al' N Mn” N n l x \ V J \lllfllflHlliMW APPRAISING BODY BUILD OF COLLEGE WQMENI PHYSICAL ANTHROPOMEYRY AND 3HELDQN SOMATOTYPE 1 l w I WWI N W W L .6} MIN (0CD I TH Thesis for the Degree of M. A. FailCliESéN STATE UNI‘:’E§§3§TI Nancy Winkler Bartlett 1963 .r‘ L I B R. A R Y Michigan State University wmmuummmuwwxwgml ‘ 3 1293 10 TME “ “as“ LEN ' A‘ (RI ’2‘ LsL --.. CT‘O‘{.:\L If ON \NmRU COLLtbt 0F: cUUCAT “1g“.- 2‘. ,/ BUREAU OF "f'm‘Tl “"‘VCH L- A. h 3“ £ “l r'lilCJ‘I lg‘l‘vbl~’X.L‘(‘lL\u|‘Y EAQT LIN :AHG, NHCHDGHN APPRAISIIG DODY’IUILD OI COLLEGE Hall's PHYSICAL ANTHROPOHITRY AID SHELDON SOIATOTY’I DY lancy Winkle: Bartlett A. ABSTRACT OF A.THISIS Submitted to Ilchigan State Univereity in partial fulfill-ant of the requirement- for the degree 0! MASTER or ARTS Department of Health. Physical Education. and Recreation 1963 l \ ABSTRACT AP’RAISIIO BODY BUILD OI COLLBGB'WOIKI= PHYSICAL RITEROPOHITRI‘AID SHELDOI'SOINEOTYPI by Nancy Winkler battlett mm It wee the intent of thie etudy to devote eyetemetio effort to improve the vieual and photographic appraieal of body build 0! college women by: l. Appreieing body build on the beeie o! Darnell'e and sheldon'e ecmetotypee and to determine the degree of agreeaent eeeocieted with euch eetimetea. 2. Aeeieting in the development of an album of photo- graphe of college women which will serve ee a vieuel guide and reference. IIEBQQQLQEZ Data were collected on 80 women enrolled in phyeicel education instructional claeaee at lichigen State Uhivereity. The1methode used for determining eomatctypee were Parnell'e objective method (IA chart) and Sheldon'e eubjective rating technique on positive elidee (three viewe of each Haney Winkler Iertlett pereon) by one expert. The agreement between the two acme- totype eetimetee wee repreeented by the product-moment correlation coetticiente: +.77 in endomorphy. +.34 in neeo- morphy. and «9.90 in ectomorphy. twelve eilhouettee of different eomatotypee were made into elide form with three viewe of each ecmatotype on one elide. lee l. Parnell'e nethod ie applicable to college women. 2. The Darnell and Sheldon techniquee were in poorer agreement when the more extreme body typee were compared. 3. A partial album or eilhouettee were prepared. At thil time there ie an uneutticient number for uee. APPRAISIIC BODY BUILD OF COLLEGE WOMEN: PHYSICAL ANTHROPOIITRX'AND SHELDOH BONITOTYPI By nancy Winkler Bartlett A THESIS Submitted to .lichigen State Uhivereity in partial fulfillment of the require-ente for the degree of MISTER.OI ARTS Department of Health. Physical Education. and Recreation 1963 :22 aqf. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author is appreciative for the opportunity to complete thia etudy under the direction of Dr. Janet A. weeeel. The author ie indebted to the teculty and etatr of the women'a Phyeical Education Department (or their in- valuable aeeiatance. to Lenore Kalenda tor her aeeiatance and cooperation in collecting data. and to Dr. Wayne van area for hie euggeetione and encourage-ant. A final thanke goee to the author'e hueband whole patience and underetending wee a treeendoue help. ii TABLE or COITENTS Chapter 1. INTRODUCTIOE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Statement of Problem . . . . . . . . . Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . Limitation of Study . . . . . . . . II. REVIEW’OU LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . . Development of Constitution Concept . Hiltory of Anthropometria . . . . . . Early Studies and Methods . . . . . . Recent Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . studiee on Women . . . . . . . . . . . III. IBTHUDOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . gulple . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Preceduree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Anthropometric Moasurementa . . . Completion of Parnell's.n.4 Chart Somatotypc Pictures and Photographic Method . . . . . . . . . . . . Anthroposcopy . . . . . . . . . . iii Page 11 16 19 19 19 2O 22 24 27 Chapter IV} AIALYSIB 0' DATA . . . . . . . . . . . . . Degree of Agreement between Parnell’e and Sheldon's Somatotype Estimate . Somatotype Comparison by Rank with Ponderal Index of Parnell'a and Expert's Rating with Somatotypea by Ponderal Index of Bullen and Sheldon'e Findings . . . . . . . . Silhouette Illustration . . . . . . . V. SUMMARY. CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . APPIIDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv Page 28 28 3O 32 33 33 34 34 35 41 LIST OF TABLES leble Page 1. Degree of agreement between Parnell'e and sheldon's sonatotype eatinete . . . . . . 29 2. Somatotype comparison.by rank with ponderal index of Parnell’e and expert's ratinga with aomatotypes by ponderal index of Bullen and Sheldon'a findings . . 31 3. Sometotype ratings and raw data on anthroponetric measurements . . . . . . . 43 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix JPage A. SOHATOTYPE RATINGS AND RAW DATA ON ANTHROPOMETRIC MEASUREMENTS . . . . . . . 42 B. RECORDING CARD AND H-4 CHART . . . . . . . . . 48 C. BILHOUETTE ILLUSTRATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . 51 vi CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION It is commonly known that no two women's physiques are exactly alike. Equally obvious is the fact that human physique. size. shape and composition tend to undergo change in varying degrees from birth to death in health and disease. in physical work or exercise. However. more important problems are these: the relationship between normal function and body structure: effects of exercise and occupational physical activity: changes in illness: etiology of degenerative disease: ths course of growth and aging: physical performance level and individual differences: appraising nutritional status: and the role of human physique in the likes and dislikes of Ian and its effect upon the behavior of man. The description of ons's biological potential takes on a dynamic neaning when correlated with other areas of life. personality. health and fitness. To focus on these problems it is essential to learn some means or classifying human physiques and give quanti- tative expression to these variations which are exhibited. rhe groundwork is then laid for investigation of the interrelationship of somatotype. susceptibility to disease. and personality. The problem of classification of human physique has been a problem since antiquity. Scarcely a single gener— ation in recorded history has failed to probe some aspect of it. Many sethods have been proposed for classifying physiques. Despite repeated failures of these methods. the idea of classifying human‘physique size. external furl. and internal form of composition has persisted. While the emphasis in the last few years is on direct body measure- ment as indicators of body composition. the visual approach cannot be bypassed. the system of body typing most influential in the last we decades was developed by w. c. sheldon (1940-1934) .1 Physique is characterised in.teres of three components rated on a scale from one to seven. These coeponents (esdosorphy. melanorphy and acts-orphy) are derived for inspectional study of photographs. Internal fore depends. in part on body composition and since it is more readily accessible than internal 1 W. H. Sheldon. S. 8. Stevens. and w. 8. Tucker. WW2 (In York: Harper “others. 