INFORMATION TO USERS This reproduction was made from a copy of a manuscript sent to us for publication and m icrofilm ing. W hile the most advanced technology has been used to pho­ tograph and reproduce this manuscript, the quality of the reproduction is heavily dependent upon the quality of the material submitted. Pages in any manuscript may have indistinct print. In all cases the best available copy has been filmed. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help clarify notations which may appear on this reproduction. 1. Manuscripts may not always be complete. When it is not possible to obtain missing pages, a note appears to indicate this. 2. When copyrighted materials are removed from the manuscript, a note ap­ pears to indicate this. 3. Oversize materials (maps, drawings, and charts) are photographed by sec­ tioning the original, beginning at the upper left hand comer and continu­ ing from left to right in equal sections w ith small overlaps. Each oversize page is also filmed as one exposure and is available, for an additional charge, as a standard 35m m slide or in black and white paper format. * 4. Most photographs reproduce acceptably on positive microfilm or micro­ fiche but lack clarity on xerographfc copies made from the microfilm. For an additional charge, all photographs are available in black and w hite standard 35m m slide format.* *Formore information about black and white slides or enlarged paper reproductions, please contact the Dissertations Customer Services Department. T TAyf-T Dissertation U 1V 1 1 Information Service University Microfilms international A Bell & Howell Information Company 300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106 8700538 W ils o n , B ra d le y R a y A lla n SO M ATO TYPE, M O R TA LITY, AND M ORBIDITY OF FORMER M ICHIGAN STATE U N IV E R S ITY A TH LETE S AND NONATHLETES Michigan State University University Microfilms international 300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, M l48106 Ph.D. 1986 PLEASE NOTE: In all cases this material has been film ed In the best possible w ay from the available copy. Problems encountered with this docum ent have been identified here with a check mark V 1. Glossy photographs or p a g e s ______ 2. Colored illustrations, paper or p rin t_______ 3. Photographs with d ark b a ckg ro u n d _____ 4. Illustrations are poor c o p y _______ 5. Pages with black marks, not original c o p y _______ 6. Print shows through as there is text on both sides of p a g e ________ 7. Indistinct, broken or small print on several pages. 8. Print exceeds m argin requirem ents_______ 9. Tightly bound copy with print lost in s p in e________ 10. Computer printout pages with indistinct print_______ 11. P a g e(s)_____________lacking when material received, and not available from school o r author. 12. Page(s) 13. Two pages num bered 14. Curling and w rinkled pages 15. Dissertation contains pages with print at a slant, filmed as received 16. Other . seem to b e missing in numbering only as text follows. . Text follows. University Microfilms International SOMATOTYPE, MORTALITY, AND MORBIDITY OF FORMER MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY ATHLETES AND NONATHLETES By Bradley Ray A llan Wilson A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan S tate U n iversity 1n p a rtia l f u lfillm e n t of the requirements fo r the degree of DOCTOR OF FHILOSOPHY School of Health Education, Counseling Psychology, and Human Performance 1986 ABSTRACT SOMATOTYPE, MORTALITY, AND MORBIDITY OF FORMER MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY ATHLETES AND NONATHLETES By Bradley Ray A llan Wilson The purpose of th is study was to evaluate the e ffe c t of d i f f e r ­ en t measures of body b u ild on m o rta lity and m orbidity. w t/h t, Somatotype, w t/h t2 (body mass Index), w t/h t? , and h t / 3 / w t (ponderal index) were considered. Seven hundred sixty-seven subjects who had attended Michigan S ta te U n iv e rs ity before 1938 were used fo r th is study. consisted o f 398 a th le te s and 369 nonathletes. This group A somatotype was predicted fo r each subject, and the fo u r h e ig h t/w e ig h t measures were calcu lated using heigh t and weight w h ile 1n co lleg e. The analyses In d ica ted th a t a th le te s were more mesomorphic and less ectomorphic than nonathletes. When longevity was considered, a th le tic is m was not a good predictor. s t a t is t ic a lly s ig n ific a n t p red icto r. Somatotype, however, was a The endomorphic group was sh orter liv e d than the other three groups. When the q u a n tita tiv e v a ria b le s were compared, only w t/h t was a s t a t is t ic a lly s ig n ific a n t p red icto r o f longevity. When nonathletes Bradley Ray A llan Wilson were considered, none of the h e ig h t/w e ig h t v a ria b le s was s ig n ific a n t. Only 1n th e a th le te group was h t /w t a s t a t is t i c a l ly s ig n ific a n t predic­ to r of lo n g evity. The re la tio n s h ip of somatotype and coronary arte ry disease (CAD) and cancer was also examined. No s ig n ific a n t re la tio n s h ip s were found In these lim ite d data U n k in g a s p e c ific somatotype group to CAD or cancer. To my w ife* ii Frances. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Deep appreciation 1s expressed to Dr. Wayne Van Huss fo r his In s p ira tio n * guidance* and support throughout my graduate program. Special thanks 1s extended to Dr. Herbert Olson fo r his tim e and patience In the preparation of th is d is se rta tio n and to Dr. Homer Sprague fo r sharing his s t a tis tic a l expertise. G ratitu d e 1s given to Dr. Henry Montoye fo r his expert advice and In s ig h t and to Dr. Je ffrey Taylor fo r his valuable Input and support. Recognition 1s offered to Mark McCullen fo r his computerprogramming assistance and to Ron Carda fo r his help 1n keeping the large amount of data organized. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TA B L E S .................................................................................................... v1 LIST OF FIGURES......................................................................................................... v111 Chapter I. II. III. IV . THE PROBLEM............................................................................................ 1 Statement of the P r o b le m .......................................................... S ignificance of the Study .......................................................... L im itatio ns of the Study .......................................................... 3 3 4 REVIEW OF LITERATURE....................................................................... 5 The Longevity of A thletes .......................................................... Somatotype, M o rtality# and M orbidity ................................. Measures o f Body B u i l d .............................................................. Height D e c re m e n t........................................................................... Summary............................................................................................... 5 11 17 23 26 RESEARCH METHODS................................................................................ 27 Source of D a t a ............................................................................... S election of Sam ple...................................................................... Determination of Somatotypes ..................................... D escription of the S ta t is tic a l Analyses ................................ 27 28 30 32 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION................................................................... 34 Somatotype and A thlete/N onathlete Comparison ................. The R elationship of Somatotype and A thleticism to L o n g e v ity ....................................................................................... Somatotype and Longevity Comparisons ................................. Height and Weight Measures andLongevity Comparisons . Somatotype and Coronary A rtery Disease Comparisons . . Somatotype and Cancer Comparisons .......................................... 34 iv 36 39 41 46 46 Page V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS.............................. 49 Summary...................................................................... * .................... C onclusions....................................................................................... Recommendations............................................................................... 49 50 50 APPENDICES............................................................................................................ 52 A. BREAKDOWN OF ATHLETE SUBJECTS BY S P O R T.................................. 53 B. QUESTIONNAIRES (1952, 1960, 1968, 1976,1984) ......................... 55 C. STATISTICAL ANALYSES....................................................................... 75 REFERENCES............................................................................................................ 85 v LIST OF TABLES Summary of A th le te Longevity Studies: Comparisons With Population Data ........................................................................ 7 Summary of A th le te Longevity Studies: Comparisons With Control Groups ........................................................................ 9 Physical Groupings 1n th e Control Group and the Coronary Disease Group .................................................................... 12 Frequency of Coronary A therosclerosis and Myocardial In fa r c tio n o f Three C onstituent Types 1n Percentage o f th e Total of the Respective Groups .................................. 14 Scmatotypes Which Are H ighly Associated With Selected Diseases ................................................................................................. 16 Diseases Which Are H ighly Associated With Selected Body C h a ra c te ris tic s ................................................................................ 19 Mean Annual Height Decrements (mm) o f Males Over Decades From 25 to 85 Years 1n Two Welsh Communities ..................... 25 Overview of the Michigan S ta te Longevity Study ...................... 29 Somatotype C o rre la tio n M a trix ....................................................... 37 Two-Way Cross-Tabulation of the Degree o f Endcmorphy and Mesomorphy .................................................................................... 38 Two-Way Cross-Tabulation of the Degree o f Endomorphy and Ectomorphy .................................................................................... 38 Two-Way Cross-Tabulation o f th e Degree o f Mesomorphy and Ectomorphy • » * ■ • * • • * • • • • * • * * * • * * 39 C o rre la tio n s of Height/W eight V a ria b le s With L ife Table Age of th e 736 Subjects ............................................................... 44 vi Page 4 .6 4 .7 C orrelations of Height/Weight V ariables With L ife Table Age of the 384 A t h l e t e s .............................................................. 45 C orrelations o f Height/Weight V ariables With L ife Table Age of the 354 N o n a th le te s .......................................................... 45 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2.1 3.1 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4 .6 Page Association of M o rta lity Ratio With Pondera! Index fo r Men Ages 40 to 4 9 .................................................................. 20 One Example of the 88 D iffe re n t Graphs and Data Presented In A tlas of M en......................................................... 31 Degree of the Three Somatotype Components of A thletes and N o n a th le te s ............................................................................... 35 Average Age a t Death of the Four Somatotype Groups With A ll S u b je c ts ........................................................................... 40 Average Age a t Death of the Four Somatotype Groups With A t h le t e s ................................................................................... 42 Average Age a t Death of the Four Somatotype Groups With N o n a th le te s .......................................................................... 43 Percentage of Deaths From Coronary Artery Disease of the Four Somatotype G r o u p s ...................................................... 47 Percentage of Deaths From Cancer of the Four Somatotype G r o u p s ............................................................................................... 48 • • # V I I I CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM Studies th a t have Investigated the e ffe c ts of somatotype on m o rta lity and m orbidity have been lim ite d 1n number and scope. Only one previous study (15) has considered somatotype and longevity 1n d e ta il. I t showed th a t men who liv e d to be 70* 75, or 80 years old were s ig n ific a n tly less endomorphic (p < .01) when they were 1n co lleg e. Several studies have been conducted th a t focused on somatotype and cause of death (16* 25* 67* 88* 90* 98* 99* 100)* bu t th e s e have been p rim a rily lim ite d to coronary a rte ry disease (CAD). One In v e s ti­ gation Indicated the endomorphs as more H k e ly to have CAD (67). Meso­ morphs were more highly co rrela ted w ith CAD 1n two studies (25* 99)* and both endomorphs and mesomorphs were found to be a t higher ris k of CAD In th ree studies (16* 98* 100). Therefore, the somatotype which Is most clo sely linked to CAD has not been c le a rly Indicated a t th is tim e. Somatotype 1s also a major consideration 1n the long 11st of a th le te /n o n a th le te longevity studies. The reports from the three major studies have found Inconsistent re s u lts . Paffenbarger e t a l. (63* 64) found th a t a th le te s were favored fo r longevity when they studied pre­ vious students from the U n iv ersity of Pennsylvania and Harvard 1 2 U n iv ersity . However, Polednak and Damon (74) and Polednak (70, 71, 72) found th a t major a th le te s were shortest liv e d when studying previous students from Harvard U n iv e rs ity . In th e th ird major study, Involving previous Michigan S tate U n iversity students, Montoye, Van Huss, and Neval (5 5 ), Montoye e t a l . (5 6 ), Montoye (5 3 ), Olson e t a l. (6 1 ), and Olson (60) found no s ig n ific a n t differences between the longevity of a th letes and nonathletes. Since a th le te s tend to be more mesomorphic (9 , 7 4 ), somatotype could have been the confounding v a ria b le 1n these s tu d ie s (9 1 , 92). Several studies have been conducted to determine the best measure of body composition to use to p red ict longevity. One study determined th a t the body mass Index, w t/h t2 was a b e tte r p red icto r of m o rta lity than r e la tiv e weight (21). Two other studies found th a t m o rta lity was higher a t the upper and lower extremes of the Indexes considered. One study used the ponderal Index (89), and the other used w t/h t2 (107). When body composition Indexes were used to p re d ic t CAD, l i t t l e consistency was found. Three studies using male subjects found no good predictors of CAD (42, 45, 48). However, th ree other studies found w t/h t2 to be associated w ith the development of CAD (11, 32, 78). In several studies conducted by Paffenbarger and associates, relatio n sh ip s between CAD and ponderal index (63 , 65) and w t/h t2 x 1000 (62) were found. Two problems existed. F ir s t , these studies were not compared w ith somatotype to determine I f somatotype was a b e tte r method. Second, no good evidence was shown to specify any measure as a good p red icto r of longevity. 