32.9 *
Right Grip" 37.6 ' 27.1 '
Left Grip' 22.6 " 19.2 ‘
Left Grip” 42.1 ' 32.5 '
Left Grip‘ 32.3 r 30.7 *
1.911.600" 35-4 ' 165 “
'Regressions significant at p50.05
'Yeage+age"‘+age°
Wzage+age2+age3+mass
‘Y-age+age’+age’+stature

Waage+age2+age°+BMi

135

TABLE 4.1 Sample sizes, means and standard deviations for age and indicators
of body size.

 

   

   

 
   

   

  

 

Age Body Mass Stature Sitting Height SSR
A96 Group _Ms)_ _.(K£i)._ _.icml_ .4901).— _£%L_
_ML n .3 : |t: : I I t: 3| I ”(:‘z I I ”-13.3 I I
Males
EA
5-9 37 7.0 1.6 25.3 7.5 121.5 11.6 64.8 5.1 53.4 2.1
10-14 22 11.8 1.4 42.2 12.2 150.6 13.0 78.4 6.7 52.1 1.3
15-19 16 16.8 1.3 73.7 9.3 179.2 5.6 92.8 3.5 51.8 1.5
20-29 34 24.6 2.9 80.3 12.1 180.9 6.6 94.8 3.8 52.4 1.2
30-39 39 34.7 3.0 85.4 15.9 176.5 5.7 92.6 3.0 52.5 1.4
40-49 45 44.5 2.8 83.0 16.3 174.4 7.2 91.8 3.9 52.7 1.6
50-59 34 54.3 2.7 89.3 17.4 173.8 7.5 90.6 3.7 52.2 1.7
60-69 15 63.7 2.4 81.5 12.5 172.6 6.5 89.1 3.0 51.7 1.6
70-75 12 72.0 2.0 79.2 15.3 169.2 4.8 87.5 2.3 51.7 1.3
EN
5-9 8 6.8 1.3 29.8 10.0 125.5 9.4 66.0 6.2 52.5 1.9
10-14 6 11.2 1.4 45310.9 150.0 12.9 78.0 5.5 52.1 2.6
15-19 8 16.9 2.2 67.9 18.4 175.5 9.0 91.1 5.8 51.9 1.3
20-29 11 24.8 3.1 87.8 17.0 178.0 5.5 93.6 3.1 52.6 2.2
30-39 10 34.0 2.4 80.6 4.9 174.2 6.3 92.4 3.8 53.1 2.3
40-49 6 45.8 2.9 97.1 17.3 178.0 5.0 92.4 5.5 51.9 2.4
50-59 4 51.5 1.3 84.4 7.2 173.1 4.9 91.9 2.6 53.1 0.9
60-69 4 64.5 3.5 90.2 12.3 173.2 2.9 90.8 2.2 52.4 0.7
70-75 -
Females
EA
5-9 24 6.9 1 5 23.5 5.9 120.1 13.3 63.8 6.4 53.2 1.7
10-14. 20 11.7 1.2 43.8 14.0 150.1 9.3 78.8 5.3 52.5 1.2
15-19 16 16.7 1.5 61.7 18.9 165.1 8.3 86.7 4.9 52.5 1.0
20-29 19 24.4 3.1 66.2 14.1 162.1 5.9 85.8 4.1 52.9 1.9
30-39 54 34.1 2.9 66.1 12.7 163.0 5.8 86.4 3.2 53.0 1.1
40-49 40 44.4 2.5 73.1 19.5 163.6 5.9 87.2 3.8 53.5 1.7
50-59 33 53.5 2.9 70.5 14.6 161.4 5.4 85.6 3.1 53.0 1.1
60-69 24 64.4 3.2 66.3 12.5 158.4 5.3 83.3 3.1 52.5 1.1
70-75 10 71.4 1.3 65.2 16.2 158.4 5.0 83.0 3.2 52.4 1.0
EN
5-9 4 7.2 1.9 28.0 5.2 123.5 10.7 69.1 3.7 54.2 2.0
10-14 9 11.6 1.4 45213.5 152.4 11.1 79.6 5.6 52.3 1.1
15-19 6 16.5 1.6 62.9 28.0 162.1 7.9 87.3 5.4 53.9 0.9
20-29 17 23.1 2.5 74.8 17.3 165.5 4.4 87.6 3.0 52.9 1.0
30-39 12 32.9 3.0 77.8 14.0 162.7 5.4 86.3 2.9 53.0 1.4
40-49 12 44.4 3.5 73.6 15.0 158.7 6.3 85.0 2.7 53.6 1.2
50-59 5 52.8 2.5 78.9 11.3 161.6 4.0 85.8 2.5 53.1 1.7
60-69 7 62.6 2.9 76.5 13.2 165.4 3.8 85.0 2.1 51.4 0.9
70-25 1 71.1 70.3 153.4 78.9 51.4

 

SSR: sitting height / stature ratio (sitting height/stature X 100)

136

TABLE 4.2 Sample sizes, means and standard deviations for Indicators of
fatness and relative fat distribution.

 

 

BMI SUM TER WHR
A96 Group Mm?)— _mm)_ .iirmim). .m—
4169! n WHR.
Males
EA
5-9 37 16.9 2.5 49.9 31.5 0.91 0.19 0.99 0.06
10-14 22 19.3 3.4 59.7 36.9 1.01 0.36 0.94 0.05
15-19 16 22.9 2.2 71.5 22.9 1.56 0.37 0.95 0.05
20-29 34 24.6 3.9 75.0 31.4 2.01 0.50 0.97 0.04
30-39 39 27.3 4.3 96.6 43.1 2.29 0.60 0.90 0.05
40-49 45 27.2 4.9 90.7 39.2- 2.26 0.54 0.91 0.05
50-59 34 29.5 4.9 106.4 39.2 2.53 0.63 0.96 0.05
60-69 15 27.7 4.1 90.5 31.1 2.37 0.62 0.96 0.03
70-75 12 27.6 5.0 97.1 29.0 2.10 0.33 0.95 0.05
EN
59 9 19.5 4.1 73.9 40.4 1.29 0.37 0.94 0.04
10-14 6 19.9 2.6 95.5 25.4 1.59 0.33 0.99 0.03
15-19 7 22.1 4.6 73.3 51.1 1.43 0.39 0.96 0.02
20-29 11 27.6 4.7 103.9 35.4 2.09 0.43 0.99 0.04
30-39 10 26.6 2.1 97.7 22.5 2.61 0.94 0.91 0.03
40-49 6 30.5 4.1 111.1 45.7 2.50 0.56 0.96 0.05
50-59 4 29.2 3.3 99.0 24.4 2.72 0.29 0.96 0.09
60-69 4 30.0 3.4 124.0 27.2 2.51 0.33 1.00 0.06
70-75 -
Females
EA
5-9 24 16.1 1.9 53.4 21.5 0.91 0.19 0.97 0.05
10-14 20 19.1 4.2 77.4 42.7 1.02 0.30 ' 0.79 0.07
15-19 16 22.3 4.5 97.4 43.2 1.19 0.29 0.76 0.06
20-29 19 25.2 5.2 117.5 51.5 1.12 0.27 0.75 0.04
30-39 53 24.9 4.9 109.7 43.0 1.19 0.29 0.77 0.04
40-49 40 27.3 6.9 136.6 49.9 1.24 0.24 0.90 0.06
50-59 33 27.0 5.1 135.4 43.9 1.26 0.30 0.90 0.07
60-69 24 26.4 4.6 137.4 44.2 1.29 0.45 0.92 0.06
70-75 10 25.9 5.3 126.6 53.2 144 0.99 0.92 0.05
EN
59 4 19.2 0.3 73.5 19.2 1.22 0.10 0.92 0.12
10-14 9 19.2 4.4 92.9 41.1 1.22 0.29 0.91 0.07
15-19 5 20.4 2.4 79.4 16.3 1.20 0.29 0.76 0.04
20-29 17 27.2 5.9 139.4 57.3 1.57 0.46 0.93 0.06
30-39 12 29.4 4.9 197.5 40.7 134 0.23 0.95 0.06
40-49 12 29.3 6.1 142.0 32.9 1.57 0.39 0.94 0.05
50-59 5 30.2 3.9 170.0 32.0 1.27 0.06 0.97 0.04
60-69 7 29.1 5.5 156.7 57.0 1.43 0.23 0.99 0.03
70.75 1 29.9 4490 2.10 0.91

 

 

SUM: sum of six skinfolds, (triceps+biceps+mediai calf+sumcapular+suprailiac+abdominai);
TER: trunk I extremity ratio (subscapular+suprailiac+abdominai /triceps+biceps+medial calf);
WHR: waist I hip circumference ratio

137

TABLE 4.3 Sample sizes, means, medians, and standard deviations for
extremity skinfolds.

 

 

Triceps Biceps MediaICalf EXTREMITY
A96 Group _iumi_ _imm)___ ____imm)__ _.(mmi_
Males
EA
5-9 37 10.7 90 5.4 4.6 4.3 2.3 9.3 8.0 5.0 23.9 21.2 11.6
10-14 22 11.7 9.0 5.4 5.3 4.0 3.3 11.1 9.3 5.2 28.1 22.2 13.5
15-19 16 12.5 10.7 5.3 5.3 5.0 2.1 10.4 8.9 3.8 28.3 25.5 9. 9
20-29 34 11.3 11.7 4.4 4.4 3.7 2.5 9.3 8.1 4.6 25.0 23.8 10. 3
30-39 38 129124 5.5 6.1 5.2 3.7 10.410.0 5.2 28.7 28.0 12.2
40-49 45 12.8 12.2 5.5 5.2 4.5 2.3 9. 9 8.6 5.2 27.0 25.6 10.6
50-59 34 13.4 11.0 6.3 7.3 5.6 4.1 10.6 9.0 5.8 30.4 25.0 14.0
60-69 14 12.2 10.6 5.2 6.0 5.3 2.6 8.9 8.2 4.2 27.0 22.6 11.4
70-75 12 13.1 12.8 5.2 6.5 6.0 2.7 9.0 9.1 3.5 28.6 30.8 10.5
EU
5-9 8 13.3 10.1 6.5 6.5 5.9 2.2 11.0 10.8 3.3 30.8 26.5 11.4
10-14 6 15.717.6 3.6 7.5 7.6 1.1 13514.5 3.7 36.6 38.5 7.4
15-19 7 12.0 9.0 7.5 5.2 4.6 2.6 11.6 10.0 5.8 28.8 24.2 15.4
20-29 11 14.814.0 4.8 6.8 6.0 2.9 11.911.0 4.4 33.5 30.8 10.6
30-39 10 11.4 11.5 4.0 4.7 4.1 1.6 9.0 8.3 4.0 25.1 24.7 8. 5
4049 6 14.9125 5.9 7.1 7.1 2.9 9.5 8.0 4.5 31.5 28.0 12.1
50-59 4 12.5 7.2 3.6 6.5 4.6 2.1 7. 7 6.0 2.9 26.6 18.0 7.6
60-69 4 15.4 15. 8 5.2 8.7 7.6 2.6 12. 2 10.2 5.4 36.2 33.8 11.6
70-75 - -
Females
EA
5-9 23 12.6 11.2 4.0 5.4 5.0 1.9 11.0 9.6 4.2 29.2 26.3 9.6
10-14 20 14.711.7 6.2 7.1 5.2 4.5 157127 7.7 37.5 28.2 17.7
15-19 16 19.1 15.8 8.0 7.9 6.5 3.7 17.417.2 8.3 44.4 39.6 18.7
20-29 19 24.1 21.4 9.2 9.2 6.0 6.6 21.719.0 8.3 55.1 43.4 22.7
30-39 53 23.1 22.0 7.5 9.9 7.8 5.9 18.8 17.6 7.3 51.7 46.2 19.0
40-49 40 27.0 24.4 8.6 13. 3 10.0 7.5 21.7 19.2 7.7 61.4 55.0 22. 4
50-59 33 26.2 25.8 7.6 12. 5 12. 0 6.0 22.3 21.2 7.3 60.9 62.0 18. 8
60-69 23 26.2 23.0 8.3 13.0 11.2 6.7 21.5 21.4 7.5 60.7 55.4 20.7
70-75 10 23.3 20.0 11.6 12.3 10.3 7.6 19.2 17.8 8.0 54.7 49.4 25.5
EN
5-9 3 15.617.0 4.7 6.3 6.2 1.6 11.011.4 1.4 32.9 34.6 7.6
10-14 9 14.6 15.2 4.5 7.8 6.0 4.0 13.6 14.4 5.2 36.0 35.2 13.3
15-19 5 14.5 14.8 3.6 5.0 5.2 1.4 17.2 16.4 6.1 36.7 36.6 10.6
20-29 16 25.7 24.9 10.3 12.8 11.5 7.8 19.7 16.8 11.3 58.4 56.6 28.9
30-39 11 31.4 30.4 7.4 16.6 17.4 4.7 23.8 22.0 6.8 71.8 77.4 16.5
40-49 12 25.2 25.0 7.2 13.9 10.6 9.3 18.6 16.1 6.8 56.5 56.2 16.1
50-59 5 30.1 32.0 6.5 19.1 16.4 8.4 26.0 26.4 1.9 75.2 76.2 15.2
60-69 7 30.1 32.0 11.8 14.4 14.6 8.0 21.5 21.6 9.4 66.0 70.2 26.8
70-75 1 20.4 7.2 20.2 47.8

 

EXT REMITY: sum of extremity skinfolds (biceps+triceps+medial calf)

138

TABLE 4.4 Sample sizes, means, medians, and standard deviations for trunk

 

 

 

skinfolds.

Subscapular Suprailiac Abdominal TRUNK
A96 Group 4mm; __..(um)___ _tmmi_ __.(um)___
Males
EA
5-9 37 7.4 5.8 4.8 6.0 40 5.2 10.9 8.8 8.5 24.4 19.2 18.3
10-14 22 8.5 6.1 6.2 9.3 5.9 7.9 12.8 7.9 10.8 30.6 19.7 24.1
15-19 16 10.7113 2.7 10.811.4 3.4 21.8 22.4 9.0 43.2 47.2 14.2
20-29 34 14.1 12.0 6.8 12.2 11.1 6.7 23.6 24.5 10.6 50.0 49.8 22.3
30-39 39 19.8 18.0 10.0 13.7 12.4 6.7 32.1 33.4 12.8 64.1 61.6 25.9
40-49 45 18.7 17.4 10.2 13.7 12.4 6.9 29.9 32.0 11.0 62. 3 63.2 25.4
50-59 34 25.2 24.5 9.9 15.7 15.1 6.9 33.7 34.0 10.3 74.6 73.4 25.0
60-69 15 21.0 18.8 11.0 14.1 10.0 9.6 34.7 33.0 12.7 69.7 58.2 31.4
70-75 12 17817.2 6.3 11.210.7 4.6 29.4 30.6 9.2 58.5 57.9 18.8
E]!
5-9 8 12.8 8.2 9.5 10.4 7.0 7.6 19.9 16.6 12.3 43.1 31.6 29.2
10-14 6 18.7 20.3 6.9 14.3 13.8 6. 7 25.9 25.8 8.0 58. 8 62.4 19.3
15-19 7 12.6 11.5 6.8 11.9 7.2 10.1 20.0 12.6 14.6 44.5 29.6 36.0
20-29 11 20.2 21.4 10.1 17.0 19.6 7.9 33.2 36.4 9.8 70.5 78.4 26.1
30-39 10 19.4 19.7 5.8 11.7 11.9 3.5 31.5 31.9 9.5 62.6 67.9 17.1
40-49 6 28.4 27.4 14.1 15.0 13.8 7.1 36.1 37.6 13.9 79.5 78.8 34.6
50-59 4 19.6182 5.8 15314.1 3.2 36.5 34.3 8.8 71.4 66.6 17.0
60-69 4 28.5 24.7 9.9 22.1 22.2 5.4 37.3 36.5 2.9 87.8 86.4 15.6
70-75 -
Females
EA
5-9 22 7.5 6.4 3.3 6.6 5.4 3.8 10.2 7.9 5. 7 . 24.2 19.9 12.6
10-14 20 11.9 8.8 7.2 11.7 8.2 8.8 16.4 13.3 10.7 39.9 31.5 26.0
15-19 16 14.9 11.8 8. 3 14.1 10.8 8.5 23.3 19.4 10.1 52.5 46. 2 26.2
20-29 19 20.8 17.8 10.4 15.7 13.2 9.8 26.0 22.6 11.1 62.4 54.6 30.3
30-39 46 19.6 16.0 10.2 14.2 10.3 8.6 25.7 23.7 10.0 59.5 51.2 28.0
40.49 39 24.9 26.0 10.0 19.2 18.0 10.0 31.5 30.2 10.2 75.2 74.0 28.0
50-59 31 23.9 23.2 9.8 20.0 19.8 9.1 31.5 33.0 9.5 75.5 75.6 26.6
60-69 23 22.3 20.2 9.6 19.5 18.4 9.6 33.4 33.2 9.4 75.1 73.8 27.0
70-75 10 18.5 15.8 9.7 18.9 18.9 10.4 31.9 31.7 10.2 69.3 63.9 28.6
EN
5-9 3 10.8 11.8 3.8 12.3 13.0 5.1 17.5 18.2 3. 3 40.6 45.2 11.6
10-14 9 13.3 11.2 7.7 14.2 10.0 10.2 19.3 15.8 10.6 46.8 37.8 28.1
15-19 6 12.6 11.2 3.7 16.2 11.8 12.7 23.7 19.5 12. 2 42.7 42.0 9.0
20-29 16 27.7 31.6 11.4 22.8 26.2 10.9 32.9 32.1 8.0 82.2 86.8 30.0
30-39 10 32.4 34.1 9.4 27.1 27.3 11.2 36.2 37.5 7.4 95.7 98.8 25.7
40-49 12 29.0 28.3 10.3 22.9 22.1 8.8 35.6 36.0 6.7 89. 7 85.8 23. 5
50-59 5 29.5 29.4 5.5 27.2 26.6 6.6 38.0 39.6 6. 2 94. 8 95.6 16.9
60-69 7 27.7 25.6 12.7 24.9 27.8 9.3 38.2 40.0 10. 6 90. 7 87.6 31.3
20-75 1 22.0 31 .0 47.2 400. 2

 

TRUNK: sum of trunk skinfolds (subscapular+suprailiac+abdominal)

139
TABLE 4.5 Sample sizes, means and standard deviations for skeletal breadths.

 

   

Bicondylar Biepicondylar Biacromial Bicristal HSR

A96 Group _m1_ __(9m)__ __.iqni_ _icm)._ _fiizi_

Hi: :1 U ”9.: I I ”.251 | 11.2:1 | 11.2.:1 D
Ilales
EA .
5-9 37 7.5 0.8 5.1 0.5 27.9 3.0 20.2 2.3 72.6 3.7
10-14 22 8.9 0.7 6.1 0.6 33.8 3.4 24.6 3.1 72.8 4.2
15-19 1 6 9.7 6.9 7.1 0.5 41.5 1.9 30.0 1.8 72.3 3.5
20-29 34 9.7 0.7 7.2 3.5 44.0 2.1 30.6 1.8 69.6 3.3
30-39 39 9.9 0.7 7.3 0.4 44.0 2.5 31.8 2.7 72.2 4.1
40-49 45 9.7 0.7 7.2 0.5 43.1 2.4 31.8 2.6 73.5 3.6
50-59 34 9.9 0.7 7.5 0.6 42.7 2.6 33.1 2.9 77.4 5.3
60-69 15 9.9 0.8 7.4 0.6 42.4 2.4 31.9 2.9 75.8 5.4
70-75 1 2 9.8 0.7 7.4 0.3 41.3 1.9 32.6 2.1 79.0 3.7
EN
5-9 8 7.6 0.7 5.3 0.3 29.4 2.6 20.6 2.5 69.9 3.5
10-14 6 9.0 0.7 6.3 0.5 33.9 1.7 24.0 2.3 70.6 4.2
15-19 8 9.5 0.8 7.1 0.6 42.0 4.0 29.0 3.7 70.4 4.2
20-29 11 10.1 1.0 7.5 0.4 44.6 3.3 32.1 2.3 72.0 2.9
30-39 10 9.9 0.3 7.2 0.3 _ 43.2 1.7 30.9 2.2 71.4 4.5
40-49 6 10.1 0.8 7.6 0.4 45.1 1.3 34.2 2.2 76.0 5.5
50-59 4 10.0 0.5 7.5 0.4 43.3 2.3 33.0 1.5 76.1 1.6
60-69 4 9.9 0.7 7.4 0.4 42.1 2.4 34.3 1.4 81.4 2.2
70-75 -
Females
EA
5-9 23 7.1 0.7 4.8 0.5 27.6 2.5 20.0 1 9 72.6 3.2
10-14 20 8.4 0.8 5.8 0.3 33.9 3.0 25.2 3.1 74.3 4.0
15-19 16 8.7 1.0 6.1 0.6 37.4 2.0 28.9 3.1 77.2 5.5
20-29 1 9 9.0 0.7 6.1 0.4 37.7 1.6 29.1 2 1 77.0 4.6
30-39 54 9.1 0.9 6.2 0.4 38.2 2.0 30.4 2.6 79.6 4.8
40-49 40 9.5 1.3 6.5 0.5 38.6 2.4 31.4 3.5 81.0 6.4
50-59 33 9.5 0.9 6.4 0.4 38.0 2.1 32.1 2.8 84.5 5.9
60.69 24 9.4 0.7 6.6 0.5 37.9 1.9 31.9 2.6 83.8 5.7
70-75 10 9.3 0.8 6.5 0.5 38.3 1.6 32.5 2.0 84.9 3.3
E]!
5-9 4 7.3 0.3 5.0 0.2 28.3 1.6 20.9 1.9 73.5 3.5
10-14 9 8.3 0.5 5.7 0.3 34.2 3.5 26.0 2.9 76.1 2.3
15-19 16 8.7 1.0 6.1 0.6 37.4 2.0 28.9 3.1 74.2 6.2
20-29 17 9.5 1.3 6.4 0.4 39.6 2.1 31.4 3.2 79.4 6.3
30-39 1 2 9.7 0.8 6.5 0.3 39.8 1.7 32.4 2.0 81.4 4.5
40-49 12 9.6 1.0 6.6 0.5 38.6 1.8 32.0 3.0 82.9 5.3
50-59 5 9.8 0.4 6.9 0.1 39.6 1.5 34.5 1.5 87.3 4.4
60-69 7 9.9 1.1 6.9 0.7 40.2 1.4 34.4 2.2 85.5 5.0
70-75 1 9.2 6.3 48.2 34.0 ' 89.0

 

HSR: hip I shoulder ratio (bicristal/biacromial x 100)

140

TABLE 4.6 Sample sizes, means and standard deviations for circumferences
and AMA.