1940) . architecture. it makes sense to examine somatoscopio rating critically. It may be possible to develop a system of somatoscopic ratings and measurements made on standardised photographs which will be based on and evaluated by objective criteria of adipose. muscular and skeletal masses. A step in this direction was developed by Parnell.l Parnell's scheme is aimed to approach as closely as possible to Bheldon's estimates of somatotype. The somatometric data should help to provide more precise definition of the components and add objectivity that is lacking when photographs are used alone. Descriptive studies and useable materials of body build classification on so called normal young women is meager except for standard anthropometric measurements. A fsV'desoriptive German studies have been reported. However. the fact is emphasised that only one study by lullen.was found that tried to systemise the making of somatotypes frequent of women. The need of a normal female series is evident. ’13- '- Demon. 33W (Loudes- Edward Arnold Limited. 1958). Stgtement of Problem It was the intent of this study to devote systematic effort to improve the visual and photographic appraisal* of body build of college women by: I l. Appraising body build on the basis of Parnell's and Sheldon's somatotypes and to determine the degreeiof agreement between such estimates. 2. Assisting in the development of an album of photo- graphs of college women which will serve as a visual guide and reference. Definition 9f Terms Somatotype. Somatotype is the patterning of the morphological components of the human physique as expressed by the three nwmerals. ‘ggggtitution. Constitution is the total biological make-up found in an individual. gggldon'a ngppnegts. A component is defined in terms of those aspects of morphological variation which differentiate one of the extremes of human physical variants from the others. 1. ‘gggglggphy. Endomorphy is the relative predominance of soft roundness found throughout the various body regions. 2. Hesgggrphy. Insomorphy is the relative predominance of muscle. bone. and connective tissue in the body. 3. Ectomorphy. Ectomorphy is the predominance of linearity and fragility in the body. Pondergl Index. Ponderal index as used in this study is the ratio of height divided by the cube root of weight. Limitations of fitudy Se is. The study was limited to eighty college women ages l7~22 years. no attempt was made to determine the nutritiOnal or health status of the subjects. Procedures. There was difficulty in assessing fat and muscle when taking measurements. The calipers used measured in tenths rather than hundredths of centimeters. Three different prints of each subject were taken. With the available equipment it was not possible to obtain three views of the human body on the same film. Only one sub- jective rating‘was made using inspectional criteria (anthroposcopy). CHAPTER II REVIEW 0! LIIERATURE Throughout history people have believed in the existence of sore kind of association between the physical make-up and biological patterns. In Aristotle's time the successful judging of character of body for. on lower anilnls by experts was also applied to man. Developuent of the use of anthropometry branched into many areas including those of anatony. physiology. psychology. anthropology and others. This definition of constitution showed the wide range covered. Constitution — the sum total of the morphological physiological characters of an individual. with additional variables of race. sex. and age. all in large part determined by heredity but influenced in Varying degrees by environment factors. all of which when integrated and eXpressed as a single biological entity. fluctuate in varying degrees over a wide range of “normality“ and occasionally cross an arbitrary boundary into “abnormality” or pathology.1 Development of Cpnstitution Concept Knowledge of body constitution went through three 1w. 3. Tucker and w. A. Lassa. “Man: A Constitutional Investigation." anrterlx Review of Biology. 15:287. Septenber. 1940. ' “I . stages. The first emphasis was on the humoral aspect. During this stage Hippocrates classified in two distinct types: one. long and thin (habitua phthisicua) and the other short and thick (habitus apopleticus) .2 At the close of the eighteenth century and the start of the nineteenth century the emphasis changed to phrenology or analysis of character by the shape of the skull which was used to connect intellectual capacity. talents. and disposition with morphology. r. J. Cell (1757-1828) and J. c. 'spurahein (1776-102)3 were the best known anatomi‘sts of their time. 'lhey believed that nental traits could be determined by the shape ef the head. Late in the nineteenth century followed the third emphasis or rise of the scientific method cuposed of classification. measurement and correlation by senate. di Giovanni. and Viola which put an end to the reliance on phreaology. .Bisterx_2fiAnshrsasaetria Anthropometria was first mentioned in the literature by Jonannis sigismundi Blaholauis in 1654 when he established m. ‘xh;g,. p. 265. 3Antonio Ciocco. “The Historical Background of the “era Study of Constitution.“ list of th sti . ..2 f __ a __ j. .2 -. 4.25. January. 1936. a method of taking measurenents of the body. These were found in his doctoral dissertation from the University of sadua under the title. W.‘ two hundred years later. Quetelet. a great lelgian mathematician and astronomer (1796-1074) did the same thing. thinking he was the first. He was the first though to study man's unsurementa'statistically in 1871.5 Elli! gggg ies am g thogs senate. a German pathological anatomist. was the first to measure the internal organs. he also studied the relation of the organs and their variations to size. association to age and disease. and to two body types in 1878 and 1881.6 The Italian anthropologist. di Giovanni continued Ieneke'a work by listing other diseases associated with the two body types. In 1805. di Giovanni set up three combinations of body build. One of his most important contributions was the use of more exact methods of determining body build for use in anthropometry. 7 4MOI Pa 29e 5'lhwker. Mu p. 266. 612E” 9. 26s. I 7Ciocco. w” p. 30. 'Viola. a loyal student of di Giovanni. followed in this area by developing a morphological index which in- cluded eight trunk-abdominal measurements and the-length of one arm and one leg. Along with Viola. Panda helped to carry on di Giovanni's work which exists today. lext was Santa laccarate.e a student of‘Viola. who was able to show a positive although low relation between intelligence and temperament. Methods ofapproach in the study of human norphology varied also. TWO of these were somascopic and sonanetric.9 Somascopic referred to observational classifications of different types. Somanetric was used interchangeably with anthropometric. Some people using somaacopic methods included: 'Sigaud. HacAuliffe. Thodris. Troisvorvre. and Kretschner. Xretschner.1° a German scientist. studied the relationship between physique and mental disease and introduced the clinical sethod of investigation. Kretschner revived the as. I. leigler. “Implications of the Study of Body rye-I for thy-ical Education.” issanal_2£_EEsl5hl_zhreissl £932a£i2a_2aé_£esreetien. 19324. April. 1948~ 9Tucker. OR. git.. pp. 411-12. 10:. Kretschner. ”The lxperimental lbthod Treated As an Instrument of Psychological Investigation.” thrggtgg_ang Egggggglity. 3.175~ao. 1933. 10 Greek terms of pyknic (compact) and asthenic (without strength) and reintroduced the athletic (the trench idea of a third type). His classification of the above three types was made by listing the mean of the following measurements: height. weight. shoulder width. chest. stomach. hips. fore- arm.