3 Statement of the Problem The purpose of th is study was to determine the e ffe c ts of somatotype on m o rta lity and m orbidity. The somatotypes were determined by using height and weight data obtained from a set of fo u r question­ naires from the 1952 Longevity and M orbidity of College A thletes study. These weights and heights were used to c a lc u la te a ponderal Index a t each age the Inform ation was a v a ila b le fo r each subject. The ponderal Indexes and ages fo r each In d ivid u a l were compared with the set of 88 somatotype welght-galn patterns presented 1n the Atlas o f Men by Sheldon* Dupertuls# and McDermott (94) to a rriv e a t a somatotype ra tin g fo r th a t In d iv id u a l. Other measures of body composition were also calcu lated fo r comparison with somatotype. This study was conducted 1n order to provide more Inform ation about the follow ing Issues: 1. Which somatotype grouping has the greatest m o rtality? 2. Which somatotype groupings are co rrelated w ith the d iffe r e n t causes of death? 3. Does a th le tic status account fo r s ig n ific a n t v a ria tio n 1n longevity when considered with somatotype? 4. Which measure of body composition or body stru ctu re 1s the best pred icto r of m o rtality? S ignificance of the. Studv The resu lts of th is study provide insights In to p o ten tia l health problems of In d ivid u als based on t h e ir somatotype and body 4 composition. This Inform ation may help In d iv id u a ls determine and ta rg e t behaviors th a t they w i l l need to modify 1n order to prevent and In terven e 1n s p e c ific health ris k s . I t also Id e n t ifie s the value of other measurements of body composition 1n Id e n tify in g ris k s . By determ ining th e ro le of somatotype 1n lo n g e v ity , th is In v e s tig a tio n adds In form atio n to the pool of knowledge r e la tin g to the a t h le t e / nonathlete lo n g evity stu d ies. L im itatio n s of th e Study 1. In the o rig in a l survey 1n 1952 th ere was a la rg e number of nonrespondents, which is a possible bias 1n th e data. 2. The subjects were lim ite d to male students who attended Michigan S tate U n iv e rs ity before 1938. Many of these In d iv id u a ls came from a g ric u ltu ra l backgrounds, which 1s a source of b ias. 3. Any subjects who died of war or catastro p h ic causes were deleted from the study. 4. The v a lid it y of the responses 1n a mailed q u estion naire 1s a p o te n tia l source o f b ias. 5. Because of the need fo r s p e c ific In fo rm atio n , only subjects responding to the 1968 q u estion naire were considered. 6. v a l1dated. The method o f c la s s ify in g somatotypes has not been CHAPTER I I REVIEW OF LITERATURE The major purpose of th is study 1s to determine whether somatotype can be co rrelated w ith m o rta lity or m orbidity. Since the population th a t was tested consisted o f a th le te s and nonathlete con­ tr o ls who graduated from Michigan S tate U niversity* the f i r s t section 1s a summary of a th le te longevity studies. Section two focuses on somatotype and m o rta lity and somatotype and m orbidity. Due to the d i f f ic u lt y of determining somatotypes* section th re e considers a lte rn a ­ t iv e methods of ra tin g body stru ctu re or body composition. Because of the lim ite d data a v a ila b le from th is lo n g itudinal study* the reported height 1n 1960 must be used fo r the ages from 23 to 63. Therefore* a summary of helght-decrement studies 1s Included 1n section fo u r. The Longevity of Athletes Many studies have been conducted th a t Investigated whether or not p a rtic ip a tio n 1n a th le tic s increases the length of l i f e . Two good reviews of these studies are a v a ila b le and were w ritte n by Polednak (73) and Stephens e t a l. (101). Although many co n tro lled studies have been completed* the evidence 1s not c le a r whether a th letes or non­ a th le te controls have a favored longevity. 5 6 In the review presented by Stephens e t al. (101)/ a summary of a th le te longevity studies compared with population data was outlined (Table 2.1). Of the 17 studies/ 16 favored g reater a th le te longevity. However/ these studies were c r it ic iz e d fo r not using adequate control groups. Table 2.2 summarizes the a th le te longevity studies conducted with control groups; Of these 15 reports/ a th le te s were favored In three. Four major studies u t iliz in g control subjects have been reported The I n i t i a l In v es tig a tio n by Rook (80) 1n 1941 showed th a t honors men liv e d longer than athletes. been reported and students/ Three more recent studies have Surveying pre-1938 Michigan S tate U n iversity letterm en Montoye/ Van Huss/ and Neval (55)/ Montoye e t al. (56)/ Montoye (53)/ Olson e t al. (61)/ and Olson (60) found no s ig n ific a n t differences between a th letes and nonathletes. In general/ nonathletes were favored but the differences were not s ig n ific a n t. al. Paffenbarger e t (63/ 64) studied students and v a rs ity a th letes who attended the U n iversity of Pennsylvania and Harvard U n iversity between 1921 and 1950. These studies favored a th le te s fo r longevity. Polednak and Damon (74) and Polednak (70/ 71/ 72) researched major a th le te s / minor ath letes/ and nonathletes from Harvard U n iversity between 1880 and 1916. Major a th le te s were found to be the shortest liv ed . These three studies a ll found d iffe r e n t conclusions. In response to these ath le te /n o n a th le te studies/ Sheehan (91/ 92) proposed th a t the major d ifferen ce may be due to somatotype and not a t h le t ic competition. C arter (9) reviewed the d iffe r e n t somatotypes of Table 2 . 1.--luminary o f a th le te longevity studies: Comparisons w ith population data (Trom Stephens et a l . , I 9 8 M . In v e s tig a to r Tear Examined P o p u la tio n Humber Comparison P a p u la tio n F in d in g s Comments Morgan (57) 1 8 7} 1829-1859 O x fo rd and Cambridge U n iv e r s ity oarsmen 251 O r, F a r r 's E n g lis h L i f e T a b le s A th le te s fa v o re d By 2 .0 y e a rs H eylan (5 1) 190b 1852-1892 H arva rd U n iv e r s it y oarsmen 152 S tand ard m o r t a l i t y ta b le s A th le te s fa v o re d By 2.8B y e a rs C aines and H u n te r (37) 1906 P re-1905 T a le U n iv e r s it y a th le te s In su ra n ce ta b le s A th le te s fa v o re d M o r t a l i t y r a t i o A92 Anderson (2 ) 1916 1855-1905 T a le U n iv e r s it y a th le te s 80S A c tu a r ia l S o c ie ty T a b le (AST) and A m erica n T a b le (AT) A th le te s fa v o re d AST m o r t a l i t y r a t i o 522 AT m o r t a l i t y r a t i o k63 H ilt 1927 1800-1888 B r i t i s h c r i c k e t p la y e rs 3,62*1 E n g lis h L i f e T a b le Ho. 6 and E n g lis h L i f e T a b le No. 8 A th le te s fa v o re d S ig n ific a n t a t a l t ages, a l l com pariso ns D u b lin (1 9 ) 1928 1&90-1905 a th le te s fro m 10 e a s te rn A m erican c o l 1eges 6 ,9 7 6 M e d ic o -A c tu a ria l T a b le (HA) and A m erican Men T a b le o f M o r t a l i t y (AHTH) A th le te s fa v o re d HA m o r t a l i t y r a t i o 93 .22 amth m o r t a l i t y r a t i o 9 '-5 2 Need and lo v e (7 9) 1931 >901 ( I n s e r v lc e ) - 1 9 l6 (com m lsstoned b e fo re ) West P o in t M i l i t a r y Academy o f f i c e r s Am erican Hen T a b le o f M o r t a l i t y and West P o in t o f f ic e r s A th le te s fa v o re d By .2 5 * 1 .2 5 ye a rs C ooper, 0 'S u t lI v a n and Hughes (12) 1937 Ormand C o lle g e ( A u s t r a lia oarsmen) A u s tr a lia n In s u ra n c e T a b le (A IT ) A th le te s fa v o re d M o r t a l i t y r a t i o 7 5 . '2 (3 5) U n s p e c ifie d U n s p e c ifie d (T o ta l S tudy H " 6 ,9 9 l) 100 Table 1 .1 .—Continued. In v e s tlg a to r Tear H a r t le y and L le w e lly n ( J l ) 1939 1879-1978 O x fo rd and Cambridge U n iv e r s it y oarsmen W a k e fie ld (108) 1966 1911-1935 In d ia n a h ig h s cho ol b a s k e tb a ll p la y e rs Schmid (6 5) 1957 1B61-1800 C re c h o s lo v a k la n a th le t e s Pomeroy and W h ite (7 5) 1958 Karvonen (*>0) P y o ra la e t a l . Examined P o p u la tio n Number C om parison P o p u la tio n F in d in g s 6 s ta n d a rd m o r t a l i t y ta b le s (Mm. Qm, X ^ + A , A) A th le te s U n ite d S ta te s Bureau o f Census l i f e ta b le s A th le te s fa v o re d M o r t a l i t y r a t i o 6 7 .9 7 600 G eneral p o p u la tio n n o n a th le te s A th le te s fa v o re d By B .6 6 -1 .6 6 y e a rs 1900-1930 H arva rd U n iv e r s it y f o o t b a l l le tte rm e n 676 i 960 g e n e ra l M a ssachuse tts p o p u la tio n and o th e r H a rva rd g ra d u a te s U n s p e c ifie d A th le te - p o p u la t Io n com pariso n n o t p o s s ib le ; c o ro n a ry group engaged in le s s v ig o ro u s and h a b itu a l e x e rc is e *959 P re -1 9 3 0 F in n is h champion s k ie r s 3B8 1931-1960 and 1951-1955 g e n e ra l m ale F in n is h p o p u la tio n and 1969-1953 In s u ra n c e p o p u la tio n A th le te s fa v o re d By 6 -7 y e a rs o v e r 1931-1960; s m a lle r d iffe r e n c e s o v e r 19511953; n o n s ig n if ic a n t d iffe r e n c e s w it h In s u ra n c e p o p u la tio n 1967 F in n is h lo n g d is ta n c e ru n n e rs and s k ie r s Randomly s e le c te d F in n is h p o p u la tIo n A th le te s fa v o re d Have a h ig h e r de gree o f a c t i v i t y ; m o r ta lity r a t t o com parlso n n o t made Schnohr (8 6 . 67) 1971 1977 IBB0-1910 D anish champion a th le te s 297 G eneral m ale p o p u la tio n A th le te s fa v o re d M o r t a l i t y r a t i o t o age 5 0 . 61 7; m o r t a l i t y r a t i o p o s t age 50, 108-1097 Karvonen e t a l . ( 61) 1976 F in n is h cham pion s k ie r s b o rn 1865-1910 396 G eneral mate p a p u la tio n A th le te s fa v o re d 8y 3 *6 y e a rs M e tr o p o lita n L i f e (JO) 1975 1876-1973 m a jo r league b a s e b a ll p la y e rs G eneral p o p u la tio n (w h ite m a le s) o f th e Uni te d S ta te s A th le te s fa v o re d 1676-1900 m o r t a l i t y r a t i o 10)7 1901-1973 m o r t a l i t y r a t i o 713 (77) 767 7 .9 1 9 93 6 ,7 5 3 fa v o re d to rm e n ts P e rio d P e rio d P e rio d P e rio d 1 2 ) k r o r ta llty m o r ta lity m o r ta lity m o r ta lity r a tio r a tio r a tio r a tio 87.81 76.77 85.17 93-57 T ib le 2 . ! . — Sunntry of a th le te longevity studies: Comparisons w ith control groups (from Stephens et a t . , 19B4) , In v e s tig a to r T e ar Examined P o p u la tio n GreertMsy and H ls c o c k (29) 1926 P ost-1 904 T a le U n iv e r s it y le tte rm e n Number 686 4 ,9 7 8 C om parison P o p u la tio n 19 05-1 92} T a le U n iv e r s it y no nte tte rm e n Number F in d in g s C e m e n ts 9>21 Cent r o t s fa v o re d A c tu a l t o e x p e cte d de aths ( t ) : c o n t r o ls 631 ■ V men 9 3 * Honors men Ic o n t r o ls ) fa v o re d C e n t r a lly by 2 y e a rs — o v e r b o th a t h le t e s and o th e r s tu d e n ts (n o n s ig ­ n ific a n t) Honors men (co n­ t r o l s ) fa v o re d ; random g roup ( c o n t r o ls ) no d iffe r e n c e Honors men by 1 .5 y e a rs — o v e r b o th a th le t e s and o ch e r s tu d e n ts 563 No d if f e r e n c e age a t d e a th ) ( In 122 deceased P re -1 9 3 8 M ic h ig a n S ta te U n iv e r s e ly s tu d e n ts 563 No d if f e r e n c e ( In age a t d e a th ) 206 deceased P re-1938 M ic h ig a n S la te U n iv e r s it y s tu d e n ts 563 N o n a th le te s fa v o re d 8y 2 y e a rs (n o n ­ s ig n ific a n t) 1870-1905 e a s te rn A m erican c o lle g e (63 le tte rm e n D u b lin (2 0) 19]2 1870-1905 e a s te rn A m erican c o lle g e le tte rm e n Rook ( 8a) 1941 1860-1300 Cambridge U n iv e r s it y a th le t e s 722 1B60-1900 Cambridge U n iv e r s it y h o nors and ra n d a n g ra d u a te s Montoye e t a l . (5 6 ) 1957 P re -t9 3 B M ic h ig a n S ta te U n iv e r s it y le tte rm e n 62B P re -1938 M ic h ig a n S ta te U n iv e r s it y s tu d e n ts Montoye e t a l . (55) 1962 P re-1938 M ic h ig a n S ta te U n iv e r s ity le tte rm e n 626 Montoye (5 4) 1967 P re-1938 M ic h ig a n S ta te U n iv e r s it y le tte rm e n 628 38 ,2 6 9 374 (h o n o rs ) 336 (random) fa b le 2 . Z.--Continued. Humber Comparison P o p u la tio n In v e s t I g a t o r Year Eaemlned P o p u la tio n P e l fe n b a rg e r e t * 1 . (6 3 ) 1966 I9 H - 1 9 5 0 U n iv e r s it y o l P e n n s y lv a n ia and H arva rd U n iv e r s ity v a r s it y a th le t e s 6] 1921-1950 U n iv e r s it y o f P e n n s y lv a n ia and H arva rd U n iv e r s it y s tu d e n ts 590 A th le te s fa v o re d ( I n c o ro n a ry h e a r t d e a th s ) M o r ta lity r a t i o * . 6 P a ffe n b a rg e r e l e l . (6 M 1967 1921-1950 U n iv e r s it y o f P e n n s y lv a n ia and H arva rd U n iv e r s it y v a r s it y a t h le t e s lie .1921-1950 U n iv e r s it y o f P e n n s y lv a n ia and H a rva rd U n iv e r s it y S tu d e n ts 655 A th le te s fa v o re d ( I n f a t a l s tr o k e ) M o r ta lity r a t i o * . 6 P olednak end Damon U 1*) 1970 1880-1916 H a rv a rd U n iv e r s ity le tte rm e n (m a jo r a t h t e le s ) 177 1880-1916 H arva rd U n iv e r s it y s tu d e n ts (m in o r and n o n a t h le t e s ) 275 (m in o r) I6 J 8 (non) H In o r a t h le t e s fa v o re d M a jo r a t h le t e s s h o r te s t liv e d P olednak (7 0 . 7 1 . 72) 1972 1680-1916 H arva rd U n iv e r s it y le tte rm e n (m a jo r a t h le t e s ) 668 18 B O -I9I6 H a rva rd U n iv e r s it y s tu d e n ts (m in o r and non­ a t h le t e s ) 1501 (m in o r) 6136 (non) H In o r a th le te s and n o n a th le te s fa v o re d By 1-3 y e a rs 01 io n e l a l , (60) 1972 P re -1 9 )8 M ic h ig a n S ta te U n iv e r s ity le tte rm e n 628 P re - t9 J ft M ic h ig a n S ta te U n iv e r s it y s tu d e n ts 56) H o n a th le te s fa v o re d By 1 ,k y e a rs ( n o n s ig n if ic a n t ) P ro u t 1972 1882-1902 H a rva rd and Y a le U n iv e r s it y crews 172 IB 6 2 -I9 0 2 H a rva rd and Y a le U n iv e r s it y s tu d e n ts 172 A th le te s By 6 .2 k -6 .3 5 y e a rs ( s ig n ific a n t) 1976 P re -l9 J 8 M ic h ig a n S ta te U n iv e r s ity le tte rm e n 628 P r e - I9 j8 H lc h lo a n S ta te U n iv e r s ity s tu d e n ts 563 H o n a th le te s fa v o re d (76) 01 to n e t a l . (61) Humber F in d in g s fa v o re d Cooments By 1 .8 6 y e a rs ( n o n s lg n if ic a n t ) 11 a th le te s and has reported somatotype differen ces among the d iffe r e n t sports. In general* the a th letes were more mesomorphic. In a study by Polednak and Damon (74)* a th le te s were found to be more mesomorphic and endomorphic than nonathletes, In order to Id e n tify whether a th le tic competition or somatotype 1s responsible fo r Increased or decreased longevity* a co n tro lled study comparing a th le te s and nonathletes w ith known somatotypes 1s needed, Somatotype. M o rta lity , and M orbidity H is to ric a lly * science has had an In te re s t 1n c la s s ify in g humans by body structures Hippocrates wasth e f i r s t s c ie n tis t on record to develop a system of ra tin g human physique (1*83). Since his tim e 1n ancient Greece* many researchers have attempted to develop useful ra tin g systems. Hie most widely accepted method 1n the United States was developed by W. K. Sheldon (93). His ra tin g system focuses on three basic body types— endomorph* mesomorph* and ectomorph— which were derived from the three embryologlcal layers— endoderm* mesoderm* and ectoderm* respectively. Each In divid ual 1s rated on a scale from 1 to 7 In each of the three somatotypes. Many European researchers have follow ed th e system developed by Ernest Kretschmer. He preceded Sheldon and developed a method using th ree body types— pyknic* l e t i c (47). leptosome ( la te r c a lle d asthenic)* and ath­ Hie problem w ith Kretschmer's system 1s th a t 1 t Is lim ite d to th ree body types. There 1s no continuous d is trib u tio n of physiques as w ith Sheldon's system. Although the pyknlcs and endomorphs are s im ila r* the asthenlcs and ectomorphs are s im ila r* and the a th le tic s 12 and mesomorphs are sim ila r* these are very d iffe r e n t ra tin g systems and cannot be compared d ire c tly . I n i t i a l l y the ra tin g of somatotypes was used by psychologists. Then 1n 1951 G e rtle r e t al. (25* 26) studied 100 patients between 23 and 40 years of age who had had a myocardial In fa r c tlo a They found th a t the coronary a rte ry disease (CAD) group was predominantly meso­ morphic and contained few ectomorphic subjects (Table 2.3). This was follow ed by a postmortem study conducted by Spain* Bradess* and Huss (99). T h eir subjects Included 111 consecutive deaths of w hite males under the age of 46. In fa r c tlo a Of the 111, 38 had died of sudden myocardial This group of 38 contained 24 mesomorphs* 3 ectomorphs* 3 endomorphs* and 8 mixed When considering the other 73 who had sudden v io le n t deaths* a greater degree of CAD was found 1n dominant meso­ morphs These studies seem to in d ic a te a g reater ris k of CAD by meso­ morph s. Table 2 .3 .