 

 

Age Flexed Arm Relaxed Ann Maximal Cali Waist Hip AMA

Group _.(9£D)_ _icmi_ .1901)— _L9mL_ m— __£90fl_.
* l ' : : “‘1‘; I I ”5:. I 11.3.3 I I ”at. I 14.1 :| I

Males

EA

5-9 37 20.2 2.9 19.0 2.8 24.5 3.1 58. 4 6.9 65.9 8.0 19.67 3.8
10-14 22 24.3 3.7 22.7 3.6 30.0 3.4 67. 5 9.5 80.0 9.1 29.1 7.1
15-19 16 32.3 2.7 29.4 2.8 35.7 2.3 82. 9 6.8 97.1 5.4 52.0 9.4
20-29 34 34.6 3.3 31.8 3.5 36.7 3.1 86. 2 7. 7 99.3 5.6 64.1 14.2
30-39 39 36.6 3.5 33.0 3.5 38.4 3.4 92. 5 10. 9 102.0 7.4 66.4 12.8
40-49 45 35.5 3.2 32.3 3.2 37.0 3.7 92. 9 11.7 100.9 7.2 64.4 11.8
50-59 34 36.2 3.5 33.1 3.3 37.8 2.8 100.1 12. 5 104.3 9.0 67. 0 12. 0
60-69 15 35.3 5.3 31.3 3.2 37.1 4.1 97. 2 9. 5 101.6 7.3 60. 4 10. 3
70-75 12 33.6 3.8 30. 3 3.5 34.8 3.1 96. 3 10. 4 101.2 7.3 55. 0 10. 9

EN

5-9 8 22.1 4.2 20.3 3.5 25.5 3.2 64.7 10.6 68.7 9.2 20.9 4.6
10-14 6 26.2 2.7 24.3 2.6 30.0 3.3 73.0 7.7 83.0 8.1 ‘29. 9 5.4
15-19 8 32.7 7.2 29.4 6.6 34.7 3.6 80.7 11.4 93.2 11.5 44.7 7.5
20-29 11 36.7 4.2 32.7 3.6 37.8 3.1 92.3 11.5 104.0 8.4 63.4 13.0
30-39 10 35.5 2.4 32.3 2.5 36. 3 1.5 91.0 2. 7 99.8 3.2 66.1 11.6
40-49 6 37.8 3.3 34.7 3.0 37.7 4.3 102.1 11.8 106.1 8.9 72.4 16.8
50-59 4 35.1 3.2 33.0 3.6 36.4 1.0 95.7 3.9 100.1 3.4 68.217.6
60-6919 35.4 5.0 31.5 3.1 36.9 3.9 98.5 9.0 102.0 6.7 61.314.2
70-75 -

Females

EA

5-9 23 19.9 2.2 18.8 2.2 24.5 2.5 56.0 4. 8 64. 8 7.1 17.8 3.3
10-14 20 24.4 3.5 23.1 3.3 30.7 4.1 65.1 10. 5 83. 0. 10. 9 27.4 6. 0
15-19 16 28.9 4.9 27.3 5.2 34.4 3.9 72.4 10.7 94.8 11.0 37.0 12. 3
20-29 19 30.2 4.0 28.7 3.8 35.7 3.4 77.1 9.6 101.9 10.1 35.6 6.0
30-39 53 30.8 3.7 29.2 3.8 35.8 3.1 77.5 10. 9 100.6 10.9 38.7 8.1
40-49 40 32.2 4.4 30.9 4.8 35.9 3.9 84. 4 14. 7 105.5 13.9 40.7 10. 4
50-59 33 32.3 4.1 30.0 3.7 35.6 3.3 85. 2 13.5 106.1 11.8 38.1 7.1
60-69 24 32.1 4.6 30.2 4.6 35.0 2.6 84. 9 11.6 103.6 9. 7 40.1 8.7
70-75 10 31.8 6.3 29.5 4.9 34.3 3.1 83.5 11.0 101.3 10.6 39.4 7.1
EN

5-9 3 22.0 2.3 20.5 1.5 26.2 9.0 63.3 2. 4 78.6 14.6 19.5 0.8
10-14 9 24.1 3.0 22.9 3.4 29.8 3.1 67.7 12.4 83.4 11.2 27.1 7.2
15-19 6 28.7 5.6 26.9 5.7 34.1 6.7 72.3 14.1 94.9 16.2 32.1 3.9
20-29 17 32.1 4.3 30.3 4.2 36.7 4.9 87.6 11.8 105.9 12.8 40.8, 6.9
30-39 11 34.8 4.0 32.1 3.0 37. 5 3.2 92.4 10.7 108.8 8.8 39. 4 5. 8
40-49 12 34.4 5.4 32.0 5.1 35.5 3.3 89.6 12.2 106.9 13.3 42.2 10.0
50-59 5 33.1 2.2 30.5 2.1 36.2 1.9 95.5 10.3 109.2 9.8 35.2 2.5
60-69 7 34.5 5.6 32.3 5.3 34.9 2.6 97.4 11.0 110.3 10. 2 41. 8 6.3
70-75 1 28.7 27.8 33.0 415.5 115.5 36.4

AMAzestimatedarmmusciearea

141

TABLE 4.7 Sample sizes, means and standard deviations for Heath-Carter
anthropometric somatotype components.

 

 

 

Age Group Endcmnmhx MW! 5912032621]!
.1151 n MeanJQ—_Mem SD .Maan__SD__
Males

EA

5-9 34 3.2 1.6 4.9 1.0 2.1 1.2
10-14 22 3.0 1.7 4.3 1.3 3.5 1.6
15-19 16 3.3 1.1 4.3 1.2 2.8 1.0
20-29 34 3.7 1.5 4.9 1.6 2.4 1.4
30-39 39 4.7 1.9 6.2 1.4 1.3 1.0
40-49 44 4.5 1.8 5.9 1.6 1.3 1.2
50-59 34 5.3 1.8 6.6 1.4 0.8 0.8
60-69 15 4.9 2.1 6.6 2.3 1.0 1.3
70-75 12 4.5 1.5 6.0 1.6 1.1 1.1
EN

5-9 8 4.6 2.3 5.0 1.0 1.8 1.2
10-14 6 5.4 1.6 4.9 1.3 2.4 1.5
15-19 7 3.5 2.3 4.3 1.4 3.1 1.5
20-29 11 5.1 1.7 6.2 1.8 1.3 1.2
30-39 10 4.6 1.3 6.0. 1.1 1.2 0.9
40-49 6 5.6 1.8 6.6 1.3 0.5 0.4
50-59 4 4.9 1.2 6.3 1.5 0.8 1.1
60-69 4 6.3 1.4 6.2 1.7 0.4 0.6
70-75 -

Females

EA

5-9 22 3.6 1.2 4.3 1.1 2.5 1.2
10-14 9 4.5 1.9 3.3 0.9 3.3 1 .8
15-19 15 4.9 1.8 3.8 1.4 2.4 ' 1.5
20-29 19 5.9 2.0 4.6 1.7 1.5 1.3
30-39 44 5.6 1.8 4.5 1.6 1.7 1.2
40-49 34 6.4 1.7 5.0 1.9 1.5 1.2
50-59 31 6.6 1.8 5.4 1.6 1.0 1.1
60-69 23 6.5 1.7 6.0 1.5 0.8 0.8
70-75 10 5.9 1.9 5.7 1.8 1.0 0.6
EN

59 3 4.6 1.0 4.5 0.6 1.6 0.5
10-14 9 4.5 1.9 3.3 0.9 3.3 1.8
15-19 6 5.3 2.2 4.1 2.6 2.3 1.6
20-29 1 2 6.7 2.3 5.3 2.1 1.2 1.1
30-39 9 8.1 1.7 6.3 1.7 0.5 0.8
40-49 10 7.5 1.4 6.2 1.3 0.4 0.4
50-59 4 7.8 1.2 6.1 0.9 0.3 0.3
60-69 7 7.3 2.3 5.9 2.5 1.0 1.5
711-25 1 7.1 5.3 0.1

 

142

TABLE 4.8 Sample sizes, means and standard deviations for grip strength and
trunk flexibility.

 

 

 

 

A98 Grow mmamwsm— Miami)— Millenn—
Jasi n Mean—SD n New 50 Mean.._SD_
Males

EA

5-9 37 13.2 4.2 37 12.3 4.1 35 28.1 4.5
10-14 22 24.9 9.0 22 24.0 7.8 22 23.8 8.6
15-19 16 52.1 8.6 16 50.2 8.5 16 29.5 6.0
20-29 34 60.4 8.2 34 57.4 8.1 34 32.4 6.6
30-39 39 58.9 8.4 39 58.0 8.3 38 31.7 7.6
40-49 45 57.8 9.4 45 55.1 9.5 42 26.7 9.0
50-59 34 53.5 9.6 34 51.3 9.8 34 22.0 7.5
60-69 15 50.2 9.7 15 47.8 9.1 1 2 23.0 7. 0
70-75 12 39.8 6.9 12 39.2 5.2 11 16.8 101
EN

5-9 8 11.9 4.0 8 11.3 4.1 8 26.8 5.5
10-14 6 21.7 5. 2 6 20.8 4.3 6 24.3 7.2
15-19 8 49.0 11.7 8 45.3 14.0 8 28.3 6.6
20-29 11 59.0 10.7 1 1 56.4 10.6 11 29.4 11.2
30-39 9 52.1 5.9 10 49.5 10.6 10 27. 9 9. 5
40-49 6 49.6 8.9 6 47.9 10. 5 6 23. 1 12. 6
50-59 4 50.6 7.3 4 47.5 9. 9 4 19. 3 8. 8
60-69 4 41.8 7.8 3 31.3 11.9 4 15.1 10. 6
70-75 -

Females

EA

59 23 11.4 3.4 23 10.8 3.3 21 28.8 5.0
10-14 20 23.0 5.2 20 21.0 4.9 20 ‘ 28.8 6.7
15-19 15 33.4 7.8 15 30.2 8.4 14 30. 6 5.8
20-29 19 32.9 6.6 19 31.1 6.1 19 30. 9 7.8
30-39 54 34.8 5.9 54 32.9 6.0 52 32. 3 8.4
40-49 39 34.0 5.8 40 31.7 5.6 38 27.1 8.6
50-59 32 30.4 6.6 33 28.5 6.6 32 25.1 9.1
60-69 23 29.2 5.0 22 27.0 6.2 20 27.6 8.7
70-75 10 24.8 4.5 10 24.2 4.8 8 23.3 4.7
EN

59 4 10.8 2.3 4 10.8 2.2 3 30.3 4.5
10-14 9 20.7 6. 9 9 ' 19.0 4.7 9 27.9 6.4
15-19 6 33.1 10. 0 6 29.1 8.4 6 31.0 6.3
20-29 17 36.1 6.2 17 33. 2 5.4 17 30.3 8.7
30-39 12 36.0 7.0 12 34. 3 6.7 1 2 34.5 9.5
40-49 12 33.4 7.9 12 31.0 7.6 12 29.6 6.6
50-59 5 29.4 4.8 5 28.6 3.2 5 29.0 4.2
60-69 7 27.6 3.7 7 23.5 3.9 7 24.2 A 4.5

70-75 1 1 6.0 1 14-0 J 9.5

I43

 

mN a «MK Ne v.2. FN.. on DNA. #01. JV a and h? AWN Row 5* g
and NOS 0. ad ad a mud on; 9.. a cm or ad 6.: mp Zn
556 meg. mm 0.6. N.N. mm 2.6 mm. w PM a mm #0 md ad vn (m
ee.eEeu

06.. 04.5 mm 0.0. m.m_. av 5.0 cc... mm ..p mm N0 ed 06 N0 .30...
9.... ~95 N. ad .6 GP and #0.. 0.. N_. MN 0. ad m6 0.. 2....
NO; 3.5 ov 069 Yb. mm and we; av ..w mu m4 9N ad a? (w
as?!

 

 

 

 

amends: nail: $333.. .586
Edmund; 3334333313333:

.eue .o flee» a...» c2220 ... sees: LouoE use one .0. ace—.35.. ...—eves: use eceeE .eefie 0358 Re m..n<._.

144

TABLE 4.10 Anthropometric z-scores“ and results of t-tests for differences
between males and females, and between EA and FM samples.

 

 

 

 

 

Group jA JN

n Mean—SD n Mean__SD___
Males -
5:19.163 _
z—stature 75 0.49 1 .05 22 0.98 0.72 ‘
z-SSR 74 -0.66 1 .23 22 -0.73 1 .48
z-mass 75 0.68 1.20 21 1.44 1.62 ‘
z-BMI 75 0.40 1.02 21 0.82 1.33
z-triceps 75 0.45 1.06 21 0.80 1.10
z-subscapular 73 0.44 0.87 21 1.47 1.72 ‘
z-AMA 75 0.02 0.82 21 0.15 0.87
29:15.15
z-stature 167 0.47 0.92 35 0.42 0.71
z-SSR 167 -0.41 1.03 35 -0.21 1.19
z-maas 166 0.89 1.31 35 1.14 1.13
z-BMI 176 0.52 1.15 35 0.80 0.87
z-triceps 175 0.13 0.81 35 0.31 0.70
z-subscapuiar 177 0.37 1.10 35 0.75 1.04
z-AMA 175 0.12 1.06 35 0.26 0.70
Females
5:12.166
z-stature 60 0.65 1.32 19 0.75 1.03
z-SSR 60 -0.54 0.84 18 -0.10 0.96
z-mass 60 0.74 1.76 19 1.11 2.11
z-BMi 60 0.26 1.06 18 0.39 1.05
z-triceps 59 0.21 0.96 17 0.08 0.70 #
z-subscapular 58 0.39 0.94 17 0.54 0.85 #
z-AMA 59 0.11 1.14 17 0.03 0.90
2915.166
z-stature 170 0.41 0.81 53 0.55 0.86
z-SSR 167 -0.41 1.01 53 -0.38 0.87
z-mass 168 -0.43 1.30 ii 53 0.21 1.20 if '
z-BMI 178 0.37 0.98 54 0.99 1.05 '
z-triceps 178 0.05 0.87 51 0.47 1.00 '
z-subscapular 1 68 0.24 0.84 51 0.98 0.98 '
leMA 1 79 0.09 0.79 51 0.35 0.19 .

 

'FN and EA samples significantly different at pS0.05

«Male and female samples significantly different at different at p50.05

‘Stature, mass, and SSR were z-standardized using Canadian reference data (Health and Welfare
Canada, 1 980)

”BMI, triceps and subscapular were z-standardized using NHANES Ii reference data (Najjar and
Rowland, 1987)

’AMA z-standardized using NHANES l and II reference data for Whites (Frisancho, 1990)

145

TABLE 4.11 Anthropometric z-scores‘ for FN adults 20-75 yrs standardized
using FN reference data from Canada and results of t-tests for differences
between males and females.

 

 

 

 

_.Mala__ __Eamale__

n Mean—SD n MeanJL—_
z-stature 35 0.70 0.93 53 0.99 1.00
z-mass 35 1.38 1.19 53 0.69 1.09#
1:558 3.5__Q.0_1_LI16.___5§__-.Q.31_Q.6.0__

#Male and fernaie samples significantly different at different at pS0.05
'Stature, mass, and SSR were z-standardized using FN reference data (Health and Welfare
Canada,1980) ‘

TABLE 4.12 Results of the secular trend regression analysis for stature.

 

 

 

 

S.E. S.E.
6:01.19 Equatim tern) (anal—(SM I .0
55111591909
EA Males y = 184.6 - .209 age .03 .41 <.001 '
EA Females y = 166.3 - .098 age .03 .23 .002 "
FN Males y a 179.6 - .097 age .07 .24 .17
FN Females y s 165.9 - .081 age .05 .21 .13
W
EA Males y a 80.3 - .121 age 4» 1.20 SIL .02 .05 .89 <.001 '
EA Females y . 76.3 - .062 age + 1.16 SIL .02 .07 .80 <.001 '
Wanna
EAMales y. 181.7-.10 age .04 .21 <.005 *
mm 1! 246515959119. 49 -1° 41—

 

 

‘Regression equations significant at p50.05
SIL: subischial length .

146

TABLE 4.13 Results of ANCOVAs for differences in stature, skeletal
dimensions, and AMA between EA and FN subiects, with age as the covariate.

 

 

 

 

 

EA FN

Limp n M n M F 9
Males
5:19.15 -
Stature (cm) 75 142.3 25.5 22 150.4 24.0 0.84 .363
SSR ('16) 74 52.7 1 .9 22 52.2 1 .8 0.46 .501
Bicondylar (cm) 75 8.4 1.2 21 8.6 1.1 0.29 .590
Biepicondylar (cm) 75 5.8 0.9 22 6. 2 0.9 2.77 .099
Biacromial (cm) 74 32.6 6.1 22 35. 2 6.3 5.1 7 .025 '
Bicristal (cm) 74 23.7 4.6 21 24. 4 4.6 0. 01 .926
HSR (96) 74 72.6 3.8 21 70.3 3. 7 6. 34 .014 *
AMA (crn’) 75 29.3 14.0 21 31.4 11.8 0. 04 .838
2015.15
Stature (cm) 179 175.5 7.3 35 175.8 5.6 0.29 .589
SSR (‘16) 179 52.3 1.5 35 52.6 2.0 0.71 .401
Bicondylar (cm) 177 9.8 0.7 35 10. 0 0.7 2.37 .125
Biepicondylar (cm) 179 7.3 0.5 35 7. 4 0.4 3.76 .054 '
Biacrcrrial (cm) 178 43.2 2.5 35 43. 9 2.5 0.79 .374
Bicristal (cm) 178 31.9 2.6 35 32. 5 2.4 3.43 .065
HSR (99) 177 73.8 5.1 35 74.1 4. 9 3.03 .083
AMA (cm’) 177 64.3 12.6 35 66.0 13. 6 0.30 .582
Females
m
Stature (cm) 60 142.1 21.8 19 149.4 17.3 0.79 .378
SSR (96) 60 52.8 1.4 18 53.1 1.5 1.29 .259
Bicondylar (cm) 59 8.0 1.1 18 8.0 0.6 0.09 .767
Biepicondylar (cm) 59 5.5 0.7 19 5.7 0.6 0.91 .344
Biacrorniai (cm) 59 32.4 4.8 19 34. 2 4.6 1.61 .209
Bicristal (cm) 59 24.2 4.5 19 25. 7 4.0 0. 76 .387
HSR 0%) 59 74.4 4.5 19 75. 0 4.1 0. 04 .846
AMA (cm') 59 26.2 1 0.8 17 27.2 7.0 0. 25 .619
2915116
Stature (cm) 1 80 161.9 5.9 54 162.8 5.6 0.12 .729
SSR ($6) 177 53.0 1 .4 54 52. 9 1 .3 1 .16 .282
Bicondylar (cm) 178 9.3 1.0 54 9. 6 1.0 7.04 .009 '
Biepicondylar (cm) 180 6.4 4.5 54 6. 6 0.5 17.45 < .001 '
Biacromial (cm) 178 38.2 2.0 54 39.5 1.8 16.94 < .001 '
Bicristal (cm) 179 31.1 2.9 54 32. 5 2. 8 17.72 <.001 '
HSR (‘16) 177 81.4 5.9 54 82. 3 5. 9 5.95 .016 '

1 78 39.9 8.4 J1 40.3 7.1 1 .71 -199

 

 

'EA and FN samples significantly different at p50.05

147

TABLE 4.14 Results of ANCOVAs for differences in stature, skeletal
dimensions, and AMA between males and females, with age as the covariate.

 

 

 

 

6:01.19 n Jean—SO n .Maan an I !L
EA
5:195:16
Stature (cm) 75 142.3 25.5 60 142.1 21.8 5.18 .024 '
SSR (‘15) 74 52.7 1.9 60 52.8 1.4 0.59 .444
Bicondylar (cm) 75 8.4 1.2 59 8.0 1.1 15.73 <.001 '
Biepicondylar (cm) 75 5.8 0.9 59 5. 5 .7 33.14 <.001 ‘
Biacromial (cm) 74 32.6 6.1 ' 59 32. 4 4.8 5.81 .017 ‘
Bicristal (cm) 74 23.7 4.6 59 24. 2 4.5 0.04 .844
HSR (96) 74 72.6 3.8 59 74. 4 4. 5 5.82 .017 '
AMA (cm?) 75 29.3 14.0 59 26.2 10. 8 13.71 <.001 '
212215.115
Stature (cm) 179 175.5 7.3 180 161.9 5.9 414.02 <.001 '
SSR (96) 179 52.3 1.5 177 53.0 1.4 21.90 <.001 "
Bicondylar (cm) 177 9.8 0.7 178 9.3 1.0 41.19 <.001 '
. Biepicondylar (cm) 179 7.3 0.5 180 6. 4 4.5 414.89 <.001 "
Biacromial (cm) 178 43.2 2.5 178 38. 2 2.0 451.87 <.001 "
Bicristal(cm) 178 31.9 2.6 179 31.1 2.9 8.82 .003 '
HSR (96) 177 73.8 5.1 177 81.4 5.9 204.45 <.001 '
AMA(cm’) 177 64.3 12.6 178 38.9 8.4 498.59 <.001 '
FN
5:19.15
Stature (cm) 22 150.4 24.0 19 149.4 17.3 2. 31 .137
SSR (96) 22 52.2 1.8 18 53.1 1.5 3. 23 .081
Bicondylar(cm) 21 8.6 1.1 18 8.0 0.6 12.08 .001 '
Biepicondylar (cm) 22 6.2 0.9 19 5.7 0.6' 17. 24 <.001 '
Biacromial (cm) 22 35.2 6.3 1 9 34. 2 4.6 5.60 .023 '
Bicristal (cm) 21 24.4 4.6 19 25. 7 4.0 0.54 .465
HSR (99) 21 70.3 3.7 19 75. 0 4.1 13.65 .001 ‘
AMA (cm’) 21 31.4 11.8 17 27.2 7.0 13.15 .001 *
20:15:63
Stature (cm) 35 175.8 5.6 54 162.8 5.6 119.94 <.001 '
SSR (96) 35 52.6 2.0 54 52.9 1.3 0.46.498
Bicondylar (cm) 35 10.0 0.7 54 9.6 1.0 4.48.037 '
Biepicondylar (cm) 35 7.4 0.4 54 6. 6 0. 5 84.51 <. 001 "
Biacromial (cm) 35 43.9 2.5 54 39. 5 1.8 93. 02 <. 001 *
Bicristal (cm) 35 32.5 2.4 54 32.5 2. 8 0. 00 .990
HSR (96) 35 74.1 4.9 54 82.3 5. 9 4. 48 .037 "

'Male and female samples significantly different at p50.05

TABLE 4.15

148

Intraclass sibling correlations for stature, skeletal dimensions,
circumferences, and AMA.

 

 

 

 

EA FN _IQIAL_
r... F p r... F p r... F p
Stature .66 2.91 <.001 ' .79 9.88 <.001 ‘ .53 3.70 <.001 "
Sitting Height .64 2.76 <.001 " ‘ .51 4.52 <.001 ‘ .47 3.12 <.001 ‘
SSR .48 1.90 .001 ' .35 2.84 .001 ' .33 2.17 <.001 ’
SIL .58 2.38 <.001 ' .60 6.09 <.001 ' .46 3.05 <.001 '
Biacromial .58 2.39 <.001 ‘ .33 2.71 .002 ' .43 2.81 <.001 '
Bicristal .44 1.77 .003 ‘ .13 1.51 .11 .26 1.86 <.001 ‘
Bicondylar .52 2.06 <.001 " -.08 0.76 .78 .19 1.57 .006 "
Biepicondylar .60 2.48 <.001 ' .14 1.54 .10 .34 2.36 <.001 '
Flexed Ann C. .53 2.10 <.001 ' .11 1.44 .14 .30 2.02 <.001 "
RelaxedArmC. .54 2.15 <.001 ‘ .14 1.55 .10 .31 2.09 <.001 “
MaximaiCaifC. .59 2.46 <.001 ' .04 1.14 .35 .29 1.97 <.001 '
Waist C. .52 2.05 <.001 ‘ .25 1.59 .09 .36. 2.33 <.001 '
Hip C. .53 2.10 <.001 ‘ -.02 0.93 .58 .24 1.73 .001 " .
AMA -36 1-54 ALL—Jaw

 

'Intraciass correlations significant at p50.05

149

TABLE 4.16 Interclass spousal and parent-offspring correlations for stature, skeletal
dimensions, circumferences, and AMA.