(circumference). hand (circumference). calf (circusr ference). and leg (length).11 Somametric or anthropometric methods. of which measurements and indices were found to be advantageous. were adopted in scientific studies. The whole morphological make-up was found by the use of these indices. Anthropolo— gists use indices to express relative proportions of ,' ’ 12 physical features.) lbntessori s ponderal index (3 weight) developed in 1913 is still in use today as a method of quick assesuent of body build. In 1923 Davenport” studied hereditary factors of body build. as used five classifications ranging from very slender to very fleshy. In 1929 he developed an index of §E%§%%2. x 1000. “Sheldon. M” p. 23. 12Maria Montessori. gedagogicg; Anthropology (Ihiladelphis: traderick A. BtOkes Coepany. 1913). 130. B. Davenport. Anthropometry and Anthropgscggy (Baltimore: waverly Press. 1927). ll figceng Studieg lIatiegka14 of Csechoslovakia determined anthropo- metrically the extent of different tissues. especially bone. mscle. and skin with the subcutaneous tissue. His purpose was finding a method for deternining physical efficiency that would be used in a clinical situation. Iehnke15 used a quantitative classification of body build which was based on eleven circumferences and eight diameters. Anthropometric ratings for each of the coaponents (fat. nuscle. skeletal) are found by using a fornula. In comparison with Sheldon he described body configuration in quantitative terms. Insure-ant of circumferences and diameters was used to nake estieates of the sire of gross components. lunbers were then assigned according. to the neasureeents taken. Ii‘he examination took approximately five minutes and was clinically applicable to adults and children although seldom used. l4.‘Iindrich Matieg'ka. “Physical Efficiency.‘ W W: 22:01-37: Jun-o “Mm lsAlbert Iehnke. 'Quantitative Assessment of Iody Build." Jougggl 9; Applied Physiolggy. 16:960—68. lovenber. 1961. 12 Conrad and Ott'16 determined somatotype by a new index which they developed. It was calculated from twice the sum of the shoulder width plus the circumference of the hand plus the circunference of the underarm in proportion to the average body height of the population. This index was used with the metric index composed by Strongren. The index ranged from the pyknomorphic to the leptomorphic type. This method was based on exact msasurings and was apparently easy to apply. In the 1920's Sheldon became impressed with the work of laccarti and Kretschmer. Sheldon set out to make a methodical approach in the study of human physique with his main interest being that of the relation of human physiques to behavior. Sheldon and his associates classified human physiques in three types according to primary aspects or components of . body composition. flan' s physique characterised in these three components (endomorphy. mesomorphy and ectomorphy) were rated on a scale from one (minimum) to seven (maximum). The components were derived from an inspectional study of photography.” 15W (law York: Il'he Bxcerpta bdica foundation. 1957). p. 321 citing K. Conrad and s. Ott. “the Somatometric Determination of Constitution Types. " m mive rsitggis Ed isin—Ed icing (Saarbreucken : Universitaet des Baarlandes. 1954). 2/4.275-2ss. 17313016033: 22. cit.. Chapter 4. 13 Sheldon's method has been the most accepted one to date. Sheldon found the 76 somatotypes observed in men were present in women when this method was used on 25,000 shadow pictures of women.18 Tanner19 worked with procedures to standardize the technique of Sheldon. the pose of the subject. and con- struction of a measure of androgyny. He was particularly interested in the pose. The photographic standardization consisted primarily of turning the hand so it was parallel to the body rather than at right angles.20 Stiffening of the arm aided in determining the mesomorphic component more accurately. The reliability of photographic appraisal was found to be as good in some cases and better than anthropo- metric measurements in other cases. Reliability coefficients of 0.83 were found for the first two components and 0.92 for the third when the ratings cover the full range of the scale by Tanner.21 lea—gel Pp. 66-67e 19.1. M. Tanner. "Current Advances in the Study of Physique. Photogranmetric Anthropometry and an Androgyny Scale.“ £hg_§gggg§. 13574-79. lurch. 1951. 20‘3. W. Dupertuis and .1. ll. Tanner. "the Pose ot the Subject for Photogranmetric Anthropometry. with Especial Inference to Somatotyping.‘ American Journal or Physiggl .Achrgpglggz. 8:43. March. 1950. 21J. M. Tanner. ”The Reliability of Anthroposcopic Typing.§.§me§icgg Jgurn§l og Physiga; Anthropglggy. 12:2‘l~€3. June. 1954. 14 The advantage of photographs with somatotyping was that a permanent record was made. The advantages of a 35 mm camera included: film was less expensive: equipment was easily movable; film could be sent by mail or stored easily. The main disadvantages were the initial cost of the camera. and making enlargements on a negative which was poor because of distortion. Special non—shrinking paper must also be used with these prints. working with photography Tanner and Weiner22 found that a 3.24 aerial camera fitted with a 20 inch focal lens did a good job. This camera held fifty feet of film 5-1/2 inches wide which todk 5” by 5" pictures of fifty people (three viewsto a frame) per magazine with enlargements made exactly to scale. The main disadvantage was size. It had to be transported on a truck and placed in a permanent set- up. Gaven. Washburn and Lewis23 also worked with photo— graphy for anthropometric purposes by using a Keith copying cammra which took two exposures and made 5" by 7” pictures. 22:. H. Tanner and J. s. Weiner. ”The Reliability of the Photogrammetric Method of Anthropometry. with a Description of a Mdniature Camera Technique.” Amgggggg igggngl gf Physical Anthropology. 73145-86. June. 1949. 23Je As Gavan, Se Le wthbuma PO He LEWiDs .PhOtO“ graphy: An Anthropometric Tool.“ American Jougnal cg Physiggl Anthropplogy. 7a33l*51. 1950. 15 Parnell's scheme. combination of physical anthropology and photography.‘was an approach to provide a more precise definition of the components and add objectivity that is lacking when photoscopy is used alone.24 He tried to correspond as closely as possible to sheldon's estimate of somatotype. Parnell used the terms of fat. muscularity and linearity instead of Sheldon's endomorphy. mesomorphy and ectoenrphy. 0n the chart were scales for height. weight. ponderal index. standard scales for two bone sises. the bicondylar measurements of humerus and femur. and two girths of the biceps and calf muscle. Lastly. were scales for three skinfold measurements of subcutaneous fat and the total of these three fat measures. From this chart fat and linearity were plotted easily while muscularity involves more work. The procedure with a 11.4 chart was completed in approximately five minutes. The use chart. set up for men. may also be applied to women. The chart has been plotted on 671 women. l‘indings show em a.4 distribution to be more endomorphic and less ease-emit: than that by Sheldon. Parnell also set up a la! chart for eleven year olds. Parnell's eventual g 24 ' , . Parnell. op. Clt. 16 aim was the development of a constitutional index which was determined genetically.25 Cureton has modified Sheldon's technique by using subjective rating of each component on a scale fromlr7 which may be used as a quick method or general body typing.26 gggdigs on Women Descriptive useable material on so-called normal healthy women has been scarce. Few studies have been made of possible correlations of body build of women with motor ability. One study based on pictures taken directly from Sheldon's method attempts to systematize the making of somatotype Judgment by development of a level for morphological description of women. Groundwork has been laid for studies investigating the relations of somatotype to immunity and disease. psychological attributes. nutrition. performance and fitness level. Bullen.27 Reesze and Hatlestad29 worked specifically zslbigeg 9“. 