— Physical groupings 1n th e control group and th e coronary disease group (From G e rtle r e t a l.* 1951). Control Group (%) Endomorph Mesomorph Ectomorph Others T o ta l 29 19 22 30 100 CAD Group (36) 26 42 7 25 100 13 Conversely# Paul e t a l. (67) studied over 2*000 employees of the Hawthorne Works of the Western E le c tric Company and found dominance 1n the endomorphic component to be s ig n ific a n t (p < .01) In coronary cases. In the same year (1963)* Spain* Nathan* and G e lH s (100) pub­ lished a study on 5*000 white Jewish males between the ages of 36 and 65. They found endomesomorphs to be three tim es more lik e ly to have CAD than ectomorphs. Using subjects from the Framingham Study* Damon e t a l. (16) compared 198 men w ith CAD and 1*427 men w ithout CAD. men with CAD were more endomorphic and mesomorphic. CAD were more ectomorphic. The The men w ithout These studies tend to Include endomorphs with the mesomorphs fo r Increased ris k of CAD. In another postmortem study by Spain* Bradess* and G reenblatt (98)* mesomorphy* endomorphy* and mixed were a l l p o s itiv e ly co rrelated w ith CAD. Only the ectomorphs did not c o rre la te . This study agrees with the others th a t ectomorphs are less H k e ly to s u ffe r from CAD. A s im ila r study was conducted on CAD In Germany by Schonfelder and Zschoch (88). Using Kretschmer's categories of body stru ctu re* they found moderate and severe CAD to be more frequent 1n pyknic In d ivid u a ls than a th le tic and leptosome In d ivid u a ls (Table 2.4). Pyknlcs also suffered more acute In fa rc ts and coronary In su fficie n cy * w h ile a th le tic s and leptosomes survived primary myocardial In fa rc tio n s b e tte r than the pyknlcs. This study im plicates In d ivid u als w ith large amounts of body f a t as more prone to CAD than In d ivid u a ls with a large muscle mass. T a b le 2 . 4 . --F re q u e n c y o f c o ro n a ry a th e r o s c le r o s is and m y o c a rd ia l I n f a r c t i o n o f th r e e c o n s t i t u t i o n ty p e s In p e rc e n ta g e o f th e t o t a l o f th e re s p e c tiv e g ro u p s (From S c h o n fe id e r a Zschoch, 19 6 7 ). leptosom e H ale Female Female T o ta l 7 Ho. 7 Ho. X Ho. X Ho. t 83 10 0.0 165 100.0 106 100.0 251 100.0 260 10 0.0 356 100.0 616 10 0.0 2 1 .8 22 1 2 .0 8 5 -5 22 2 0 .7 30 1 1 .9 7 2 .6 46 1 2 .3 51 8 .2 33 6 0 .0 89 6 8 .6 67 32 .6 57 5 3 .7 106 61 .6 95 3 6 .5 190 5 3 .3 285 6 6 .2 4B.4 10 18.1 72 39-3 90 6 2 .0 27 2 5 .6 117 6 6 .6 158 6 0 .7 122 3 6 .2 280 6 5 .6 20 1 5 .6 3 5 .6 23 1 2 .5 66 3 0 .3 11 10.3 55 2 1 .9 96 36.1 69 13.7 163 2 3 .2 2 1 .5 1 t.B 3 1 .6 11 7 .5 — — ll 6 .3 33 1 2 .6 21 5 .8 56 8 .7 10 7 .8 2 3 .6 12 6 .5 19 13.1 6 3 .7 23 9.1 36 1 3 .8 13 3 .6 69 7 .9 8 6 .2 — 8 6 .3 16 9 .6 7 6 .6 21 B.3 25 9 .6 15 6 .2 60 6 .6 12 6 .5 26 17.9 7 6 .6 33 13-1 56 2 1 .5 36 9 .5 90 1 4 .6 1 0 .5 2 1.3 — — 2 0 .7 6 2 .3 3 0 .8 9 1 .6 12 6 .5 12 8 .2 10 9 .6 22 8 .7 55 21.1 51 16.3 106 12.2 55 100.0 W ith o u t c o ro n a ry a th e r o s c le r o s is 10 7 .8 12 L ig h t c o ro n a ry a th e r o s c le r o s is 56 0 -7 Heavy c o ro n a ry a th e r o s c le r o s is 62 H y o c a rd ta l I n f a r c t s F a ta l I n f a r c t s H ale Ho. 100.0 Hore m a tu re I n f a r c t s T o ta l t 12B O ld I n f a r c t s Female Hate Ho. X I F resh I n f a r c t s T o ta l 1 Ho. Ho. T o ta l number o f cases P y k n ic A th le tic II 8 .5 1 A c u te c o ro n a ry In s u f f ic ie n c y 1 0 .7 — C l i n i c a l h y p e r* te n s io n 5 3 .9 7 — l.B — 1 2 .7 Ho. 15 In a longevity study, Damon (15) looked a t 2,450 previous students from Harvard U n iversity. He found th a t the men who liv e d to be 70# 75# or 80 years old were s ig n ific a n tly less endomorphic (p < .01) when they were 1n college. These same In d ivid u als were also less mesomorphic# but th is was not s ig n ific a n t. Several studies have been conducted th a t looked a t the relatio n sh ip between serum cholesterol lev els and somatotype. Since elevated serum cholesterol has been linked to CAD (38# 39# 84)# these studies can be rela te d to the studies previously mentioned. Tanner (104) studied serum cholesterol and physique. In 1951 He found serum cholesterol le v e ls to be co rrelated only to the endomorphic component. The serum cholesterol was rela te d by 10.7 mg cholesterol fo r each u n it ratin g 1n endomorphy. 146 controls. G e rtle r and White (27) studied 97 mesomorphs and The mesomorphs had more CAD proportionately# and among those w ith CAD mesomorphs had higher plasma cholesterol lev els . eral years la t e r G e rtle r e t a l. Sev­ (28) found coronary-prone In d ivid u als to be more mesomorphic and also to have higher serum cholesterol le v e ls . They also found coronary-prone in d ivid u als to be older# to be shorter# to have higher u ric acid and phospholipid levels# to have higher blood pressures# and to have more mothers and fa th e rs who had CAD. In 1967 G e rtle r (24) showed an association between mesomorphy and elevated serum cholesterol lev els . He also showed a re latio n sh ip between mesomorphy and Ischemic heart disease. One In v e s tig a tio n on lip id metabolism and somatotype was conducted on children 1n 16 Czechoslovakia. Among 414 ch ildren th e re were no differen ces In U p ld metabolism between the d iffe r e n t somatotypes of boys or g ir ls C36). Several studies considered th e re la tio n s h ip between physique and tuberculosis (3* 8, 22). The ectomorphic component was most closely co rrelated w ith th is In fectio u s disease. This was grounds fo r Burr and Damon (7) to study the d ifferen ce 1n eosinophil count w ith d iffe r e n t physiques. No s ig n ific a n t differen ce between eosinophil count and scmatotype was found. When considering th e m orbidity of the d iffe r e n t somatotypes# S e ltz e r and Mayer (90) reported th a t mesomorphs and endomesomorphs are more susceptible to CADj w h ile the ectomorphs are more susceptible to tuberculosis. This Is consistent w ith previous findings; Other relatio n sh ip s are shown 1n Table 2 .5 . Table 2 .5 .— Somatotypes which are highly associated with selected diseases (Adapted frcm S e ltz e r & Mayer# 1966). D1sease Tubercul os1 s Coronary arte ry disease O s te o a rth rltl s Rheumatoid a r t h r i t i s G all bladder disease Uterus cancer (women) Breast cancer (women) Endometrial cancer (women) Meniere's disease (women) (men) Obesity Scmatotype Ectomorph Mesomorph and endomesanorph Endomorph Ectomorph and mesomorph Endomorphic mesomorph Endomorphic mescmorph Endomorphic mesomorph Endomorph Mesomorph Endomorphic mesomorph Mesomorph and endomorph 17 Somatotype cannot be used as a sole p red icto r fo r m o rta lity or m orbidity. Evidence Indicates th a t 1 t may be useful 1n determining po ten tial health problems th a t warrant appropriate In terven tio n and prevention techniques. Tuberculosis 1s not a major health problem today; th e re fo re , th ere 1s not a major health th re a t to ectomorphs. On the other hand, CAD 1s a major health problem 1n our society, and the mesomorphs and endomorphs should be aware of th e ir h lg h e r-rls k status. Measures of Body Build When considering m o rta lity and m orbidity, somatotype 1s f r e ­ quently not determined. Somatotyplng larg e numbers of subjects fo r these studies 1s both costly and tim e consuming. Many researchers have attempted to use other measures of body bu ild to p red ict the longevity and cause of death of various groups. M orris e t a l. (59) compared CAD 1n London bus d rive rs and conductors. They found the more a c tiv e conductors to have less CAD than the more sedentary d rivers. In a fo llo w in g study, M orris, Heady, and R a ffle (58) found the drivers to have g rea ter w aist and chest circumferences. Therefore, 1 t could be considered th a t body bu ild may have a ro le 1n the Incidence of CAD. In 1959 the Society of Actuaries (95) presented data on over four m illio n policy holders. They found th a t stocky, muscular men have shorter l i f e expectancies than lean men. A s im ila r In v e s tig a tio n by S o rlle , Tavla, and Kannel (97) was conducted on subjects 1n the Fram­ ingham Study. Minimum m o rta lity was found 1n subjects around average 18 weight. Persons weighing more or less than average had an Increased m ortal1ty. A couple o f studies considered blood cholesterol lev els w ith body build. Cerovska (10) examined 159 men and found those w ith elevated trig ly c e rid e s to have g reater sklnfolds# g reater body surface area# and greater abdominal circumference. On the other hand# those with elevated cholesterol le v e ls had lower body surface area and lower f a t - f r e e body mass. Men w ith both elevated trig ly c e rid e s and cholesterol only had Increased body surface area 1n common. Focusing on younger subjects# ages 19 and 20 years of age# H ellstrom (33) showed th a t short# heavy In d ivid u als had higher cholesterol lev els than ta ll# lig h t In d ivid u als. B ju ru lf (4) took th is one step fu rth e r and looked a t body bu ild and grade of CAD. The amount of muscle tissue and la b ile f a t were good predictors of the grade of CAD# but s k e le ta l dimensions were not. The common problem w ith the studies considered so fa r 1n th is section 1s th a t they were not presented In a usable# tran sfe ra b le form at. In other words# they cannot be q u a n tita tiv e ly compared with each other. Therefore# other Indices must be considered. To fin d which w elght-helght ra tio s could best be used 1n epidem iological studies# Florey (23) compared weight/height# w eight/height squared (body mass Index CBMI] or Q uetelet's Index)# and height/cube root o f weight (ponderal Index). Using data from the Framingham Study, he found th a t w t/h t2 was the best Index fo r measuring adiposity or body shape 1n males. This was follow ed by wt/ht» and the 19 ponderal Index was considered the worst. Despite the fa c t th a t w t/h t2 was found to be the best* 1t was s t i l l rated as a poor measure of adiposity. A s im ila r In v e s tig a tio n was conducted by Keys e t a l. <43). They evaluated the same th re e Indices by c o rre la tin g them w ith height and subcutaneous fa t. Basing th e ir research on 7*424 healthy men from f iv e d iffe r e n t countries* the w t/h t2 was found to be the best Index. As 1n the Florey study* the w t/h t was found to be the next best* with the ponderal Index being the poorest. These two studies Indicated th a t the w t/h t2 1s the best measure of body shape when only the heights and weights are Known. When considering m o rta lity * the w t/h t2 was a b e tte r pred icto r than r e la tiv e weight. This was reported by Dyer e t a l. (21) a f te r studying men of the Chicago People’s Gas Company. the w t/h t2 to m o rta lity on a Norwegian population. Waaler (107) compared He found a ll-shaped curve where m o rta lity was higher with both low and high w t/h t2 values. M orbidity was also considered and 1s summarized 1n Table 2.6. Table 2 . 6 . — Diseases which are highly associated with selected body c h a ra c te ris tic s (Adapted from Waaler* 1984). Low Height Low Weight Obstructive lung disease Tuberculosis Stomach cancer Lung cancer Obstructive lung disease Tuberculosis Stomach cancer Lung cancer High Weight Cardiovascular disease Cerebrovascular disease Diabetes Colon cancer 20 Two other studies were done using the ponderal Index as a pred icto r of m o rta lity . In 1966 S e ltz e r (69) reported an Increase 1n m o rta lity with a decrease 1n ponderal Index. Large Increases 1n m o rta lity were found when the ponderal Index was 12.3 or lower* and dramatic Increases 1n m o rta lity were noticed when the ponderal Index was less than 11.6 (Figure 2.1). Damon (15) measured the ponderal index of men 1n college and showed a s ig n ific a n tly (p < .01) greater chance of reaching the ages o f 70* 75* and 80 1f the ponderal Index was higher. zoo 190 ISO ITO- (40 t 100 110 CO­ SO 00 ISO 14.0 130 PONDERAL 120 100 INDEX Figure 2 .1 .--A sso ciatio n of m o rta lity r a tio with ponderal index fo r men ages 40 to 49. (From S e ltz e r, 1966.) 21 When these Indices were used as predictors fo r CAD# l i t t l e consistency was found. K lein e t a l. (45) compared weight# w t/ht# w t/h t2# w t/ht^ x 10#000# log w t/h t2# average weight# and r e la tiv e weight. A ll seven measures were considered poor predictors o f CAD. Keys e t a l. (42) considered w t/h t2 and weight as a percentage of the Insurance average. CAD. These were also not determined good predictors of A s im ila r study was conducted on 792 54-year-old men from Gothen­ burg# Sweden# by Larsson e t a l. (48). Again th ere was no c o rre la tio n between w t/h t2 and stroke# Ischemic heart disease, or death. However# the wa1st-to-h1p circumference r a tio was s ig n ific a n tly associated w ith a l l three. A s im ila r study was conducted on 1#462 women between 38 and 60 from Gothenburg# Sweden. Lapldus e t a l. (47) found th a t w t/h t2 was s ig n ific a n tly co rrelated (p < .05) with myocardial In fa rc tio n and ECG changes# suggesting Ischemic heart disease. Despite the s ig n ific a n t correlation# the wa1st-to-h1p circumference r a t io was a stronger pre­ d ic to r than w t/h t2 fo r CAD. On the other hand# data from the Manitoba Study presented by Rabkln# Mathewson# and Hsu (78) showed th a t the w t/h t2 was s ig n if i­ cantly associated w ith the development of a myocardial In fa rc tio n (p < .05)# sudden death (p < .01)# and coronary In s u f f ic ie n c y (p < .0 5 ). Hawthorne and Womersley (32) studied 3»364 men In western Scotland. A lin e a r re la tio n s h ip between w t/h t2 and the death ra te from CAD was found. In Czechoslovakia# Cerovska (11) measured 80 men who were admitted fo r diagnosis of myocardial In fa rc tio n . When men w ith Ische­ mic heart disease were compared w ith the men w ithout the disease# two 22 differences were noted W t/h t2 x TOO was s ig n ific a n tly (p < .05) higher and w t/h t^ x 10f000 was s ig n ific a n tly (p < .01) higher in men w ithout dlseasa Paffenbarger and associates found th e ponderal Index and w t/h t2 x 1000 to be useful when pred ictin g CACX When comparing coronary descedants with controls of 45,000 past college students# Paffenbarger e t al. (63) found a s ig n ific a n t d ifferen ce 1n the ponderal Index of each group. Also a la rg e r number of descedants had a ponderal Index of 12.8 or less. In 1969 Paffenbarger and W1ng (65) found a 3035 Increased ris k of CAD 1n men w ith a ponderal Index below 12.9 when studying former students from Harvard U niversity and the U n iversity of Pennsylvania. Using only the 16,936 Harvard alumni who entered college between 1916 and 1950# Paffenbarger e t al. (62) reported an inverse re la tio n s h ip between the w t/h t2 x 1000 and CAD. I f th is Index was greater than 36, there was a 32* higher ris k of GAEL Two studies considered th e re la tio n s h ip between the ponderal index and hypertension. Although Perera and Damon (68) found th a t women with higher ponderal Index values had greater incidences of hypertension, no s ig n ific a n t differen ces were found 1n men. subjects from the Bogalusa H eart Study, Voors e t al. Using (106) found th a t children w ith higher ponderal Indexes (w t/h t^ was used 1n th is study) had higher s y s to lic and d ia s to lic blood pressures. Paffenbarger and W1ng (66) used the ponderal Index as a pre­ d ic to r fo r adult-onset diabetes. When