 

Father- Father- Father- Father-_ Mother- Mother- Mother-
Mctbar .6911 W

 

 

E A

Number of Pairs 79 85 60 144 . 105 92 196
Stature .07 .36 " .43 ' .38 ‘ .29 ' .34 ‘ .31 ‘
Sitting Height -.06 .03 .20 .08 .24 ' .39 ‘ .31 '
SSR .08 .06 .14 .09 .23 ' .37 ‘ .29 "
SIL .09 .38 ‘ .39 ‘ .38 ' .33 ' .35 ' .34 ‘
Biacromial .04 .11 .15 .13 .30‘ .37‘ .33‘
Bicristal .28 ‘ .13 .28 ‘ .21 " .19 ‘ .37 ' .27 "
Bicondylar .05 .11 .22 .19 ‘ .38 ‘ .27 ' .32 ‘
Biepicondylar .05 .25 ' .28 ‘ .28 ‘ .25 ' .45 ' .34 "
Flexed Ann C. .10 .21 .36 ' .27 " .31 ' .36 ‘ .12
Relaxed Ann C. .03 .19 .36 ‘ .26 ‘ .29 ‘ .38 ' .33 "
Maximal Calf C. .05 .03 .38 ' .15 .24 ' .34 ' .29 '
Waist C. .13 .16 .17 .18' .23‘ .30‘ .26'
Hb C. .14 .14 .37 ‘ .25 ' .35 ' .32 ‘ .32 ‘
AMA -.11 .10 .11 .11 .02 .26' .14
FN

Number of Pairs 12 10 18 27 18 29 46
Stature -.09 .01 .00 .05 -.03 .51 ‘ .29 '
Sitting Height .04 .22 .12 .15 -.15 .29 .11
SSR -.06 .57 .45 .38 .81 ' .53 " .61 "
SIL .13 .76 ‘ .32 .37 .68 " .65 ‘ .64 ‘
Biacromial .61 ‘ .56 .62 ‘ .52 ' .46 .53 ' .49 '
Bicristal .50 .38 .42 .40 ‘ .44 .34 .37 '
Bicondylar .27 -.22 .23 .19 .39 -.02 .1 1
Biepicondylar .75 ' .45 .41 .39 " .23 .23 .23
Flexed Arm C. -.18 -.17 34 .07 .07 .28 .21
Relaxed Ann C. -.20 -.17 34 .11 .64 ' ' .26 .43 '
Maximal Calf C. .26 -.34 48 .33 .13 .46 ' .39 ‘
Waist C. .10 -.12 48 .24 .25 .33 .32 '
Hp C. -.06 -.34 50 .27 .20 .25 .22
AMA .08 -.02 26 .17 .42 .31 .35 '
TOTAL

Number of Pairs 91 94 77 170 122 120 241
Stature -.01 .16 35 ‘ .18 ‘ .24 ‘ .37 ‘ .30 '
Sitting Height -.05 .05 18 09 .20 ‘ .36 ' .28 ‘
SSR .06 .09 .20 .13 .33 " ' .40 ' .36 ‘
SIL .09 .36 " .38 " .37 ‘ .37 * .41 ‘ .38 ‘
Biacromial .11 .15 41 ' .24' .33‘ .42' 37‘
Bicristal .30 " .14 33 ‘ .24 ' .22 ‘ .38 ' 30 '
Bicondylar .07 .10 .24 ‘ 18 ' .39 ' .23 " .29 ‘
Biepicondylar .11 .25' 33' 29' .26' .42' 34'
Flexed Arm C. .07 .14 37 " .23 ' .29 ' .34 ' 31 '
RelaxadArmC. .00 .13 38‘ .23' .35“ .36' 35'
Maximal Calf C. .07 .01 43 " 17 " 23 " .37 ' .30 "
Waist C. .13 .11 .28 " 18 ' .23 ' .37 ‘ .31 ‘
1150. .12 .08 .42 ‘ .25? .34 ' .30 ' .30 "
AMA -.10 .QL .22 .14 .07 .27 ' .17 '

 

'Correiations significant at p50.05

150

TABLE 4.17 Heritability estimates for stature, skeletal dimensions,
circumferences and AMA based on regression analyses of offspring on mid-
parent values.

 

 

J1 11’ S.E. 1 Significance—
E A
Stature 138 .68 .14 5.04 <.001” "
Sitting Height 133 .34 .12 2.83 .005 ‘
SSR 132 .38 .1 1 3.43 <.001 ‘
SIL 133 .62 .09 6.83 <.001 '
Biacromial 134 .29 .09 3.05 .003 "
Bicristal 134 .25 .08 2.99 .003 "
Bicondylar 134 .27 .08 3.20 .002 '
Biepicondylar 136 .38 .09 4.05 <.001 '
Flexed Arm C. 136 .99 .08 13.05 <.001 ‘
Relaxed Ann C. 135 .36 .08 4.38 <.001 '
MaximaICalfC. 126 .33 .11 3.16 .002 ‘
Waist C. 1 33 .25 .08 3.09 .003 '
Hip C. 132 .35 .08 4.45 <.001 ‘
AMA 132 .08 .08 0.88 .38
FN
Stature 17 .04 .13 0.35 .73
Sitting Height 15 .25 .30 .82 .42
SSR 15 .47 .31 1.53 .15
SIL 15 .37 .29 1.27 .22
Biacromial 16 .64 .19 3.38 .004 "
Bicristal 15 .64 .32 2.03 .06
Bicondylar 15 .08 .58 .13 .90
Biepicondylar 16 .25 .29 .85 .41
Flexed Arm C. 13 .23 .44 0.52 .61
Relaxed Arm C. 14 1 .13 .45 2.49 .03 ‘
Maximal Calf C. 13 .38 .42 0.90 .38
Waist C. 13. .56 .35 1.60 .14
Hip C. 13 .86 .47 1.83 .09
AMA 12 .10 .35 0.28 .79
TOTAL
Stature 155 .40 .10 4.00 <.001 '
Sitting Height 150 .32 .11 2.92 .004 ‘
SSR 149 .39 .1 1 3.67 <.001 ‘
SIL 150 .59 .09 6.71 <.001 '
Biacromial 152 .37 .09 4.27 <.001 '
Bicristal 151 .29 .08 3.62 <.001 '
Bicondylar 151 .25 .09 2.92 .004 '
Biepicondylar 154 .36 .09 4.07 <.001 "
Flexed Arm C. 149 .35 .08 4.45 <.001 ‘ '
Relaxed Ann C. 151 .42 .08 4.94 <.001 '
Maximal Calf C. 142 .34 .10 3.37 .001 ‘
Waist C. 148 .27 .08 3.43 <.001 '
Hip c. 147 .39 .09 4.77 <.001 '
AM 146 .08 .09 (L92 .36

 

 

'Regressions significant at p$0.05

151

TABLE 4.18 Results of ANCOVAs for differences in body mass, fatness, and
relative fat distribution between EA and FN sublects, with age as the covariate.

 

 

 

 

 

 

EA FN
Gimp fl Mean—SQ n Mean—ED J D
Males
5:19.13 -
Body Mass (kg) 75 40.6 21.0 21 46.9 21.0 3.39 .069
BMI (kg/m') 75 18.5 3.6 21 20.1 4.0 2.62 .109
TRUNK (mm) 73 30.4 20.6 21 48.1 28.8 10.96 .001 ‘
EXTREMITY (mm) 73 26.1 11.9 21 31.8 11.9 4.43 .038 "
SUM (mm) 73 57.3 32.3 21 79.8 40.3 7.77 .006 '
TER(mmIn1m) 73 1.08 0.38 21 1.42 0.36 17.05 <.001 '
WHR (cm/cm) 75 0.87 0.06 21 0.90 0.05 7.28 .008 ‘
29:25:16
Body Mass (kg) 178 83.6 1 5.5 35 87.2 13.6 2.28 .132
BMI (kg/m2) 178 27.2 4.7 35 28.2 3.8 3.65 .057
TRUNK (mm) 178 63.1 26.0 35 71.9 23.8 3.18 .076
EXTREMITY (mm) 175 27.7 1 1 .6 35 30.3 10.4 5.54 .019 ‘
SUM (mm) 178 91.7 38.2 35 102.1 32.6 3.45 .065
TER (mm/mm) 179 2.26 0.58 35 2.43 0.60 3.79 .053 "
WHR (chcm) 177 0.92 0.06 35 0.93 0.05 7.25 .008 '
Females
5:19.115
Body Mass (kg) 60 40.5 20.3 19 47.2 21.7 1 .41 .240
BMI (kg/111’) 60 18.7 4.3 18 19.3 3.4 0.13 .725
TRUNK (mm) 57 37.2 24.3 17 44.5 21.0 1.95 .167
EXTREMITY (mm) 58 36.3 16.4 17 35.7 11.2 0.03 .871
SUM (rrm) 57 73.4 39.7 17 80.2 31.1 0.53 .467
TER (mm/mm) 57 0.98 0.29 17 1.22 0.26 8.1 5 .006 "
WHR (cm/cm) 59 0.81 0.08 18 0.79 0.07 0.01 .917
Mills
Body Mass (kg) 178 68.5 15.2 54 75.7 14.5 11.39 .001 '
BMI (kg/r11?) 178 26.1 5.5 54 28.6 5.4 11.98 .001 '
TRUNK (mm) 168 69.1 28.4 46 90.0 25.7 3.77 .053 "
EXTREMITY (mm) 177 57.3 21.0 49 63.6 22.6 23.80 <.001 "
SUM (mm) 166 126.0 47.3 45 152.5 45.6 13.84 <.001 '
TER (mm/mm) 168 1.23 0.36 45 1.47 0.35 21 .55 <.001 '

W 111 DJW;
'EA and FN samples significantly different at p50.05

 

152

TABLE 4.19 Results of ANCOVAs for differences in body mass, fatness, and
relative fat distribution between males and females, with age as the covariate.

 

 

__Mala___. ___Eamab.__
6:099 n Mean—SD n Mean—SD F 9
EA
5.1.9.15 ~
BodyMass(kg) 75 40.6 21.0 60 40.5 20.3 2.06 .153
BM|(kg/m’) 75 19.5 3.6 60 19.7 4.3 0.24 .629
TRUNK (mm) 73 30.4 20.6 57 37.2 24.3 3.75 .055
EXTREMiTY(mm) 73 26.1 11.9 59 36.3 16.4 20.94 <.001'
SUM(mm) 73 57.3 32.3 57 73.4 39.7 9.79 .004*
TER(rm'iImm) 73 1.09 0.39 57 0.99 0.29 6.63 .011 *
WHR(chcm) 75 0.97 0.06 59 0.91 0.09 24.96 <.001'
20.1515
BodyMass(kg) 179 83.6 15.5 179 69.5 15.2 101.71 <.001'
BMI(kgIm') 179 27.2 4.7 179 26.1 5.5 7.44 .007*
TRUNK (mm) 179 63.1 26.0 169 69.1 29.4 3.75 .054*
EXTREMITY(rnm) 175 27.7 11.6 177 57.3 21.0 312.93 <.001‘
SUM (mm) 179 91.7 39.2 166 126.0 47.3 54.50 <.001'
TER(mrnImm) 179 2.26 0.59 169 1.23 0.36 503.67 <.001'
WHR(chcm) 177 0.92 0.06 179 0.79 0.06 559.13 <.001*
FN
5:19.115
BodyMass (kg) 21 46.9 21.0 19 47.2 21.7 0.56 .459
BMl(kgIm’) 21 20.1 4.0 19 19.3 3.4 0.97 .357
TRUNK(mm) 21 49.1 29.9 17 44.5 21.0 0.03 .969
EXTREMi'iY(mrn) 21 31.9 11.9 17 35.7 11.2 1.26 .269
SUM(mm) 21 79.9 40.3 17 90.2 31.1 0.07 .790
TER(mm/mm) 21 1.42 0.36 17 1.22 0.26 4.66 .039*
WHR(chcm) 21 0.90 0.05 19 0.79 0.07 29.17 <.001*
20:75.25
BodyMass (kg) 35 97.2 13.6 54 75.7 14.5 15.25 <.001*
BMI(kgIm’) 35 29.2 3.9 54 29.6 5.4 0.03 .955
TRUNK(mrn) 35 71.9 23.9 46 90.0 25.7 76.00 <.001'
EXTREMITY(mn) 35 30.3 10.4 49 63.6 22.6 10.02 .002'
SUM(mrn) 35 102.1 32.9 45 152.5 45.6 29.79 <.001*
TER(mmImm) 35 2.43 0.60 45 1.47 0.35 90.43 <.001*
166161901911) 35 0.9.3.4115 53 W

 

'Male and female samples significantly different at (150.05

 

 

 

153

 

 

 

 

TABLE 4.20 Intraclass sibling correlations for fatness, and relative fat
distribution.
LIL FN IQIAL
r... F p r... F p r... F p

900me .57 2.29 <.001 ‘ .05 1.14 .346 .29 2.00 <.001 '
BMI .52 2.11 <.001 ' .06 1.16 .324 .28 1.94 <.001 ‘
SUM .46 1.82 .003 " .05 1.11 .375 .23 1.73 .001 "
TRUNK .46 1.82 .003 ' .16 1.52 .113 .29 2.01 <. 001 '
EXTREMITY .40 1.66.008 ' - .11 0. 76 .779 .13 1.34.052 '
TER .57 2. 35 <. 001 ' .25 1.81.046 ‘ .38 2.51 <. 001 '
HUB 42 1 70 W991 ' -37 1.424.901;

 

'lntraclase correlations significant at ps0. 05

 

 

 

TABLE 4.21 Interclass spousal and parent-offspring for fatness and relative fat
distribution.

Father- Father- Father- Father- Mother- Mother- Mother-

W

E A
Number of Pairs 79 85 60 144 105 92 196
Body Mass .08 .15 .38 ‘ .25 " .36 ‘ .39 ‘ .37 "
BMI .01 .23 ' .36 ' .29 " .34 " .34 ' .34 '
SUM .07 .24 ' .25 .25 " .41 * .32 ' .36 '
TRUNK .10 .21 .22 .22 " .38 ' .29 ' .33 '
EXTREMIW .09 .32 ' .22 .28 ' .43 " .30 ' .35 ‘
TER .14 .33' .04 .23" .21' .15 .20 ‘
WHR .16 .08 -.14 .00 .10 .14 .12
FN
Number of Pairs 12 10 18 27 18 29 46
Body Mass .06 -.22 .53 ' .15 .19 .36 .28
BMI -.04 -.20 .41 .06 .25 .09 .15
SUM -.10 -.46 .08 -.19 -.01 .22 .16
TRUNK -.08 -.36 -.23 -.28 -.01 .27 .20
EXTREMITY -.09 -.55 .57 " .17 .28 .18 .1 8
TER -.04 .00 -.22 -.06 .26 .10 .18
WHR -.18 -.10 .00 -.05 .52 ‘ .27 .35 '
TOTAL
Number of Pairs 91 94 77 170 122 1 20 241
Body Mass .09 .10 .45 ' .24 " .34 ' .39 ' .36 '
BMI .01 .15 .40 ' .24 ‘ .33 " .31 ‘ .31 ‘
SUM .05 .17 .22 .19 ‘ .37 ' .32 ' .34 ‘
TRUNK .08 .13 .14 .14 .33' .33' .33‘
EXTREMITY .06 .25 ‘ .27 ' .25 ' .42 " .27 " .32 *
TER .12 .27 " .00 .18 ‘ .21 ‘ .23 ' .21 '
WHR .11 .06 -.06 .03 .16 .39 ' 29 '

 

'Correiations significant at p50.05

154

TABLE 4.22 Heritability estimates based on regression analyses of offspring on
mid-parent values for fatness and relative fat distribution.

 

 

n h’ SE- 1 Stamina——
E A
Body Mass 138 .32 .11 3.03.003 ‘
BMI 137 .41 .08 4.91 <.001 '
SUM 120 .45 .10 4.44 <.001 "
TRUNK 121 .36 .09 3.94 <.001 '
EXTREMITY 131 .45 .09 4.95 <.001 ‘
TER 122 .30 .11 2.78 .007 "
WHR 134 .19 .14 1.32 .135
F N
Body Mass 16 .11 .22 0.49 .639
BMI 16 .16 .26 0.61 .554
SUM 13 .01 .46 0.02 .983
TRUNK 13 .06 .38 -0.16 .879
EXTREMITY 13 .25 .53 0.47 .649
TER 13 .20 .19 1.03 .325
WHR 14 .04 .16 0.22 .829
TOTAL
Body Mass 154 .26 .09 2.80 .006 ‘
BMI 153 .35 .08 4.50 <.001 ‘
SUM 133 .42 .10 4.28 <.001 '
TRUNK 134 .33 .09 3.76 <.001 '
EXTREMITY 144 .44 .09 4.82 <.001 "
TER 135 .25 .09 2.75 .007 '
WE J48 .16 .11 1.50 .135

 

'Regressions significant at p50.05

155

 

 

TABLE 4.23 Prevalence of obesity.
TSFandBMI TSFandBMl
M ___in_mmblnatim__
__T_$E_ __BMI’__ ISEinx BMLQ'nI! ISELBMI
N n % n % n % n % n %
5-19 yrs
Males
EA 75 17 22.7 16 21.3 3 4.0 2 2.7 14 18.7
FM 21 6 28.6 8 38.1 1 4.8 3 14.3 5 23.6
Eemales
EA 59 11 18.6 10 16.9 5 8.5 4 6.8 6 10.2
FN 17 2 11.8 5 29.4 0 0.0 3 17.6 2 11.8
20-75 yrs
Males
EA 177 25 14.1 69 39.0 2 1.1 46 26.0 23 13.0
FM 35 6 17.1 18 51.4 2 5.7 14 40.0 4 11.4
Eemalas
EA 177 53 29.9 62 35.0 7 4.0 16 9.0 46 26.0
EN 5] 25 41.1‘ 39 53.6‘ 2 3.9 8 15.7 22 43.1'

 

‘EA and FM groups significantly different in estimated prevalence at p50.05 (chi square)

‘TSF Obese defined as 2 85th percentile NHANES ll age- and sex-specific reference data in 5-19
yr old groups, and 2 85th percentile NHANES II for 18-24 yr old people: TSF 2 17.5 mm in males
and TSF 2 29.5 mm in females in the 20-75 yr old groups

aBMI Obese defined as 2 85th percentile NHANES ll age- and sex-specific reference data in the 5-
19 yr old groups and 2 85th percentile NHANES II for 20-29 yr old people: BMI 2 27.8 in males and
BMI 2 27.3 in females in the 20-75 yr old groups

TABLE 4.24 Differences between adult subjects classified as obese by different

156

 

 

 

 

 

criteria.
Mann.— W
Mean SD Mean 50 F 9

EA UALES
n 46 23
Age. yrs 48.8 12.8 48.9 13.1 0.01 .970
Bicondylar Breadth, cm 10.2 0.6 10.6 0.8 8.69 .012 '
Biepicondylar Breadth. cm 7. 5 0. 4 7. 7 0.5 4.02 . .049 '
AMA. cm” 73. 7 12. 1 67.0 13.4 5.06 .028 ‘
WHR. cmlcm 0. 94 0. 04 0.97 0.05 9.18.004 '
TER, mnlnvn 2. 55 0. 59 1.97 0.32 20. 94 <. 001 '
Endomorphy 5.4 1.0 7.2 1.1 50.12 < .001 '
Mesomorphy 7.1 0.9 7.7 1.0 5.52 .022 ‘
Ectomorphy 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 6.25 .015 '
Overall Somatotype - - - - 16.44 <. 001 ’
EA FEIIALES
n 18 46
Age. yrs 49.0 1 1.7 46.0 13.2 0.62 .433
Bicondylar Breadth. cm 9.7 0.9 10.3 1.0 5.23 .028 '
Biepicondylar Breadth. cm 6.6 ' 0.4 6.8 0.5 3.49 .067
MM. cm’ 43.7 9. 0 45.7 8.9 0. 63 .430
WHR, chcm 0. 82 0. 05 , 0.81 0. 05 0.10 .758
TER. mMnm 1.34 0. 28 1.24 0.19 2.30 .135
Endomorphy 7.2 1.2 8.5 0.8 22.38 <.001 '
Mesomorphy 6.4 1.4 7.2 1.4 4.80 .033 '
Ectomorphy 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 6.33.015 ‘
Overall Somatotype - - -- - 7.58 <. 001 '
EN MALES
n 14 4
Age. yrs 44.1 13.9 41.2 15.9 0.13 .719
Bicondylar Breadth, cm 10. 2 0.5 10. 8 0.8 2. 79 .116
BiepicondylarBreadth.cm 7.5 0.5 7.8 0.4 0.93 .349
AMA, cm’ 751 12. 8 67.5 14. 3 1 .07 .318
WHR. chm 0. 95 0.04 0. 96 0.07 0.42 .526
TER. nun/run 2.80 0.40 2. 05 0.27 14.92 .002 ‘
Endomorphy 5.5 1.1 7.3 1.1 0.43 .520
Mesomorphy 7.2 1 .1 7.4 1 .0 2.08 .170
Ectomorphy 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.14 .712
Overall - - - - 2.28 .127
EN FEMALES
n 8 22
Age. yrs 37.0 15.9 44.1 14.4 1.38 .250
Bicondylar Breadth. cm 9.7 0.7 10.2 1.0 1.80 .191
Biepicondylar Breadth. cm 6.6 0.4 6. 8 0.4 1.33 .259
AMA, cm’ 43. 2 4.1 41.4 6.9 0.30 .589
WHR, cmlcm 0. 85 0.03 0.66 0.05 0.00 .978
TER, min/inn 1.83 0.43 1.31 0.18 7.15 .013 "
Endomorphy 7.8 0.6 8.8 0.7 12.18 .002 ‘
Mesomorphy 6.3 1.1 7.1 1.4 2.12 .159
Ectomorphy 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.02 .904

- - - - 3.23 ms;

 

'pS0.05

157

8de .3 see... 2.50553 8:23 2.. Eu <m..

 

 

 

..8.v ..8. .53 a

63. who. .2. n. 233::

..8.v 3.6 .m. 3.. ..o .... Wm 3.. .... m6. «.3. m... E
m. 0.. ... ..m o. ..o 3...? .o. .3

flag

.3. .3. mum. 6

86 cm... 3... H. 23.35

08. new 3. .. ..m 3. ha s.. we ...... ed. a. z“.
4. ..u N. o... 3.. ..v .... N... B <m

SH

635:.

. So. a... . mac. n

m .6 8.. m ..m u. 239...:

.63. mod 8. ad a. .... a... m. m... 3. 3.8 mm 2“.
~.. .... ... ed a. o... ..v N... 3 <m

ea

mew. 8... .3... a

..... 2.3 3.» “.2835

.uoo. 83 mo. ... ...m m. .... N.N m... o... v... .u E
... ..u ... a... .... Nd .... ha. a. <m

9.3.6

02.3

q u. .2 aliasldfldajjas c 32a

$33 333%

 

65.3.50 2: so one 5.! .83—nae z“. oce <m 52.82.
3:22.58 2523.3 2.55885..- .otooéfio... 3. 8.3.2 0.3.32.5 ....- .<>ooz<a .6 338: 3.. mums.

158

TABLE 4.26 Summary of forward stepwise discriminant function analyses for
the pairwise comparisons in the analysis of somatotype differences between EA
and EN sublects: Entries show the component entered on each step and the P-
value to enter.

 

M 1 51992 Step 3

Ilales .

5-19 yrs Endomorphy (8.92) Ectomorphy (6.53) Mesomorphy (0.15)
20-75 yrs Endomorphy (3.17) Mesomorphy (1.67) Ectomorphy (1.12)
Females

5-19 yrs Endomorphy (2. 44) Mesomorphy (5. 58) Ectomorphy (<0. 00)

 

159

838 a 223% 5:85:57. 8:95 22.... 2a 222.