25. 26Thomas Kirk Cureton. Ph sical Fitness An :31 Guidancg (St. Louis: Hbsby. 1947). Chapter 4. 27A. K. Bullen and H. L. Hardy. 'Analysis of Body Build Photographs of 175 College Women.” American Joggag;_gg W: 4'37-65: March: 1946- 23Lin£ord Rees. "A Factorial Study of Physical Constitution in Women.” Journal of lbntal Science. 96:619—112. July. 1950. 298. L. Hatlestad. “The Determination and Measurement of Body Build in College Women.” Research Quarterly. 4:60-75. December. 1940. 1.7 on scutotyping nethods applicable to Vic-en. Rees30 did a factorial study on 200 neurosis patients checking the inter- correlations of 15 anthropometric variables to find a useful objective netbod of assessing body build. 'rhose variables which correlated highest were: stature. synphysis height. chest and hip circunterence. latlestad31 correlated twenty- two indices with body build. Those ratios which proved highly valid for college women were chest girth/height and- leg length/Chest girth. lullen and auxdy3’ have tried to objectin sheldon's nethod. They used a check list for checking of! characteristics of the five regions of the body for determining the strength of each component. 'lhis lethcd was lore objective than Sheldon's rating lethod. Also linited are studies on men cowering senato- type with motor ability. Working with junior high school aged girls. Iurley. Dobell and tarlrel33 found a low degree of relationship between flexibility and power. and also a low degree o! relationship between flexibility and speed. 10 In... lesi_2i§- 3J'llstlestad. M. 32 lullen and Hardy. L22- cit. . zabloyd lurleyo Hblen Dobelt and Betty Farrel: I'lslations of 'over. Ipeed. Flexibility and Certain Anthropo- htric fissures 0! Junior High School Girls." Regenrch W1. 32:443. December. 1961. 18 perm.“ working with college melon. found a definite relationship between nesomorphy and strength and power. A direct opposite relationship was found with endomorphy‘ in strength and power. (:nrruth3s found a high relationship of. notor ability with body coordination. a moderate relation- ship with strength and speed. and a slightly positive relation- ship with flexibility. balance. endurance and agility. The results found by Morris:36 were very similar to those tound 37 by Carruth. Vessel. nelson and Dillon set up anthropo-I netric and physical performance standards for college woun. *4 3“Joyce A. Pertix. “Relationship between Sonatotype and lotor ritness in Women. " W. 25:84. lurch. 1954. ‘ 3"’cmrl r. Willgocse. nglgetign in Hang; Bdgggtign P 1 Id i (law York: maraw—Hill Book Conpany. Inc.. 1961). p. 326 citing Wincie Ann Carruth. I'Analycis of lbtor Ability and Its Relationship to Constitutional Body Pattern of College Women. " (unpublished doctoral dissertation. law ran: University. new York. 1952). 36M” citing Patricia Collins Norris. “A Cclparatiwe ttudy of ’hysical llaasures of Hanson Athletes and Unselected College Walsh.“ (unpublist doctoral dissertation. remle University. Philadelphia. 1960). 370in“: A. Weasel. Richard lelson. Eva Lou Dillon. 'nequency Distributions and Standards of Anthropometric fissures for College Women.‘ Resegrgh Qggrterly. 21:523. October. 1960. CHAPTER III IETMDOLOGY The subjects for this study were 80 healthy'walen students enrolled in physical education instructional classes at Michigan State University.‘ Instructors in the Department of Health. Physical Education. and Recreation were given information sheets. These sheets described endomorphy. mesonnrphy. and ectomorphy. The instructors were requested to make a list of those students with extreme body components and five others who were average in the components. After returning the lists. the investigator informed each subject of the purpose of the study. the subject's role in the study. and who was doing the study. The subjects who agreed to participate were very cooperative. .IIQSIQEEII All neasuresents were taken during Spring Tenn. 1963. fro-.12300 noon until 5:00 p.n. The actual tine involved for each student was fifteen.sunutes: ten minutes for taking . anthroponetric neasuresents and five sinutes for taking body 19 20 build pictures. AmEQggpgggtgig_§gg§gggggn§g.l The subjects were prepared for the study by removing all clothes except for brassiere and panties. Skinfold. girth. and skeleton width measurements for Parnell's flhd chart were taken on the right side of the body. All measurements were taken three times and averaged except for height and weight measurements which were taken once. The measures were taken as follows: A. Height. Height was recorded to.the nearest half inch. The subject stood barefooted with back to the height scale. teak a deep breath and stretched up to maxi-um height while heels remained in contact I with the floor. 3. We . Weight was recorded to the nearest pound.2 c. .giggiggggylgg_gilgggiggg. The bone measurements were recorded in centimeters with Harrognsett calipers. These neasureaents were taken with firm pressure. 1. e co e . Distance was measured between the Iedial and lateral epicondyles (bony part of elbow. felt when upper era was held horizontally and forearm was bent upwards at a right angle). 1Parnell. 92. cit.. pp. 14—17. 2One pound was deducted for underclothes. 21 2. gemgrg; epicongylgs. Distance measured was the maximum.bony width which was felt by the horizontal groove on either side of the knee. The subject sat on a chair with her foot on the floor and the lower leg vertical. D. ‘ggiggglg, The skinfold measurements were recorded in millimeters. The skinfolds were grasped between the thumb and the index finger of the left hand. The size of the fold included two thicknesses of skin and subcutaneous fat but no muscle. The application of the Lange Calipers3 was about one centimeter from the finger at a depth equal to the . thickness of the skinfold. Readings were taken within the first five seconds when needle first stopped momentarily. l. The gpper arm. The skinfold was taken halfway between the acromion process and the olecranon process on the back of the upper arm over the triceps muscle . 2. gubeCapular. The skinfold was taken over the ' bottom tip of the right scapula diagonally 3Lenge Skinfold Calipers available from the wenner- Oren Aeronautical Research Laboratoryi university of Kentucky. Lexington. Kentucky. 22 downwards end outward toward the ribs. 3. Sugrailiac. The skinfold was taken one to two inches above the anterior iliac spine and diagonally toward the mid—line of the body. 1:. ggchircumfegme or girth measurements. MeasureIIents were taken over the maximum girth with a steel tape held in light contact with the skin. 1. Bicegs. The measurement was taken with the elbow fully flexed. 2. galg. The measurement was taken with the subject standing with legs slightly apart and weight equally distributed. c lto tr ' .4c .4'5 A. [25 o; Shgldog'e egdomorghg estimate. 1. The skinfolde were totaled. 2. The number most closely representing the total IkinIold was circled in the row opposite the correct age group. 3. The endomorphy estimate was circled. B. ggsculgrity or Sheldon's mgsomorghy estimate. 1. The number most closely representing the 4Parnell. 92.cit.. p. 20. 5M,4 Chart (see Appendix A). 23 height. bone width. and muscle girth in each row was circled. 2. The mean position of the bone and muscle measure- ments was found by units (two columns equal one unit) in relation to the height column. Those measurements falling to the right of the height column were plus and those falling to the left were minus. The four plus and minus figures were totaled and divided by four to find the relation of the mean to the height column. 