weight Increased, the ponderal Index decreased and the Incidence of diabetes was greater. In an 23 attem pt to look a t In fe c tio n resistance* Burr and Damon (7) found no s ig n ific a n t d ifferen ce between eosinophil count and ponderal Index. The d iffe r e n t body-bulld Indices have not been shown to be good p redictors of m o rta lity and m orbidity. The problem of separating body mass due to f a t from body mass due to muscle Is a c le a r problem. Id e a lly * a lte r n a tiv e methods fo r predicting longevity and disease w i ll be developed. Hgijht-Pgcremgnl The changes 1n the sta tu re of man throughout l i f e has been a to p ic of research 1n many studies. I t 1s generally f e l t th a t humans Increase 1n height* m aintain peak height fo r some tim e, and then lose height. Of the many studies conducted* some were cross-sectional and some were lo n g itu d in a l. In a 1927 cross-sectional study* Ruger and Stoesslger (82) found a decrease 1n height w ith age. S im ila r re s u lts were reported by P e tt and 0g1lv1e (69), Stoudt* Damon, and McFarland (102), and Stoudt e t a l. (103). A review of the Build and Blood Pressure.Study by Brozek (5) reported th a t the 1.5 Inch decrease 1n height between the 20-29 age group and the 60-69 age group was not t o t a ll y due to in d ivid u al decreases In sta tu re but 1n p a rt due to a generational Increase 1n statu re . In 1965 Damon (14) commented th a t "trends 1n aging are best determined by lo n g itu d in al rath er than cross-sectional studies." T ro tte r and Gelser (105) attempted to separate the age and secular fa cto rs . Using 855 cadavers they estimated th a t there was a 24 1.2 cm decrement over a 20-year period. This was a nonlinear function# and the decrement did not begin u n til a fte r the age of 30. This study was follow ed by Hertzog# Garn# and Hempy £34)# who tr ie d to p a rtitio n the e ffe c ts of secular- and age-associated changes by using t ib ia length as a reference. In males they estimated th a t th ere was a 1.93 cm decrease In sta tu re between the ages of 35 and 65 and another 1.19 cm decrease between the ages of 66 and 87. attempted to consider the studies were s t i l l Although these studies secular changes In height# lo n g itudinal needed to v e rify these points. Buchl (6) conducted a lo n g itu d in al study and found th a t the height decrement began a t age 47. Measuring subjects over the age of 70# he determined the average lif e t im e decrement to be 2.9 cm. In another study using 44 re tire d B ritis h servicemen# Lipscomb and Parnell (49) found no height decrement by 72 years of aga This in v e s tig a tio n was supported by a study by Kldera £44)# who did not fin d any height change 1n 100 senior a ir lin e p ilo ts between the ages of 30.5 and 50.5. However# two la t e r studies agreed w ith Buchl and did fin d some height decrement G sell (30) studied several age groups f o r 10-year periods to fin d th e average height decrements. between ages 30 and 40# 14 mm between ages 40 and 50# 50 and 60. He reported a decrement of 6mm and 17 mm between This 1s equal to 37 mm between 30 and 60 years of age. Ml a ll e t al. (52) conducted a lo ngitudinal study on height decrement 1n two Welsh communities. The data are presented 1n Table 2.7. The height decrement began a fte r the age of 35 and to ta le d 7.1 cm by age 85 25 1n one community and 4.6 cm In the other. were 3.1 cm and 1.7 cm. The decrements to age 64 Much of the height loss occurred a fte r age 64. Table 2.7.— Mean annual height decrements (mm) of males over decades from 25 to 85 years 1n two Welsh communities (From M1all e t a l . # 1967). Vale of Glamorgan Rhondda Fach Age In te rv a l 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-65 65-74 75-85 -0 .2 8 0.71 1.05 1.38 1.46 2.46 -0 .4 0 0.16 0.52 1.01 1.49 1.43 A fte r completing an aging study using 2»200 healthy male veterans# Damon e t a l. (17) concluded th a t the major height decrements 1n previous studies were due to a secular trend. occurs mostly a fte r the six th decade of l i f e . In d ivid u al shrinkage In a review Rossman (81) concluded th a t In divid ual height decrements are encountered a f te r 50 years of age. The lif e t im e loss 1n males can be expected to average 2 .9 cm. The evidence on height decrement 1s not cle ar. th ere 1s a major secular trend toward t a l l e r peopla I t appears th a t In d ivid u al height decrements are n e g lig ib le u n til the la t e r years# and then small decreases can be expected. 26 Summary The longevity of a th letes when compared to nonathletes 1s not conclusive. One confounding v a ria b le may be somatotype. Since ath­ le te s tend to have a higher mesomorphic component* these studies may be comparing h1gh-mesomorph1c Individ uals w ith low-mesomorphic In d ivid u ­ als. Therefore* c o n tro llin g fo r physique may be Im portant when consid­ ering the a th le te /n o n a th le te longevity question. Many a lte rn a tiv e measures of physique have been studied. Although the w t/h t^ seems to p red ict longevity the best* none of the Indexes has been shown to be a good pred icto r. Therefore* the somato- typlng of a th le te s and nonathletes may be necessary fo r these studies. CHAPTER I I I RESEARCH METHODS This In v es tig a tio n was conducted to Id e n tify the e ffe c t of d iffe r e n t body types on m o rta lity and m orbidity. A thletes were compared w ith nonathletes to determine I f there was a difference 1n somatotype. Then the strength of somatotype and a th le tic is m as predictors of longevity was considered* as w ell as the relation ship s among the various somatotype groups and longevity. Other predictors of m o rta lity such as weight/height* w eight/height squared* w eight/height cubed* and height/cube root of weight (ponderal Index) were also evaluated. Last* the relation ship s between somatotype-group membership and coronary arte ry disease and cancer were examined. Source of Data The subjects fo r th is study were derived from a pool of male students who attended Michigan S tate U n iversity before 1938. A ll males who had won a v a rs ity a t h le t ic l e t t e r fo r competition 1n In te r c o lle ­ g ia te sports before 1938 were Included as the treatm ent group (Appendix A). The control group consisted of a random sample of previous stu­ dents found In th e student directory and matched with the a th letes by class rank during the year the a th le te won his f i r s t le t te r . age differen ce between the two groups was less than .05 year. 27 The mean In 1952 28 a to ta l of 2*258 subjects (1*129 ath letes* 1,129 controls) were selected and sent a questionnaire (Appendix 8). Six hundred tw enty- f iv e a th le te s and 557 nonathletes returned the f i r s t questionnaire fo r a return ra te of 52.4%. Of th is group* 67 a th le te s and 55 nonathletes were deceased A fo llow -up survey was conducted 1n 1960 (Appendix B). A ll liv in g respondees from the 1952 survey were m ailed questionnaires. return ra te was 91.7?* The with 514 returns (92.1%) from a th le te s and 458 returns (91.4%) from co n tro ls The deaths reported were 52 a th le te s and 32 nonathletes, leaving 888 subjects 1n th e study. The two fo llo w in g surveys* 1968 and 1976 (Appendix B), were conducted In a s im ila r manner. The return rates were over 90%, with 128 and 167 deaths reported* respectively. These values are summarized 1n Table 3.1 along with a ll other survey data. In 1984 the most recent survey (Appendix B) was m ailed to the 457 remaining subjects who were not known to be deceased Three hundred seven ty-five surveys were returned* 199 from a th le te s and 176 from nonathletes* fo r a return ra te of 90.4%. From th is survey* 171 subjects were found to be deceased* Including 93 a th le te s and 78 nonathletes (Table 3 .1 ) . S election o f Sample Due to the types of questions asked on the d iffe r e n t question­ naires* subjects who did not respond to th e 1968 survey had to be deleted because of In s u ffic ie n t In fo rm a tlo a Subjects who did respond to the 196B questionnaire provided th e Inform ation needed to predict 29 Table 3.1.— Overview of the Michigan S tate Longevity Study (Adapted from Olson e t a l.* 1978). A thletes Nonathletes Total 1952 Surveyed Returned % Returned Deceased Living 1129 625 55.4 67 558 1129 557 49.3 55 502 2258 1182 52.4 122 1060 1960 Surveyed Returned % Returned Deceased Living 558 514 92.1 52 462 502 458 91.4 32 426 1060 972 91.7 84 888 1968 Surveyed Returned % Returned Deceased Living 490 471 96.1 66 405 452 440 97.3 62 378 942 911 96.7 128 783 1976 Surveyed Returned % Returned Deceased Living 392 368 93.8 89 279 359 333 92.8 78 255 751 701 93.3 167 534 1984 Surveyed Returned % Returned Deceased Living 243 220 90.5 93 199 214 193 90.2 78 176 457 413 90.4 171 375 30 th e ir somatotype* such as height* year of birth * weight a t graduation* and weights a t each year of the completed surveys. S u ffic ie n t data were co llected on 767 subjects* and th e ir somatotypes were predicted by the method described la te r. Unfortunately* not a ll of the cause-of- death data from the 1985 survey were a v a ila b le fo r analysis. Only two groups* coronary arte ry disease and cancer* were larg e enough to make comparisons. Determination. of_Somatotypes The somatotypes were predicted Independently by three d iffe r e n t investigators. The estim ation of somatotype was made b lin d None of the In vestig ato rs knew the a t h le t ic status or whether the subjects were a liv e or deceased when p red icting somatotype. A fte r the somatotypes were determined* a ll three met as a group to come to a consensus on a somatotype fo r each subject. This system was used to maximize th e r e l i a b i l i t y and o b je c tiv ity of the method th a t was developed The method fo r predicting somatotypes used data reported by Sheldon e t al. In A tlas of. Hen (94). used as subjects fo r th is book. F o rty -s ix thousand men were Each Individual was somatotyped* and age* height* and weight were determined somatotypes found There were 88 d iffe r e n t For each somatotype a graph was p lotted w ith the ponderal Index on the abscissa and age on the ordinate (Figure 3.1). These 88 graphs determined by Sheldon e t al. somatotypes. 1n th is study. (94) were used to predict S im ila r data and graphs were generated fo r each subject Then these data and graphs were compared w ith those presented 1n A tlas of. Men (94). 31 SOMATOTYPE 444 17.40 Ht/ywt 13.4) 13.50 17.55 17 60 13.65 1770 13.75 12.50 13.55 17.VO 13.95 13.00 1 305 13.10 13 15 13.20 AGE IB 26 23 33 38 43 46 53 58 63 53 220 212 204 195 187 179 172 165 157 150 143 137 131 124 119 58 221 212 204 196 187 180 172 165 158 151 144 137 131 124 119 63 221 212 204 196 187 180 172 165 158 151 144 137 131 124 119 W cfg/if for Age and Height Height ( indie)0 75 74 73 72 71 70 69 68 67 66 65 64 63 62 61 16 183 176 169 163 155 149 143 137 131 125 119 114 109 103 99 23 192 164 177 170 163 156 150 143 137 131 125 119 114 108 103 28 198 190 183 176 168 162 155 148 142 135 129 123 118 112 107 33 206 198 190 183 175 168 161 154 147 140 134 128 122 117 111 Age 38 212 204 196 189 180 173 166 159 152 145 138 132 126 120 114 43 219 210 202 194 185 178 170 163 156 149 142 135 129 123 117 48 220 211 203 195 187 179 172 165 157 150 143 137 131 125 119 Figure 3 . 1 . — One example of th e 86 d iffe r e n t graphs and data presented 1n A tlas of Men. (From Sheldon e t a l.» 1954.) 32 Since the data th a t were generated by Sheldon e t al. (94) were cross-sectional and the data fo r th is study were lo ngitudinal* the Issue of height decrement had to be considered. Chapter I I * As Indicated 1n the decrease In height is n e g lig ib le before the age of 60. Because the data from th is study th a t were used to determine somatotype were from the age of 65 or e a rlie r * the height decrement was not considered a problem. Therefore* d ire c t comparisons were made. The basis of decision making fo r the determ ination of somato­ type used the absolute values of ponderal Index a t s p e c ific ages* the slope of the curve* the lo catio n of the peak of the curve* and the lo cation and degree of the Increase 1n ponderal index a t the la t e r ages 1f 1t existed. Unfortunately* the lo ngitudinal data necessary to v a lid a te th is method of somatotype pred iction are not available* How­ ever, su b jectively the In ves tig a to rs f e l t th a t there was good agreement 1n th e ir ratings. In retrospect* th is aspect of the study would be Improved I f the level of agreement was q u a n tifie d . Description of the. S ta tis tic a l Analyses The Independent v a ria b le considered in th is study was longev­ ity . A major problem with longevity studies 1s th a t each subject can have a d iffe r e n t beginning point (b irth ) and d iffe r e n t ending point (death) 1n the 1n v e s tlg a tlo a Therefore* a t any given tim e 1n the study the age of death Is unknown fo r many of the subjects. To avoid losing the data from those who were not deceased a t the tim e of th is study* l i f e tab les were used to p red ict age a t death. Therefore* l i f e 33 ta b le age was used as the estim ate of longevity. The BHDP S ta tis tic a l Software (18) was used to generate the H f e - t a b le data. The somatotype ra tin g system th a t was used In most of the comparisons was on a scale of 1 to 7 1n each of the three components: endomorphy# mesomorphy* and ectomorphy. When I t was necessary to use graphs# the 88 d iffe r e n t somatotypes were placed In to one of four groups based on Sheldon's o rig in a l book# The V a rie tie s of Human Physique (93). The four groups were endomorph# mesomorph# ectomorph# and balanced, The other measures of body -type# ponderal index* we1ght/height# w eight/height squared* and w eight/height cubed# were compared by th e ir absolute values. In th e s t a tis tic a l analyses several d iffe r e n t comparisons were mada To consider the somatotypes of a th le te s and nonathletes* t- t e s t s were used to compare the differen ces 1n the degree of each of the three components between the two groups. When the e ffe c t of somatotype and a th le tic is m on longevity was considered# the Cox proportional hazards regression method was used was used This was chosen because survival analysis To fu rth e r consider th is Issue# analysis of variance was used to compare longevity and the four somatotype groups, Subsequent te s tin g fo r sig n ifican ce In th e ANCVA was pairw ise m u ltip le comparisons w ith the Scheffe method T -te s ts were used to te s t the co rrelatio n s of the various q u a n tita tiv e body-type measures w ith longevity# and a c h isquare was used to analyze the cross-tabu lation of somatotype group with coronary arte ry disease and cancer. An alpha le v e l of 0.05 was required to obtain s t a tis tic a l sig n ifican ce In a ll comparisons. CHAPTER IV RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The purpose of th is study was to evaluate the e ffe c t of d if f e r ­ ent measures of body type of longevity and m orbidity. other q u a n tita tiv e variab les were evaluated. Somatotype and The primary consideration was the ro le of somatotype 1n a th le te /n o n a th le te longevity studies of th is type. Also* the re la tio n s h ip between the d iffe r e n t somatotype groups and s p e c ific causes of death* such as coronary arte ry disease and cancer* were examined. Somatotype and A th lete/N onathlete Comparison Two-sample t - t e s t s (96) were used to compare the degree of somatotype 1n each of the th ree components between a th le te s and nonath­ le te s . Three hundred n in e ty -e ig h t a th le te s were compared w ith 369 nonathletes. Figure 4.1 Illu s tr a t e s the differences 1n somatotype between the two groups. As noted* the a th letes were s ig n ific a n tly (p < .05) more mesomorphic and less ectomorphic than the nonathletes. No s ig n ific a n t differences were found between the two groups 1n the endo­ morphic component; however* the a th le te s were s lig h tly less endo­ morphic. The re s u lts showing th a t ath letes were more mesomorphic was expected since th is was also found In two other studies (9* 74). How­ ever, the fin d in g th a t a th le te s were less ectomorphic has not been 35 ATHLETES N = 398 □ 6 NONATHLETES N= 369 - Degree of Somatotype 5 - 4 - 3 - p- ENDO MESO ECTO > .0 5 < .05 < .05 Group Figure 4 . 