 

 

one. «an. ..8.v a

....m mad 3.8 ... 229.5

..8.v 3.8 ..m. o.. No 3 3.3 s.. .... 9m. 2.. 9. season.
ad 3.. .... «6 m. «a md. 3.8 mm 8.52

mg

can. ..No. man. a

a ..o .9... E... n. 2835

...8. 3.... no. ... ..m .... ...m .... a... ed 3. a. 8.98“.
4.. ...m u. 5. N.N m... o... e... .u 8.92

3.3.3

2..

cos. . .8.v . .8.v 6

9... 3.2.. 8.3 ... 989.5

..8.v 2.8 on. m. s.. ... ..m 3.. ..o Q... «.3 .o. 8.26“.
m. .... ... a... o. 3 .... u... 3 8a:

é

an» .....8. ..8.v a

mod 3.» 8.... n. 23.325

..8.v 2.8 mm. 4. ..u N. o... 8.. .... .... N... S 395...
... ...m ... 3.4 m. «d .... ho. a. 832

and

(u

a n. .« awlnugldmlfijgllomluaa c 59a

mi; 333%

 

 

.euete>ooe5eeeue::3.ee_eEeuvceee.eEcee2ea
SeacooEoo cuboiEoe 0.32—.825:- ceteoéuee: 3. e33...- euetezca ace e<>Ooz<l .o s..-sec bud 305..

160

TABLE 4.28 Summary of forward stepwise discriminant function analyses for
the pairwise comparisons in the analysis of somatotype differences between
males and females: Entries show the component entered on each step and the
F-velue to enter.

 

Lineup Step1 Stapz Step3

5-19 yrs Endomorphy (15.70) Mesomorphy (45.44) Ectomorphy (0.53)
20-75 yrs Endomorphy (59.57) Mesomorphy (173.85) Ectomorphy (0.08)

5-19 yrs Mesomorphy (6. 89) Endomorphy (9. 05) Ectomorphy (0. 79)

 

161

TABLE 4.29 Intraclass sibling correlations for somatotype components.

 

 

 

 

EA FN , ., IQIAL_
r... F p r... F p r... F p
Endomorphy .07 1.07 .374 .15 1.42 y .158 .07 1.19 .171
Mesomorphy .57 2.34 <.001 ‘ .13 1.38 .190 .29 2.01 <.001 '

'lntraciass correlations significant at p50.05

TABLE 4.30 Interclass spousal and parent-offspring correlations for
somatotype components.

 

Father- Father- Father- Father- Mother- Mother- Mother-
Wanna.

 

 

E A
Number of Pairs 70 83 58 140 87 77 163
Endomorphy .12 .21 .07 .16 .25 ' .24 ' .25 '
Mesomorphy .09 .20 .25 .24 * .12 .26 " .19
Ectomorphy .04 .11 .49 ' .28 ' -.03 .29 * .11
F N
Number of Pairs 1 1 9 1 3 21 1 3 22 34
Endomorphy .33 -.34 -.24 -.22 .38 .44 ' .39 '
Mesomorphy .23 -.05 .25 .08 .57 .1 5 .24
Ectomorphy -.25 -.29 .30 .24 .32 .25 .27
TOTAL
Number of Pairs 80 91 70 160 99 g 98 196
Endomorphy .14 .15 .02 .10 .27 ‘ .29 ‘ .27 “
Mesomorphy .08 .15 .23 .19 ' .16 .22 ‘ .20 *
AL .45 * .24 ' .00 17 ‘ .13
'Correlations significant at p50.05

TABLE 4.31 Heritability estimates based on regression analyses of offspring on mid-
parent values for components of somatotype.

 

 

n h’ S.E. t Significance—.—
E A
Endomorphy 114 .27 .12 2.24 .027 '
Mesomorphy 114 .34 .10 3.42 .001 '
Ectomorphy 1 14 .20 .12 1 .69 .095
EN
Endomorphy 13 .13 .31 0.43 .673
Mesomorphy 13 -.06 .29 -0.21 .834
Ectomorphy 13 .19 .34 0.56 . .588
TOTAL
Endomorphy 127 .26 .11 2.32 .022 ‘
Mesomorphy 127 .24 .09 2.55 .012 '
Why 127 .18 .1 1 1.6g .1 1 L

 

'Ftegresslons significant et pso.05

162
TABLE 4.32 Results of ANCOVAs for differences In grip strength, trunk

flexibility, and motor performance between EA and FN subjects, with age as the

 

 

 

 

 

 

covariate.

EA PM
Group n Mean SD n M 60 F p
Males .
5:19.23
Flight Grip (kg) 75 24.9 16.6 22 28.1 18.3 1.08 .307
Left Grip (kg) 75 23.8 16.0 22 26.2 17.5 1.89 .172
Flexibility (cm) 73 27.1 6.6 22 26.7 6.3 0.09 .772
Situps (ff/min) 49 25 1 1 1 3 23 1 2 0.66 .420
Arm Hang (sec) 39 17.4 14.6 10 8.1 6.3 2.84 .098
Long Jump (m) 40 1.42 0.29 13 1.34 0.38 0.80 .374
35-meter Dash (sec) 40 7.44 1.07 12 7.37 1.18 1 .13 .294
20:25.15
Right Grip (kg) 179 55.9 10.25 34 52.5 9.8 9.12 .003 ‘
Left Grip (kg) 179 53.6 10.0 34 49.6 12.1 12.70 <.001 '
Flexibility (cm) 171 27.1 9.2 35 25.1 11.2 5.51 .020 '
Females
5:19.15
Flight Gn’p (kg) 58 21.1 10.3 19 22.5 10.9 0.76 .387
Left Grip (kg) 58 19.3 9.5 19 20.4 8.8 0.17 .681
Flexibility (cm) 55 29.2 5.8 18 29.3 6.0 0.02 .902
Situps (#lmin) 34 9.8 2.5 13 11.0 2.3 2.91 .095
Arm Hang (sec) 29 12.7 10.3 9 9.9 9.9 1 .22 .276
Long Jump (m) 31 1.35 0.19 13 1.30 0.23 2.32 .135
35-meter Dash (sec) 29 7.43 0.77 13 7.07 0.79 0.91 .345
29:15.![3 .
Flight Grip (kg) 177 32.3 6.5 54 33.4 7.3 0.01 .945
Left Grip (kg) 178 30.4 6.5 54 30.9 7.1 0.38 .550
W 28.6 8.8 ' 54 Win—.913

 

‘EA and FN samples significantly different at p50.05

163
TABLE 4.33 Results of ANCOVAs for differences in grip strength, trunk

flexibility, and motor performance between males and females, with age as the

 

 

 

 

covariate.

_Mele___ __Eemele____
Group 0 Mean SD n Mean 50 - F 9
E A '
521m
Right Grip (kg) 75 24.9 16.8 58 21.1 10.3 17.06 <.001 *
Left Grip (kg) 75 23.8 16.0 58 19.3 9.5 20.85 <.001 *
Flexibility (cm) 73 27.1 6.6 55 29.2 5.8 3.36 .069
Situps (#lmin) 49 25 1 1 34 9.8 2.5 0.60 .439
Ann Hang (sec) 39 17.4 14.6 29 12.7 10.3 1.49 .227
Long Jump (m) 40 1.42 0.29 31 1.35 0.19 3.04 .085
35-meter Dash (sec) 40 7.44 1.07 29 7.43 0.77 0.52 .473
W
Bight Grip (kg) 179 55.9 10.25 177 32.3 6.5 795.13 <.001 *
Left Grip (kg) 179 53.8 10.0 178 30.4 6.5 800.61 <.001 '
Flexibility (cm) 171 27.1 9.2 169 28.6 8.8 3.76 .053 '
F N
5521::
Right Grip (kg) 22 28.1 13.3 19 22.5 10.9 5.43 .025 '
Left Grip (kg) 22 26.2 17.5 19 20.4 8.8 7.30 .010 '
Flexibility (cm) 22 26.7 6.3 18 29.3 6.0 1.69 .202
Situps (ll/min) 13 23 12 13 11.0 2.3 0.95 .341
Arm Hang (sec) 10 8.1 6.3 9 9.9 9.9 0.00 .950
Long Jump (m) 1 3 1 .34 0.38 13 1 .30 0.23 3.83 .062
35-meter Dash (sec) 12 7.37 1 .13 13 7.07 0.79 0.54 .471
2121515 ,
Flight Grip (kg) 34 52.5 9.3 54 33.4 7.3 136.91 <.001 *
Left Grip (kg) 34 49.6 12.1 54 30.9 7.1 99.91 <.001 ‘
Eleziihll'n! (cm) 35 25-1 11-2 54 W

 

'Male and female samples significantly different at pS0.05

164

TABLE 4.34 intraclass sibling correlations for grip strength and trunk flexibility.

 

 

 

 

EA EN __._IQIAL__

r... F p r... F p r... F p
Flight Grip .36 1.55 .019 ' .30 1.99 . .021 " .26 1.95 <.001 "
Leftan .49 1.95 <.001 ' .26 1.82 .037 ' .25 1.81 <.001 ‘
Eiexihiliiv .16 1.19 .207 .27 1-6.8 -939.'_.__.1§__L_4.0__.031'

 

‘lntraciass correlations significant at p50.05

TABLE 4.35 interclass spousal and parent-offspring correlations for grip
strength and trunk flexiblllty.

 

Father- Father- Father- Father- Mother- Mother- Mother-
MMMWeJem—DWMnL

 

 

E A

Number of Pairs 79 75 60 144 95 89 191
Flight Grip -.09 .26 " .15 .23 " -.06 .23 " .07
Left Grip -.05 .28 " .45 ' .35 ' .09 .10 .09
Flexibility .00 .39 " .04 .23 ‘ .25 ' .41 ' .32 '
F N

Numberof Pairs 12 10 18 27 18 29 46
Right Grip .30 .29 .44 .38 .20 .46‘ .35‘
Left Grip .48 .23 .57' .36 .43 .47‘ .42‘
Flexibility -.04 -.25 .40 .19 .06 -.04 -.01
TOTAL '

Number of Pairs 90 84 77 170 1 11 . 1 17 236
Right Grip -.05 .27 * .24 ' .26 ' .00 .28 ' .14 *
Left Grip .03 .26 " .48 ‘ .35 " .16 " .20 ' .19 '
flexibility .00 .31 * .15 .23‘ .23_‘ .32 ' .27 '
‘Correlations significant at p$0.05

TABLE 4.38 Heritability estimates for grip strength and trunk flexibility based on
regression analyses of offspring on mid-parent values.

 

 

n 11' S.E. 1 significance.—

EA

eight Grip 135 .28 .11 2.46 001*
Left Grip 135 .29 .10 2.96 <.001 '
Flexibility 117 .49 .10 4.95 <.001 '
FN

Right Grip 17 .62 .26 2.33 .015 '
Left Grip 17 .57 .24 2.40 .004 '
Flexibility 14 .38 .38 1.00 <.001 '
TOTAL

Flight Grip 152 .34 .10 3.35 .031 '
Left Grip 152 .36 .09 4.00 .030 '
Elexihiiiili—_Jfll -19 -10 4&6 £001 ‘

 

‘Regreeeions significant at p$0.05

 

'TABLE 4.37 First-order partial conelations between body size and fatness, and grip strength, flexibility,

and performance variables, controlling for age.

165

233339

333333

CCCCC

......

693339 999952 339225

 

 

 

‘CorreietionssigiificantatpsODS
”Directlonofconsiationsfor35—meterdashhevebeenreversed

166

§§§2§.§3§§§3§5:

 

39865855383288.

2.. 3. 3. 3.18.53“

8. . 8. .3. 3. £858:

. 8.. . m... . 2.. 3. 2925.5

madam.“

. B. 8. 3. 8.. 3 .3..- a. 3. 2 39283
8. 8.. a. 3. 3 3.. . 3. . 5. 2. 393%:
B. 8. .8.. ...3 3 . 8.. 8. 8. 2 ....eoEoBm
SH

es....cou

8.. 8.. 8. 8... 29°53

8. . 8. . 8. 8a .5938»:

.8.. 3.. 8.. 8... 52.85

g

8. N... 3. 8.- .... 8.. 2. 8. 8 £953
2. S. 2. w... ..v 3. . 8. . 3 8 £99.38:
3.. .3... 3. . 5.. .... 2.. 8.. 8.. 8 £885
. SE.“

no.0:

: g

 

 

....” ... ... .21 . _: « ......
$623 £38.". 8.2.6

62.22.58 2582:: o). 35o a... u..- eue 3. 95.2.50 .33-...: 8.3.52.2. one
5:52.... £55... ...... ....- scucanoo 833-53 ...-22. 2.23.2.8 its. 5892...... 36 3o:

167

598338033"?

 

 

  

 

 

223333333333"?

8238330883?

”83383699.?

8.3.. a £8...ch 29328...

.43... 3.3 S. 3. . 3. . 3. 8.- . 3. . a . 3. 8.. . 3. ..ng

89v 8... 2. 8. . 3. . 3. S. . 3. . 3. . 3. 8.. . 3. .89 .8...

. 8. 8.. S. 3. . 3. . 3. 3... . 3. . 3. 3. 3.. . 3. .95 .8....

. .8. 3..... 3. 3. . 3. . 3. 8. . 3. . 3. . 3. 8.. . 3. .....o .8.:

. 8... 3.3 8. 3. . 3. 3. 8. . 3. . 8. . 3. 8.. . 3. .80 ......

. 38v 6.» , 8. 3. . t. t. . 3. . 3. . 8. . 3. 8. . mm .80 :3

. 3o.v 8.3 8. 3. . 3. . 3. 8. . 3. . 3.. a 3. 8. . 3. .96 ......

. 59v 8... 8. 8. . 3. . 3. . 3. . 3. . 8. . 3. 8. . 3. .80 8..

. 8V 2.... S. 8. . 3. . 8. . 3. . 3. 3. . 3. 8.- 3. 3......on

. 8V 8d 8. 3.. . 3. . 8. . 3. . 3. 3. . 3. E. 3. 3......on

. 38v 8.... c P. 8. . 3. . 8. . 3. . 3. 3. . 3. 8.. 3. $55.6...

. 38v 8... 2. 8. . 3 . 8 . 3 . 3. 3 . 3 8 . m. 8.32“.

383.833 . .m.m .... - . . . .,

“5333333383.: .350: 8.22 .86... .53“. .53“. .33“. .55.... «8388.33.38.

 

 

madam—8.31%:—

.on.. .62. .o.
8.8.28 .o 88... 2.. 8.5.5.8 582.. ...... .2.- .E......8.. .o 82.....- csfiueuoa .....Ea. .o 3.58.. 8... m3:

TABLE 5.1 Partial correlations between TER, WHR and SUM,

controlling for age.

 

 

 

Gmup. n TER WHR
5-19 yrs

EA Males 71 0.52 '* 0.36 “
FN Males 19 0.80 “ 0.51 '
EA Females 55 0.44 “ 0.18
PM Females 15 0.54 " 0.40
20-75 yrs

EA Males 175 0.12 0.70 “
FN Males 164 0.34 " 0.39 “
EA Females 33 0.15 0.62 “
EhLEnmalas 43 4L1" 0.3L:
’Correlations significant at p50.05

“Correlations significant at p50.01

169

23m+aoam+aoua+maau>~

 

 

 

 

 

«one + «on? saw u >.
853 6 E8555.
an. meJ «We 2.0 . :6 mod #36 mod no.0. 2.6 :d . mud «mung
. m5. 5d mod Ed .. afio 36 . cud .. cud Ed .. mud 5.0 . end «mm».
me. am; :6 9.9 . cud . and 96 mod cod. mod p Pd . had RI;
. n8. mud mod mud . Fwd . mmd . Fwd . 96 36 . Rd «to . and Em...
.80...
em P. on; :6 36 . Ed and . mud 3.... m F6 36 mod. . 56 «CI;
mom. mad 2.6 36 36 mod wmd cod vod- .86 36. 26 «mm?
mum. «ad 96 3.0 mad Rd . and mad. 86 3.? 3.? . and RI?
man. no; 3.0 and 36 ofio mud cad. mud. 86 3.9. . mud RE.
2“.
mac. and 2.0 «fie 36 36 mod mad. .N...? mod . cod . «ed «5;
. 26. Sam :6 mad . Cd :6 cud . cud Nod . and mad .. 56 «EB.
map. «a... 3.6 2.6 96 3.6 36 cod 3.6. mad cwd . «#6 if;
.. So. and :6 and . omd mpd . Fwd . and 36 . and 3.9 . 56 RE
< m

a: - 2 o u -

 

3.05

.3502

 

.859.
Egg

 

 

.sam .6. 3.35:8 .55 .2... cup 3 82...... 5:828- .a..ea .o 2.3.: «.u 39:.

170

:8: .3823 83.8: $532.88. 52.39
A3: .383 52.58.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3 3 3 3 3 3 on 3 3 3 3 3 3 mm $6
3 3 3 3 3 3 83 3 3 3 3 3 3 3: $3.55;
3 3 3 3 3 3 v 3 3 3 3 3 3 e E
3 3 3 3 3 3 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3m <m 3-8
3 3 3 3 3 3 33 3 3 3 3 3 3 new mac
3 3 3 3 3 3 B» 3 3 3 3 3 3 58 3.43
3 3 3 3 3 3 S 3 3 3 3 3 3 m z...
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3. 3 3-3
3 3 3 3 3 3 a: 3 3 3 3 3 3 8 mac
3 3 3 3 3 3 SS 3 3 3 3 3 3 83 $3.53
3 3 3 3 3 3 a 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 E
3 3 3 3 3 3 3. 3 3 3 3 3 3 8 <m 8.8
3 3 3 3 3 3 mm 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 mac
3 3 3 3 3 3 mm: 3 3 3 3 3 3 .33 33.3
3 3 3 3 3 3 up 3 3 3 3 3 ..m 3 E
3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3.8
3 3 3 3 3 3 on. 3 3 3 3 3 3 8. «mac
3 3 3 3 3 3 m3 3 3 3 3 3 3 .2 33.3
3 3 3 3 3 3 o 3 3 3 3 3 3 s E
3 3 3 3 3 3 m. 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 (m 2.».
33 a 33m = 3
3 3 82602

 

.3353 5.0230 95 Eat See
2582.83 5.! 8:82.53 2.38-Eco 0.82.—39.5:- 83: .3 8.0.3.3.. Ease... use once! a.» mans.

FIGURES

 

Heredity

. l .

El 'Hl°'| I 'Hlll-BlllE'l ' '1! III
Leisure Morphological Wellness
Occupational Muscular Morbidity
Motor Mortality
Cardiorespiratory
Metabolic

I

More
Lifestyle

Social and Physical
Environments

 

 

‘

Figure 1.1 General model outlining the hypothesized relationships among
activity, fitness and health (adapted from Bouchard and Shephard, 1994).

171

172

W—fimmmfimm

Body Size Flexibility
Fatness Strength
Fat Distribution Endurance

 

T

Figure 1.2 Proposed model for the study of the genetics of body size and
performance.

173

STATURE: MALES

  
 

 

 

190-
180-
170‘
160-
150-
E
0
FT}. Apache
m 140-
a ""0"" Blackfeet
[E
--o-- '
m 130- Alaskan Eskimos
---.u- Wainwright Eskimos
120- ----I---- Chippewa
---o--- Gros Venues/Assiniboin
110" -- O-- Navajo
10th
100- ct 90m
0
96 I I l l l ' r T I

AGE, years

FIGURE 2.1 Stature of Native North American males 4-18 years plotted relative to
Canadian reference data (Health and Welfare Canada, 1980). Solid lines represent 10th
and 90th percentiles.

174

STATURE: FEMALES

  
 

 

 

190-
180-
170-
160‘
150‘
E
u
.. Apache
a 140-
E ----0---- Blackfeet
< u
[-| —-o-—- Alaskan Eskimos
m 130-
---A--- Wainwright Eskimos
120'- ----l---- Chippewa
---O--- Gros Ventres/Assiniboin
“0_ - - O- - Navajo
10th
100.. 90th
% l I l I l I T I

AGE, years

FIGURE 2.2 Stature of Native North American females 4-18 years plotted relative
to Canadian reference data (Health and Welfare Canada, 1980). Solid lines represent
10th and 90th percentiles.

80!

70 "

50q

MASS, kg

30-

20 -

 

 

175

MASS: MALES
--D--- Apache
----O---- Blackfeet
---o-- Alaskan Eskimos
- - -.- - - Wainwright Eskimos
----I---- Chippewa
---o--- Gros Ventres/Assiniboin
- - o- - Navajo
10th I‘
I
—— 90th "

 

 

10

FIGURE 2.3 Body mass of Native North American males 4-18 years plotted
relative to Canadian reference data (Health and Welfare Canada, 1980). Solid lines
represent 10th and 90th percentiles.

176

MASS: FEMALES

  
  
    

 

 

 

"MOM“ Apache
----o---- Blackfeet
80 _ “"0“" Alaskan Eskimos
- - -A- - - Wainwright Eskimos
-.--.-.-o Chimwa
70 'i '
---0--- Gros Ventres/Assiniboin
- - O- - Navajo
60 " 10th
on -—-— 90th
.2
m“ 50 ‘
VJ
<
2
40 -
30 q
20 ‘
10 l l T I I I I I I

 

FIGURE 2.4 Body mass of Native North American females 4-18 years plotted
relative to Canadian reference data (Health and Welfare Canada, 1980). Solid lines
represent 10th and 90th percentiles.

177

BMI: MALES

Mm Apache

   
  
  
    

 

 

301 ----O---- Blackfeet
---o--—- AlaskanEskimos
---A--- Wainwright Eskimos
----l-'-- Chippewa
---o--- Gros Ventres/Assiniboin
25- __ .__
" E
I": 20-
...?
2
G
15-1
10 l l f I I ' t T I
2 4 5 8 10 12 l4 16 18 20

 

AGE, years

FIGURE 2.5 Estimated body mass index of Native North American males 4—18
years plotted relative to U.S. reference data (Must et al., 1991). Solid lines represent
5th and 95th percentiles.

178

BMI: FEMALES
W~~~ Apache
30‘ ""9“" Blackfeet

  
 
  
  
 

““0““ Alaskan Eskimos

- - ...- - - Wainwright Eskimos
-.--.-.... Chippewa
---O--- Gros Ventres/Assiniboin

 

 

 

" 5
3° 20-
m
15"1
10 I r fl r I I I I I
2 4 6 8 10 12 l4 16 18 20
AGE, years

FIGURE 2.6 Estimated body mass index of Native North American females 4-18
years plotted relative to U.S. reference data (Must et al., 1991). Solid lines represent
5th and 95th percentiles.

179

Ontario

ResearchLocatlon

 

i=‘f;g=:-:j‘;-.;}-.~"i: , V Nam Bay

Toronto
330 km

 

 

 

 

FIGURE 3.1 Map of research location in Northern Ontario.

180

STATURE: EA MALES 5-19 YEARS
190'- O

- o o
180‘ ° l—- o-l o
170'l

160‘

140'

STATURE, cm

130'

120-

 

110' O

100'“

 

 

FIGURE 4.1 Stature of EA males (0) 5-19 years and five-year age group means
(A i SD) plotted relative to Canadian reference data (Fitness Canada, 1985).
Horizontal bars are 1 SD for age. Solid lines represent 10th, 50th, and 90th

percentiles.

181

STATURE: FN MALES 5-19 YEARS

180-

170‘

160"I

150-

140‘

STATURE, cm

120'

 

110- o

100‘

 

 

FIGURE 4.2 Stature of FN males (0) 5-19 years and five-year age group means
(A :1: SD) plotted relative to Canadian reference data (Fitness Canada, 1985).
Horizontal bars are :1: SD for age. Solid lines represent 10th, 50th, and 90th
percentiles.

182

STATURE: EA FEMALES 5-19 YEARS

180‘

170 "

160-

150'

STATURE, cm
5
I

 

 

 

130‘
120'
110‘ O
O
°o
KN)"
O
0
90 1 fl I - I I I r r I
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

FIGURE 4.3 Stature of EA females (0) 5-19 years and five-year age group means
(A :l: SD) plotted relative to Canadian reference data (Fitness Canada, 1985).
Horizontal bars are :l: SD for age. Solid lines represent 10th, 50th, and 90th
percentiles.