3. The first estimate of mesomorphy was computed by placing the mean found above in relation_to the mesomorphic mean of 4. 4. The final estimate of mesomorphy was computed by correcting for fat. The number most closely representing total fat was circled. The cor~ rection was made by adding or subtracting the amount found from the correct age group to the first estimate. 5. The lesomorphy (corrected) estimate was circled. c. .giggggity orvsheldon's ectogggphy estimate. 1. The number most closely representing the ponderel index was circled opposite the correct age. 2. The ectomorphy estimate was circled. 24 Spas ct P r h . A. Attire of subjects. The subjects removed all clothes and jewelry except brassiere and panties. A hairnet was placed over their hair leaving the left ear and neck exposed. I. Gamer! and set-up. l. The Zeiss Contaflex camera was set at f/d on l/30‘with at a distance of eleven feet (fra- camera lens to center of turntable). 2. The tripod was 44-1/2 inches high at attachment with the camera. 3. The lighting was by 4 fluorescent bulbs of 90 watts each. The lights were set at a 45 degree angle to the subject. The light distance was 82-1/2 inches away on the right side and 79 inches on the left. c. ngg'gg the subjects6 (three views - front. side. back). 1. Standard front View pose. a. test. The heels were placed against the heelplate with the inside edge of both feet 6C. W; Dupertuis and J. M. Tanner. "The Pose of the Jubject for Photmtric Anthropometry. With Especial Reference to Somatotyping.‘ gpcrican Journal 9g;Physical W. 3:29-33. March. 1950. 25 angles out at 10 degrees. b. Legs. The legs were relaxed. If knees touched the heels were moved apart equal distances until they did not. R c. Instruction to the subjects. The subject was told to stand up to her full height with arms held stiff by her sides. The investi- gator then demonstrated this position. ' d. Shoulders. The subject was checked for relaxed shoulders. The investigator pulled down gently on the subject's arms. a. Anna and hands. The arms were semi-prenated with the minimum wrist diameter toward the camera. The elbow was looked about 2 inches fron.the waist. Hands were 4 inches tron hips with fingers together and extended with thumb along the index finger and the hand bent inwards at the wrist so fingers pointed vertically towards the floor. 1. A final check was made betore the picture was taken. 2. Side View. a. The subject retained the same position While 26 being turned so left side of body faced the camera. b. The overall pose for good relaxed posture and profile position was cheeked. c. When legs were not in perfect profile the knee showing from behind was brought forward until a profile was seen. d. The subject was'checked for head position and relaxed shoulders. e. Arms were checked and placed so as not to obstruct the profile. f. A final check was made before the picture was taken. Back view. a. The subject retained the same position while being turned so the badk of the body faced the camera. b. The overall pose was rechecked for correct alignnent of.the head. relaxed shoulders. arn position with wrists rotated so minimum wrist diameter showed. and fingers pointed vertically downward. c. A final check was made before the picture was taken. 27 Anthropgscgpy. The photographs were examined and by inspectional study an estimate was made of the relative strength of each component of the body as a whole (endomorphy: mesomorphy and ectomorphy). The judgment was made from positive slides. Two investigators (women physical education instructors) worked independently to check each other. After rating independently where two investigators varied in their results they discussed it further until consensus was reached. The components were recorded as equal unless daldnsnce was distinct and certain. The components were rated on a scale from one (minimum) to seven (maximum). The anthroposcopic estimate was based on detailed inspectional criteria set forth by Sheldon. CHAPTER IV amrsrs or para It was the intent of this study to devote systematic effort to improve the visual and photographic appraisal of body build of college women by: ‘1. Appraising body build on the basis of Parnell's and Sheldon’s somatotypes and to determine the degree of agree- ment between such estimates. 2. Assisting in the development of an album of photographs of college women which will serve as a visual guide and reference. Degree 2; gargemeng between Parnell's gag gheldgn'QWSOmatotype Estimate The agreement between the two somatotype estimates was represented by the product-moment correlation coefficients: + .77 in endomorphy. +.34 in mesémorphy. and +.90 in ectomorphy. In this series of 80 specific estimates of somatotype the following agreement was found in each of the three components: 32 cases of endomorphy. 27 cases in.mesomorphy. and 48 cases in ectomorphy. The degree of difference in rating components is shown in Table 1 below. 28 29 In a good number of subjective estimates the ratings in emdemorphy and eotomorphy were too low and in mesmrpby the estintes were too high. this substantiates Parnell's findings is which he found his distribution tended to be more esdemorphie and less mesomorphio when using his system than when using sheldon's subjective method} Table 1. Degree of agreement between Parnell's and Sheldon‘s somatotype estimate. W Endemorphy llesomorphy lctomorphy Degrees of Difference over under Over under Over Under ._.._‘_ l 11 29 25 ' 1.11 10 :121 2 5 8 3 l 3 3 2 2 4 2 Parmellz-.reported that estimates between photosoopic estimates and expert somatotypists agreed to within one-halt unit is 81.3% of the cases on 282 Oxford University under- / graduate men. MOI: found that trained observers using ,1 1"!“11. 220 cit-o Po 25s agide' pe 214e 3 J. l. tanner. ”The Reliability of Anthroposcopio typing.“ . J urnel f Ph si al Anthro lo . 12:261. 3m: 1’5‘e - 3O anthrosposcopic techniques agreed in their rating to within a half rating on the seven point scale of 90% of instances. The reliability coefficients for this were +.83 for the first two components (endomorphy and mesomorphy) and +.92 for the third (ectomorphy) . Tanner also found that mesomorphy was usually the hardest and ectomorphy the easiest to rate. The data presented above agreed with the results of this study. Deckerle4 in a similar comparative study done‘with . men reported product moment coefficients of _+.60 in endomorphya 9.75 in numerphy. and +378 in ectomorphy. tot C iso b Ra w th Pgflergl Index of Parnell's gag art‘s sw h80 tot sb Po der dex 21 Ellen gag aggldog'g [indings In a more detailed analysis the somatotypes found by using larnell's l4 chart method and expert rating method were lconared according to ponders]. index findings by rank (rank being based on deviations of ponderal index) by Sheldon and sullen. Better agreement of findings was found with Sheldon's ponderal index technique than Dullen's (see Table 2). A _.. _._4 4Gerald Deckerle. “The Relationship of Somatotype to Dream Recall” (unpublished Ilaster's thesis. Michigan State University. East Lansing. 1963). 31 Table 2. Comparison by rank of objective and subjective rating with sullen and Sheldon. --y— . -..-._. - up» .- “-0- m-—--——~ a- v. h—-— -_—.. -.-.—-.—4.-—-—-oe._-.-.—--—_p‘- -~-.~ --~—. “mu.” -—.—- ---.--.