1 . —Degree of the th ree somatotype components of a th letes and nonathletes. 36 previously shown. Because many of the a th le te subjects fo r th is study were fo o tb a ll players* the ectomorphic component may have been diluted. Since a th letes and nonathletes do not have s im ila r somatotypes* when making longevity comparisons between these two groups somatotype should be considered. The Relationship of Somatotype and Ath1e t1c 1sm__tQ__Lon_aey_1_ty. When comparing both somatotype and a th le te /n o n a th le te status w ith longevity* the Cox proportional hazards regression method (13* 18) was used. The global ch1-square (13* 18) of th is analysis indicated th a t together these variab les were good predictors of l i f e ta b le age (p = .001). The e ffe c ts of a th le te /n o n a th le te status were tested by e lim in a tin g th a t v a ria b le from the possible predictors. The ch1-square te s t (96) using a Wald s t a t is t i c (18) was not s ig n ific a n t (p = .2853). "Therefore* somatotype alone Is a s ig n ific a n t co n trib u to r fo r predicting longevity Irre s p e c tiv e of a t h le t ic status. When a t h le t ic status alone was tested using a global ch1-square (13* 18)* no sig n ifican ce (p = .1894) was found. This fu rth e r supports the fin d in g th a t somatotype 1s a good p red icto r o f longevity and a th le te /n o n a th le te status 1s not. L ife ta b le s were used because subjects entered the study a t d iffe r e n t times* and the subjects were d if f e r e n t ia lly lo s t from the study. However* since these subjects were matched 1n the beginning* the losses may not be d iffe r e n tia l. used to describe these data. Therefore* m u ltip le regression was The re s u lts of th is analysis Indicated s ig n ific a n t* p o s itiv e re latio n sh ip s between l i f e ta b le age and 37 mesotnorphy (p = .0210) and l i f e ta b le age and ectomorphy (p = .0067). However, endomorphy was not Indicated as a s ig n ific a n t contributor (p = .8499). Other analyses showed th a t the endomorphic component corre­ la te d most closely w ith longevity. p le regression findings. This 1s contradictory to the m u lti­ Subsequent analysis Indicated a high degree of 1ntercoll1near1ty between endomorphy and mesomorphy (Table 4.1), which helps explain these differences. Because of the 1ntercol 11 near- 1ty, stepwise m u ltip le regression cannot be trusted. Further evalua­ tio n shows th a t the nonexistence of c e rta in somatotype groups which would be m athem atically possible re s u lts In a b u ilt - in negative corre­ la tio n (Tables 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4). However, when a l l th ree somatotype variables are entered In to the Cox model, somatotype 1s a s ig n ific a n t In d icato r of longevity, and I t accounts fo r approximately 2% of the v a r ia b ilit y . Table 4 .1 .— Somatotype c o rre la tio n m atrix. Endomorph 1.0000 -.8263 .3165 Endomorph Mesomorph Ectomorph Mesomorph 1.0000 -.6 3 2 2 Ectomorph 1.0000 In summary, the Cox proportional hazards regression method Indicated th a t a th le te /n o n a th le te status was not s ig n ific a n tly corre­ la te d with longevity. On th e other hand, somatotype was s ig n ific a n tly correlated w ith longevity. studies, Therefore, In a th le te /n o n a th le te longevity somatotype should be considered as a s ig n ific a n t v a rla b la 38 Table 4 .2 .— Two-way cross-tabulation of the degree of endomorphy and mesomorphy. Endomorphy Mesomorphy Note: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 0 1 7 22 82 110 0 0 4 23 41 55 13 0 0 6 67 62 12 1 1 18 58 56 44 1 0 4 47 18 6 1 0 X 2 1 2 0 0 X X 0 2 0 0 X X X X denotes no such somatotype. Table 4 . 3 . — Two-way cross-tabulation of the degree of endomorphy and ectomorphy. Endomorphy Ectomorphy Note: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 50 113 29 22 7 1 0 24 44 31 26 11 0 0 3 28 51 54 12 0 X 6 35 57 55 25 X X 1 18 36 21 0 X X 3 0 2 X X X X 1 1 X X X X X X denotes no such somatotype. 39 Table 4 . 4 . — Two-way cross-tabu lation of the degree of mesomorphy and ectomorphy. Mesomorphy Ectomorphy Note: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 0 2 4 1 0 0 2 13 26 16 11 0 0 2 4 24 40 18 1 X 1 15 47 71 25 X X 6 50 67 47 X X X 23 87 40 X X X X 54 70 X X X X X X denotes no such somatotype. Somatotype and Longevity Comparisons The ath le te /n o n a th le te data were pooled* and the four somato­ type groups were compared w ith longevity (Figure 4.2). An analysis of variance (96) indicated a s ig n ific a n t differen ce (p = .001) among the four somatotype groups of the pooled data. A pairw ise m u ltip le comparison post-hoc of the four groups with the Scheffe method (96) showed th a t the endomorphs d iffe re d (p < .05) from the three other groups. The average length of l i f e fo r endomorphs was less. This 1s consistent with a s im ila r in vestig atio n by Damon (15)* who studied previous Harvard U n iversity students. The other comparisons were not s ig n ific a n t. The athlete-group data* when analyzed alone* exhibited s im ila r re s u lts to the pooled-data re s u lts (Figure 4.3). variance was s ig n ific a n t (p = .0012). The analysis of The Scheffe post-hoc (96) also 40 90 Life Table Age (years) 80 70 60 50 40 TOTAL ENDO MESO ECTO BAL 767 121 483 61 102 Group F ig u re 4 . 2 . — Average age a t death of th e fo u r somatotype groups w ith a l l s u b je c ts . 41 showed th a t the endomorphic group had a shorter average l i f e than the other three groups Cp < .05). When considering the other three groups* the ectomorphs were the longest liv e d . The balanced group was second longest* and the mesomorphs were th ird . These three groups were very close In mean age a t death and were not s t a t is t ic a lly s ig n ific a n t. When nonathletes were considered alone* s lig h t differences 1n longevity were found among the somatotype groups (Figure 4.4). An analysis of variance (96) using nonathlete data only was also s ig n if i­ cant (p = .0308). When pairw ise m u ltip le comparisons were made w ith the Scheffe method (96)* only the mesomorphic and endomorphic groups varied s ig n ific a n tly (p < .05). longer than the endomorphs. The mesomorphs liv e d s ig n ific a n tly The balanced group had the next highest mean age a t death* followed by the ectomorphs* but the differences were not s t a t is t ic a lly s ig n ific a n t. In conclusion* when considering ath letes* the endomorphic group had a shorter average l i f e span than the ectomorphic* mesomorphic* or balanced groups. When considering nonathletes* the only s t a t is t ic a lly s ig n ific a n t d ifferen ce in average length of l i f e was between the shorter-!1ved endomorphic group and the mesomorphic group. HeJ.ght_and_We1ght Measures_and_ Longevity Comp a ris o n s Several measures of body type using height and weight during college were used to make comparisons w ith longevity. The values considered were wt/ht» w t/h t^ , wt/ht^» and ponderal Index. M u ltip le co rre la tio n s (96) were run to compare these fo u r v a ria b le s w ith l i f e 42 90 70 Life Table Age (years) 80 60 50 40 TOTAL ENDO MESO ECTO BAL 398 58 275 20 45 Group Figure 4 . 3 . — Average age a t death of the fo u r somatotype groups w ith a th le te s . 43 9 0 i- 70 Life Table Age (years) 80 60 50 40 n' TOTAL ENDO MESO ECTO BAL 369 63 208 41 57 Group F ig u re 4 . 4 . — Average age a t death of th e fo u r somatotype groups w ith n o n a th le te s. 44 ta b le age using a t - t e s t fo r analysis. When the to ta l group of sub­ je c ts was considered* w t/h t co rrelated the best w ith age a t death* follow ed by w t/h t2* w t/h t3 * and ponderal Index. to be a s ig n ific a n t pred icto r (p = .0105). Table 4.5. Only w t/h t was found These re s u lts are lis te d 1n Therefore* the best pred icto r of longevity among these va ria b le s 1s h t/w t. This 1s an Inverse re la tio n s h ip and 1n general* when weight Increases* the h t/w t decreases and expected longevity Increases. Table 4 . 5 . —C orrelations of height/w eight variab les with l i f e ta b le age of the 738 subjects. w t/h t w t/h t2 w t/h t3 ponderal Index C o rrelation S ignificance -.0 947 -.0 5 4 9 -.0 0 8 9 .0055 .0105 .1384 .8105 .8816 When only the a th le te group was considered* w t/h t was also found as the only s ig n ific a n t c o rre la te (p = .0075). negative c o rre la tio n a t -0.1363. This was also a The other resu lts are lis te d In Table 4.6, which shows w t/h t2 as the second best predictor* ponderal Index as th ird best* and w t/h t3 as the worst. Therefore, the a th le te s resemble the to ta l group when considering h t/w t. The nonathlete group did not show s im ila r resu lts to the a th le te and to ta l groups. There were no s ig n ific a n t relatio n sh ip s between nonathletes and any of the four varia b le s. These re s u lts are 45 lis te d 1n Table 4.7. Despite the fa c t th a t none was sig nifican t# w t/h t was the best predictor# follow ed by ponderal Index# w t/h t3# and w t/h t2. Table 4 .6 .— C orrelations of height/w eight v a ria b le s with l i f e ta b le age of the 364 a th le te s . w t/h t w t/h t2 w t/h t3 ponderal Index C orrelation S ignificance -.1363 -.0916 -.0331 .0370 .0075 .0730 .5178 .4692 Table 4 .7 .— C orrelations of height/w eight variables with l i f e ta b le age of the 354 nonathletes. C orrelation w t/h t w t/h t2 w t/h t3 ponderal Index S ignificance -.0 5 5 8 -.0 0 8 8 .0333 -.0 4 1 9 .2955 .8690 .5324 .4320 Using q u a n tita tiv e v a ria b le s of height and weight a t college as predictors of longevity must be done with caution. analysis are not consistent w ith the lite ra tu re s none of these variab les are good predictors. ences were found when studying nonathletes. The re s u lts of th is I t 1s lik e ly th a t No s ig n ific a n t d l f f e r When considering athletes# only the w t/h t was s ig n ific a n t and the c o rre la tio n was only .1363. Therefore* these variab les would not be considered good predictors of longevity In general. 46 Somatotype and Coronary A rtery Disease Comparisons The four somatotype groups were used to compare with the p r i­ mary causes o f death. To analyze the coronary arte ry disease (CAD) data, a comparison was made between the subjects who had died of CAD and the subjects who had died of other causes In each of the somatotype groups. The resu lts are Illu s tr a te d 1n Figure 4.5. A ll the somatotype groups had approximately 50% of the deaths due to CAD except the ecto­ morphs. Since only f iv e ectomorphs had a known cause o f death# there were too few subjects to draw any good conclusions. (96) was used to analyze these comparisons. (p = .6779) was found. A chi-square te s t No s ig n ific a n t d ifferen ce Therefore# no sin g le somatotype group was determined as being more prone to CAD than other groups. A lim itin g fa c to r 1n th is comparison could be the low number of subjects (134) who had a known cause of death. Somatotype and Cancer Comparisons Cancer was also compared w ith other causes of death 1n each of the four somatotype groups. Figure 4.6 Illu s tr a t e s these resu lts. Using a ch1-square te s t (96) to analyze the differences 1n these four groups# no sig nifican ce (p = .7194) was found. Cancer was th erefo re not s ig n ific a n tly more prevalent as a cause of death 1n any one of the somatotype groups. Although 1 t 1s not sig n ifican t# the data In d ica te th a t the endomorphs are more lik e ly to die of cancer. The low number of subjects (134) 1n th is comparison was a lim ita tio n as w e ll. 47 ioo 90 ^ CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE □ OTHER 80 70 - % of Deaths 60 50 40 30 20 10 n= TOTAL ENDO MESO ECTO BAL 134 21 88 5 20 Group Figure 4 . 5 . — Percentage of deaths from coronary arte ry disease of the four somatotype groups. 46 100 CANCER 90 | | OTHER 80 70 % of Deaths 60 50 40 30 20 10 n= TOTAL ENDO MESO EC TO 8AL 134 21 88 5 20 Group Figure 4 . 6 . — Percentage of deaths from cancer of the four somatotype groups. CHAPTER V SUMMARY# CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Summary. The purpose of th is study was to evaluate the e ffe c t of d iffe r e n t measures of body build on m o rta lity and m orbidity. Somatotype# wt/ht# w t / h t w t / h t ? # and ponderal index were considered. Seven hundred sixty-seven subjects who had attended Michigan S tate U n iv ersity before 1938 were used fo r th is study. consisted of 398 a th letes and 369 nonathletes, This group A somatotype was predicted fo r each subject# and the fo ur h eigh t/w eight measures were calculated using height and weight w h ile 1n college. The analyses Indicated th a t a th le te s were more mesomorphic and less ectomorphic than nonathletes. When longevity was considered# a th le tic is m was not a good predictor. s t a t is t ic a lly s ig n ific a n t predictor. Somatotype# however# was a The endomorphic group was shorter liv e d than the other three groups. When the q u a n tita tiv e variab les were compared# only w t/h t was a s t a t is t ic a lly s ig n ific a n t predictor of longevity. When nonathletes were considered# none of the h eigh t/w eight varia b le s was s ig n ific a n t. Only 1n the a th le te group was h t/w t a s t a t is t ic a lly s ig n ific a n t predic­ to r of longevity. ^9 50 The re la tio n s h ip of somatotype and coronary arte ry disease (CAD) and cancer was also examined No s ig n ific a n t relatio n sh ip s were found In these lim ite d data U n king a s p e c ific somatotype group to CAD or cancer. Conclusions 1. A thletes were more mesomorphic and less ectomorphic than nonathletes. 2. Somatotype 1s a good p red icto r of longevity* when compared with a th le tic is m . Therefore* somatotype should be considered 1n ath le te /n o n a th le te longevity studies, 3. In general* endomorphs liv e s ig n ific a n tly shorter liv es. In a th le te s the endomorphs d i f f e r s ig n ific a n tly from mesomorphs* ectomorphs* and balanced In d ivid uals. Only the endomorphs and mesomorphs d if f e r 1n the nonathlete group. 4. The best h eigh t/w eight predictor of longevity 1s w t/h t. This 1s s ig n ific a n t 1n the a th le te group but nonsignificant In the nonathlete group. 5. There 1s no s ig n ific a n t differen ce among th e four somato­ type groups and the lik e lih o o d of dying from CAD or cancer. Recommendations 1. S im ila r studies should determine somatotype a t the beginning of the in v es tig a tio n . 2. Follow-up studies should be considered u n til a ll the subjects are deceased. 