183

STATURE: FN FEMALES 5-19 YEARS
190-

180-

 

170-

160‘

150-

STATURE, cm

130'

120-

 

1104

1001

 

 

FIGURE 4.4 Stature of FN females (0) 5-19 years and five-year age group means
(A :1: SD) plotted relative to Canadian reference data (Fitness Canada, 1985).
Horizontal bars are i SD for age. Solid lines represent 10th, 50th, and 90th
percentiles.

184

35:88.— ficm can .53 .52 68292 woe: gem own .8 Gm H an E3 Beanie: .Gmfi .3230 mmoEEv 8%
8:832 5:350 2 2622 nose—a 5m H 3 238 9.2» own .3933: e5 8a....» Sham A8 83.: <m we 233m We HEDGE

23» .mwa.

cm as as no cc an an at av an an nu cu m.
_ b . . . . . is p. . . . p . cv—

from—

snow—

 

 

..cn-

“'9 ‘HHHLVLS

 

.Ica_

 

 

mfl<§ mbéu mfidé <H. u§<hm

185

83:83 58 as .58 .52 some? 8..: 2.8. as. .8 am a a... 3.. 3:88: .Gme .335 ”858 as 8:52
5:380 2 2.22 883 am a 3 38. 9.2» gas .833 as e3» 23 as 838 2m .6 23% a... 852m

 

 

 

ahead—we.
8&238289828382
_ p r p n p p p P b P L b Ov—
r8.
I8.
I S
o i L
V
m
:2. fl
3
m
r8.
1 :8.

 

 

was; when 3..—<2 z... ”amnesia -§

186

.8382»; 58 2a .59. .52 some? 8:: Bow as .8 am a we as 3:88: .Gma s25 3053 as 8532
5:356 a 832 Bea Em a a use... 9.8» am“ sores as as» 3.8 § seas <m do 22% 5. 5:2...

 

 

 

 

 

Each .HU<
8 as 2 B 8 an en 9 8 an 8 a 8 n.
p b P u r - p r — P P L - OV—
ion.
18— S
L
V
m
1.: fl
3
m
:8.
0
r8.

 

92...; m2." 3..—<2”...— <m "85:3 .58

187

.8888: :5: :8 .58 .52 58:2 8:: :8: .8: :8 cm a a: 8: 3:88: :82 8:80 858 3:: 8:232
88:5 2 28.2 88:. 8:. a a :82: :88 8: 88-:3 :8 89: #8 av 838: z: 8 8:3: a... 552..—

 

 

 

 

 

anm .53.
cm n5 2. we 8 mm On nv 9. am On nu an n—
- p P p P p b n p - u b b 3—
Ian—
0 o ._. o oo
o
0 Go 0 0
.ol T41“. ...—.0 o oo 0 I8. S
._. ._. o ._. TI- 0 _o ._.o I.
o T81 . oh 0 if» v
._.oo o o o o ._. o M
o o o o o o 1.: M
j o oo ..
a
m
I8—
Ico—
Icon

 

92:: 3.8 magma z... ”mg—ESE .

188

MASS: EA MALES 5-19 YEARS
100'-

70"

w-

50"

MASS, kg

 

.011.
20- so a o
s

ro .

 

 

N
0“
N
_
O
fl
N
fl
h
—
G
fl
on
N
O

AGE, years

FIGURE 4.9 Body mass of EA males (0) 5-19 years and five-year age group means
(A :l: SD) plotted relative to Canadian reference data (Fitness Canada, 1985).
Horizontal bars are :1: SD for age. Solid lines represent 10th, 50th, and 90th

percentiles.

189

MASS: FN MALES 5-19 YEARS
100-

80 -'

70!

 

MASS, kg

30-

 

 

 

10 T l T l I I l I l

AGE, years

FIGURE 4.10 Body mass of FN males (0) 5-19 years and five-year age group
means (A :1: SD) plotted relative to Canadian reference data (Fitness Canada, 1985).
Horizontal bars are :1: SD for age. Solid lines represent 10th, 50th, and 90th
percentiles.

190

MASS: EA FEMALES 5-19 YEARS
100'-

 

 

ea 60-
«I
V)“
3
E 50"
40-
w-
20"
O
O
10 I I I I r I r I

 

AGE, years

FIGURE 4.11 Body mass of EA females (0) 5-19 years and five-year age group
means (A :1: SD) plotted relative to Canadian reference data (Fitness Canada, 1985).
Horizontal bars are :1: SD for age. Solid lines represent 10th, 50th, and 90111

percentiles.

191

MASS: FN FEMALES 5-19 YEARS
100-

mu:

80"

70-

MASS, Itg

 

20"

 

 

10 I I I I I I I I I

FIGURE 4.12 Body mass of FN females (0) 5-19 years and five-year age group
means (A :1: SD) plotted relative to Canadian reference data (Fitness Canada, 1985).
Horizontal bars are :1: SD for age. Solid lines represent 10th, 50th, and 90th
percentiles.

192

88:20: :5: :8 .58 .62 222:2 8:: :8: .8: 8: cm H 2: 2:: 3:88: :83 38:5 85:: 3:: 8:222
88:5 2 2,32 88.: am a 3 :82: :88 8: 88:2 :8 as: 2.8 E 83: S: 8 :82 :8: 2... 552.:

E3» in}:
3 8 ...: an 9. 9. n: 8 R 8 2
P

13
I8

1.8

 

I2.

 

3a ‘ssvw

 

 

 

95:: 96.3 mad; («H "mm;

193

.8882»: :5: :8 :5: .52 882:2 8:: :8: .8: 8: a: H 2: 2:: 3:88: .38: 8:80 85:: 3:: 8:222

88:5 3 88.2 88.: E: a a 88:: :88 8: 88-8: :8 :8: :28 A3 8:2 z: 8 8:: :8: a... 552...

 

E3» .HU<
c: n: 2. no 8 n: a... n: 9. n: on 8 8 ....
— P - — — p - n — — P - b On
I 8
I o:
.. 8
o

 

 

flo
'34.
1i 0
63'
I94 3
fl
1: ,
é
3a ‘ssvw

 

ml<fl> fined max—<2 2% «mm;

194

8882:: :5: :8 :5: :5: .882 8:: :8: .8: 8: a: H 2: 2:: 3:88: 8:2 .::::5 8:58 3:: 8:222
88:80 2 88.2 88.: E: u a :82: :88 8: 88.8: :8 28: 2.8 :3 83:2 :8 8 8:2 :8: :5. 852.:

Eco» .flU<

 

 

 

8! ‘ssvw

 

 

3E mbéu mfiAEM—h <H "mg

195

.8282»: 2:: :8 .28 .22 822:2 8:: :8: .88 .2 am a 2: 28 .2882: 8:2 .886 8826 2:: 8:222
88:80 2 2:22 :28: 6:. a a :88. :88 :8 88:2 :8 28: mg: :2 8:82 z: 8 88. :8: 3.: $52:

9.3.: .HU<

 

O
J.—
8 o
l
a
3!! ‘ssvw

1::

T8—

rom—

 

IO:

mflfimfi mhén max—<29— Zh «mm;

196

SITTING HEIGHT: EA MALES 5-19 YEARS
100-

95- ' -' o

75-

SITTING HEIGHT, cm

70...

55" °

 

 

FIGURE 4.17 Sitting height of EA males (0) 5-19 years and five-year age group
means (A :l: SD) plotted relative to U.S. reference data (Hamill et al., 1973; Malina et
al., 1974). Horizontal bars are :1: SD for age. Solid lines represent 10th, 50th, and
90th percentiles.

197

SI'I'I‘ING HEIGHT: FN MALES 5-19 YEARS

95"

904

85"

75"l

70"

SITTING HEIGHT, cm

 

55"

 

 

I I _r I I I 1 I I
2 4 6 8 10 12 l4 16 18 20

AGE, years

FIGURE 4.18 Sitting height of FN males (0) 5-19 years and five-year age group
means (A :l: SD)p lotted relative to U. S. reference data (Hamill et al., 1973; Malina et
al., 1974). Horizontal bars are 1 SD for age. Solid lines represent 10th, 50th, and
90th percentiles.

198

SITTING HEIGHT: EA FEMALES 5-19 YEARS

 

 

100-
95—
o
90" o
o O
o o
. '
85- ° °8 ' o
o O
E o
80- o 0
Eu . O
Q . o
E 75... o
c
0
C5 0
a 70 O
E: °
III-I
‘13 o
65- " °
I-—A
o
60‘ °°
O
o
o
55- °
..°
50 l' I I I fi I I I I
2 4 6 8 10 12 l4 16 18 20
AGE, years

FIGURE 4.19 Sitting height of EA females (0) 5-19 years and five-year age group
means (A :1: SD) plotted relative to U.S. reference data (Hamill et al., 1973; Malina et
al., 1974). Horizontal bars are t SD for age. Solid lines represent 10th, 50th, and
90th percentiles.

199

SITTING HEIGHT: FN FEMALES 5-19 YEARS
100-

95 -

85-

80"

75"

70"

SITTING HEIGHT, CM

 

60!

55"

 

 

50 I I I I I I I I I
2 4 6 8 IO 12 14 I6 18 20

AGE, years

FIGURE 4.20 Sitting height of FN females (0) 5-19 years and five-year age group
means (A :l: SD)p lotted relative to U. S. reference data (Hamill et al., 1973; Malina et
al.,1974). Horizontal bars are :l: SD for age. Solid lines represent 10th, 50th, and 90th
percentiles.

200

.333

:8: :8 :8: .22 882:2 8:: :8: .8: .2 a: u 2: 2:: .2882: 3:2 8:50 8:83 :8 28:5 28 8:222
8:880 2 8:22 :82: E: u a :88. 2.2: 8:: 88:2 :8 28: :3: :2 88:. :2 8 8:8: :28: 8.: 852.:

 

E3: .M—Qd.

nfi cc mm om av av mm On nu

 

 

”39> mbén max—<2 <m— “EU—H: .9ng

Inh

1.:

Ina

 

mo ‘LHDIEIH ONIJJJS

201

.835an

:8: :8 :5: .22 822:2 8:: :8: .8: 8: a: a 2: 2:: 8:88: 8:2 8:80 2:83 :8 28:5 :8 8:222
888v 2 8:22 :82: B: a a 888 2.2: 8:: 88:2 :8 2:8 :3: § 8::: z..— 8 8:8: :28: 8.: 552...

:39: .mwa:

no ob mm om n: 0? mm cm
P . . . 2‘ . . .

 

 

 

 

mfl<fl> msén and; Z..— «EU—Hfl UZE—m

 

as
Ins
m
..8 u
I
nu
nu
-2 m
I
nu
.m
..co :.
m
1::
loo—

202

33522—

.:8 :8 :5: :5: 82:2 8:: ::o: 6:: a: a: a 2: 2:: 8:88: .88: .:::::u 2:83 :8 5:35 5:: 8:222
8:::8u 3 9:22 :32: E: a 3 :82: :22: 0:: 88:2 :8 28: :3: § 8.8.2 <m :: 5:8: 95:: ma... ESE...

 

:53» .m—U<

 

 

as mbéu magma <fl "EU—HI @ZE—m

n—
2.

I2.

T8

18

I
2
“'3 ‘lHDIEIH SNIJJJS

Two

 

r8—

203

.:o€:oo:om 58 was
:5: :8: 882:2 8:: 8::: 8:: 8: a: a 2: 2:: 3:88:: 8::: .:::::u 2283 :8 :82: :8: 8:222 88:80
2 88.2 :82: E: :u a :82: :22: 0:: 80:22 :8 28: :3: :3 8882 z: 8 8:8: :88: 3.: 2:52.:

 

 

 

 

Each .33:
o: 2. 2. :: 8 :: c: :v 8 :: on :u 8 :_
— - p p P p — _ — b n h P OF
:2.
S
O
.2 m
9
0
-2 m
I
m
u:: ..a
m
1::
:8.

 

mfl<fl> mbéu wm—‘iiah Zr.— uEU—m—l QZE—m

204

SUBISCHIAL LENGTH: EA MALES 5-19 YEARS

1008

85"

'80-

75"

70"

SIL, cm

65"

55"

50‘

 

45"

 

 

40 I I I I I I I r I
2 4 6 8 10 12 l4 16 18 20

AGE, years

FIGURE 4.25 Estimated subischial length of EA males (0) 5-19 years and five-year
age group means (A :l: SD) plotted relative'to U.S. reference data (Hamill et al., 1973;
Malina et al., 1974). Horizontal bars are :1: SD for age. Solid lines represent 10th,
50th, and 90th peroentila.

205

SUBISCHIAL LENGTH: FN MALES 5-19 YEARS
100'-

954

85" . Q.—

808 °

75"

70 "

SIL, cm

 

 

FIGURE 4.26 Estimated subischial length of FN males (0) 5-19 years and five-year
age group means (A :1: SD) plotted relative to U.S. reference data (Hamill et al., 1973;
Malina et al., 1974). Horizontal bars are :|: SD for age. Solid lines represent 10th,
50th, and 90th percentiles.

206

SUBISCHIAL LENGTH: EA FEMALES 5-19 YEARS

100-

95 -

85-

75"

70"

SIL, cm

65"

w-

55 ‘

 

45 "

 

 

AGE, years

FIGURE 4.27 Estimated subischial length of EA females (0) 5—19 years and five-
year age group means (A :i: SD) plotted relative to U.S. reference data (Hamill et al.,
1973; Malina et al., 1974). Horizontal bars are :i: SD for age. Solid lines represent
10th, 50th, and 90th percentiles.

207

SUBISCHIAL LENGTH: FN FEMALES 5-19 YEARS
100-

95"

85"

75"

SIL, cm

70".

55"

 

50-

45 "‘

 

 

AGE, years

FIGURE 4.28 Estimated subischial length of FN females (0) 5-19 years and five-
year age group means (A 1: SD) plotted relative to U.S. reference data (Hamill et al.,
1973; Malina et al., 1974). Horizontal bars are i SD for age. Solid lines represent
10th, 50th, and 90th percentiles.

208

SSR: EA MALES 5-19 YEARS

 

 

 

a) —
O
57.5 8
55 ‘
B?
90‘ 0
V)
52.5 "
0
so .-
0 O o
475 T I I f I I I I I
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
AGE, years

FIGURE 4.29 Sitting height/stature ratio of EA males (0) 5-19 years and five-year
age group means (A i: SD) plotted relative to U.S. reference data (Hamill et al., 1973;
Malina et al., 1974). Horizontal bars are :l: SD for age. Solid lines represent 10th,
50th, and 90th percentiles.

209

SSR: FN MALES 5-19 YEARS

57.5 ‘

55"

SSR, %

 

52.5 "

 

 

 

 

 

47.5 I I I I I 1 I r I

AGE, years

FIGURE 4.30 Sitting height/stature ratio of FN males (0) 5-19 years and five-year
age group means (A :1: SD) plotted relative to U.S. reference data (Hamill et al., 1973;
Malina et al., 1974). Horizontal bars are :|: SD for age. Solid lines represent 10th,
50th, and 90th percentiles.

210

SSR: EA FEMALES 5-19 YEARS

57.5 ‘

55"

SSR, %

52.5 "‘

 

 

 

475 I I I I I I I I
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

AGE, years

8.:

FIGURE 4.31 Sitting height/stature ratio of EA females (0) 5-19 years and five-year
age group means (A :i: SD) plotted relative to U.S. reference data (Hamill et al., 1973;
Malina et al., 1974). Horizontal bars are :1: SD for age. Solid lines represent 10th,
50th, and 90th percentiles.

211

SSR: FN FEMALES 5-19 YEARS
60-1

515-

55‘

SSR, %

515-

 

 

 

475 I I I I I I
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

AGE, years

 

FIGURE 4.32 Sitting height/stamre ratio of FN females (0) 5-19 years and five-
year age group means (A :l: SD) plotted relative to U.S. reference data (Hamill et al.,
1973; Malina et al., 1974). Horizontal bars are :1: SD for“ age. Solid lines represent

10th, 50th, and 90th percentiles.

212

.8582& 58 us .58 .52
3323 .2: Bow an“ E 8 a as 35 3:88: .§§ .855 2a.»? as 5.88 as 8:52 56.86 a 2,32
Bee... 8:2» an a a 88.... 9.2» can .832 9a 5% 3.8.on 8.2. <m ea 2.8 Beanies 95.8 9.... 55¢:

 

 

 

J.
96 ‘HSS

 

 

was; was 3.22 $— 3.3 -s

213

33822. 58 2a .58
.56— 33? nonm— Uzom .owa new Om ...—... 0.3 was 3:63.53 .swm— .3330 Bum—05> Va 5305 556 08332 swung 3
2,32 333 am a 3 «so... 9.2» a: .832 as 39» WEN § 83... z"— eo Se 233...»? ”55 3..“. go...—

Eavm in}.
8 2. 2. 3 8 a... an we 9. . mm 8 3 8 n.
b h —

I «Q

T—n

 

1
L

 

INn
O

. o ”I‘lm flan
.—. I o 0 Lo I3.
I [A

% ‘XSS

 

 

 

mfl<fi> mhéu max—<2 Z..— ”mam

214

85822. 58 9a .53
.52 .8852 83. Bow a? 3. am a pa 3.. 3.38: .83 53.5 2a.»? ...a .286 as 8:32 5:350 2
832 Baa Em a a mace 82» own .833 e5 Ea mix § ease <m he as. Banging 928 mm... 559m

Eco» .HU<

19.
1%
rs
1%

Inn

% ‘XSS

 

 

 

mfl<fl> maéu mama—(SH..— <H «1mm Inn

215

.8352“; 58 9a .58
.52 53.2? 8.5 38 can é am a pa 23 3:88: .8? .5850 2%? 2a 5.85 as. 8:232 5:550 a
2522 Baa 8m H 3 888 9.8» can 532 Ea 5% mix as Base 2m he can aasmBmE 95% and BBQ..—

ana £04

ow nu as no :0 an an we cw an an nu an n—
. _ . p . . p b . . . . . we

.uav

fa

I—n

 

Inn

Inn

% “USS

 

Icn

Tan

 

 

row

Ihn

 

mm<fi> mhén mflddfilflh 2h “mam Inn

75"

70"

65 -

m:

55"

50‘

45"

AMA, cm

20-

15"

10"

 

216

AMA: EA MALES 5-19 YEARS

 

 

FIGURE 4.37 Estimated arm muscle area of EA males (0) 5-19 years and five-year
age group means (A :l: SD) plotted relative to U.S. reference data (Frisancho, 1990).
Horizontal bars are :l: SD for age. Solid lines represent 10th, 50th, and 90th

percentiles.

75-

70-

65-

AMA, cm
‘1‘

201

15"

10"

217

AMA: FN MALES 5-19 YEARS

 

 

 

I T I I I I T I
6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
AGE, years

FIGURE 4.38 Estimated arm muscle area of FN males (0) 5-19 years and five-year
age group means (A :1: SD) plotted relative to U.S. reference data (Frisancho, 1990).
Horizontal bars are 1: SD for age. Solid lines represent 10th, 50th, and 90th

percentiles.

218

AMA: EA FEMALES 5-19 YEARS
75-

70"

55"

50-

45 'l

AMA,cm

 

 

 

AGE, years

FIGURE 4.39 Estimated arm muscle area of EA females (0) 5-19 years and five-
year age group means (A :l: SD) plotted relative to U.S. reference data (Frisancho,
1990). Horizontal bars are :1: SD for age. Solid lines represent 10th, 50th, and 90th
percentiles.

75-

70"

65 "

we:

55-

AMA, cm

 

219

AMA: FN FEMALES 5-19 YEARS

 

 

AGE, years

FIGURE 4 .40 Estimated arm muscle area of FN females (0) 5-19 years and five-
year age group means (A i SD) plotted relative to U. S. reference data (Frisancho,
1990). Horizontal bars are i SD for age. Solid lines represent 10th, 50th, and 90th

percentiles.

220

358209

58 use .58 £2 38952 8..: Bow a? é cm a pa 2.3 3:85: .892 283:6 as. 85.032 .3. a
932 Bean Em a 3 saga 95.» a: 5.39 e5 as» mien 63 8?: <m ea 35 28:8 as 835% :3 5:5:

E3» .M—U<

 

 

93.: as...“ adi <H “<52 :8.

221

95580;

58 23 .53 .52 3329. 8:: 23m .0? 8.. Gm H 93 EB Beanie: .893 65536 83 8:20am: .m.D 2
2628 vote:— am H 3 838 9.8» own Roman. Ea so» Exam A3 838 z"— uo no.3 38:8 8.3 Bantam— Nvé gnu—..—

an» .HU<

r8
'3
9
8
{Q
8

 

 

 

 

 

 

3E 3.8 3.5%; Zn Ҥ<

605:8qu

58 v5 .58 .52 £8qu 8:: 30m .03 ..8 Gm H 03 EB 325.8: .83— .onofimtmv 3% 8:20.? .m.D 9 2522
v3.2a 5m H 3 «508 95% emu Egan“ 23 83.» nhéu A8 8E8». <m .3 8.3 £8.58 :5 385mm med nay—DUE

E3» .HU<

 

 

18

 

0 r2.

“'3 ‘VWV

low

Ia:

 

mfl<fi> mhéu mania é ”<92

223

.8550qu

58 can .58 .52 888%.. 3:: 30m .0? Ba Gm H 8a E3 325.5: .253 65:3th 53 3:203“ .m.D 8 03.3.2
@333 am H 3 2808 use» can Roxana was an?» 338 A8 3380.. Zn— uo 3.3 28:8 8.3 3385mm 3... gnu—..—

anh .HU<

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

9:.me mbéfl adi: 2h u§<

la:

 

TON—

224

BMI: EA MALES 5-19 YEARS

32"

24-

BMI, kglm

 

18-

16-

 

14-

 

 

12 I I I fi r I I I I
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

‘ AGE, years

FIGURE 4.45 BMI of EA males (0) 5-19 years and five-year age group means
(A :l: SD) plotted relative to U.S. reference data (Najjar and Rowland, 1987).
Horizontal bars are :|: SD for age. Solid lines represent 10th, 50th, and 90th
percentiles.

225

BMI: FN MALES 5-19 YEARS

32-

26+

24"

22"

BMI, kglm

20-

18"

16-1

 

144

 

 

 

 

12

FIGURE 4.46 BMI of FN males (0) 5-19 years and five-year age group means
(A 1 SD) plotted relative to U.S. reference data (Najjar and Rowland, 1987).
Horizontal bars are :l: SD for age. Solid lines represent 10th, 50th, and 90th

percentiles.

226

BMI: EA FEMALES 5-19 YEARS

32-

28"

26"

 

22-

BMI, kg/m

 

18-

16-

 

14' - o

 

 

12 I I I I .l I I I I

AGE, years

FIGURE 4.47 BMI of EA females (0) 5-19 years and five-year age group means
(A :1: SD) plotted relative to U.S. reference data (N ajjar and Rowland, 1987).
Horizontal bars are :1: SD for age. Solid lines represent 10th, 50th, and 90th
percentiles.

227

BMI: FN FEMALES 5-19 YEARS

32-

22-

BMI, kg/m

18-'

16-

 

 

14"

 

 

12 I r I I I I I I I

AGE, years

FIGUREAAS BMI of FN females (0) 5-19 years and five-year age group means
(A :l: SD) plotted relative to U.S. reference data (Najjar and Rowland, 1987).
Horizontal bars are 1 SD for age. Solid lines represent 10th, 50th, and 90th
percentiles.

228

.8582»; 58 e5 .53 .52 882%. 8:: Bow .0? .8 am a 3 33 3:85: .992 €833. e5 amaze
as 8:232 .mo 2 2,32 Baa Em « 3 was: 9.2» as 532 e8 38.» Pea § 838 <m ea Em 3.... 852...