|—-- v--“—- -... Parnell's II.4 Chart Expert Rating Rank lullen Sheldon Iullen sheldon frequency frequency 0 3 9 7 ll 1 10 23 B 27 2 6 lo 7 10 3 3 ' 5 8 ll more than three ll 9 23 15 Different 47 24 27 6 5 Bullen’s subjective method of somstotyping was a simplification of Bheldon's method in which she set up a check list to be used with a table for determining senato- typee from photographs of 175 college women. In the five body regions (listed by Sheldon) seven observable character- istics were chosen for each component. On the score sheets the characteristics present were checked off by body regions. then totaled and averaged by component for overall deter- mination of somatotype. 'rhe ponderal index distribution represents the mean of height over cube root of weight of the small»: We 32 sommtotypes falling in that group. Poor agreement with Bullenhwas probably due to an incomplete list of somato- types by Dullen for comparison. Sheldon's somatotype results from.an objective method were set up 'by ponderal index in a table which represents the distribution of means of 76 somatotypes against 18 anthropometric criteria including height over cube root of weight"6 on men. In using the rank method Sheldon found that all somatotypes fell within rank three. 92% 'within rank two. and 67%wwithin rank one when using the ponderal index on men ages 17-19.7 8 1h lustra i Silhouettes were prepared for twelve somatotypes. Ihese silhouettes were prepared as part of the problem under investigation. However. there were an insufficient number available for use at this time. These silhouettes which have been prepared are presented in Appendix B. 6Sheldon. 92. ci§.. p. 265. 1M0. pe 98s CHBPIIRHV 5mm. CONCLUSIONS. AND ascomm'rross infillflEZ It was the intent of this study to devote systenatic effort to improve the visual and photographic appraisal of body build of college women by: l. Appraising body build on the basis of Parnell's and Sheldon's somatotypes and to determine the degree of agreeeent associated with such estimates. 2. Assisting in the development of an album of photo- graphs of college women which will serve as a visual guide and reference . Data were collected on 80 women enrolled in physical education instructional classes at Nuchigan State University. The methods used for determining somatotypes were Parnell'e objective method (M,4 chart) and Sheldon's subjective rating technique on positive slides (three views of each person) by one expert. 33 34 W 1. Parnell'e lethod is applicable to college “-.nm 2. the Parnell and Sheldon techniques were in poorer agreement when the sore entrees body types were coepared. 3. A.pertial albue.o£ silhouettes were prepared. At this ties there is an unsufticient number for use. W l. A.eore extensive study should be undertaken using sanples of larger size. 2. The photographs should be rated by several experts so that correlations may be compared. 3. Development of silhouettes tor a series or an albu- on different sosetotypes round in women should be continued. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY £2252 Irosek. Josef. gggy.leasureggnts and gaggg ggtritigg. Detroit: Wayne university Press. 1956. Cureton. Thomas Kirk. Ph sica Fit es A sal Qidmce. St. Louis: Hosby. 1947. Davenport. 6- B~ Wanam- Philadelphia: Waverly Press. 1927. McCloy. Charles. gests and Measurement; in Health and Physical Education. new York: I. s. Crofts and Company. 1939. Exce c . New York: The Excerpts lledica foundation. 1957. Montessori. Maria. Pedagogical Anthropology. Philadelphia: Frederick A. Stokes Company. 1913. Parnell. R. W. gegavior and Physigge. London: Edward Scott. I. Gladys and nether trench. £9313th gnd Evalgggiog lg Physical Education. Dubuque: Wm. c. Irwin Company. 1959. Sheldon.‘w. I. .Aslag_ggql;g. new York: Hhrper Brothers.. 1940. ‘ Sheldon. W. H.. S. 3. Stevens. and W. B. tucker. ‘13; 3 Ph . law York: Harper Brothers. 1940. Weasel. Janet. ypvement .Fundamentals. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. 1961. Willgoose. Carl E. Eval atio Ed ti W W. low York: IcGraw-Hill Book Company. Inc.. 1961. 35 37 Pgriodicgls lehnke. Albert. “Quantitative Assessment of Body Build.“ W: 16'960-68- lava-bor- 1961. Bookwalter. x. w. “Relationship of Body Size and Shape to Physical Performance.“ gagggggg_ggg£§ggly. 23,371-79, October. 1952 . Bull. K. a. "Investigations into the Relationship between Physique..flotor Capacity. and Certain Temperamental Traits.“ ggitish Jogrgg; gt Educgtigggl ngghglggx. 28:149-54. June. 1958. Bullen. A. K. and B. L. Hardy. ”Analysis of Body Build Photographs of 115 College "amen.” American Jggggll 2g Egysical figthropglogy. 4:37-65. March. 1946. Burley. Lloyd. Helen Dobeff. and Betty rarrel. IRelations of Power. Speed. Flexibility and Certain Anthropo- metric fissures of Junior High School Girls. " Research_gg§rterly. 32:443-48. December. 1961. Ciocco. Antonio. 'The Historical Background of the Modern Study of Constitution." gullgtig of thg gastitggg.gg the History of ggdicine. 4:23-38. January. 1936. Cureton. T. R. ”Body Build as a Framework of Reference for Interpreting Physical fitness and Athletic rerformance.' fiupplement to Research_guarterly. 12.30140. Hay. 1941. Dupertuis. C. Keeley. “Anthropometry of Extremes lamatotypes.' Agggicgg Journal of Phygical Agthropglggy. 8:367-05. September. 1950. Dupertuis. C. W.. and J. n. Tanner. “The Pose of the Subject for Photogrammetric Anthropometry with Especial Reference to Sonatatyping.“ r c o a Physical Anthropology. 8:27-43. larch. 1950. Gavan. J. A.. 8. L. Washburn. P. a. Lewis. “Photography: An Anthropometric Tool.“ Aggrican Journal of Physicgl chroalogy. 7 8 3313-3510 1950. 38 latlestad. S. L. ”The Deter-ination and leasurenent of Body Build in.Co11ege‘Ionen.“ Research guarggrly. 4:60-75. December. 1940. Howells. W. W; “Factorial Study of Constitution." Americgg Journal of. Physical Anggropology. 7:79-89. thy. 1949. Jensen. Rail. ‘Physical Growth.“ Reyiew of Educational Research. 25:369-414. December. 1955. Jones. H. D. “The Relationship of Strength to Physique.' Aggrigan Journal 0; Physical Anthropology. 5:29-39. March. 3-94? . Kretschmer. E “The Experimental Method Treated as an Instrument of Psychological Investigation.' Character and Personality. 3:175-80. 1933. Lasker. G.‘W. ”The Effect of Partial Starvation on Bonatotype.‘ American Journal 0; Physical Agtggggglggy. 5:323-341. September. 1947. Lorr. Maurice and Victor Fields. ”A Factorial Study of Body Types." Journal of Clinical Psychology. 108182-85. April. 1954. leloy. Charles H. 'Anthropometry in the Service of the Individual.“ Journal of Health and Physical Edgggsigg. 7:7. September. 1934. McCloy. Charles H. 'Appraising Physical Status: The Selection of Measurement." university 0; Iowa Studies: ggggigg in Child Welfare. 15:#2. 1938. McCloy. Charles H. "Appraising Physical Status: The Selection of Measurement." iversit of : Studies in Child welfare. 12:#2. 1936. .flcTernan. B. 3.. C. C. Seltzer. and I. L. Wells. “A Relationship Between Sheldonian Somatotype and Psycho- type.“ JOurnal of Personality. 16:431-37. June. 1948. Hatiegka. Jindrich. “Physical Efficiency.“ Aggriggg_§gg;ngl of Anthropology. 4:223—30. September. 1921. 39 Parnell. R.‘W. 'Somatotyping by Physical Anthropometry.” American Jogrral of Physical Anthropology. 12:209-39. June. 1954. Perfix. Joyce. "Relationship between Somatotype and Motor ,litness in WOmen.‘ Resegrch Quarterly. 25:84. lhrch. 1954. Rees. Linford. "A Factorial Study of Physical Constitution in Nemen."gpurnrl of Mental_Science. 619-32. July. 1950. Sills. Frank. ”A Factor Analysis of Somatotypes and Their Relationship to Achievement in Motor Skill." Research_9uarterly. 21:424. December. 1950. Sills. Frank. and Peter W: Everett. “The Relationship of Extreme Somatotypes Performance in Motor and Strength Tests.7 Research Quarterly. 242223-28. Mby. 1953. Sills. Frank. and J. C. Mitchem. ”Prediction of Performances on Physical Pitness Tests by means of Somatotype Ratings." gesearch Quarterly. 