51 3. nonathl etes. S im ila r studies should be conducted on fem ale a th letes and APPENDICES 52 APPENDIX A BREAKDOWN OF ATHLETE SUBJECTS BY SPORT 53 Breakdown o f A thlete Subjects by Sport Sport Football Basketball Track/cross country N 121 12 13*t Baseball 59 Other 72 Total 398 APPENDIX B QUESTIONNAIRES (1952, I960, 1 9 6 8, 55 1 97 6 , 198 *4) 56 N A T IO N A L S TU D Y O F LO N C EVTTV A N D M O R B ID IT Y O F A TH L E T E S IN COLLEGES A N D U N IV E R S IT IE S T n A. 1 b tw m h fe r trw tm tm « W m n m i ■ i i i l m A rm Lc c m cc M t t n w u m *»4 4«to*M4!y w Aw*M#> Iffcccr /S I 4* *4J A nn Dm Ynr »l Dmh IU m *1 AlAltw ( / ! ■ » jrlcU Wriftit «1 Graduitkn tr«n Cottcf* I T ATHLETE IS DECEASED IT AtVLTTX IS UVIMC A lt •* 4 h i}i m _ jr * Ccmc* d dutA tUtod mb 4cctA ccrtite**#: h im if7 >111Mil w ld l - ft*, h w n t p o M il (OkAcM); Oaod m i A n up B *h Acted M w *1 | f « t CcUtt* Amateur Mcfe.feAcc) /r d n doacl A«* f i t •» 71* cl l | * jn * i t it * 4 cf* JT* to y r* 4 eg* f t * to |T * 4 in m in m rr*. to f t * cf * f t 4 « it A t d f i t f E h o ia i A il a ll l if e , E x e lu & n g P layin g P v lk ip ilio ii In S p o rt* h r lr ii f w llw l ■ Vynbm at Accn W p A /iitt] cnM qr (4*11/ * - clwiwl 4*0/1 Y U a tcm An U a d c n te piLIA i n . to m * A n. A n. m t* m In A rt. kn A n. m u IB - An. A n. An m ic Ill k rv An. A n. U i l l U r y S ervice I n a 4 4 Barricc , tA/dicl artM*/ l*t*M ■■— — , ■— A n ~ - VtfOTMc„ I I m t i iAm cm b r w h d A c Acrrict, m m A * d m . Ifcdcriw . w ui M ir i* » A * a E co o o m k S u ts t « f H « t F ro ta E a rly C hlldLood U p v ird Af»t C tllft* V n n M cm) ScttflcrtMT_ y m ilih tiir? — itkmk cm) VflM Udirtc*/ •— (OVttJ 58 N A T IO N A L S T U D Y O T L O N G E V IT Y A N D M O R B ID IT Y O r M A L E G R A D U A T E S O F C O L L E G E S A N D U N IV E R S IT IE S t * m B. Ttofc r * n l i k H v U 4t6 to* *m • ktwr to <0*11 (HmfiUimlk* An toftoMftofrwtfA«w*fc6-toAwti'W r) Dlt*- — Mu m W JU m »u » ( * m m T m aCBUrth fr lo l) hwitniiii i W n ffb t a i 0 r*4 < i*M « t m C tU ttr XT A U A D d J B t t m T A ir ^ IT J U U lo n jB IB U Y D C G A ft «t M . C w * fn ftotoJ mm 4a*to M «u7 ■ ... l m y it ■k ■itoinm . n i t fc i | i u illy mbmpmi m am mi & ii Wml H i m y S fvn Afiutouf M a4cket C *tk«t M i* « (H N t A it r * a v n to r t ^ wr* r a * f W< yn. to fn , mi mm > n to jn to ia m to m to m «fw« yn. to t o A c tirily D ttH & f A d a lt lif e , E x c tu x L n j P U fin f P a rtk ip itlo p la S port* kduk A|» fik w mi toWMtkm) *rt*rJtU» MtoUnti Vlfareu* rn M ilt ton. ton. ton. t n i* m . it »"■ ton ton r* to*. In tort. m . to !"■ ton In tor*. ton M ilita ry S crricc — A#t — I t f i l a l M ttvkj tof t l itr f ( k t c t l i View pm --- Ifa k n la - . BU4. E co tio m k S litn i o f Bocae From C a rl/ OdJdhood U pw ard Mm ttd ttorlni C tflttt vn ri «to*tk m m ) Attff C*lw* Yun Counnu (cfctoto toM) ta li* trior? U—llthrmrw C O TU ) 59 M e d k ti A IL M E M A Umt M i ttjwcii** tmd Cantjlau n - i — (lu ll fS4*n, « p ia rflli, * » «| tM w P). u ■! I te M bmitiM tr+m IM 4. A r trri* W r a y ■ 1 Fm M . TMbM_ TMli ■■■ ifi-H u r l M h P (|(vi a M ip liW * PtrlpWrt] VacWa A Olka D lu w t ii iif u tr y * m M r i Mr. kart hlfcn. Ht)« aad D iia k ifi| flih ita ty a)Mit MAk i tbaiAhh: ATkulfarm. B o r p d ilir y H iit t t y ■ tla fc a a b f A fl tf L M v A ilfnfflL LT IftV A r t « t L a Lb t l Dm M Gauat D n ih * » * n t i3 p tp d h tb a h t i m ! g n a W o lh a K ilt r a ? g n a ftiih tT gn» d— I W ftlJH T Mottev Iw W l firm ■ ( t l U rp m a o tttt. C « h a v ) ThnaW uH m D u b r w p ra * « i |a U n ulr. p h a a M « c *y > r * u thieA Ifcal |v W lp *W n ■ tU k iic i » h m io il, y m > JuL a M a *■*? M M I j tf crniaJ al i n f r a , f i a l i m n — - Olka w ra U i tiu h rput trill pnviy »4 4 j1mM nlarwtMM a a lak«f laudatoa!■ W a ■i»w|lii 1 p U M M r i W J h r bfch M l JuiW e fw w w e i * l k « alub * tk * r w in It U *.**T X J M play M b a ll Auritg ja ila uT lm jm t m « o m ^ ta n a * a ■ lycrmUMi*TV 60 HICHIGAR STATE UNIVERSITY D ep artm en t o f H e a lth , P h y s ic a l E d u c a tio n and R e c r e a tio n FOLLOW-UP STUDY OF LONGEVITY AND MORBIDITY OF HALE GRADUATES OF MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY D ate NAME OF ALUMNUS ( P le a s e p r i n t ) PRESENT ADDRESS ________________ MARITAL STATUS (Check o ne) H a r r ie d S in g le Widowed D iv o rce d PRESENT WEIGHT ______ l b s . I f y o u r w e ig h t hoe changed m ore th a n 15 l b a . w i t h i n th e l a s t se v e n y e a r s , p l e a s e e x p l a in RACE W hite Negro O th e r From 19 PRESENT OCCUPATION ______________ t o 19 ANY PREVIOUS FULL TIME OCCUPATIONS: 1. 2 _From _From _From From _______________________ . __________________ 3. _____________________ A . _______ _______ 19__ t o 19_ 19 to 19_ 19 t o 19_ 19 to 19 SICKING HABITS: (P le aB e ch eck o n ly th o s e w h ich a p p ly ) DRINKING HABITS ( P le a s e ch e ck o n ly th o s e w hich a p p ly ) Smoke Do n o t smoke ( I f you do n o t smoke, p le a s e d i s r e ­ g a r d th e re m a in in g q u e s tio n s i n t h i s s e c tio n ) D rin k Do n o t d r in k ( I f you do n o t d r i n k , p l e a s e d i s r e ­ g a rd th e re m a in in g q u e s tio n s i n t h i s s e c tio n ) C ig a re tte s : 1 . L eas th a n 1 /2 pack p e r day__ 2 . 1 /2 to 1 p ack p e r day__ 3 . O ver 1 p a c k p e r day__ B e e r: C ig a r s : 1. 2. 3. W ine: L e s s th a n 3 p e r day__ 3 to 6 p e r day__ O ver 6 p e r day__ 1. 2. 3. O c c a s io n a l b o t t l e 1 to 3 b o t t l e s p e r day__ O ver 3 b o t t l e s p e r day__ 1. O c c a s io n a l g l a s s o th e r th a n f o r r e l i g i o u s u se __ D a lly b u t l e e s th a n 1 /2 b o t t l e __ O ver 1 /2 b o t t l e p e r day__ 2. 3. P ip e : 1. 2. 3. L e ss th a n A bow ls p e r day__ A t o 10 bow ls p a r day__ O ver 10 bow ls p e r day___ 1. 2. 3. L ess th a n 1/A pack p e r day__ 1/A to 3/A p ack p e r day__ O ver 3/A pack p e r day__ Chew: W hiskey 1. 2. 3. A. O c c a s io n a l g l a s s __ 1 t o 3 s h o ts p e r day__ A t o 6 s h o t s p e r d ay__ O ver 6 s h o t s p e r day__ 61 LONGEVITY OF BROTHERS AND SISTERS: ( I f any o f y o u r b r o t h e r s M i d s i s t e r s have d ie d in th e p a s t se v en y e a r s , p l e a s e f u r n i s h In fo r m a tio n r e q u e s te d ) R e la tio n s h ip B r o C ause o f D eath t h e Age a t D eath r s ______________________________ _____________________ S is te rs MEDICAL HISTORY: Whet a ilm e n ts h av e you had I n th e l a s t se v e n y e a r s ? (E x am ples: C o ro n ary T h ro m b o sis, H igh B lood P r e s s u r e , C a n c e r, D ia b e te s , TB, e t c . ) ARe a t O c c u rre n c e 1 . _______________________________________________ 2. 3. It. ___________ _____________________________________________ _ _________ FAMILY: Do you h av e any c h i ld r e n ? Yes No ( I f y o u r a n sw e r I s y e s , p l e a s e f u r n i s h I n fo r m a tio n r e q u e s te d ) S o n s: Number l i v i n g ___ Number d e c e a s e d ____ Age and c a u s e o f d e a th D a u g h te rs : Number l i v i n g ___ Number deceased^ Age and c a u se o f d e a th __________ NON-VOCATIONAL ACTIVITY RECORD FOR THE PAST YEAR: 1. Do you Mow y o u r own law n? Do o t h e r y a rd o r h o u se m a in te n a n c e ? ( P le a s e d e s c r ib e ) ______________________________________________________ 2. Do you 3. Do you Do any s i t t i n g up e x e r c i s e s In th e w in te r ? I n th e su o s e r7 How lo n g d o e s e a c h s e s s i o n l a s t ? _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ When w as th e l a s t tim e ?__________________ The tim e b e f o r e th a t? 4. Do you w alk o r b ik e t o w ork? ________________ How f a r ? ___________ How o f te n ? __________________________________________________ ______ __ 5. Do you h av e any h o b b le s o r en g ag e in o t h e r n o n - v o c a tlo n a l work o r r e c r e a t i o n r e g u l a r l y ? EXCLUDING SPORTS ( P le a s e l i s t b elo w ) Hobby o r A c ti v ity How O fte n Do You P a r t i c i p a t e ? i . _ _ Have a g a rd e n ? _ _ _ _ What do you do I n c o n n e c tio n w ith t h i s ? _ b . ____________________________________________________________________ d. 62 6. a. b. c. d. e. 7. What s p o r t s d id you engage in r e g u l a r l y d u r in g th e p a s t stu m e r m onths? ( P le a s e u s e th e l i s t b elo w a s a g u id e ) S p o rt How O fte n ? When Was th e L a s t Time? The Time B e fo re ? _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ ___ a. What s p o r t s d id you en g ag e I n r e g u l a r l y d u r in g th e p a s t w in te r m onths? ( P le a s e u se th e l i s t below a s a g u id e ) S p o rt How O fte n ? When Was th e L a s t Time? The Time B e fo re ? ___________ __________________ c. d. _____________________________________________________________________________ b . ______________________ _____________________________________ e. ____________________ _________________________________ £ . ___________ LIST OF SPORTS ACTIVITIES A n g lin g ( f i s h i n g ) A rc h ery Badm inton B a s e b a ll B a s k e t b a ll B ic y c lin g B irlin g B o b -S le d d in g Bow llng Boxing C anoeing C o d e b a ll C r ic k e t C ro ss C ou n try C u r lin g F e n c in g F ie ld B a ll F o o tb a ll G o lf G y m n astic s H a n d b a ll H ik in g Hockey ( f i e l d ) Hockey ( I c e ) H o rseb ac k R id in g H o rse sh o e P i t c h i n g H u n tin g H u rlin g I c e B o a tin g J a l A la i J u J its u Lawn B ow ling M ountain C lim b in g P a d d le T e n n is P o lo ( h o r s e ) P o lo ( w a te r) Rowing and S c u lli n g S a ilin g S h u f f le b o a r d S k a tin g ( I c e ) S k a tin g ( r o l l e r ) S k e e t a n d / o r T rap S h o o tin g S k iin g Snow S h o ein g S q u ash R a c k e ts Swimming T a b le T e n n is T e n n is T ra c k and F ie ld T ra p p in g V o lle y B a ll W alking C o m p e titiv e W eight L i f t i n g W r e s tlln g 63 Serial No----SECOND FOLLO W -UP O F T H E LO NG EVITY A N D M O R B ID IT Y O F M ALE GRADUATES O F M IC H IG A N STATE UN IVER SITY N am enf Alumnm. Date___ Street C ity State______ ________ PERSONAL IN FO R M A TIO N 1. Have there been any change* in your marital statu* since 1960 (our previous follow up)? Yes □ No □ { I f yes to question 1, answer A; if no. move on to question Si A. 2. Please Explain ---- -------- Present weight lbs. A. Have you lost 15 lbs. or more since I960:1 ( I f yes to question A, answer I and 2; i f no, move on to question 3] 1. How many times did you lose this much weight? 2. Any specific reason for these weight fluctuations? 1-2 times 0 Yes 0 No0 3 or more times 0 3. Height (in t n r W t 4. W hich o f these body type classification do you feel is closest to your body build? Stocky 0 Medium 0 Slender 0 O C C U P A T IO N A L IN F O R M A T IO N 5. Are you presently working {Job or self employed)? ( I f no, answer A; i f yes, move on to question 6j Y’es 0 No 0 A. Have you had a Job or been self employed at any tim e since 1960? ( If no, skip to question 7; if yes, move on to question 6) Yes 0 No 0 6. Answer the following questions about your present occupation or the last Job you have had since I960. A. What kind o f work I for example, engineer, teacher, A tv in ri B. About how much time on the Job is spent sitting? Practically all 0 More than h a lf 0 About h a lf 0 Almost none 0 C. About how much time on the Job is spent walking'11 Practically a ll 0 More than h a lf 0 About h a l f 0 Almost none 0 D . About how much walking getting to and from your job? Blocks M ite s _____ E. W hat type of transportation do you use to and from your Job (check a ll that apply) Subway 0 B us0 C a r0 Bicycle 0 Others (Please describe)_____________________ F . How often do you have to lift heavy weights or carry heavy things on the job? Frequently O Sometimes 0 Very- Infrequently lor never) 0 C. H ow many hours a week do you work on your Job? (Hours per week) H . H ow much tension in your job? Great Deal 0 Some 0 Very' L ittle 0 None 0 I . Any responsibility for supervising other workers on the Job? ( I f yes, answer L i f no, move on to J) Yes O No 0 1, About how- many on the average do you supervise?______ J. When d id you start on this job? K. Just Yes, No, 1.2. Year before this Job were you doing the same type of work? did the same type o f work 0 . I was on that jo b ____ years. No, this was my first jo b 0 . did different type of work 0 . I f you check this item, please answer the follow ing questions. 3. and 4: 1. H ow long did you do this different type of work? — . years. 2. What kind o f work was it? 3. On this jo b d id you spend more or less time sitting than yourpresent Job? More Q Less Q Sam e0 4. Was there more or less walking on this earlier Jobthan on your present (or last) Job? Mote 0 Less 0 S a n ir 0 6 1* LEISU R E T IM E ACTTVTTIES 7. How often do you do the follow ing* (For each A ctivity listed, please chccL whethei you do It frequently, sometimes, or very Infrequently.) Frequently Sometimes Very Infrequently (Or Never) A. Take w alk in good weather B, Work around the house or apartment (painting, repairing, etc.) C. Cardening in spring or summer D . Take part in sports during season o □ □ □ □ 0 □ 0 D 0 □ □ E. I f you ta le part In sports, please indicate what kind of sports and frequency either by the week or year. SPORT □ Pei Wk F ie q u r ncy Oi Per Yi, A n g lin g * /W n n c f □ Archer) G Badminton □ Judo G G G G H'tkeb-tL hiding Q Hnneslme P itc h in g C Hunting □. □. G E U t k r lb jI l □ B icycling □ Bub-SInMing G Bo* ling lefcd u d e U w n b o w liin h e ie T G BotinR □ G C a n tw ih B C o d rb a ll □ C ricket G Cross Country G C u rlin g Q Fencing Q F o o tb a ll D G o lf D G y m rw ilic * H a n d b a ll H ik in g H oikefc ih e ld G Hi»ckr> l ir r J Q h r B o a tin g □ ja i A U i M ountain C lim b in g P addlr T r n n li Polo Ih o rs tf PotoiM'nlerl Rowing 6 Sculling ShuHlrboard Skating lice* Skating tro lle d Skiing Snow Shoeing Squash Racket* Sw'lninung T a b lr T f n n ii Tenniv T ra rk & Field Trapping V o lle y b a ll W eight L iltin g W restling Other*. D□. F. Have you been using an exercise plan at any time during or since I960' Ilfy e s to question F, answer I and 2: I f no. answer question C) 1. Please check how often you used this plan. 15546 Q LawnBoiling □ □ G G □ G O G G G G G C G Q D O D O □ B dw tw II Frequency PerW k or Pet Yf. SPORT Frequently □ Yes □ Sometimes Q No □ Very infrequently Q 2. Cive a b rief explanation o f the exercises and amounts of tim e spent. C . Up t ill the tim e you graduated from high school did you live mostly on the fa r m ? 0 years'1 Or did you live in the city? 0 H ow many years? _ How many D IE T R E C A LL 8. List the thing* you ate and drank yesterda) fthix should preferably be a wreh day) When possible, give the specific name o f the item, e.g., Fresca oi Coca Cola, rather than soft drink: M cDonald s hamburger, whole m ilk, skim m ilk, haU and half, rathei than just m ilk. Indicate the amount you ate or drank in terms of cups (200 m l), tablespoons, teaspoons, ounces, numbers and approximate size, e.g.. small, large, medium for fruits, vegetables, etc. You may list meats either in ounces or size o f pieces: one hamburger pa tty (3 " diameter a 1" th ic k i weighs 3 oz.; an average serving of steak 13" x 3 " x Vi” ) weighs 3 oz. Be sure to include everything you ate or drank yesterday — candy, liquor, coffer (list sugar and cream, if used), popcorn, potato chips, etc., as w ell as yuut regular meals. To help you estimate sizes, a rule is marked of! on the edge of this pagr. 65 M orm nc S n a rls BrtaW ait Amount or Am ount or filJr Item Ilf m Afternoon Snark* Lunch Am ount oi Sue A m ount oi Sizt Item E vening Snack* D inT.tr Am ount or Sl2F U rn- A m ount or S in Ite m . A. Check date o f diet record. S u n . 0 M o n .0 Tues. 0 W e d .0 T h u rs .Q F r i. 0 Sal, 0 £ . D id yesterday's meals Include any special or unusual event, e.g., party, birthday, anniversary, picnic, etc.? Yes 0 No0 1. I f yes, what was It? C. Does the abovr represent jo u r usual day’s food intake? Yes 0 No 0 1. I f no, how did It differ from your usual i n t a k e ’-1 D . Check the column which indicates the approximate frequency w ith which you consume each food. F u n il W h n l* m il l C re a m or h a lf and h a lf I r e cream nn t Ice m il t C h r r t t lo t 1*1 th a n c o tta g e ' B u tte r M a rg a rin e S o ur cream S a lad r ir t t ii n g * •n n t \ t r * c a lo r ic n-.K U rrL U Ford F lili . Never Ek ' Do you drink coffee? Yes 0 S w rrtrn e d fru it Juicet. ly r tfp v r t r No 0 ( If yes, answer question a; i f no, go on to question 10) A. What is the average number o f cups per day? SM O KIN G H ABITS 10. D o you smoke at the present time? Yrs 0 1-3 0 No 0 4-6 0 ( I f no to question 10, answer C) D id you ever smoke regularly^ Yes 0 7-9 0 more 0 . ( I f yes to question 10, answer A and Bi A. About how old were you when you first began to smoke? c ig a r s B. What I t the average number of cigarettes (continue on to question 111 C. ppi,K Ni i r r Cream or rtitM tr? me* Cream p u d tim t* Suaar to r ^ i t t . Iti. et< Sugar on cereal Sugar on fru it* vegeiabtes F ro ite d caVr*. b ro w m rv tw eet ro ll* etc Soft d rin k * 1other than low or n on -ca tn rir1 H onn Jelh . |am, p re te rit* * marmalade 5 v r u i* ion p a n k ile " a i f f l n . r k . t tit a iy F a l ■rrwinrt m eal F o rt V e al F re n c h -frird p o ta to * ! F rie d m eat. In e rt p n tn lo e *. etc, O th e r d r e t^ fa r In e d I ih k U 9. D a ih No 0 (If yes to C, answer 1, 2, and 3, if no. move on to question 111 „ Y u nld. plficflllt. you smoke per da). 