E3» .HU<
8 a. 2. we 8 an 9. we 3 mm 8 ma 8 2
— n — n P P P p P . F n p b “—

 

 

 

 

 

...:
.L

'1.

. 3:,
in.
is

5':
III/3x ‘ma

0 o
o o o
o
o o 00 9w 0 one o
o o o
0 I9.
0 0
Inc

 

935% £58 amt—<2 «9 "En

229

.8582»: :5: :8 .58 .52 382:2 8:: 38 a»: :8 am a a: 5: 3:8.8: Ewe :33: :8 amaze
3:: 8:83.: .m: 9 33.2 3:2: Em a 3 88:. :8.» 8: 88:3 :8 28.: 3.8 § 83: E m: 3: cm... 852...

Each an:
8 n: 2. n: . 8 n... 8 9. 3 an on ma 8 n.
. F

 

Inn

mm ‘mm

13

19

 

row

gag—V mute" mat—<2 2% ”En

230

.8582»: :5: :8 .58 .52 822:2 8:: 3:: a»: :2 a: a 2: 2:: 3:88: .52 .333: :8 amaze 3::
8:222 .m: 2 3:22 :23: E: a a :82: :22: um: 82:22 :8 2:9: 2.8 a: 83:2 <m :: :2: B... umber:
E3.» .Hw<

on an 2. no 8 am. on no. 3 I an on as 8 n—
L . . p . . _ . . n—

 

 

 

r8

 

 

 

 

Inn

III/3x ‘Iwa

 

Inv

 

ml<mn> mhén magma— <fi «an

231

3382:: so: :8 .58 .32 222:2 :22 2.8 .8: :2 a: H 2: 2:: 3:82.: 5:: .3233: :8 8.32: 3::
8:222 .2: 2 8:22 :22: 8.: a 3 8:2: 2.2: 8: 88:2 :8 2:8 8.8 5 83:2 2: :o E: an... age:—

Eaem dad:

 

 

I8

InN

 

 

mm ‘mm

Inn

 

I nv

 

Ion

ml<fl> nbén mfldéflh Z:— “Em

232

TRICEPS SKINF OLD: EA MALES 5-19 YEARS
35-

20'-

15"

TRICEPS, mm

 

 

 

10"

 

 

 

AGE, years

FIGURE 4.53 Triceps skinfold of EA males (0) 5-19 years and five-year age group
means (A :1: SD) plotted relative to U.S. reference data (Najjar and Rowland, 1987).
Horizontal bars are :|: SD for age. Solid lines represent 10th, 50th, and 90th
percentiles.

233

35_ TRICEPS SKINFOLD: FN MALES 5-19 YEARS

15"

TRICEPS, mm

10-

 

 

 

 

 

FIGURE 4.54 Triceps skinfold of FN males (0) 5-19 years and five-year age group
means (A :1: SD) plotted relative to U.S. reference data (Najjar and Rowland, 1987).
Horizontal bars are :1: SD for age.’ Solid lines represent 10th, 50th, and 90th
percentiles.

234

TRICEPS SKINFOLD: EA FEMALES 5-19 YEARS
35 -

20-

15"

TRICEPS, mm

 

10"I

 

 

 

 

AGE, years

FIGURE 4.55 Triceps skinfold of EA females (0) 5-19 years and five-year age
group means (A :1: SD) plotted relative to U.S. reference data (N ajjar and Rowland,
1987). Horizontal bars are :1: SD for age. Solid lines represent 10th, 50th, and 90th
percentiles.

235

TRICEPS SKINFOLD: FN FEMALES 5-19 YEARS

 

 

35-
so:
25-
E 20-
E
a:
U
a 15-
[...
10-
5-
0 I I I I I I I I I

 

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

AGE, years

FIGURE 4.56 Triceps skinfold of FN females (0) 5-19 years and five-year age
group means (A :|: SD) plotted relative to U.S. reference data (N ajjar and Rowland,
1987). Horizontal bars are :1: SD for age. Solid lines represent 10th, 50th. and 90th
percentiles.

236

60:38.8:—

28 :8 .28 .22 222:2 8:: 2.2: a»: :2 am a 2: 2:: 3:85: $2 3.3:: :5 2:...an 2:: 8:222
2.: 2 3:22 :22: am 2 a :52: :82 um: 20:22 :5 28: 3.8 § :22: <m :o 22:2: £82.: R... SSE:

E8» .HU<

8::288283328382
P.-PP---- O

 

 

 

 

m ‘SJZ'IDRLI.

Ian

Ice

Inv

 

ml<fi> muéfl mfid<z <H "GAGE—vi ammo—mu. new

237

.8850qu

2o: :8 .29. .22 222:2 8:: 2.8 .8: :2 cm 2 2: 2:: .2258: .52 .2233. :2: 8:26 2:: 8:222
.2: 2 8:22 :82: E: 2 3 8:2: :22: 8: 28:2 :5 2:8 8.8 A2 22:2 z: 8 222:: 88:... an... 552...

Each .m—U<
8 n: 2. n: 8 n: on 9. 3 . an 8 a 8 n.
P b

._.|eil it u...

o ‘h In.

00 O
O ION
C

IR

 

 

 

    

mm ‘SJHDRIJ.

In:
I:

I9

 

93:: mhéu mad; 2..— un—AOHZU—m mam—05:.

238

20589.0;
:5: :2 .28 .22 222:2 8:: 22m .8: .2 am 2 2: 2:: 2.828.: :8... .2283. :2 2.22: :2: 8:222
.3. 2 8.2.2 :82: Em 2 4. :22: :88 8: 28:2 :2 2:8 8.8 .2 8222 <2 2 22:2: 2:82... :3. $52....

E20.» 4.53.

In

Ic—

 

I3

rum ‘SJHDIXJ.

 

 

 

mfl<fi> mnén max—<2: Sm “Ga—OHZU—m EEO—Kn.

239

20350.8.“
58 v5: .53 .52 88890.. 8..: 2.0m .ow: :8 Om H 2: was 3.82.25 A53 .93—39:— v.3 .33.qu 82.. 02.282

.2... 2 8.2.2 :82: E: 2 a 2:2: :22: 8: 28:2 :2 2:8 8...: .2 8222 z: 2 22:2: 88:: 8.: Eu...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Each .HQ<
8 2. 2. n: 8 an an 9. 9. _ an 8 n: 8 n.
p n P P p b p n P - n p b O
In
I...
O
I in In.
Jfi L
0 I8 m
3
3
/.’ IWN u
.lfll. .2. m
00 m
Inn
0
o o In:
Ion

932$ mhIeN 9.1—<2: 2h "DI—OhZ—v—m mam—OE

240

SUBSCAPULAR SKINFOLD: EA MALES 5-19 YEARS

 

 

 

 

5-
3o-
25-
° 0 O
E
E o
e 20"
fl
4
g o
D
32
U 15" o .. 00
3
D O
r]: o
7—0 i—l
10- °
5-
0 I I I I I I I I I
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

AGE, years

FIGURE 4.61 Subscapular skinfold of EA males (0) 5-19 years and five-year age
group means (A :1: SD) plotted relative to U.S. reference data (N ajjar and Rowland,
1987). Horizontal bars are :l: SD for age. Solid lines represent 10th, 50th, and 90th
percentiles.

241

SUBSCAPULAR SKINFOLD: FN MALES 5-19 YEARS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

35"
30"!
0
° 0
25-
o
g ..
. 20.. ° °
2:
4. A
In]
D
a:
< c
U 15"
m
5 A .__ .._.,
l-— —l

m in ‘

10"

c
5-
-——:.’
O T I I I I I I I I
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

AGE, years

FIGURE 4.62 Subscapular skinfold of FN males (0) 5-19 years and five-year age
group means (A :l: SD) plotted relative to U.S. reference data (N ajjar and Rowland,
1987). Horizontal bars are 1: SD for age. Solid lines represent 10th, 50th, and 90th

percentiles.

242

SUBSCAPULAR SKINFOLD: EA FEMALES 5-19 YEARS

 

 

 

 

 

 

35"
O
O

30- °

25-
E
E
35 20-
..I
D
but
4
8
an 15-
D
VJ

10"

5-

O I I I I I I I r I

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

AGE, years

FIGURE 4.63 Subscapular skinfold of EA females (0) 5—19 years and five-year age
group means (A :t: SD) plotted relative to U.S. reference data (Najjar and Rowland,
1987). Horizontal bars are :1: SD for age. Solid lines represent 10th, 50th. and 90th
percentiles.

243

SUBSCAPULAR SKINFOLD: FN FEMALES 5-19 YEARS
35-

 

30—
25-
E
E
“a 20-
E
A:
5
m 15-
at:
D
m
10-

 

 

 

 

AGE, years

FIGURE 4.64 Subscapular skinfold of FN females (0) 5-19 years and five-year age
group means (A 1: SD) plotted relative to U.S. reference data (Najjar and Rowland,
1987). Horizontal bars are :I: SD for age. Solid lines represent 10th, 50th, and 90th
percentiles.

244

35580;

58 2a .58 .52 39.2.2 8.5 Bow and é am a pa 23 .5258: Age 6533— % amaze as. 8:232 do
2 2,32 383 Em a a 888 9.2» can sure. as as: 22 § 838 <m do 285... 339835 3... go:

9:3» mung.

 

 

 

 

 

mm ‘IIV'II'IJVDSIIIIS

 

5:5? mbéfl max—<2 «an "GAGE—Mm ¢<§Q<Dmgm

245

36522.

58 Ba .58 .52 88292 8:: 2.0m own ..8 Gm H 0.3 E3 Beanie: A33 .25—Boa can H.536 8% 8:282 .m.D
3 9522 pogo—m 5m H 3 8.88 96.—w own gauze»: 23 go» nhém A8 moi:— zm «c 28.57. Sanguinsm 3.9 EDGE

Each .m—@<

 

 

In
1 D |||O
0 IO—
J. .. o o o o In.
/ O o
o 0 # vs“ 0 T 0.0. T‘nl. o :8
O

 

I
O
I'-—
T
4
J.
o O
O
o O
O
1 I
8 3
mm ‘IIV'IIIJVDSEIIIS

 

 

mfl<fi> mhéu mums—<2 2h ”GAOhZ—Mm fi<flDm<UmflDw

246

.moficoeon
58 ER .58 .59 E3658 8:: 23m .oma Sm Gm H Ea was 355.53 A52 .23—33— 98 Hanna 5.6 8:282 .m.D
8 3:22 @0803 Em H 3 «.52: use» own awoken“ U5 who» nhéu A8 mud—“Eu.“ <m mo 20.253 83.3035 5... nay—DUE

Ea?» .H@<

 

Ian

Inn

WW‘HVTDJVDSHDS

Iov

 

Inv

 

Icn

 

I8
mm<m~> mbéN mfid<2flh «an "GAGE—255 m<ADh<UmflDm

247

35522“
58 new .58 .59 83.292 won: E—om own e8 Gm H 2a E3 13.—onto: ASE .23—Box 23 3:36 5% 3:282 .m.D
9 2628 cote—q 5m H 3 2.38 9.2» can cages. 9a who» nhém A8 moan—oh Zn— uo 28.5—m 533835 8.9 EOE

Each .HU<

 

 

 

 

mm ‘IIV’II'IJVDSHIIS

 

 

24a? m5..." mas—<38: Zr.— «GAGthm ¢<§m<0mgm

248

150_ COMBINED GRIP STRENGTH: EA MALES 5-19 YEARS

125‘

100-

75"

GRIP STRENGTH, kg

50-

 

 

 

AGE, years

FIGURE 4.69 Combined grip strength (right + left) of EA males (0) 5-19 years and
five-year age group means (A :t SD) plotted relative to Canadian reference data (Fitness
Canada, 1985). Horizontal bars are :1: SD for age. Solid lines represent 10th, 50th,
and 90th percentiles.

249

COMBINED GRIP STRENGTH: FN MALES 5-19 YEARS

 

 

 

 

150- o
125-
1oo~
M
a
E
E-'
(D
E 75-
E-'
m
E
c 50-
25-
O
0 I I I I I I I I 1
2 4 s 10 12 14 16 1s 20

AGE, years

FIGURE 4.70 Combined grip strength (right + left) of FN males (0) 5-19 years and
five-year age group means (A :1: SD) plotted relative to Canadian reference data (Fitness
Canada, 1985). Horizontal bars are :1: SD for age. Solid lines represent 10th, 50th,
and 90th percentiles.

250

COMBINED GRIP STRENGTH: EA FEMALES 5-19 YEARS

150!

125-

§
1

GRIP STRENGTH, kg
‘1‘

3
1

 

 

 

2 4 6 8 10 12 l4 l6 18 20

AGE, years

FIGURE 4.71 Combined grip strength (right + left) of EA females (0) 5-19 years
and five-year age group means (A :1: SD) plotted relative to Canadian reference data
(Fitness Canada, 1985). Horizontal bars are :1: SD for age. Solid lines represent 10th,

50th, and 90th percentiles.

251

COMBINED GRIP STRENGTH: FN FEMALES 5-19 YEARS

 

 

 

150‘
125'l
100‘
M
a:
U
z 75..
II]
K
E“
m
g
G 50-
25-
0 I I T I I I I r I
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

AGE, years

FIGURE 4.72 Combined grip strength (right + left) of FN females (0) 5-19 years
and five-year age group means (A :1: SD) plotted relative to Canadian reference data
(Fitness Canada, 1985). Harizontal bars are :I: SD for age. Solid lines represent 10th,
50th, and 90th percentiles.

252

.8552»; 58 as. .58
.52 58892 85,— Eom one can Ow H 93 E3 3:32am A33 .3550 305.8 83 gauche 56230 3 2522 Baa—m
Em .1. a .508 9.2» 0mg 533 2... a8» 23 as sea <m do 82 + :35 swag... new 8388 2.. .. manor.—

 

 

Each.m—G<
cm as as we no nn an nv :9 mm an mm as n—
_ n p p _ — h — b bl — — _ ON
0 I8
0
o 18 m
o
18 m
m
Too. Tm
.H
‘
.uQN— an
.ucv_
Ice—

 

 

mfl<fi> whéu mad; <H “EEGZm—flhm mac Gal—EEOC

253

.aasea 58 as. .58
.52 issue 8.5 Bow and .2 am a 2.. 3. 3:85: .Gwe s35 865E 38 8:222 8:350 2 238 38a
Em a a mace 98» own ages 2a 28» 2.3 § 835 E .8 £2 + .55 52.2.. at» 8.589 2.... 9:5:

2:6» .m—U<

cw nu as no aw nn an nv av mm on an ca n—
. . . b . . p . . . . . 21

 

rloo—

 

331 ‘Hmnams mm

 

 

.uov_

 

ruoe_

953—? £53 mad; Z..— unggm Ann—0 Gal—ECU

254

.mofiaoouoa Sea Ba .58

.52 289a». 8:: Bow a». .8 cm a .5 23 3:88: .62: s35 8.53 as 8:222 Sfiso 3 332 88...

Em a a «so... 9.2» on“ .832 as 23» «EN § 8.2.2 <m .6 £2 + .55 522: a...» 35980 me... 5522

 

 

 

 

Each .HQ<
8 n5 2 no 8 n... on 9. 3 an 8 ma 8 2
P b p p n p - p — p P — - ON
C
O
18
.8 m
S
I8 m
m
18. m
...“.
18.
to:
18.

mfl<m> mhén max—(EH...— (fi al.—Olga Emu—U Gal—EGO

255

.8552»; 58 as .58
.52 some? 8:: Bow own .2 cm a as as 3.38: .62: «8.5 205.6 as 8:222 5685 9 2,32 88...
Em a 3 .52.. 95.» om. auras 2a 28» 2.22 § mouse 2m do £2 + 5ch 5222 a.» Sansone 2.... ...—«:2..—

 

 

 

 

 

 

anm .mu<
on as as we cc mm on nv av mm on ma an n—
. . p p . . . . . . h . . . an
13
|.. o
o 1m,
o ..o o... ooomnoo o o e -89
.. . Ta... 1T a. . m
o o Tl‘lpdn T‘Ic

H .— .m. m ..8 m

on .
o o o o X
o 3
o N
o 9
I8— 1
m.
I.
I8— 8

.16?—

..co.

24$ mbéu mas—<2?— Zh umhwzahm any—U final—ECU

256

TRUNK FLEXIBILITY: EA MALES 5-19 YEARS

4ST

35-

 

 

FLEXIBILITY, cm

 

20 -

15-

 

 

 

10 I I I I I I I I I

AGE, years

FIGURE 4.77 Trunk flexibility of EA males (0) 5-19 years and five-year e group
means (A :1: SD) plotted relative to Canadian reference data (Pimess Canada, 1 85).
Horizontal bars are :1: SD for age. Solid lines represent 10th, 50th, and 90th
percentiles.

257

TRUNK FLEXIBILITY: F N MALES 5-19 YEARS
45 -

40-

35-

 

 

FLEXIBILITY, cm

 

 

20 "‘ 0 0

 

154

 

 

10 I I r I I I I I I
8

AGE, years

FIGURE 4.78 Trunk flexibility of FN males (0) 5-19 years and five-year age group
means (A :I: SD) plotted relative to Canadian reference data (Fitness Canada, 1985).
Horizontal bars are :1: SD for age. Solid lines represent 10th, 50th, and 90th
percentiles.

258

TRUNK FLEXIBILITY: EA FEMALES 5-19 YEARS
45"

35"

 

 

25- o .-

FLEXIBILITY, cm

20"

15" O

 

 

10 I l I I I I I l 1

FIGURE 4.79 Trunk flexibility of EA females (0) 5-19 years and five-year age
group means (A :1: SD) plotted relative to Canadian reference data (Fitness Canada,
1985). Horizontal bars are :1: SD for age. Solid lines represent 10th, 50th, and 90th
percentiles.

259

TRUNK FLEXIBILITY: F N FEMALES 5-19 YEARS
45 -

35-

 

 

 

 

 

 

E o 1——A—1
9“ 3°“ ‘K/ o
>"
E‘
- 9—A—1 :
E
,_, o
x 25 II o g
E o
20"
15 "l
10 T T I I I I I I I
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

AGE, years

FIGURE 4.80 Trunk flexibility of FN females (0) 5-19 years and five-year age
group means (A 2!: SD) plotted relative to Canadian reference data (Fitness Canada,
1985). Horizontal bars are :l: SD for age. Solid lines represent 10th, 50th, and 90th
percentiles.

260

8035209

58 e8 .53 .52 888.8. 8..: 28m .88 .3 cm a as 83 3.588: .63 Sago .858 58 8:282 8:856
a 2,32 8,83 Em a 3 888 88» 88 .833 28 as: 2.8” 8V 838 <m do 5528c as... :3. go:

930» £33.

93.: nhoen max—<2 <H "End—mama: MZDE

 

Tn
f:
in—

F8

18
Inn
19
#9.

Tan

 

Inn

mo ‘ALI'IIHIXC'I'IJ

261

35.—neon

58 as .58 .52 some? 8:: 38 can é a a pa 93 3:85: .65 .5850 305% 5% 8:232 5:350
2 932 Baa Em « a mace 38» ow“ 533 Ba Ea 3.8 as 8E: E mo 35.5% as; 8... 552m

23.» .H@<

cm as as no ca mm on n¢ oe an on nu ca . n—
. . . . . _ L‘ p . . b

 

 

 

 

 

I
a
ma ‘ALI'IIHIXH'IJ

 

was: m5." BEE 2,.— “Edaxaé M22;

262

35822“

58 2a .58 .52 age .2: 2.8 a? 8. am a pa 2.3 388°: .§§ 3880 ”.858 as. 8:20? Sago
2 2622 3.2.. Em « 3 38. 95.» ow“ 533 as as» #3 E 8.553 <m ”8 been»: fie... 8... 953.

23» .53..
r ...

Ic—

Tn.

 

 

1mm

“'3 ‘AJJ'IIHIXCII'IJ

 

T3

 

r 9.

1cm

 

Inn

mfl<fl> an..." ”magma 4n.— uEA—m—Nfl: v—ZDE

263

.8588&
58 Ea .53 .52 382%. 8.5 Bow can .8 am a 93 as Beacon .69: £380 ”85% as. 8:20.». 535
3 2%? Baa am a a «.88. 9.2» can .833 as 23» 23m § 838 <m me $32.: fie... 33. 95c:

28» in:

. ..

Inn

ma ‘ALI'IIHIXH'IJ

O
o o 0 r3
:9.

Ian

 

r..nn

ml<m~> nbéu ”mu—<29.— Zh “FF—Ana—Nm—Ah MZDE

264

SIT-UPS: EA MALES 5-14 YEARS

55-

50"

45"!

35.

SIT-UPS, nlmin

20‘

15"

10"

 

 

5.1

00
O

 

 

4 6 8 1o 12 14 16
AGE, years

FIGURE 4.85 Sit-ups in BA males (0) 5-19 years and five-year age group means
(A :1: SD) plotted relative to Canadian reference data (Fitness Canada, 1985).
Horizontal bars are :l: SD for age. Solid lines represent 10th, 50th, and 90th
percentiles.

265

55 SIT-UPS: FN MALES 5-14 YEARS
,

4s-

35‘

30A

SIT-UPS, n/min

 

20q

15"

10"

 

 

 

 

FIGURE 4.86 Sit-ups in FN males (0) 5-19 years and five-year age group means
(A :t SD) plotted relative to Canadian reference data (Fitness Canada, 1985).
Horizontal bars are :l: SD for age. Solid lines represent 10th, 50th, and 90th
percentiles.

266

55_ SIT-UPS: EA FEMALES 5.14 YEARS

45 -

35"

SIT-UPS, nlmin

20 -

15‘ 0

 

10'

 

 

 

4 6 8 10 12 14 16

AGE, years

FIGURE 4.87 Sit-ups in BA females (0) 5-19 years and five-year age group means
(A :1: SD) plotted relative to Canadian reference data (Fitness Canada, 1985).
Horizontal bars are :1: SD for age. Solid lines represent 10th, 50th, and 90th
percentiles.

267

55 SIT-UPS: F N FEMALES 5-14 YEARS

50"

45 "'

SIT-UPS, n/min

20"

 

15-

10"

 

 

 

AGE, years

FIGURE 4.88 Sit-ups in FN females (0) 5-19 years and five-year age group means
(A :1: SD) plotted relative to Canadian reference data (Fitness Canada, 1985).
Horizontal bars are :1: SD for age. Solid lines represent 10th, 50th, and 90th
percentiles.

268

FLEXED ARM HANG: EA MALES 5-14 YEARS
65-

55-

50"

451

HANG,s

20-

15"

10-

 

 

 

 

 

FIGURE 4.89 Flexed arm hang in BA males (0) 5-19 years and five-year age group
means (A :1: SD) plotted relative to Michigan State University Motor Performance Study
data (Haubenstricker et al., 1991). Horizontal bars are :1: SD for age. Solid lines
represent 10th, 50th, and 90th percentiles.

269

65- FLEXED ARM HANG: FN MALES 5-14 YEARS

55-
50-

45..

HANG, s

10"

 

 

 

 

AGE, years

FIGURE 4.90 Flexed arm hang in FN males (0) 5-19 years and five-year age group
means (A 1 SD) plotted relative to Michigan State University Motor Performance Study
data (Haubenstricker et al., 1991). Horizontal bars are :1: SD for age. Solid lines
represent 10th, 50th, and 90th percentiles.

270

FLEXED ARM HANG: EA FEMALES 5-14 YEARS

HANG,s

 

 

 

 

 

 

AGE, years

FIGURE 4.91 Flexed arm hang in BA females (0) 5-19 years and five-year age
group means (A :1: SD) plotted relative to Michigan State University Motor Performance
Study data (Haubensu‘icker et al., 1991). Horizontal bars are :1: SD for age. Solid lines
represent 10th, 50th, and 90th percentiles.