28:64-71. March. 1957. Tanner. J. I. “Current Advances in the Study of Physique. Photogrammetric Anthropometry and an Androgyny Scale.“ The Lancet. 1:574-79. March. 1951. . “Reliability of Anthroposcopic Typing." American Journal orrkhysical Anthropology. 12:257-65. tanner. J. I” and J. S. Weiner. “The Reliability of the Photogrammetric Method of Anthropometry. with a Description of a Miniature Camera Technique.” Amerigar Journal of Physicalxfinthropology. 7:145-86. June. 1949. ‘ Tucker. W. 3.. and W. A. Lessa. “Man: A Constitutional Investigation.” Quarterly ngiew of Biology. 158265—89. September. and 15:411-55. December. 1940. Weasel. J. 1.. Richard Nelson. and Eva Lou Dillon. “Frequency Distributions and Standards of Anthropometric and Physical Performance Measures for College WOmen.’ Research anrrerly. 31:523-33. October. 1960. 40 Willgoose. Carl. 'Body Types and Physical Fitness.” Journal of Be it Ph sic ducatio a d Recre o 27:26-27. September. 1956. Nillgoose. Carl. and Mallard Rogers. "Relationship of Somatotype to Physical Fitness.“ Journal 91 Educational Research. 42:704-712. Hay. 1949. Zeigler. E. P. ”Implications of the Study of Body Types for Physical Education." Journal of Health. WW: 191241-42. April. 1948. QQQublished Qatarial Beckerle. Gerald. “The Relationship of Somatotype to Bree. Recall.“ unpublished Master's thesis. Michigan . State University. East Lansing. 1963. APPENDICES APPENDIX A SOMATOTYPE RATINGS AND RAW DATA ON ANTHROPOMETRIC MEASUREMENTS 43 m.vn a.v~ m.o e.n n.no and me me an «a new «an «.na .na a.on v.«« «.m s.m no use on p a ca nan m «\aua "\asn nae n.na .«a o.vn n.au m.o a.m m.mm can an a a ca new ”\auee nxaun nee m.na .aa o.pn e.m~ m.m o.o n.5o and an as an «a an» n\auu u\a-~ “\aum «no e.na .oa o.mm «.ma v.o n.m do one on we ma ea ave Ham o.aa .m m.mn o.a« «.m H.@ as med ow Na ma me new an “\auv mam m.ua .m m.mn p.m« o.m m.m me «me an m a ma nnv n\a-nnv nae H.na .h ~.en m.on m.m «.0 me mna mu m a a nan v n\~-n «\Ham eve n.na .m m.an e.m« m.« H.@ we and an m ea m can “\a-mae adv m.na .m ~.nn o.eu n.m v.o no use me n a a men «mm m.na .¢ n.mm e.mn e.m m.m me and mm oa «a ma men n «\a-n n\a-m mam m.ua .n o.em m.pu «.m u.m we see we me me ow an» anm o.ua .m n.ov m.mn p.m m.e no mow mm on an an an» av “\Hne Hen v.oa .H B a m. rmlm I ,_ w 1 s . Era .rA D. ,_.. a m u i... a n u m » mm mm . 1 B T. d N u 1. O T. D 2 I .4 1. I x t. s u u s a p. 5 a e O m a x a .Basfiousesol ounuaflonmounufls so suso Isa one awn—«ash smauouslou .n 93s.". 44 0.0n 0.0n v.0n 0.0N N.Nm O.mn O.Nn h.nN n.Om H.On O.vn 0.0n h.Nn 0.0n H.hn 0.0n H.nn N.hn h.On 0.0v h.nn M.NN 0.0N n.mN N.ON hohN n.NN v.MN O.¢N h.ON N.nn ".mN 0.0N 0.0N m.ON 0.0N 0.0N M.Hn H.NN m.nN 0.0n h.ON v.ON O.VN O.m o.m H.OH 0.0 0.0 m.O v.m 0.0 O.m 0.0 0.0 v.m h.O H.m Q.O 0.0 N.O 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 n.¢ m.m h.O M.O H.O v.m m.m 0.0 O.m n.O ¢.O m.m 0.0 O.n h.m O.m M.O O.“ ¢.O 0.0 h.m 0.0 m.n m.On m.HO OonO O.QO O.¢O O.HO m.OO O.NO n.OO OO MO OO NO OO m.hO MO O.mO 0.00 0.00 . HO HO m.¢O hNH hHH VNH OOH NHH ONH HHH hhH nnH ONH HMH NHH NNH MVH hmH MOH HeH OOH NNH HVH hm: Ow mm NO Nv HN ON Ov Nm Hm On NM Ne HN OM Om vO ON QN Vn NO HO OH NH QH «H OH OH OH OH HN OH HN nH hH HH NN OH OH OH NH HH NH OH HH OH ON OH OH NN 5H HN OH ON OH HH OH OH On OH NH ON NH hH HN OH HH OH mH OH NNO NnO Nnn nnm Onn Nmn ONn nnv NmO nvv Nvm nvm mmv Nmn new N¢O On" nvn MVO va HVO OMN a ”\aumn «\Auuv n\4n¢ «a ”\aun n uxaunm ”\acnnn “\Huae “\aun ”\aaeam av “\aum nv N\a.e “\auuv ”\Huv «\H-n ”\aun n\a.v nu n\Hom av u\+-m nxaunu «\aan vn n\aun «a «\auv n\a-av ”\Hsm ON ”\HIN HOO New NVO nnm nNn HOV OHO nnv HVO nvm va Mvm nan van MNO HVO ON! vnfi NOV HVO va ONM O.HH O.NH ¢.NH O.NH m.nH h.NH m.nH m.NH O.HH O.NH O.NH O.NH O.NH H.nH O.NH h.HH O.NH N.MH v.NH n.NH H.NH O.QH .nm .Vn .nn .Nn .Hn .OM .ON .ON .hN .ON .ON .VN .MN .NN .HN .ON .OH .OH .NH .OH .OH .VH 45 O.vn 0.0N v.O N.O 0.00 vHH we HH OH OH Hem H ”\HIOO Hem N.NH .01 0.0v 0.0N 0.0 0.0 O.NO OOH HO OH NN NN HNh H N\Huv ”\Hun HvO O.HH .hv N.ON N.ON N.O 0.0 O.nO an hm HH nH nH Hem H N\Hlv N\HI¢ HOO O.HH .Oe m.On O.NN H.O 0.0 0.00 NOH ON O O VH ONH N\H3ONv ONO H.¢H .me O.nn O.nN 0.0 O.m 0.00 vHH HO O O OH wen eNv O.HH .vv O.Hn O.HN 0.0 n.m O.nO HOH ON O O NH can ON N\ch ONv O.mH .nv O.Hn H.nN 0.0 N.O 0.00 OOH QN O O OH ONO ON N\Hln ONO O.¢H .Nv H.vn v.ON 0.0 H.O O.hO ONH ON O O OH vvn. v N\HIN¢ One n.nH .Hv O.nv 0.0m 0.0H n.O 0.00 OOH hm OH VN vN HNb H N\HInO HeO O.HH .Ov 0.0n v.5N 0.0 v.O 0.00 th nv HH NH ON HOv N N\anm NOO v.NH .On 0.0m v.ON 0.0 O.m 0.00 OOH ON h HH HH NOO n\HINOv NOv h.NH .Om 0.0m 0.0N n.O 0.0 0.00 QNH ON O O OH MOM N\th N\chv ave O.nH .hn h.hm 0.0N m.O N.O O.¢O «NH Om O OH OH NQO m n\HIv N\Hlv MOO O.NH .On M .w a. S .s I I. a m m m m m m. m .m m. w. m. OM OM m o a e .b .n e 1 s . d.A 0.6 7. T. q "a T. . o 8 .i o I. a e e .a m” 3 .+ r. e T. .4 I "chm J 1 ... a m e u a e um . n e t. n w «4 e T. .c w. 4 e .w T. o J x o e s. 3. S 3 7a 1. a m 1 m. a e w s .b m. fl m .mflflflHuaOUlo.O CHAIR 46 0.00 N.Om n.mn N.Om O.Hm b.O¢ O.¢N O.Hm ¢.On O.¢n N.OO H.On O.mm O.Nm O.¢n v.vn O.¢¢ 0.0v H.On H.On 0.0N 0.0N 0.0N v.ON O.vN O.nN O.mm 0.0N N.ON N.ON 0.0N N.OO 0.0N 0.0N O.nn 0.0N 0.0N O.nn N.ON O.on O.VN N.NN 0.0 v.O 0.0 N.O 0.0 0.0 0.0 v.O 0.0 0.0 N.OH N.O 0.0 0.0 0.0 N.O O.HH N.OH 0.0H H.O 0.0 N.O 0.0 h.O N.O v.O 0.0 N.O 0.0 v.O 0.0 H.O N.O 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 v.O N.O N.O 0.0 O.¢O 0.00 O.¢O 0.00 0.00 0.00 O.hO 0.00 O.hO 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 O.NO O.NO 0.00 0.00 0.00 O.HO 0.0h 0.00 ONH OOH OHH OOH OOH HOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH hnH ONH vHH OOH NMH OON HRH «OH NO Hv mm mm Gm Om Om mm VM Ow HO 2. ON ow H¢ ON ON GO Ov GO ON ON NH OH hN ON OH OH NH NH HH Om HH OH HH OH ON HH OH NO NH NN he nu me «a me an ea ea me He an ca me an ma ON OH .VN HH nvv Own an? MOO OOH HHb NOM ONm NOV NOO HOO NO¢ MOO we" fifin OOO HHh HvO HMO ONN ONH «\chn “\auv exasnn ”\a-e «\Hueu N\H-¢ ON n\as¢ as N\H-o nu «\Huv “\aumu nxaue «\Hsu “\H-nm N\Hsnve H N\HIO ”\Hlm n N\H-vm v n\a-n¢ nxaawmn a ”\Aue “\ane a “\Humn a «\ann ”\Hsm . n\aaen n\a-« NH ”\Hln ONO vnv Onv vNV ON¢ HOO ONO ONO NOO MOO HOO HOV ONO MOO Ovv OMM HOO HOO HOO ONH BHQ «.ma H.na o.na ¢.na o.¢a m.oa m.~a m.na e.ua >.~H o.~a v.aa «.na m.ua n.na n.na «.aa m.~a Sm «.va n.va .OO .OO .hO .OO .OO .vO .MO .NO .HO .OO .OO .OO .OO .OO .OO .OO .nO .NO .HO .OO .O' 47 N.On H.Om N.O N.O 0.00 NOH OO vH OH ON HvO N\HIHn N\HIO HMO O.NH .OO N.Hv 0.0m N.O 0.0 O.HO OON Oh OH ON mm NmO H N\HIvO HOO 0.0H .Oh N.On 0.0N 0.0 0.0 0.00 ONH Om O OH OH NOO N\H1Hv N\H1v NOO m.NH .OO 0.0m O.Hm 0.0 n.O 0.00 OOH ON O O OH NOv NOv O.NH .hh 0.0m H.ON 0.0 0.0 0.00 OOH NO OH ON NN NOO MH N\HIO OHO 0.0H .Oh o.mc 0.0v 0.0 N.O 0.00 MON MHH mm or Ov HNh th v.OH .Ob m.On O.mN H.O 0.0 0.00 OHH OH v n O Omm N\HIONm ONO N.vH .eh H.Nm m.¢N 0.0 0.0 0.00 nHH Nm O O OH OnN N\HIOH¢ OHv O.mH .mb m.On 0.0N H.O 0.0 O.hO ONH Om O OH NH Mme N\H1vme One O.nH .Nh 0.0n N.ON 0.0 N.O O.nO HNH ON O OH «H .ned mfiv O.NH .Hh N.Om H.ON N.O 0.0 0.00 OOH Nm O O OH MOO env N.OH .05 m e m a a m. m1 9 "Wm T. ,_ a t u m w a e a a m m a Tm new w T. T. u. u. .l . o E .4 d o O a a J H 1. 2.. T. p. T. q... 0 T. 1 J a. ._. . m e n .m e mm mm a p. T. m G 1. O. T. d u 1. n a 1 m a a s a. s e m Au 8 u o e 8 5 E T 0 fl 9 x illl‘llll‘.’ n" a}. .i lull-IIIIII' l: .‘l ‘ .IIIIII l‘l'li'lltl." .I'Ill ..III..III OOOlllua'I'x lull. ill" .‘I'Ill’. I. . l"' I .. I II. l‘-..‘|ll.‘,v .‘ll {1. Illllt. \nl III“I‘.III.I|.III.§"IIII'III .VOSmHuammrl.n CHAIF APPENDIX B RECORDING CARD AND “.4 CHART NUMBER NAME POIDERAL max AGE BONE (cm.~neareat hundredth) HUMERUS .______ 33mm (111.) FEMUR . wxxm (1b.) BIACROMIAL ._______ CHEST WIDTH .