66 Vrs flirt Y n old 1. About how old were you when you darted smoking? _ 2. About how old w o t you whe n you stopped smokingv . cigars 3. When you were smoking. what was the average number o f cigarettes that you smoked per day? D M K K IN C HABITS 11. Do you drink at the present time? ( I f yes to question 1). answer At Yes Q pipeful* No □ A. Please rheck the amounts you usually drink. B e ri W u if 0 0cc4M uiu1 b n lllr n 1 lo 3 per 0 o vrr 3 b o ltk s p r i r i j j 0 0 0 W h ls L t} igin . r t i l O v U '-k m -t p liA \ otb*r l lu n fnr religious m r D jii I) hut tr%% l l^ n i . bottle U%n *, bold* per dd> * 0 O r f^ iid T u I g t*** p 3 h* 6 ibut% p f i d *) 0 o%rr 6 th u t* per d ^ j ____________________(continue on to question 12> ( I f no to question 11, answer B) B« D id you ever drink regularly? Yes □ No Q ( If yes to question B, answer 1 and 2: i f no, go on to question 12> 1. Please give the number o f years that you drank regularly before you quit Y ti., and w hy vo n n u ll 2. Please check the amounts you usually drank. W hisVf) »,in. e tr.i t t im B en □ O rca iin n a ! fla w D lhrt than for iclnUnus u *t L } D a l!), bill I f * ' lhah b o lltr Q D i n \ b n iilf |wr d j) □ Occasional b o llle Q 1 tv 3 b o lllr , per da) D - - ) i < tM xO Z $ Q £ 6. I f you hove been ro u tin e ly exercising under a home exercise plan o r H ealth C lub plan (commercial, Y.M .C .A ., A th le tic Club, etc.) answer the fo llo w in g questions: A . Num ber o f hours per m o n th .w hich monthB (circle); Jan., Feb., M ar., A pr., M ay. June, Ju ly , A ug., Sept., Oct., Nov., Dec. B . W hat type o f exercises?_____________________________________________________________________ D IE T R E C A L L 7. L is t the th in g s you ate and dra n k yesterday (th is should preferably be a week day). When possible, give the specific name o f the item , e.g.. Fresco or Coca Cola, ra th e r th a n soft d rin k ; M cD onald's hamburger, w hole m ilk , skim m ilk , h a lf and h a lf, ra th e r than ju s t m ilk . Indicate the am ount you ate or drank in terms o f cups (200 m l), tablespoons, teaspoons, ounces, num bers and approxim ate sire, e.g., sm all,large, medium fo r fru its , vegetables, etc. You m a y lis t meats either in ounces or size o f pieces: one ham burger p a tty (3 " diameter x 1” th ick) w eighs 3 oz.; an average serving o f Bteak (3" k 3" x ’/ / ’) weighs 3 oz. Be Bure to include everything you a te or d ra n k yesterday — candy, liq u o r, coffee (lis t sugar and cream, i f used), popcorn, potato chips, etc., as w e ll as yo u r re g u la r meals. To help you estim ate sizes, a rule is marked o ff on the edge o f th is page. Morning Snacks Breakfast Item Am ount or Size Lunch Mem A m ount or Size Afternoon Snacks Amount or Size D inner Item Item Item Amount or Size Evening Snacks Amount or Size Item Amount or Size A . Check date o f diet record: Sun. □ M o n .D Tues. D Wed. □ T hurs. □ F ri. □ S n t.D B. D id yesterday’s meals include a n y special o r unusual event, e.g., p a rty , b irth d a y , anniversary, picnic, etc.? Yes □ No □ 1. I f yes, w h a t was i t ? _________________________________________________ C. Does the above represent y o u r usual day's food intake? Yes □ No □ 1. I f no, how d id i t d iffe r from y o u r usual in ta ke ? _________________________________________ .___ __ D. Check the colum n w hich indicates the approxim ate frequency w ith w h ich you consume each food. Food W hole milk Cream or half and hall Ice cream (not ice milk) Cheese (other than cottage) Butter M argarine Sour cream Salad dressings (not low calorie) Eggs Gravy Fat around meBt Pork Veal French-lneo potatoes Fried meat fried potatoes, etc Other deep-fat tried loods Daily' W eekly Never Food Fish Beet Cream or custard pies Cream puddings Sugar: In collee. tea. etc Sugar on cereal Sugar on fruits, vegetables Frosted cakes, brownies. aweet rolls, etc Soft drinks (other than low or non-calorie) Honey Jelly, jam. preserves, m arm alade Syrups ion pancakes, waffles etc.) Molasses Sweetened (run im ces, syrups etc Dally Weekly Never 70 E. Do you d rin k coffee? Yet □ No O ( I f ye6, answer question A , i f no. go on to question B) A . W hat is the average num ber o f cups per day? 1-3 □ 4-6 D 7-9 D m o re D S M O K IN G H A B IT S 8. I)o you amoke at the present time? Yes □ N o D ( I f yes to question 8 answer A and B; i f no. answ er C ) _______________________________________ __________ ______ __ A . W hat is the average num ber o f cig a re tte s , cigars _ , a n d /o r p ipefulls — you smoke per day'.’j B. Have you Btopped at any tim e between 1968 and now? Yes □ NoD I f y e t. how long did you stop ? ________________________ | C. D id you smoke re g u la rly an y tim e between 1968and now? Y esD N o D I f no, go on to question 9,> I f yes, how long?________H ow m a n y cigarettes cigars p ip e fu lU d id you smoke per day?] D R I N K IN G H A B IT S 9. Do you d rin k alcoholic beverages at the present time? Y esD N o D ( I f yes to question 9, answer A and B: i f no, answer C ) ________________ ‘______________________ _________ A . Please check the am ounts you u su a lly d rin k . B eer Liquor W ins D Occasional botlle D Occasional glass other man tor religious use D Occasional glass D 3 to 6 snots per day □ 1 to 3 bottles per day □ Daily, but lass m an Vt bottle D over 6 shots per day □ over 3 bottles per day D Over Vi bottle per day B. Had you stopped d rin k in g a t any tim e between 1966 and now? Y e s D N o D I f no, go on to question 10. I f yes, fo r how long a period d id you stop?_______________________ C. D id you d rin k re gularly a t any tim e between 1966 and now? Y e s D I f no, goon to question 10. I f yes, fo r how lo n g a period did you d rin k ? . H ow much?(Please check the am ounts.) B ser N oD Liquor Wine D Occasional bottle D 1 tfi.? bottles per day D over 3 bottles per day D O ccasional glass other than lor religious use D Daily, but less then v, bottle O Over Is bottle per day □ Occasional glass □ 3 to 6 shots per day □ over 6 shots per day H E R E D IT A R Y H IS T O R Y 10. As o f 1966, the in d iv id u a ls listed were s till alive. W ill you please b rin g th is in fo rm a tio n up-to-date. R E LA TIO N S H IP Ape It Livino Ailm ent, it any II Deceased 1 Cause o' Deem Age at D eath . A. F ather's occupation (when w o rk in g )__________________________________ ________ M E D IC A L H IS T O R Y 11. In 1966 you indicated you had th e fo llo w in g conditions. W ill you please b rin g this in fo rm a tio n up-to-date. Make any correction or a d d ition in the data we listed below . Ailm ent A re you still troubled with this condition? Age at Onset Yes D H igh Blond Pressure Angina Pectoris Stroke (C erebral Thrombosis) H eart Attack (C oronary Thrombosis) Rheum atic H eart Disease r.nn rn r D iabetes Tuberculosis Ulcer f iver Ailment Arthritis R out R th ei D D n D D . .. _ D . n D n n □ □ Are you taking m edication or treatm ent for It? No Yes Ho D D D D D D D D D D D □ □ □ D D D D D D D D D D D D D □ □ D D D □ □ □ D □ □ D 71 S e ria l No. F O l'H T H F O L L O W -IT O F T H E L O N G E V IT Y an d M o tm in rn oi m ale Name o f A lu m n u s chadlates of M ic h ig a n state iw iv E n s m „_________________________________ D a te ____________ S treet________________________________ C ity _________________________ S ta te ____________ S ocial S e cu rity N u m b e r____________________________ P E R S O N A L IN F O R M A T IO N 1. H a te there hern an> chance,' in your m a rita l status, since 1976 (our previous follow-up)? Yes □ No □ ( I f yes to question 1. answer A : i f no, move on to question 2) A. PleaBe E x p la in ________________________________________________________________ 2. Present w e ig h t lbs. Have you lost 15 Ihs. or more since 1976? O C C U P A T IO N A L IN F O R M A T IO N 3. A re you presently w o rkin g (job or se lf employed)? ( I f no, answer A ; i f yes, m ove on to question 4) Yes □ Yes □ No □ Y esD N oD No □ A. Have you had a job or been self employed at any tim e since 1976? I l f no, answer A: if yes. m ore on to question 4) 4. Is this the same job you reported on the 1976 questionnaire? Y’es D No D ( I f yes, move on to question 5; i f no, answer the follow ing questions A thro u g h J. A. W hat kin d o f work (for example, engineer, teacher, d o cto r)__________________________________ B. A bout how much tim e on the job is spent sitting? P ractica lly a ll D More th a n h a lf □ About h a lf D A lm ost none D C. A bout how much tim e on the job is spent w alking? P ra ctically all D More th a n h a lf D About h a lf D A lm ost none D D. Do you ever w alk to or from work? Yes D No D I f yes, how fa r do you w alk? B locks_M 'le s How m a n y tim es a year______________ Do you ever bicycle to and from work? Yes D No D I f yea, how fa r do you cycle (both waysi? B locks M ile s Num ber o f timeB per year_____________________________________________ E. W hat type o f transportation do you use to and from your jo b (check a ll th a t apply)? S u b w a yD B u e D C a rD B ic y c le O W alking O Others (Pleasedescribe)_____________________ F. How often do you have to l if t heavy weights or carry heavy th in g s on the job? Frequently D Sometimes D V ery in frequently (or never) D G. How m any hours a week do you work on your job? (Hours per week) H. How much tension in your job? Great deal D Some □ V ery little D N oneD I. A ny responsibility for supervising other workers on the job? Yes □ NoD ( I f yes. answer 1; i f no, move on to J) I------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ' ). About how m any on the average do you supervise? ________ J. When did you s ta rt on IhtB job? Year_________ L E IS U R E T IM E A C T IV IT IE S a. How m a n y bourn a m o n th Ho you do th e fo llo w in g a c tiv itie s and w h ic h m on th s? i l j s t number o f hours in v o lv e d in each a c tiv ity under th e m n n th ie ) you p a rtic ip a te . J*-nve blw nk w here not Involved I 72 A C T IV IT Y Fishing - b a rk . boat, ice Fishing * wading Archery, target B adm inton_____________ Baseball - hard, soft Basketball Bicycling - pleasure Tobaggam ng, »i»riHinp Bowling, including lawn Canoeing or rowing Jogging C u rlin g ______________________ Fencing Gardening Lawn m owing - riding Lawn mowing - power m o w er. Lawn mowing - hand m ower Snow shoveling G olt - walking G olt - power c a r t ____________ Handball, including paddleball, racket and squash W alking • back packing W alking * cross c o u n try _______ W alking • mountain climbing W alking • pleasure Hom e workshop (carpentry) Horseback riding _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Horseshoe pitching Hunting • bow and gun Sailing - ice and water Judo, including karate _ Paddle tennis Rowing, skulling S hullleboard (not hand) Skating - ice, roller_____ Skiing • downhill Skiing • cross country Skiing • water Snowshoeing Dancing - ballroom Dancing • square Swimming • pleasure Swimming - e x erc ise___ Table tennis Tennis • singles Tennis * doubles V o lle yb a ll______________ W eight lilting Calisthenics • home Calisthenics • Health C lu b . Others. * 2 t t -1I ^ J « *to *O IZ £ Q 6. I f you have been ro u tin e ly exercising under a home exercise plan or H ealth C lub plan {commercial, Y.M .C.A., A th le tic Club, etc.) answer the fo llo w in g questions: A . Number o f hours per m o n th .w hich m onths (circle). Jan., Feb., M ar., A pr., M ay, June, Ju ly, Aug., Sept., u c i., Nov., Dec. B. What type o f exercises?__________________________________________________________ _ D IE T R E C A L L 7. L is t the th in g s you ale and dra n k yesterday (th is should preferably be a week day i. When possible, give the specific name o f the item, e.g.. Fresco or Coca Cola, ra th e r than soft d rin k ; M cDonald's hamburger; whole m ilk , skim m ilk , h a lf and h a lf, ra th e r th a n ju s t m ilk . Indicate the am ount you ate or drunk in terms o f cups (200 m il, tablespoons, teaspoons, ounces, numbers and approximate size,e.g..sm all,large,m edium for fruit6 , vegetables, etc. You m ay lis t meats either in ounces or size o f pieces: one ham burger p a tty <3" diameter x 1" thick) weighs 3 oz,; an average serving o f steak (3“ x 3’ ’ x Vi” ) w eighs3 oz, Beaure to include everything you ate or dra nk yesterday — candy, liq u o r, coffee (lis t sugar and cream, i f used), popcorn, potato chips, etc., as well as your regular meals. To help you estimate sizes, a rule is marked o ff on the edge o f th is page. Morning Snacks Breakfast Item Amount oi Sire Amount or Size Dinner item Amount or S izp Afternoon Snacks Lunch Item Item Item Amount or Size Evening Snacks Amount or Size Item Amount or Size M on. □ Sat. □ A . Check date o f diet record: Sun. □ Tues. □ Wed. □ Thurs. O F ri. C B. D id yesterday’s meals include any special or unusual event, e.g., pa rty, b irth d a y , anniversary, picnic, etc.? Y e s D N oD 1. I f yes, w hat was i t ? ________________________________________________ C. Does the above represent your usual day's food intake? Yes D No □ 1. I f no, how d id it d iffe r from your usual in ta ke ? ____________________________________________ — D. Check the colum n w hich indicates the approxim ate frequency w ith w hich you consume each food. Food Wnole milk Cream or halt and nail Ice cream (not ice milk) Cneese lottier m en collage) Butler Margarine Sour cream Salad dressings (not low calorie! Eggs Gravy Fat around meat Pork Veal French-tried potatoes Fried m eal, tried potatoes, etc Other deep-lat fried looos Dally' W eekly Never D ally'W eekly Never Food Fish Beef Cream or custard pies Cream puddings S uga' m cotfee. tea. elc Sugar on cereal Sugar on fruits vegetables Frosted cakes, brownies. sweet rolls, etc 1 S oil drinks lotnpt than low or non-calorie) Honey 1 Jelly. iam, preserves marmalade r Syiups (on pancakes wattles, elc 1 Molasses i Sweetened truit ruices Syrups elc i 74 E- Do you d rin k coffee? Yes □ No □ ( I f yes, answer que slio n A ; i f no, go on to question fit A . W hat is the overage num ber o f cups per day? 1-3 □ 4-6 □ 7-9 □ more □ S M O K IN G H A B IT S 8. Do you smoke a t the present time? Yes D N o □ ( I f yes to question 8 answer A and B ; i f no, answer C )__________________________________________________________________________ _________ A. W hat is the average num ber o f cigarettes .c ig a rs B. Have you stopped at any tim e between 1976 and now? a n d /o r pip e fu lle Yes □ No D you s to p ? _______________________ you smoke per day?j I f yes, how long did, { C. D i d you smoke regularly any time between 1976 and now? Y cbO N o D I f no, go on to question 9.j I f yes, how long? How m any cigarettes___ .c ig a rs ___ .p ip e fu lle did you smoke per day?( D R IN K IN G H A B IT S 9. Do you d rin k alcoholic beverages at the present tim e? YeB □ N oD A and B: i f no, answer C)_______________________________________ (Ify e s to question 9. answer ________________ A . Please check th e am ounts you usually d rin k , fle e t W ins D Occasional bottle □ Occasional glass other than tor religious use □ 1 to 3 bottles per day □ over 3 boitles per day □ Daily, but Is is than % bottle □ O ver H bottle per day D D D Liquor Occasional glass 3 to 6 snots per day over e snots per day B. H ad you stopped d rin k in g at any tim e between 1976 and now ? Yes □ N o D I f no, go on to question 10. I f yes, fo r how long a period did you stop?