271

FLEXED ARM HANG: FN FEMALES 5-14 YEARS
65-

55"
504

45-

HANG,s

20 " o

15- /—
1-—- —-1

10"

5‘ M400

l I I I

 

 

 

 

 

AGE, years

FIGURE 4.92 Flexed arm hang in FN females (o) 519 years and five-year age
group means (A :t SD) plotted relative to Michigan State University Motor Performance
Study data (Haubenstricker et al., 1991). Horizontal bars are :1: SD for age. Solid lines
represent 10th, 50th, and 90th percentiles.

 

272

DASH: EA MALES 5-14 YEARS

7J5“

7-1

6.5 1

515-

SPEED, m/s

445'

3:5-

 

 

 

3 I I I I I I
4 6 8 10 12 l4 l6

AGE, years

FIGURE 4.93 135-meter dash speed in BA males (0) 5-19 years and five-year age
group means (A :1: SD) plotted relative to Michigan State University Motor Performance
Study data (Haubenstricker et al., 1991). Horizontal bars are :1: SD for age. Solid lines
represent 10th, 50th, and 90th percentiles.

273

DASH: FN MALES 5-14 YEARS

8!

7.5 -

7d

6.5 '-

SPEED, mls

M
I

4.5 "'

3.5 -

 

 

 

3 I I I I I l
4 6 8 10 12 14 16

AGE, years

FIGURE 4.94 35-meter dash speed in FN males (0) 5-19 years and five-year age
group means (A :1: SD) plotted relative to Michigan State University Motor Performance
Study data (Haubenstricker et al., 1991). Horizontal bars are :1: SD for age. Solid lines
represent 10th, 50th, and 90th percentiles.

274

8_ DASH: EA FEMALES 5-14 YEARS

7.5 -

SPEED, mls

 

 

 

AGE, years

FIGURE 4.95 3.5-meter dash speed in BA females (0) 5-19 years and five-year age
group means (A :1: SD) plotted relative to Michigan State University Motor Performance
Study data (Haubenstricker et al., 1991). Horizontal bars are :1: SD for age. Solid lines
represent 10th, 50th, and 90th percentiles.

8'!

7.5 "

7—1

6.5 ‘-

5.5 -

SPEED, mls

5d

4.5 "‘

3.5 '-

 

275

DASH: FN FEMALES 5-14 YEARS

 

 

M
-
..
..
..

FIGURE 4.96 255-meter dash speed in FN females (0) 5-19 years and five- ear age

group means (A 1 SD) plotted relative to Michigan State University Motor Pe ormancc
Study data (Haubenstricker et al., 1991). Horizontal bars are :1: SD for age. Solid lines
represent 10th, 50th, and 90th percentiles.

 

276

 

 

2.5 - JUMP: EA MALES 5-14 YEARS
2.25 e
2 —t
1.75 -
E
=3 1.5 -
E
D
-1
1.25 .
1 -1
0.75 «-
0'5 I T I I I I
4 6 8 10 12 14 16
AGE, years

FIGURE 4.97 Standing long jump in BA males (0) 5-19 years and five-year age
group means (A :1: SD) plotted relative to Michigan State University Motor Performance
Study data (Haubenstricker et al., 1991). Horizontal bars are :|: SD for age. Solid lines
represent 10th, 50th, and 90th percentiles.

277

JUMP: FN MALES 5-14 YEARS

2.5 '-

2.25 -

1.75 "‘

1.5-

JUMP, m

1.25‘

 

0.75 "'

 

0-5 I I I I I
4 6 8 10 12 l4 l6

AGE, years

 

FIGURE 4.98 Standing long jump in FN males (0) 5-19 years and five-year age
group means (A :1: SD) plotted relative to Michigan State University Motor Performance
Study data (Haubenstricker et al., 1991). Horizontal bars are :1: SD for age. Solid lines
represent 10th, 50th, and 90th percentiles.

278

JUMP: EA FEMALES 5-14 YEARS

2.5 -

2.25 -

2-1

1.75 "

1.5-I

JUMP, m

1.25“

[q

 

0.75 "

 

 

0-5 I I I I I I
4 6 8 10 12 14 16

AGE, years

FIGURE 4.99 Standing long jump in BA females (0) 5-19 years and five-year age
group means (A 1: SD) plotted relative to Michigan State University Motor Performance
Study data (Haubenstricker et al., 1991). Horizontal bars are :1: SD for age. Solid lines
represent 10th, 50th, and 90th percentiles.

279

JUMP: FN FEMALES 5-14 YEARS

2.5 '2

2.25 '1

1.75 "‘

,m

1.5-

1.25-

0.75 "

 

 

 

0'5 I I I— I l I
4 6 8 10 12 14 16
AGE, years

FIGURE 4.100 Standing long jump in FN females (0) 5-19 years and five-year age
group means (A :1: SD) plotted relative to Michigan State University Motor Performance
Study data (Haubenstricker etal., 1991). Horizontal bars are :1: SD for age. Solid lines
represent 10th, 50th, and 90th percentiles.

280

Sign mafia...— 0325 05 .«o 5:88 05 3 2522 nose—n 9E < .<m 4v who» an moi:— 3u 338 MB oumoamom< fin any:

 

E3? .m—U<

 

WISH? an wand; 35:.

n6

I nhd

 

InNN

281

.35

is". 865 65 do Secs 65 2 2528 use... 2"— < 4m 3 a8» a.“ 8.58. E 8.58. ma. 658.53 an age...—

 

anh .HG<
on w- 2 3 N- 2 w c v
— _ p p P b - - “.0
I nhd
1 —
< .4 7 \\s I(
a. {hi/K I nu.—
\ 4
\. x/ ...
4. / .\ . r 3
. \
¢
I nu..—
1. N
m3 Illl
Zn— .ttait. I nNN

fill‘ll

93‘: an mfidéflh “IE

 

umW“ll ‘um

282

Seam 38$

865 65 E 5:85 65 2 2,32 .33.. 2m < .<m a 28» 3.8 8E: é 882: «my 9.2» own .83»? on go...—

 

88» .54.

3E nhéu mad; “ME

n _
n66

I—

In.N

 

I nhfi

283

scam $5"—

835 65 E 8:88 65 2 2,38 88:. 9E < .<m a as» 3.8 Base .8 888 «my 9.8» on“ acre... .6 $59:

23.» .m@<

 

 

mfl<fi> nbén max—EH..— 35:.

 

n56

I n6.—

1N

finfi

 

I nhfl

tutu/mm ‘III'IJ.

284

Eases; 58 Ea 58 Sn 5823
8:: Bow .38. ..e .6 .865 as. :82". 2 2.32 Baa 2..— < .<m 3 8.8. a. 83:. «=3 96.» «ma 88.2.89 3 ”.552...

E3» .mu<

I 56
I n56
I «6

I nwd

Ina/ma ‘arm

 

1—

 

I 3.—

mfl<fi> nbém mad; all?»

285

.iugenausasnénfifiaaaé
36m .39: ..e .6 Eat 5% =88". 2 332 Bee 2"— < ém 3 8.2.6. 8a as... «:3 9.8» emu 3.8... a... gen.

Econ .an<
we 2 no 8 n... 8 9. 3 ...n 8 3 8 n.
- p I p p — h L p - - - n06

 

 

I rd
I nhd

I ad

\¥III.I§.III?IIIIII I “NAU

4......
\|\ I G5
I had

 

Ina/mo ‘arm

 

m¢<H> nhéN ”Hagar.— "a”?

286

STATURE: MALES 5-19 YEARS

185-
180-
175-
170+
165-
160-
155-
150-
145-
1404

135‘

STATURE, cm

1301

125-

120‘

115'-

110‘

105-

 

100-

 

 

AGE, years

FIGURE 5.7 Stature in BA Canadian males 5-19 years from studies ranging from
1953 to 1996.

287

.82 2 22 use wanna seem sea 3% 3-8 woes 5:850 <m 5 Beam 3 5:5:

 

 

Ea?» fined.
8 fl 2. no 8 an em 9. 8 mm 8 mm 8 2
— - _ _ — _ _ p _ - _ — —

n:

I 8.

I 3.
S
L
V
, L
I c: m
3
m

I a:

I 8.

n3. ..........
I B.

 

wfl<fl> nhéu mflflaflz "Hy—Dhaka

288

STATURE: FEMALES 5.19 YEARS

185-

180'-

175-

170-l

165'

160‘

155-

150‘

145 "'

140‘

135-

STATURE, cm

130-

125-

120'-

115‘

110-

105‘

 

100-

 

 

95 I r I I I I I I I
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 2O

AGE, years

FIGURE 5.9 Stature in BA Canadian females 5-19 years from studies ranging from
'1953 to 1996.

289

.82 2 32 .55 was: 883... 88. ea...A 3.8 838a 8:85 <m 5 283m 36 muse—m

Eco» .H@<
an on ...... 8 an on a
- h - _ n p b

 

 

 

 

mfl<fi> nhén aux—<2: “Hagan—h

nn—

Ino—

I2.—

I n2

 

Inm—

Ina ‘EIHHLVLS

290

MASS: MALES 5-19 YEARS

100'

80-

70"

w:-

50"

MASS, kg

30.1

20"

ml

 

 

 

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

AGE, years

FIGURE 5.11 Body mass in BA Canadian males 5-19 years from studies ranging
from 1953 to 1996.

291

.82 2 22 5.5 was: 8:638 see as.» 38 8.8. 5:550 <m E was .38 «F. 5.92m

 

 

 

Ea: .HG<
8 we 2 8 8 an an we 3 an 8 an 8 n.
P p F b _ — — F p _ h . . no
\\ ' ch
\\\
\\ I
I} I
81...... IIIII \
III ...... \\\C\\ r “h w
. V
S
.S
x.
I 8 an
>36 .88... IT 2
.2:
2.68.
9-22 I 8

 

n3. ....... 92m; nhéu £352 ”mm;

292

MASS: FEMALES 5-19 YEARS

80d

70"

MASS, kg

30—

20 -'

 

10"

 

 

FIGURE 5.13 Body mass in BA Canadian females 5-19 years from studies ranging
from 1953 to 1996.

293

.83 3 Re 38.. usage 8:638 see as.» 3.8 Ease 5:380 E s was .68 .3 age:

 

 

 

 

E3» .Hu<
8 n. 2. no 8 an on 9 3 an on a 8 2
_ — n P b n — r Ll - p h h h“
IS
IS
I2
r2.
@3258... IT I8
.2: 1111111
I...»
«SE: 111......
22 1.1.1...
935; nu..." $343.2”: "was: I8

3! ‘ssvw

294

BMI: MALES 5-19 YEARS

26-

24—

22-

20 -

BMI, kg/m

 

 

 

AGE, years

FIGURE 5.15 BMI in BA Canadian males 5-19 years from studies ranging from
1953 to 1996.

295

 

.82 a 22 59¢ wanna 8E3... Spa 5% 3.8 838 533.5 <m a Em 3w ago...—

anm .HU<

on no an nn an nv av nn an nu an n—
. . . . . a . . . . . .n

 

ill/3x ‘Iwa

 

IIIIIII gnaw? nbén max—<2 "Em

296

BMI: FEMALES 5-19 YEARS

26-

22-

20 "

BMI, kg/m

 

 

 

AGE, years

FIGURE 5.17 BMI in BA Canadian females 5-19 years from studies ranging from
1953 to 1996.

297

.82 2 $2 8.5 manna 8:638 BE 28» 2.3 8:83 8626 <m a Em «3 age—...

 

 

E3» .mw<
8 2. 2. no 8 an 8 9. 9. an 8 R on 2
— n n n p _ p n p e — b h
a
INN
In"
Ix
H
a
no
I8 .m
7»
IR
Ina
323:8»... IIT
I8
8.: 1111111
Ion

 

2.6:... 1111......
9.2 ....... 9:: mi“ madame“ “=2:

APPENDIX A

TEMAGAMI FIRST NATION

BEAR ISLAND
LAKE TEMAGAMI, ONTARIO POI-I ICO

T512005) 237-8943 or (705) 237-8944

    

FAX: (705) 237-8959
NNADAP: (705) 237-8974 CHILDCARE (705) 237-8961
CLINIC: (705) 237-8900
January II. 1996
W
W
Peter Katzrnarzyk
Institute for the Sttuly of Youth Sports
21 l [M Sports Circle
Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI
48824
Dear Peter:

W

The Temagami First Nation has reviewed your proposal on December 4. I995. I am
pleased to advise you that we are in support of your study and look forward to
participating in the study.

Thanking you in advance for considering the Temagami: First Nation as a patential Study
group. lwouldliketo wishyousuccess inyourstudy.

Sincerely.

‘1\z~\\
Chief HaDy Charyna
Temagami First Nation

OICMIWLQ

298

299

 

mCorporatlonotthe

TomhlpotTomagaml

. m P.O.Box220

_ “m I - -... Tarmac-al.0ntarloP0H2Ht1)
. a ' (709569-342
“ O O O l I Fmaosmeezeat

 

 

 

January 11, 1996

Peter Katzmarzyk
4465 Iannioe Lee
Apt. F103
Okerttos, Michigan
48864

DearPeter:
PurthertoouroonversationofDeoember29, 1995,1wishtoconfirm thatthemunicipal

council of the Township of Temagami reviewed your request with regard to your study.
Council is very supportive and wishes you thebest of luck in your endeavor.

 

300

{he {maintaining gourd 0} education

River M. LO. ht ‘0. I! “It“. MARIO. m I”. (705) 017-73.! 4“ I703! GIT-”I2

 

 

r.r. “my. e.sc.. u.£e.. 3.11. My. e.a.. mu" CJ. m. c.c.a.. A.c.t.s.. a. 08..
Director at leueet toe ”Interment at Schools ”theme et IueIeees
March 12, 1996
Peter Katzmarzylt,

Institute for The Study of Youth Sports
2 I 1 1M Sports Circle,

Michigan State University,

East Lansing, MI 48824

Dear Peter Katz‘marzyk,

The Timiskaming Board of Education, at its regular meeting held on
Monday, March 1 1, 1996, approved the {flowing motion:

 

THAT,TheTImIsIremhIgBoerdofEducationgrampmnleeion
toPeterKatzmarzylttoeonductasmdyofflIechildrenat
Temagami Public School and Laura McKenzie Learning Centre
asoutlinedintheettaehedptoposal.

 

 

 

The Education Committee wil be looking forward to yourpresentetlan
of data at one of their meetings in the Spring of 1997.

Good luck with your research in Temagami.

Yours truly,

761%;

R. W. Purdy,
RWP:eh Superhtendent of Schools.

p. c. D. Bolger, Principal
Chief Holly Charyna F A ZS E: D

Wayne Adair, Reeve

“Together for Better Education"

LIST OF REFERENCES

LIST OF REFERENCES

AAHPERD (1988) Physical Best: A Physical Fitness Education and Assessment
Program. Reston, VA: AAHPERD.

Antonella E.-D. P., Luca S., Emilia D.F., Rosario P.M., Annarita C., Giuseppe C.,
Franco C., Giuliana V., Adriana F., Salvatore D.M., Armido R. (1994)
Familial and environmental influences on body composition and body fat
disuibgtgan in childhood in Southern Italy. International Journal of Obesity
18:59 1.

Annest J.L., Sing C.F., Biron P., Mongeau LG. (1983) Familial aggregation of blood
pressure and weight in adoptive families [:1: Analysis of the role of shared
genes and shared household environment in explaining family resemblance for
height, weight and selected weight/height indices. American Journal of
Epidemiology 117:492-506.

Bailey D.A., Carter J .E.L., Mirwald R.L. (1982) Somatotypes of Canadian men and
women. Human Biology 54:813-828.

Baumgartner T.A., Jackson AS. (1991) Measurement for Evaluation in Physical
Education and Exercise Science, 4th edition. Dubuque, IA: Wm.C. Brown.

Beall C.M., Goldstein MC. (1992) High prevalence of excess fat and central fat
patterning among Mongolian pastoral nomads. American Journal of Human
Biology 4:747-756.

Beunen G., Malina R.M., Ostyn M., Renson R., Simons J ., Van Gerven D. (1983)
Fatness, growth and motor fitness of Belgian boys 12 through 20 years of age.
Human Biology 55:599-613.

Birkbeck J.A., Lee M., Myers G.S., Alfred BM. (1971) Nutritional status of British
Columbia Indians II: Anthropometric measurements, physical and dental
examinations at Ahousat and Anaham. Canadian Journal of Public Health
62:403-414.

Biron P., Mongeau J .G., Bertrand D. (1977) Familial resemblance of body weight and
geisggt/height in 374 homes with adopted children. Journal of Pediatrics
1: 5-55 .

Borecki I.B., Rice T., Pérusse L., Bouchard C., Rao DC. (1995) Major gene

influence on the propensity to store fat in trunk versus extremity depots:
Evidence from the Quebec Family Study. Obesity Research 3: 1-8.

301

302

Bouchard C. (1985) Reproducibility of body composition and adipose tissue
measurements in humans. In Roche A.F. (ed.): Body Composition
Assessments in Youth and Adults. Colombus, OH: Ross Laboratories, pp. 9-
l 3 .

Bouchard C. (1989) Genetic factors in obesity. Medical Clinics of North America
73:67-81.

Bouchard c., Demirjian A., Malina RM. (1980a) Heritability estimates of somatotype
components based on familial data. Human Heredity 30:112-118.

Bouchard C., Demirjian A., Malina R.M. (1980b) Genetic pleiotropism in skeletal
lengths and breadths. In Ostyn M., Beunen G., Simons J. (eds.):
Kinanthropometry 11. Baltimore: University Park Press, pp. 78-87.

Bouchard C., Lortie G. (1984) Heredity and endurance performance. Sports Medicine
1:38-64.

Bouchard C., Malina RM. (1983) Genetics for the sport scientist: Selected
methodological considerations. Exercise and Sport Science Reviews 11:275-
305.

Bouchard C., Malina R.M., Perusse L. (1997) Genetics of Fitness and Performance.
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics (In press).

Bouchard C., Pérusse L. (1988) Heredity and body fat. Annual Review of Nutrition
8:259-277.

Bouchard C., Pémsse L., Leblanc C., Tremblay A., Thériault G. (1988) Inheritance of
the amount and distribution of human body fat. International Journal of Obesity
12:205-215.

Bouchard C., Shephard RJ. (1994) Physical activity, fitness and health: The model
and key concepts. In Bouchard C., Shephard R.J., Stephens T. (eds.):
Physical Activity, Fitness and Health. Champaign IL: Human Kinetics, pp. 77-
88.

Bouchard C., Tremblay A., Després J.P., Nadeau A., Lupien PJ., Thériault G.,
Dussault J., Moorjani S. Pinault S., Foumier G. (1990) Theres edpgnse to long-
term overfeeding in identical twins. New England Journal of M
322: 1477-1482.

Bouchard C., Tremblay A., Perusse L., Leblanc C., Th6riau1tG., George V. (1989)
Cohabitation, activity level, and energy intake in parent-child resemblance for
selected biological traits. American Journal of Human Biology 1:209-215.

Broussard B.A., Johnson A., Himes J.H., Story M., Fichtner R., Hauck F.,
Bachman-Carter K., Hayes J., Frohlich K., Gray N., Valway S., Gohdes D.
(1991) Prevalence of obesity in American Indians and Alaska Natives.
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 53:1535s-1542s.

Byard PJ., Siervogel R. M., Roche A. F. (1983) Sibling correlations for
weight/stature and calf circumference: Age changes and possible sex linkage.
Human Biology 55:677-685.

303

Carter J .E.L., Heath B.H. (1990) Somatotyping-Development and Applications. New
York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Caspersen C.J., Powell K.E., Christenson GM. (1985) Physical activity, exercise,
and physical fitness: Definitions and distinctions for health-related research.
Public Health Reports 100: 126-131.

Chumlea W.C., Guo S., Kuczmarski R.J., Johnson C.L., Leahy CK. (1990)
Reliability for anthmpometric measurements in the Hispanic Health and
Nutrition Examination Survey (HHANES 1982-1984). American Journal of
Clinical Nutrition 51:902s-907s.

Claessens A.L.M., Vanden Eynde B., Renson R., Van Gerven D. (1990) The
description of tests and measurements. In Simons J., Beunen G.P., Renson
R., Claessens A.L.M., Vanreusel B., Lefevre J.A.V. (eds.) Growth and
Fitness of Flemish Girls. The Leuven Growth Study. Champaign, IL: Human
Kinetics. pp. 21-39.

Clarke H.H. (1971) Physical and Motor Tests in the Medford Boy’s Growth Study.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Clark PJ. (1956) The heritability of certain anthropometric characters as ascertained
from measurements of twins. American Journal of Human Genetics 8:49-54.

Coodin F.J., Dilling L.A., Haworth J.C., Ellestad-Sayad J. (1980) Growth and
nutrition of Manitoba preschool Indian children 111: Anthropometry. Human
Biology 52:563-578.

Cressie N.A.C., Withers T.T., Craig NP. (1986) The statistical analysis of
somatotype data. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology 29:197-208.

Darby W.H., Salsbury C.G., McGanity W.J., Johnson H.F., Bridgeforth E.B.,
Sandstead HR. (1956) A study of the dietary background and nutriture of the
Navajo Indian. Journal of Nutrition 60 (Suppl.2):3-85.

Després J.P., Moorjani S., Lupien P.J., Tremblay A., Nadeau A., Bouchard C.
(1990) Regional distribution of body fat, plasma lipoproteins, and
cardiovascular disease. Arterioslerosis 10:497-511.

Devor E.J., Crawford M.H. (1984) Familial resemblance for neuromuscular
performance in a Kansas Mennonite community. American Journal of Physical
Anthropology 64:289-296.

Donner A. (1979) The use of correlation and regression in the analysis of familial
resemblance. American Journal of Epidemiology 110:335-342.

Donner A., Eliasziw M. (1991) Methodology for inferences concerning familial
conelations: A review. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 44:449-455.

Donner A., Koval 1.]. (1980) The estimation of intraclass correlation in the analysis of
family data. Biometrics 36: 19-25.

304

Ducimetiere P., Richard LL. (1989) The relationship between subsets of
anthropometric upper versus lower body measurements and coronary heart
disease risk in middle-aged men: The Paris Prospective Study 1. International
Journal Of Obesity 13:111-122.

Ducimetiere P., Richard J.L., Cambiae F. (1986) The pattern of subcutaneous fat
distribution in middle-aged men and the risk of coronary heart disease: The
Paris Prospective Study. International Journal of Obesity 10:229-240.

Dufour D.L., Staten L.K., Reina J.C., Spurr GB. (1994) Anthropometry and secular
changes in stature of urban Colombian women of differing socioeconomic
status. American Journal of Human Biology 6:749-760.

Engstrom L.M., Fischbein S. (1977) Physical capacity in twins. Acta Geneticae
Medicae et Gemellologiae 26:159-165.

Eschwey M.J. (1994) The Relationship of Acculturation to the Growth Status of
Mexican American Children 6 Through 12 Years Residing in Minnesota. Ph.D.
Dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.

Espenschade AS. (1963) Restudy of relationships between physical performances of
school children and age, height, and weight. Research Quarterly 34:144-153.

Eveleth P.B., Tanner J.M. (1976) Wordwide Variation in Human Growth. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.

Eveleth P.B., Tanner J.M. (1990) Wordwide Variation in Human Growth, 2nd
edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Fitness Canada (1983) Fitness and Lifestyle in Canada. Ottawa, ON: Government of
Canada. .

Fitness Canada (1985) Physical Fitness of Canadian Youth. Ottawa, ON: Government
of Canada.

Fitness Canada (1986) Canadian Standardized Test of Fitness: Operations Manual, 3rd
edition. Ottawa, ON: Government of Canada.

Friedlander Y., Kark J .D., Kaufmann N.A., Berry E.M., Stein Y. (1988) Familial
aggregation of body mass index in ethnically diverse families in Jerusalem: The
Jerusalem Lipid Research Clinic. International Journal of Obesity 12:237-247.