______ FAT (mn.) BI—ILIAC . mucus A“ SUBSCAPULAR .MUSCLE (cm.-nearest tenth) Iwmnnc BICEPS .______ mm CAL! _fi .______ non! mu Pm BULLEI (Ponderal Index) SHELDOI (Ponderal Index) SHELDON (ratings by experts) 49 .L/J Lab“ ‘vu Ref.No. Ch.: M gle. .L Tbtal 3 Skirpold Measurements (3 9h 109 118 57 7h 87 9S #5 6o 68 7L» 36 1+8 55 61 29 38 M1 1+7 214» N 35 37 ' 20 2h 27 29 gnfiIm H'N 71‘.“ 80.5 7.67 7.82 10.95 11.16 79-0 5 53 7h 7 T O ...A a 50 HIN .d‘ HMHMHH i l I 1&0 HM «3 HlmHlm-q: ! I HIN m l m m (”Ob-COO N F39! -.'*!""."""‘.’—" 11‘.“ £3.3de did—3.1.3 lE r—lr-ir-ir-lr-lr-l QlQleririrl _:.:.:.:.3.: Fiririririri O O O\O\O\O\ :3mmmmm rirariririri HIN OVDKO QJQJQJ wiriri Ln.:rm Firiri FLA-3' nu nu Al MHO O A! (\I “I . l I: . .Il~r):..| .. a. st . . u .. . u . 1 I . V. . . . . u . . .0 .10J- ‘1. D . .l . o APPENDIX C SILEDUETTE ILLUSTRATIONS PREPARATION OF SILI-DUETTES Twelve sonatotypes found in this study were used in preparation of silhouettes. The twelve somatotypes were 641. 551. 542. 452. 442. 533. 523. 443. 433. 424. 335. and 326. The slides of the selected somatotypes were projected onto cardboard and outlines were drawn directly from the projected torn. Each silhouetted somatotype and descriptive information was then photographed for use in slide form. These graphic illustrations were made for use in the floundation classes at Michigan State University. 52 54 SOMBTOTYPE 641 Hesomorphic Endouorph Body Regions Head. face. neck Thoracic trunk Arms. shoulders. hands Abdominal trunk Legs and feet Others Bomatotype 641 Ponderal Index 11.5 Characteristics Head large Facial features heavy. strong Jaw often prominent Heck fairly long. massive Massive chest Shoulders wide Armn long. well shaped Forearms. wrists with distinct nuscular shaping Wrists thick Waistlins high Abdominal mass predominates Hips broad Thighs 'han" formation Muscular molding patella. calves. ankles Ankles thick Unusually tall muscular strength. skeletal fir-mess for upright posture. erect carriage Age 19 m. w0< 0.: xuoz_ J<1MOZOQ 3‘0 MQ>FOF<§OW 56 30MTOTYPE 551 lbsomorph-Endcmorph 1. Massive features which lack fragility 2. Somatotype 551 falls between a 461 and 641 3 . Rare souatotype Senatotype 551 Ponderal Index 11.9 Age 18 Q m0< m __ xmoz_ JddMQZOQ fin ma>FOF<§Om w» O 58 SOHATOTYPE 542 Mesomorphic—Endomorph Body Regions Head 0 £309 a neck Thoracic trunk Arms. shoulders. hands Abdominal trunk Legs and feet Others SonatOtype—dé;w Ponderal Index 12.6 Characteristics HEad very round Facial features small. not proli- nent Slight facial triangularity possible Nose often sharp. projecting Heck usually short Chest round. soft Trunk long Shoulders high. soft. average width. tendency of squareness Upper arms soft. inflated Forearms meall Arms short. weak Waist relatively high Abdominal preponderance Wide hips Heavy buttocks Trunk long Thighs inflated with “ha-ling" tendency Legs short. weak Body small boned Short stature Age 19 60 SOMATOTYPE 452 Endomorphic-Hbsomorph Body Regions Head. face. neck Thoracic trunk Arms. shoulders. hands Abdominal trunk Legs and feet Others Somatotype 452 Ponderal Index 12.4 Characteristics Head and face square. cube shaped Facial bones and features strong. prominent Jaw square . Cheeks softened. lips full Neck strong. long Chest broad. fairly deep Trunk long Shoulders broad Upper arms well rounded. Arms often long Bone predominate in forearm. wrist softened Trunk long Waist low Abdomen broad. Hips narrow fairly deep Legs long Upper legs well rounded. soft ankle bone predominant Typically energetic. solid. heavy strong Medium height Age 18 61 O_ m0< e. N_ XMQZ. J<¢MOZOQ NOV uQ>FOF<§Ow . A \ 62 SOMATOTYPE 442 Mesomorph-Endomorph Body Regions Head. face. neck Thoracic trunk Arms. shoulders. hands Abdominal trunk Legs and feet Others Balatotype 442 Ponderal Characteristics Head intermediate size Facial appearance squarish race features small. blunt. solid Strong neck Chest well developed. supported Arms moderate length. well muscled. soft contour shoulders rather high. square. strong. not wide Waist thick. low Little athletic taper Efips moderate breadth Trunk fairly long Legs moderate length. well muscled. soft contour Excellent posture Body generally slender young. fills out later Contours rounded and even Highly active Index 12.6 Age 19 63 @— m0< ®.N_ xuoz_ JFOFFOF<§Om 66 SOMATOTYPB 523 Ectonorphic-Endonorph Body Regions Characteristics Head. face. neck Bead round. rather large race soft. round triangular shape Chin'weak nouth shapeless. lips often gap open neck rather slender.lediulxlength. lacks muscular relief Thoracic trunk Trunk short Upper chest slightly flattened Arne. shoulders. hands Shoulders narrow Ectonorphic stoop of shoulders Upper arse show “hanning' Distal segments weak Abdominal trunk Abdomen long. deep. round Waist high with sharp constriction Hourglass effect Legs and feet Thighs show 'hanning‘ Distal sag-outs weak Bolatotype 523 Ponderal Index 12.9 Age 18 67 w uo< mN_ waZ_ JkOF<§Om Body Regions Head. face. neck Thoracic trunk Arms. shoulders. ht“. Abdominal trunk Others 68 SOHATOTYPE 443 Balanced Characteristics Pace. massive tendency racial features blunt Mouth rather large. relaxed Neck often full _ Often small pockmarks mark face Chest round. full Shoulders moderately broad Waist slightly low. little athletic taper Abdomen full. not bulging Weight problem tendencies without diet Acne infection common Mesomorphy shapes body. fixes skeletal framowork Bomatotype 443 Ponderal Index 13.0 Age 19 69 Q u0< 0.9 xwoz_ JFOh<§Om 7O SOMATOTYPE 433 lloderate Endomorph Body Regions Head. face. neck Thoracic trunk Arms. shoulders. hands Abdominal trunk Legs and feet Others Characteristics Round face Chubby cheeks with high color Neck soft Rounded chest tends toward flatness Shoulders narrow Muscle silhouette of deltoid Promimal segments predominate over distal Distal segments appear weak Hands soft Waistline moderately high Abdomen predominant over chest Hourglass appearance in dorsal View Wide hips dySplasia (common) Well muscled thighs Proximal segments predominate over distal segments Distal segments appear weak Soft bodily contours General distribution of curves Bomatotype 433 Ponderal Index 13.1 Age 19 71 m. m0< _.m_ xm02. J<¢MOZOQ mmv UQ>FOF<§OW 72 SOHRTOTYPE 424 Ectonorph-Endomorph Body Regions Characteristics Head. face. neck race round. small features Mbst blush easily Thoracic trunk Chest rather full Arne. shoulders. hands Shoulders high. square. soft Arms soft Abdominal trunk Waist rather high. not pinched Abdomen predominant over chest Hips‘wide Legs and feet Legs soft Sosatotype 424 Ponderal Index 13.3 Age 18 73 m: m0< m, Q xuOZ_ J<¢MOZOQ VNV macrhOHd‘EOm 74 SOHATOTYPE 335 Strong Ectomorph Body Regions Characteristics Arms. shoulders. hands Shoulders fairly wide Abdominal trunk Hips fairly wide Waist low Other Physique highly dysplastic. difficult to distinguish Sharp. lean body features covered lightly with endomorphy Bomatotype 335 Ponderal Index 13.5 Age 20 OOOOO m m,_ meZ_ JFOF<§Om o 76 SOMATOTYPE 326 Endomorphic-Ectomorph Body Regions Characteristics Head. face. neck Face fairly large. round Eyes large. eyelids relaxed. drooping Nbse broad Neck weak Thoracic trunk Upper chest weak. flattened Trunk short Arms. shoulders. hands Shoulders fairly broad Arms rather long. weak Abdominal trunk Trunk short Waistline high Buttocks full Abdomen fully rounded Legs and feet Thighs full. inner aspects weak Legs rather long. weak Others Body lacks muscular relief Bolatotype 326 Ponderal Index 14.0 Age 18 3 ' incl-#133 iii"; {3‘33 TJQ'TY IK‘I ."‘-' :o"fef\'r} ', “'j'.\. v m ‘ Elva“ l w . .11.. ... . .-..-».- 2.“. mix I L..".£.‘\L-J CC." 3 t3 CCLLLGE 0:”- EIJE..'CAT.‘O?~5 "ITIL/ill!@‘E'E’fliillfl'lflllfllS