Frisancho AR. (1990) Anthropometric Standards for the Assessment of Growth and
Nutritional Status. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Frisancho AR. (1993) Human Adaptation and Accommodation: Enlarged and Revised
Edition of Human Adaptation. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Gardner L.I., Stern M.P., Haffner S.M., Gaskill S.P., Hazuda H.P., Relethford
J.H., Eifler CW. (1984) Prevalence of diabetes in Mexican Americans:

Relationship to percent of gene pool derived from Native American sources.
Diabetes 33:86-92.

305

Gam S.M., Leonard W.R., Hawthorne V.M. (1986) Three limitations to the body
mass index. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 44:996.

Garn S.M., Ryan A.S., Robson J KR. (1982) Fatness-dependence and utility of the
subscapular/triceps ratio. Ecology of Food and Nutrition 12:173-177.

Gibson RS. (1990) Principles of Nutritional Assessment. Oxford: Oxford University
Press. .

Gittelsohn J., Harris S.B., Thome-Lyman A.L., Hanley A.J.G., Bamie A., Zinman
B. (1996) Body image concepts differ by age and sex in an Ojibway-Cree
community in Canada. Journal of Nutrition 126:2990-3000.

Godin G., Shephard R.J. (1973) Activity patterns of the Canadian Eskimo. In Edholm
O.G., Gunderson E.K.E. (eds.): Polar Human Biology. Chichester:
Heinemann Books, pp. 193-215.

Gordon D. (1990) Prehistoric occupations at Lake Temagami. In Bray M., Thomson
A. (eds.): Temagami: A Debate on Wilderness. Tomato, ON: Dundum Press,
pp. 153-184.

Hall T.R., Hickey M.H., Young TE. (1991) The relationship of body fat distribution
to non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus in a Navajo community. American
Journal of Human Biology 3:119-126.

 

Hamill P.V.V., Johnston F.E., Lemeshow S. (1973) Body weight, stature, and sitting
height: White and Negro youths 12-17 Years, United States. Vital and Health
Statistics, Series 11, No. 126.

Haubenstricker J.L., Seefeldt V.D., Branta CF. (1991) Motor performance norms for
children and adolescents. Motor Performance Study. Unglrlblished manuscript,
Department of Physical Education and Exercise Science, 'chigan State
University.

Hawk L.J., Brook C.G.D. (1979) Family resemblances of height, weight, and body
fatness. Archives in Disease of Childhood 54:877-879.

Health and Welfare Canada (1980) Anthropometry Report: Height. Weight and Body
Dimensions. Ottawa, ON: Government of Canada.

Health and Welfare Canada (1992) Aboriginal Health in Canada. Ottawa, ON:
Government of Canada.

Heller C.A., Scott E.M., Hammes L.M. (1967) Height, weight, and growth of
Alaskan Eskimos. American Journal of Diseases of Children 113:338-344.

Heller R., Garrison R.J., Havlik R.J., Feinleib M., Padgett S. (1984) Family
resemblances in height and relative weight in the Framingham Heart Study.
International Journal of Obesity 8:399-405.

Herskind A.M., McGue M., Sprensen T.I.A., Harvald B. (1996) Sex and age specific
assessment of genetic and environmental influences on body mass index in
twins. International Journal of Obesity 20:106-113.

306

Hertzog K.P., Garn S.M., Hempy H0. (1969) Partitioning the effects of secular trend
and ageing on adult stature. American Journal of Physical Anthropology
31:1 1 1-1 16.

Himes 1.11., Mueller W.H. (1977a) Aging and secular change in adult stature in rural
Colombia. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 46:275-280.

Himes J .H., Mueller W.H. (1977b) Age-associated statural loss and socioeconomic
status. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 25:171-174.

Hodgins B.W., Benidickson J. (1989) The Temagami Experience. Toronto, ON:
University of Toronto Press.

Huang Y. (1994) Relationship of Sociodemographic and Physical Activity Variables to
Physical Fitness of Taiwanese Junior High School Students. Ph.D.
Dissertation, University Of Texas at Austin.

ICNND (1964a) Blackfeet Indian Reservation, Nutrition Survey, August-September
1961. Washington, DC: ICNND.

ICNND (1964b) Fort Belknap Indian Reservation Nutrition Survey, August-October
1961. Washington DC: ICNND.

Jamison PL. (1970) Growth of Wainwright Eskimos: Stature and weight. Arctic
Anthropology 7:86-94.

Jamison P.L., Zegura S. (1970) An anthropometric study of the Eskimos of
Wainwright, Alaska. Arctic Anthropology 7: 125-143.

Johnston F.E., Hamill P.V.V., Lemeshow S. (1972) Skinfold thickness of children 6-
11 years, United States, Vital and Health Statistics, Series 11, No.120.

Johnston F.E., Laughlin W.S., Harper A.B., Ensroth A.E. (1982) Physical growth of
St. Lawrence Island Eskimos: Body size, proportions and composition.
American Journal of Physical Anthropology 58: 397-401.

Johnston F. E., McKigney J. 1., Hopwood S. Smelker J. (1978) Physical growth and
development of urban native Americans: A study of urbanization and its
implications for nutritional status. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition
31: 1017- 1027.

Johnston F.E., Schell L.M. (1979) Anthropometric variation of Native American
children and adults. In Laughlin W. S., Harper A. B. (eds. ): The First
Americans: Origins, Affinities and Adaptations. New York: Gustar Fischer, pp.
275-290.

Katzmarzyk P. T, Malina R.M., Song T. M. K, Bouchard C. (1997) Physique and
indicators of metabolic fitness in youth. Medicine and Science in Sports and
Exercise 29. (in press).

Klika, R. (1995) Growth, Maturity and Motor Characteristics of Competitive Alpine
Skiiers Aged 8- 18 years. Ph. D. Dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.

307

Knight D. (1977) The Montreal River and the Shield Archaic. Ph.D. Dissertation,
University of Toronto.

Knowler W.C., Pettitt D.J., Saad M.F., Charles M.A., Nelson R.G., Howard B.V.,
Bogardus C., Bennett RH. (1991) Obesity in the Pima Indians: Its magnitude
and relationship with diabetes. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition
53:15435-1551s.

Knowler W.C., Pettitt D.J., Savage P.J., Bennett PH. (1981) Diabetes incidence in
Pima Indians: Contributions of obesity and parental diabetes. American Journal
of Epidemiology 113:144-156.

Komi P.V., Klissouras V., Karvinen E. (1973) Genetic variation in neuromuscular
performance. Internationale Zeitschrift Fur angewndte Physiologic 31:289-304.

Korkeila M., Kaprio J., Rissanen A., Koskenvuo M. (1991) Effects of gender and age
on the heritability of body mass index. International Journal of Obesity 15:647-
654.

Kovar R. (1977) Somatotypes of twins. Acta Universitatis Carolinae Gmn Gymnica
13: 49-59.

Kovar R. (1981) Sledovani podobnosti mezi rodici a jejich potomky v nekterych
motorickych projevech. Teorie a Praxe Telesne Vychovy 29:93-98.

Kramer A.A., Green L.J., Croghan I.T., Buck G.M., Ferer R. (1986) Bivariate path
analysis of twin children for stature and biiliac diameter: estimation of genetic
variation and co-variation. Human Biology 58:517-525.

Kraus BS. (1961) The western Apache: Some anthro metric observations. American
Journal of Physical Anthropology 19:227-23 .

Lee M., Birkbeck IA. (1977) Anthropometric measurements and physical
examinations of Indian populations fiom British Columbia and the Yukon
Territories, Canada. Human Biology 49:581-591.

Leonard W.R., DeWalt K.M., Stansbury J.P., McCaston M.K. (1995) Growth
differences between children of highland and coastal Ecuador. American
Journal of Physical Anthropology 98:47-57.

Leonard W.R., Katzmarzyk P.T., Comuzzie A.G., Crawford M.H., Sukernik 11.1.
(1994) Growth and nutritional status of the Evenki reindeer herders of Siberia.
American Journal of Human Biology 6:339-350.

Lohman T.G., Roche A.F., Martorell R. (eds.) (1988) Anthropometric Standardization
Reference Manual. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Longini I.M., Higgins M.W., Hinton P.C., Moll -P.P., Keller 18. (1984) Genetic and
environmental sources of familial aggregation of body mass in Tecumseh,
Michigan. Human Biology 56:733-757.

308

Macs H., Beunen G., Vlietinck R., Lefevre J ., Van Den Bossche C., Claessens A.,
Derom R., Lysens R., Renson R., Simons J., Vanden Eynde B. (1993)
Heritability of health- and performance-related fitness: Data from the Leuven
Longitudinal Twin Study. In Duquet W., Day J.A.P. (eds.): Kinanthropometry
IV: London: Spon, pp. 140-149.

Maes H., Beunen G., Vlietink R., Neale M.C., Thomis M., Vanden Eynde B., Lysens
R., Simons J ., Derom C., Derom R. (1996) Inheritance of physical fitness in
lO-yr-old twins and their parents. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise
28:1479-1491.

Malina RM. (1975) Anthropometric correlates of strength and motor performance.
Exercise and Sport Science Reviews 3:249-274.

Malina RM. (1990) Research on secular trends in auxology. Anthropologischer
Anzeiger 48:209-227.

Malina RM. (1993) Ethnic variation in the prevalence of obesity in North American
children and youth. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition 33:389-
396.

Malina RM. (1994) Anthropometry, strength and motor fitness. In Ulijaszek S.J.,
Mascie-Taylor C.G.N. (eds.): Anthropometry: The Individual and the
Population. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.’ 160-177.

Malina RM. (1995) Anthropometry. In Maud P.J., Foster C. (eds.): Physiological
Assessment of Human Fitness. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, pp. 205-219.

Malina RM. (1996) Regional body composition: Age, sex and ethnic variation. In
Roche A.F., Heymsfield S.B., Lohman T.G. (eds.): Human Body
Composition. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, pp. 217-255.

Malina R.M., Bouchard C. (1991) Growth, Maturation and Physical Activity.
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Malina R.M., Buschang RH. (1985) Growth, strength and motor performance of
Zapotec children, Oaxaca, Mexico. Human Biology 57:163-181.

Malina R.M., Hamill P.V.V., Lemeshow S. (1973) Selected body measurements of
children 6-11 years, United States. Vital and Health Statistics, Series 11, No.
123.

Malina R.M., Hamill P.V.V., Lemeshow S. (1974) Body dimensions and pr0portions,
White and Negro children 6—11 years, United States. Vita] and Health Statistics,
Series 11, No. 14 .

' Malina R.M., Katzmarzyk P.T., Song T.M.K., Theriault G., Bouchard C. (1997)
. Somatotype and cardiovascular risk factors in healthy adults. American Journal
of Human Biology 9:11-19.

Malina R.M., Moriyama M. (1991) Growth and motor performance of Black and
White children 6-10 years of age: A multivariate analysis. American Journal of
Human Biology 3:599-611.

309

Malina R.M., Mueller W.H. (1981) Genetic and environmental influences on the
strength and motor performance of Philadelphia school children. Human
Biology 53: 163-179.

Malina R.M., Mueller W.H., Holman JD. (1976) Parent-chfld correlations and
heritability of stature in Philadelphia Black and White children 6 to 12 years of
age. Human Biology 48:475-486.

Malina R.M., Pena Reyes ME. (1993) Relative fat distribution: Relationship to skeletal
maturation, growth status, and performance. American Journal of Human
Biology 6: 19-24.

Malina R ..,M Selby H. A., Buschang P. H., Aronson W ..,L Little B ..B (1983)
Assortative mating for phenotypic characteristics in a Zapotec community in
Oaxaca, Mexico. Journal of Biosocial Science 15: 273-280.

Malina R.M., Skrabanek M.F., Little BB. (1989) Growth and maturity status of Black
and White children classified as obese by different criteria. American Journal of
Human Biology 1:193—199.

McIntyre L., Shah CR (1986) Prevalence of hypertension, obesity and smoking in
tluee Indian communities in northwestern Ontario. Canadian Medical
Association Journal 134:345-349.

Merrett D.M.S. (1992) Anthropometric Correlates of Motor Performance in Preschool
Children. M.A. Thesis, University of Texas at Austin.

Miller P. S. (1970) Secular changes among the western Apache. American Joumal of
Physical Anthropology 33: 197-206.

Mitchell EA. (1977) Fort Temiskarning and the Fur Trade. Toronto, ON: University of
Toronto Press.

Mitchell L.E.. Nirmala A., Rice T., Reddy P.C., Rao DC. (1993) The impact of
energy intake and energy expenditure of activity on the familial transmission of
adiposity in an Indian population. American Journal of Human Biology 5:331-
339.

Moll P.P., Burns T.L., Lauer RM. (1991) The genetic and environmental sources of
body mass index variability: The Muscatine Ponderosity Family Study.
American Journal of Human Genetics 49: 1243-1255.

Moore W.M. (1972) Physical growth of North American Indian and Alaska Native
children. In Moore W.M., Silverberg M.M., Read M.S. (eds.): Nutrition,
Growth and Development of North American Indian Children. DHEW
Publication No (NIH) 72-26. Washington, DC, pp. 35-46.

Montoye H. J., Frantz M. E., Kozar A. J. (1972) The value of age, height, and weight
in establishing standards of fitness for children. Journal of Sports Medicine and
Physical Fitness 12:174-179.

Mueller W. H. (197 6) Parent-child correlations for stature and weight among school
aged children: A review of 24 studies. Human Biology 48: 379-397.

310

Mueller W.H., Malina RM. (1976) Differential contribution of stature phenotypes to
assortative mating in parents of Philadelphia Black and White school children.
American Journal of Physical Anthropology 45:269-276.

Mueller W.H., Malina RM. (1980) Genetic and environmental influences on growth
of Philadelphia Black and White schoolchildren. Annals of Human Biology
7:441-448.

Mueller W.H., Titcomb M. (1977) Genetic and envirbnmental determinants of growth
of school-aged children in a rural Colombian population. Annals of Human
Biology 4: 1-15.

Must A., Dallal G.E., Dietz W.H. (1991) Reference data for obesity: 85th and 95th
percentiles of body mass index (wt/htz) and triceps skinfold thickness.
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 53:839-846.

Najjar MF, Rowland M (1987) Anthropometric reference data and prevalence of
overweight, United States, 1976-80. Vital and Health Statistics, Series 11, No.
238.

NIH (1985) National institutes of health consensus development conference statement.
Annals of Internal Medicine 103: 1073-1077.

Nirmala A., Mitchell L.B., Rice T., Roddy P.C., Rao DC. (1993) Assessment of
adiposity in an Indian population: Familial correlations. Genetic Epidemiology
10:133-143.

Pérusse L., Leblanc C., Bouchard C. (1988) Inter-generation transmission of physical
fitness in the Canadian population. Canadian Journal of Sport Sciences 13:8-
14.

Perusse L., Lortie G., Leblanc C., Tremblay A., Theriault G., Bouchard C. (1987)
Genetic and environmental sources of variation in physical fitness. Annals of
Human Biology 14:425-434.

Pett L.B., Ogilvie GP. (1956) The report on Canadian average weights, heights and
skinfolds. Human Biology 28:177-188.

Poehlman E.T., Tremblay A., Després J.P., Fontaine E., Perusse L., Thériault G.,
Bouchard C. (1986) Genotype-controlled changes in body composition and fat
morphology following overfeeding in twins. American Journal of Clinical
Nutrition 43:723-731.

Poehlman E.T., Tremblay A., Marcotte M., Perusse L., Theriault G., Bouchard C.
(1987) Heredity and changes in body composition and adipose tissue
metabolism after short-term exercise-training. European Journal of Applied
Physiology 56:398-402.

Price R.A., Cadoret R.J., Stunkard A.J., Troughton E. (1987) Genetic contributions
to human faggss: An adoption study. American Journal of Psychiatry
144: 1003-1 8.

Price R.A., Ness R., Laskarzewski P. (1990) Common major gene inheritance of
extreme overweight. Human Biology 62:747-765.

 

311

Ramirez ME. (1993) Familial aggregation of subcutaneous fat deposits and the
peripheral fat distribution pattern. International Journal of Obesity 17:63-68.

Rarick G.L., Oyster N. (1964) Physical maturity, muscular strength, and motor
performance of young school-age boys. Research Quarterly 35:523-531.

Rice T., Bouchard C., Perusse L., Rao DC. (1995) Familial clustering of multiple
measures of adiposity and fat distribution in the Quebec Family Study: A
trivariate analysis of percent body fat, body mass index, and trunk-to-extremity
skinfold ratio. International Journal of Obesity 19:902-908.

Roche A.E., Siervogel R.M., Chumlea C., Webb, P. (1981) Grading body fatness
from limited anthropometric data. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition
34:2831-2838.

Rode A., Shephard R.J. (1994) Growth and fitness of Canadian Inuit: Secular trends,
1970-1990. American Journal of Human Biology 6:525-541.

Rode A., Shephard R.J. (1995) Modernization of lifestyle, body fat content and body
fat distribution: A comparison of Igloolik Inuit and Volochanka nGanasan.
International Journal of Obesity 19:709-716.

Rotimi C., Cooper R. (1995) Familial resemblance for anthropometric measurements
and relative fat distribution among African Americans. International Journal of
Obesity 19:875-880.

Sénchez-Andres A. (1995) Genetic and environmental influences on somatotype
components: Family study in a Spanish population. Human Biology 67:727-
738.

Savard R., Bouchard C., Leblanc C., Tremblay A. (1983) Familial resemblance in
fatness indicators. Annals of Human Biology 10:111-118.

Schaefer O. (1977) Are Eskimos more or less fat than other Canadians? A comparison
of skinfold thickness and ponderal index in Canadian Eskimos. American
Journal of Clinical Nutrition 30: 1623-1628.

Selby J.V., Newman B., Quesenberry C.P., Fabsitz R.R., King M.C., Meaney RI.
(1989) Evidence of genetic influence on central body fat in middle-aged twins.
Human Biology 61:179-193.

Shephard R.J. (1986) Fitness of a Nation: Lessons from the Canada Fitness Survey.
New York: Karger.

Siegel SR. (1995) Growth and Maturity Status of Female Soccer Players from Late
Childhood Through Early Adulthood. M.A. Thesis, University of Texas.

Song T.M.K., Malina R.M., Bouchard C. (1993) Familial resemblance in somatotype.
American Journal of Human Biology 5:265-272.

Song T.M.K., Perusse L., Malina R.M., Bouchard C. (1994) Twin resemblance in

iogtotype and comparisons with other twin studies. Human Biology 66:453-

312

Serensen T.I.A., Holst C., Stunkard A.J. (1992a) Childhood body mass index-genetic
and familial environmental influences assessed in a longitudinal adoption study.
International Journal of Obesity 16:705-714.

Snrensen T.I.A., Holst C., Stunkard A.J., Skovgaard L.T. (1992b) Correlations of
body mass index of adult adoptees and their biological and adoptive relatives.
International Journal of Obesity 16:227-236.,

Speck F.G. (1915) Family Hunting Territories and Social Life of Various Algonkian
Bands of the Ottawa Valley. Canada Department of Mines, Geological Survey
Memoir 70; No.8, Anthropological Series. Ottawa: Government Printing
Bureau.

SPSS (1990) SPSS Reference Guide. Chicago,IL: SPSS Inc.

Statistics Canada (1981) Canada Health Survey. The Health of Canadians. Ottawa,
ON: Government of Canada.

Statistics Canada (1987) General Social Survey Analysis Series: Health and Social
Support. Ottawa, ON: Government of Canada.

Statistics Canada (1995) 1993 Community Profiles: Temagami (POH 2H0). Ottawa,
ON: Government of Canada.

Story M., Tompkins R.A., Bass M.A., Wakefield L.M. (1986) Anthropometric
measurements and dietary intakes of Cherokee Indian teenagers in North
Carolina. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 86: 1555-1560.

Stunkard A. J. Harris J. R. Pedersen N. L. McClearn G. E. (1990) The body-mass
index of twins who have been reared apart. New England Journal of Medicine
322: 1483- 1487.

Sugarman J.R., White L.L., Gilbert T]. (1990) Evidence for a secular change in
obesity, height, and weight among Navajo Indian schoolchildren. American
Journal of Clinical Nutrition 52:960-966.

Susanne C. (1975) Genetic and environmental influences on morphological
characteristics. Annals of Human Biology 2:279-287.

Szathmary E.J.E. (1994) Insulin dependent diabetes mellitus among Aboriginal North
Americans. Annual Review of Anthropology 23:457-482.

Szathmary E.J.E., Holt N. (1983) Hyperglycemia in Dogrib Indians of the Northwest
Territories, Canada: Association with age and a centripetal fat distribution of
body fat. Human Biology 55:493-515.

Szopa J. (1982) Familial studies on genetic determination of some manifestations of
muscular strength in man. Genetica Polonica 23:65-79.

Tambs K., Moum T., Eaves L., Neale M., Midthjell K., Lund-Larsen P.G., Ness S.,
Holman J. (1991) Genetic and environmental contributions to the variance of
the body mass index in a Norwegian sample of fust- and second-degree
relatives. American Journal of Human Biology 3:257-267.

313

Tanner J .M. (1988) Human growth and constitution. In Harrison G.A., Tanner J.M.,
Pilbeam D.R., Baker P.T. (eds.): Human Biology: An Introduction to Human
Evolution, Variation, Growth and Adaptability, 3rd edition. New York: Oxford
University Press, pp. 339-435 .

Tanner J .M. (1994) Introduction: Growth in height as a mirror of the standard of
living. In Komlos J. (ed.): Stature, Living Standards, and Economic
Development: Essays in Anthropometric History. Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press, pp. 1-6.

Teme-Augama-Anishnabai (1990) The Native dimension: Key dates. In Bray M.,
Thomson A. (eds.): Temagami: A Debate on Wilderness. Toronto: Dundum
Press, pp. 147-152.

Tichet J., Vol 8., Balkan B., Le Clesiau H., D’Hour A. (1993) Android fat
distribution by age and sex: The waist hip ratio. Diabete et Metabolisme 19:273-
176.

Tiret L., Ducimetiere P., Andre J.L., Gueguen R., Herbeth B., Spycherelle Y.,
Rakotova R., Cambien F. (1991) Family resemblance in body circumferences
and their ratios: The Nancy Family Study. Annals of Human Biology 18:259-
271.

Township of Temagami (1994) Community Economic Profile 1994. Temagami, ON:
Corporation of the Township of Temagami.

Trotter M., Gleser G. (1951) The effect of ageing on stature. American Journal of
Physical Anthropology 9:311-324.

Vandenburg 8.6. (1962) How stable are heritability estimates from six anthropometric
studies. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 20:331-338.

Van Itallie T.B., Abraham S. (1985) Some hazards of obesity and its treatment. In
Hirsch J., Van Itallie T.B. (eds.): Recent Advances in Obesity Research, IV,
London: John Libbey, pp. 1-19.

Weiss K.M., Ferrell R.E., Hanis CL. (1984) A new world syndrome of metabolic
diseases with a genetic and evolutionary basis. Yearbook of Physical
Anthropology 27:153-178.

West KM. (1974) Diabetes in American Indians and other Native populations of the
New World. Diabetes 23:841-855.

Young T.K. (1993) Diabetes mellitus among Native Americans in Canada and the
United States: An epidemiological review. American Journal of Human Biology
5:399-414.

Young T.K., Sevenhuysen G. (1989) Obesity in northern Canadian Indians: Patterns,
dgte7rminan3ts, and consequences. American Journal of Cllnrcal' ' Nutrition
4 : 86-79 .

314

Young T.K., Szathmary E.J.E., Evers S., Wheatley B. (1990) Geographical
distribution of diabetes among the Native population of Canada: A national
survey. Social Science in Medicine 31:129-139.

"unilush