_______________________ C, D id you d rin k regularly at any tim e between 1976 and now? Yes D I f no. goon to question 10. I f yes, fo r bow long a period did you d rin k ? . How much? (Please check the amounts.) fle e r D Occasions! bottle □ 1 to 3 bottles per day D over 3 bottles per day NoD Liquor O Occasional glass Wins □ Occasions! glass other th an tor religious use O Dally, but less than Vt bottle D Over 'A bottle per day D 3 to G shots per day D o v e r 6 shots per day H E R E D IT A R Y H IS T O R Y 10. As o f 1976, the in d ivid u a ls listed were still alive. W ill you please bring this in fo rm a tio n up-to-date. R E LA TIO N S H IP Aoe It Living Ailment. It any Age at Deain It Deceased Cause ot Death A . Father's occupation (when w o rk in g ! _________________________________________ __ M E D IC A L H IS T O R Y I t . In 1976 you indicated you had the follow ing conditions. W ill you please bring this info rm a tio n up-to-date. Make any correction or addition in the data we listed below.________________________ AUment Age at Onset H igh Blood Pressure Angina Pectnris A r t you still troubled w llh this condition? Are you taking m edication or treatm ent for It7 Yes No Yes No □ D D D D D D D D D D D D □ □ D D D D □ U D D D D D D D D D D D □ D D D □ D D a Stroke (Cerebral Thrombosis) Heart Attack (D nrnnary Thrombosis) Rheumatic H eart Disease a Cancer p in h e le i □ Tuberculosis tim er l.lyer Ailment □ A rlhrilis rtnul Other □ D n . n D D D n □ APPENDIX G STATISTICAL ANALYSES 75 76 T wo - s a mr - l e VARIABLE l-ta s ts AT HL ET E YES NO TEST STATISTIC DF SIGN1F 4. AOEDX (TOTAL- HEAN OAR 1193.' N 68.204 178.30 274 70.167 190.07 227 T = - 1.6141 49? F= 1 . 0 6 6 0 226 . 273 F R 0 B ( 1 S T MEANC2NH ! BATA?= .1071 .3063 .9455 10. ENPD ( T OT AL * MEAN VAR 11B3) N 2.6558 1 .90B9 390 2.'7561 2.0 545 369 T = - . 98678 765 F- 1 .0 7 6 3 368.397 P R O B ( 1 S T MF„AHi2ND ! BA T A > = .3241 .2360 .8373 11. HCSO (TOTAL- MEAN VAR 1183) N 4.9698 2.3971 399 4.5691 2.3492 369 T= 3 . 5 9 9 0 765 F= 1 . 0 2 0 4 397.368 P R O B ( 1 S T MEAN!'' 2ND t BAT A>= .0003 .4223 .9998 12. ECTO ( TOTAL= MEAN VAR 1183) N 2.6633 1,2063 398 3.0271 1,2873 369 T = - 4 .5110 765 .0000 F= 1 ,0 6 7 2 368.397 .2622 P R O B ( 1 S T MEAN<2ND ! D A T A > * 1 . 0 0 0 0 77 d e s c r ip t iv e s t a t is t ic s for fix e d co variates VARIABLE Nil. N A M E 1 2 3 * ATHYN ENi'iri Ml'SO ECTU MINIMUM 1.0000 2,0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 7.0 000 7.0 000 STATUS VARIABLE 1 2 3 *« »** LOST 357 K U R T OS I S 0.5 000 1.4067 1.5527 0,08 0.24 -0.27 1 . 00 1 .93 2.17 0.16 2.20 1.1277 1 L OS T 92 PERCENT CENSORED 0.5054 3-D 3 4 ECTO MESO -1 744.5 43 7 24.47 D .F .= COEFFICIENT *0.1233 0.0098 -0.1751 -0.2867 ATHYN ENDt) MESO EC 10 E F F E C T S T ESTED 1 ATHYN SKEWNESS CODE F R E Q U E N C I E S I NDEPENDENT V A R I A B L E S 2 ENDO 1 ATHYN LOG L I K E L I H O O D Gl UDAL C H I - S Q U A R E = STANDARD DEVIATION 1.4011 2.7040 4.7771 2.8383 6.0000 TOT AL HEAD 767 310 BMDP2L H Y P O T H E S I S irAiii: MEAN MAXI MUM 4 P-VALUE = 0 . 0 0 0 1 STANDARD ERROR 0.1154 0.0831 0.0927 0.0746 *** STATISTIC CHI-SQUARE D .F, WALD 1.14 1 I PAfrC 5 BMDP2L H Y P O T H E S I S 3 - D P- VALUE 0.2053 C O E FF./S .E . E X P ( COEFF.1 -1.0605 0,8 040 1.0099 0.8393 0.7507 O .llB l - 1 .BS87 -3.0424 78 n Cb CCD T I V l V m K 1APLL NO. N 11 ,, f ; n I IIYN SlfiTJETICS HINIrtUrt 1.0000 FOR F I X E D COVARIATES MAXIhUN 2.0000 MEAN STANDARD DEVIATION SKCUNES5 KJRTOSIS 0.5000 0.08 1 ,00 1. 4 1 1 1 1 STA I US COPE F R E O U E N C I E S XiV.UL 4 H1TAL DEAD 767 318 HMDP2L H r P O I H E C i I S LOST 357 1 LOST 92 2 PERCENT CENSORED 0.5 1 I5 4 3-R 1 NDhl 'ENDEN I VAFil ADLES 1 ATHYN LOt> L I K E L I HOHD = GLOBAL C H I - S U I I A K E = VARIABLE -1 7 55 .2 92 4 1.72 D .F .= COEFFICIENT 1 ATHYN -0.1487 1PAGE 5 BMDP2L H Y P O T H E S I S 3 - B 1 P-VALUE STANDARD ERROR 0.1134 =0.1894 C O E FF./S .E . EX'Pf C O E F F . ) -1.3113 0.0615 79 I. ' H i. ',. ; ! i. ' • i i i i -'1J‘ >'i V- U riiv : i i f l r Al.riLlSlC (.1! 1- w .t j ANOVA VARIANU E7A~SWF'= BCRS 1540.8 54148. 556B9. 3 763 766 PETWCEf* WITHIN TOTAL ,1663 7 7 . L 3 F f 1At*! OF SUM t i r 50 UPi . c EJA- LH .0277 f!- 7<,7 OUT ht'AN SET ( VA R DCJHV = 3 . 1 2 2 0 V AR I A NCE MEAN ENPO MESO ECTO PALANC 121 403 102 72.331 76.302 72.31J 75.863 70.023 69.987 81.053 70.773 B•3680 0.365C 9.0029 8.4127 GRANIi 767 72.538 72.701 8.5265 F’A I R W l SL £17 RAT A EMIiD KCSD EC TO HALANt: MESO ECTO PALANC EETU PAL ARC Ll 7.VAR STU PEV MULTIPLE c c m r a r i s o n F - S T AT S 1GN1F P I FT tit F-STAT 513.60 7.73 70.967 ( RANSOM E F F E C T S N SDMAT t’ F S C H E F F E AL L L V -*9500 _3 . 9 7 1 7 _2 . 9 8 0 0 -3 .5322 21.508 5.0779 9.7299 .0000 .0245 .0019 2.3994 3.7062 3.1726 990P0 •43953 .74920 ,f m ..c f ..'.r, kl .3870 .6322 3.2071 2.5719 —. 5 5 1 2 7 .16346 .6861 3.8 202 .0001 80 v*?."' s > v i4 c * C 3 t i U i.j v e t j etc- a na lysis ur 1 -w 9 4.4B7? -4,4339 -5.2293 -4.9349 14.545 6.2817 9.5320 .0002 .03 26 .0022 -.79545 -.50101 .10222 .14994 .66- 7 5 . 3 3 I D . 6 9 82 3 .6 3 2 V .39444 .18542 -1 7.VAF< AMONG= S T D DEV ENI' O MESD ECTO DALANC ENI' O MESO ECTO RALANC MESO ECTO DALANC ECTO BrtLANC 3VEI 5.3753 .0012 64.740 (RANDOM E F F E C T S S T A T I S T I C S ) MEAN F’f i l R U ' I S C S T RAT A CT 3 4 8 .0 0 10 44.0 2550?. 26551. .0393 H~ N SOMAT .9!. CAGES- ATH. L T E I Y F 5 (V U \'(, variance c o m d -a llI'a irs u n . i . 09] 8 6 . O'*) 0 ALLOWANCES 6.3S) 81 Li 11':.. :i■"> V .K V j ,\ 77 U i.iv s ri& tD a n a lj'B id or Dl I ~'.I. T i - wiM- ■ vn'.-r. v a r ia n c e SOURCE b ittu c c n 365 TO TAL 360 .1 5 5 0 C T A -S n fv = I i 01 I . '/I. r i : : < r'i 7 2 .ljn .ta :;::' BUM pr B5R? 3 U11 T H I N ETAe t Dr rr i . i i ' i • (.' l ' A I L : t- = ou: Str M T A t' 700.31 333 . 2B436. 29136. 77.907 .0 2 4 0 (O A R EFFECTS 2 .0 4 9 7 ENRO MESO ECTO BALANC 63 208 S7 72.984 76.630 74.561 75.316 79.022 75.507 97.102 70.648 6,9 343 8.694 3 9.B541 8.4053 GRAND 369 75.575 79.174 8.6 980 F 'AI RWI SE STRATA ENDD MESO ECTO PALANC MESO ECTO DAI. ANC ECTO BALANC S lf.N jr .0308 S T A T IS T IC S / X U A R -A h O N ris . STD BED MEAN 41 VARIANCE r-f7 A T ir.T J C N 5DMAT 36 9 2 .9 9 6 4 (R A N D O M COMF = or MULTIPLE CDM'ARISON S IGN IF F-5TAT BIFF S CH E F T C ALLOWANCES L FU -,9 -3.6457 -1,5760 -7.3317 6.2 493 .79266 2.08S3 .0043 .3739 .1493 3.5650 4.9742 4.57,16 2.06DP 3.2140 1 . 6 0 36 .99156 .1710 .3200 4.2359 3 . 706 2 -.75483 .17440 .6765 5.0764 2 .5 6 > L 'O lh liiiif if J n« or.'iTL v- :’?f SI I u lf i i-; -try c=via [ e i Uifn'i UL'ili: n i v . jii-i I ' . 1c; I’ g n c l i i U o r i CiflOL 1- Li 1tV) ElutJlF • 14 Vu'.'j .0!l16 729 - .0649 -1.4033 . 130 4 72V - .0V47 -2.6642 ,0105 0.5764 75.4U6 .46755 -3 *53767. -4 729 - . ( ‘009 -.23991 • 010 5 7s .HTr Sis-ifi 4 0 , , 1 6 C o r r p l ; . L j c.n <1!? ATHL F.TE 1 YES N MiirtfJ ST te l »f V Vt'tk’ 1 rii'-l. r 75.4U4 8.3 209 3B4 7 2 HT2 3114 7 0 . 404 E!. 3 2 0 7 7 2 . 1 I t I 7 rilil: 0 V 2.3320 .26473 8 l . U 1 li T 111 3t i 4 y 7.? . L It't' 7 0 . 4114 0 . 370V y .47013 -3 .01314 -4 Ell-'.UTHtinJ 3114 .4 06 76 12.243 0 ; y . n r i .y 3 ku i tj .33370 -1 .34 700 « o . un i : Y i n j 384 .40676 12.243 V V‘7 . l l T 6 Y 3 l , t J l V 2.3320 .26473 Lii . u i b r i n .40676 3fJ4 17.043 0 Vp.H'IHYJtiUT 02.UI M ill 3 • 4 Vtll 3 - 3 . 0 1 3 1 4 y 304 .33370 -1 .34700 . n 80.81 M i l l 2 u 2.3 320 .26473 9 oi .u riin ii 381 U O .UlliYHi:1 0 . 3 3 3 7 0 - 1 . 347EI 0 - r* o j,u iiii'n r:i .47 0 1 2 -3 .0 1 3 1 4 -A 9 3t l 4 2.3320 .76473 0 oi .u r in 'in Y .47013 -3 .01314 -A 8 7 ,u t m m 3 Y i T H l X l E 1 MCI • 2' - n j £ 1 J, 2 6 1 C, L u 1 ( c-1 ii 1 1cj n N f; i u ru: v UL'riit L'.M: I ii i I 1 304 n .9 42 3 £< , 2 , 1. n t n .'iLL 7 0 . 003. y .00 92* / * ; . it j j i r . i K u r 13.034 35 4 U .9423 70.000 0 ,'•,1 I f H A L L , 3 1 7 3 2 - 1 , 3 4 3 7 7 ■“2 C»,WTt tYHT2 9 254 8.9423 0 70.556 7 2 , L I t I T . M. E .23469 ei.uT K vin 2.201('. 9 30 4 7 2 . LIFETAUL 70.006 8.9423 V 9 .40021 - 3 .57411 - 4 02,urnYtn i 354 .50926 13.034 u ?v .nTt f 2 2 2 0. .0000 . 0000 Sk C O IM l.u H f- J ' f TUOJ uV V - 1 4 , 5 7 C = V 5 7 ! 1 r 2 * V 1 4 Tuow^u C r o a s - T s t i u l Dt io n 57. CASE.S=CVI0<76 ! YES r 01 HLTiX* C0hA7 14.S0MAT hESO ECTO 6ALANC ENUG CVOX 74 O-LDLXrTL51S 134 134 21 on 5 20 COL% 72 53.7 11 52.4 47 53.4 4 BO. 0 10 50 ,0 0 TMfvliX CUL/i 62 46,3 10 47.6 41 46.6 1 20,0 10 50.0 N= TOTAL= c o l :; re s T EST S OF I N H E P H N B L N C r hAXJMUM L I K E L I H O O D CHI-SDUARE STATI5TIC SIGNIF 1.4375 1.5107 .4507 .4779 0F = 3 N= 134 CRAHFR'S P H J FONT 1 NGL fJCY COErF= .1045 . 1059 C o n .n .a n d 9TU0UAY V -14.58 Tuou3u C = V 5 B J 1 » 2 * V 1 4 0 = C 0 L 7 . . 1 EOT 5 Ci o & s - l a b u l a t i o r i 58, CA u X 7 6 Cf . SE5= LAL iX7 6: Y E; ; r f J t H Ll ' X * f : i mA T 1 4 . SOhAT ENLIQ HESQ ECTO BALANC 134 134 21 88 5 20 YES COL % 32 23.9 7 33.3 17 21.6 1 20,0 5 25.0 U1 HRliX c o l ;: 107 76. 1 14 66.7 67 78.4 4 80.0 15 75. 0 H- T UTAL = COLX I f SIS OF INHLFLNHLNCt FiAXJ hlJrt L I K E L I H O O D CHI-SQUARE STATISTIC 1.2724 1.3413 S1GM1F .7357 .7194 OF- 3 N= 134 CRAMF R' S F H I = C 0 N 1 1 NGETNCY CtJEFF= .1000 .0994 REFERENCES REFERENCES 1. Adams, F.The Genuine Works of Hippocrates W illiam s and W ilkins, 1939. B altim ore: 2. Anderson, W.G. Further studies 1n the longevity of Yale a th le te s . Medical Times 44:75, 1916. 3. Berry, W. T. C. and F. A. Nash. Studies 1n the aetiology of pulmonary tuberculosis. Tubercle 36:164-174, 1955. 4. B ju ru lf, P. Atherosclerosis and body-bulld. CSuppl. 349] 166:1-94, 1960. 5. Brozek, J. Review of B uild .and. Blood Pressure Study., 32:320-325, 1960. 6. Buchl, E. C. Anderung der korperform blem erwachsenen menschen, elne utersuchung nach der 1nd1v1dual-methode. Anthrop, Forsch. 1 :1-44, 1950. 7. Burr, W. A. and A. Damon. Physique and the eosinophil count. Himu. B is k . 42:202-205, 1970. 8. Calden, G ., W. Dupertuls and W. C. Lewis. Body -types and tuber­ cu lo sis. Psvchosom. Med. 21:460-472, 1959. 9. Carter, J. E. L. The somatotypes of a th le te s — A review. B io l. 42:535-569, 1970. Acta Med.. Scand. him . Biol. Hum. 10. Cerovska, J. Ischenlcka choroba srdencnl a telesna stavba. LfiRj. Ces. 119:593-596, 1980. 11. Cerovska, J. The c h a ra c te ris tic s of body build 1n p atien ts with Ischaemic heart disease. Czech. Med. 5:204-209, 1982. 12. Cooper, E. L , J. O'Sul 1 1van and E. Hughes, Athl e te s and th e heart: An electrocardiographic and rad io lo g ic study of the responses of the healthy and diseased heart to exerciser Med. jL. Ausjfc^ 1:569, 1937. 13. Cox, D. R. Regression model s and 1 I f e ta b l es. Soc. 34:187-220, 1972. 86 £asj. 87 14. Damon# A. D elineation of the body build variab les associated with cardiovascular diseases. Ann. NY Acad. Sc1. 126:711-727, 1965. 15. Damon, A. Physique, lo n g e vity , and number of o ffs p rin g : Possible s ta b iliz in g selection In man. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 35: 276, 1971. 16. Damon, A ., S. T. Damon, H. C. Harpendlng and W. B. Kannel. P redicting coronary heart disease from body measurements of Framingham males. J. Chronic D1s. 21:781-802. 1969. 17. Damon, A ., C. C. S e ltz e r, H. W. Stoudt and B. B e ll. physique 1n healthy white veterans a t Boston. 27:202-208, 1972. 18. Dixon, W. J. (E d .). BMDP S ta t is tic a l Software. U n iversity of C a lifo rn ia Press, 1963. 19. Dublin, L. I . Longevity of college a th le te s . Magazine 157:229, 1928. Harper's Monthly 20. Dublin, L. I . College honor men long liv e d . L ife . 1 3 :5 -7 , 1932. S tat. B u ll. Metrop. 21. Dyer, A. R ., J. Stamler, D. M. Berkson and H. A. Llndberg. Relationship of r e la t iv e weight and body mass Index to 14-year m o rta lity 1n the Chicago Peoples Gas Company Study. Chronic P is. 28:109-123, 1975. 22. Edwards, L. B ., V. T. Llvesay, F. A. Acquavlva and C. E. Palmer. H eight, weight, tuberculous In fe c tio n , and tuberculous disease. Arch,. Environ. Health 22:106-112, 1971. 23. F lo rey, C. duV. The use and In te rp re ta tio n of ponderal Index and other w elght-helght ra tio s 1n epidemiological studies. J . Chronic P is. 23:93-103, 1970. 24. G e rtle r, M. M. Ischemic heart disease, heredity and body build as affected by exercise. Can. Med. Assoc. J. 96:728-730, 1967. 25. G e rtle r, M. M ., M. M. D r ls k e ll, E. F. Bland, S. M. Garn, J . Leman, S. A. Levine, H. B. Sprague and P. D. White. C lin ic a l aspects of coronary heart disease. JAMA 146:12911295, 1951. 26. G e r tle r, M. M ., S. M. Garn and P. D. White. Young candidates fo r coronary heart disease. JAMA 147:621-623, 1951. Age and Gerontol. Berkeley, CA: 88 27. G e r tle r, M. M. and P. D. White. Coronary Heart Disease in A dults. Cambridge: Harvard U n iv ersity Press, 1954. 28. G e r t le r , M. M., P. D. W h ite , L, D. Cady and H. H. W h ite r. Coronary heart disease, a prospective study. Am. J. Med. Sc1. 248:377-398, 1964. 29. Greenway, J.C. and I . V. Hlscock. M o rta lity among Yale men. Y ale Alumni Weekly 35:1806-1808, 1926. 30. G s e ll, 0. R. Longitudinal gerontological research over 10 years (Basel Studies, 1955-1965). Gerontologla C U nlca 9 :6 7 80, 1967. 31. H a r t le y , P. H. S. and G. F. L le w e lly n . B r i t . Med. J. 1:657, 1939. 32. Hawthorne, V. M. and J. Womersley. The re la tio n s h ip of the body mass Index (w/h) to 12 year m o rta lity 1n 3696 men from the west of Scotland. Proc. Nutr_. Soc. 37:83A, 1978. 33. Hellstrom# R. Body bu ild and serum lip id s . 177:535-538, 1965. 34. Hertzog, K. P ., S, M. Garn and H. 0. Hempy I I I . P a rtitio n in g the e ffe c ts of secular trend and ageing on ad ult s ta tu re . Am. J. Phys. Anthropoid 31:111-116, 1969. 35. H i l l , B. C ricke t and I t s re la tio n to the duration of l i f e . Lancet 2:949, 1927. 36. Hruba, B ., M. Krellkova and F. Blazek. Somatotyp a Upldovy metabollsmus v. detskem veku. Cesk. P e d la tr. 27:487-489, 1972. 37. J o k l, E. 38. Kannel, W. B ., W. P. C as telH and T. Gordan. Cholesterol 1n the p red ictio n of ath e ro s c le ro tic disease. New perspectives on the Framingham Study. Ann. In te rn . Med. 90:85-91, 1979. 39. Kannel, W. B ., T. R. Dawber, G. D. Friedman, W. E. Glennon and P. McNamara. Risk fa c to rs 1n coronary heart disease: An evaluation of several serum U p ld s as predictors of coronary h eart disease. Ann. In te r n . Med. 61:888-899, 1964. 40. Karvonen, M. J. Problems of tra in in g the cardiovascular system. Ergonomics 2:207, 1959. Longevity of a th le te s . Young The lo n g e v ity o f oarsmen. Acta. Med. Scand. Physical Educator, 1944. 89 41. Karvonen* M. J ., H. K lem ola, J. V 1 rk a ja rv 1 and A. Kekkonen. Longevity of endurance skiers, Med. Sc1. Sports 6:49* 1974. 42. Keys* A.# C. Aravanls, H. Blackburn* F. S. P. Van Buchem* R. Buzina* B. S. D jo rd jevlc* F. Fldanza* M. J. Karvonen, A. M enottf* V. P1ddu and H. Taylo r. Coronary heart disease: Overweight and obesity as ris k fa c to rs . Ann. In te rn . Med. 77: 15-27* 1972. 43. Keys* A.* F. Fldanza* M. J. Karvonen* N. Klmura and H. L. T aylo r. Indices of r e la t iv e weight and o b esity. Jj. Chronic D1s. 25:329-343* 1972. 44. Kldera* G. J. Twenty-year study of physiological measurements 1n one hundred senior a ir lin e p ilo ts . JAMA 168:1188-1190* 1958. 45. K le in , B. E. K ., J. C. Coronl* F. Jones and E. Boyle* J r. Over­ weight Indices as c o rrela tes of coronary heart diseases and blood pressure. Hum. B1ol. 45:329-340* 1973. 46. Kretschmer* E. Physique and Character. Brace 4 Company, p. 19* 1925. New York: Harcourt, 47. Lapldus* L.» C. Bengtsson, B. Larsson, K. Pennert* E. Rybo and L. SJostrom. D is trib u tio n of adipose tissu e and ris k of cardiovascular disease and death: A 12 year follow up of p a rtic ip a n ts 1n the population study of women 1n Gothenburg, Sweden. B r. Med. J. 289:1257-1261* 1984. 48. Larsson, B. * K. Svardsudd* L. Welln* L. WUhelmson, P. Bjorntorp and G, T lb b lln . Abdominal adipose tissu e d is tr ib u tio n , obesity* and ris k of cardiovascular disease and death: 13 year fo llo w up of p a rtic ip a n ts 1n the study of men born 1n 1913. Br. Med. J. 288:1401-1404* 1984. 49. Lipscomb* F. M. and R. W. P a rn e ll. The physique of Chelsea pensioners. J_*. B*. Army Med. Corps 100:247-255* 1954. 50. M etropolitan L ife . C h a ra cte ris tics of major league baseball players. S ta t. B u ll. Metropol. L ife 56:6* 1975. 51. 52. Meylan, G. L. Harvard U n iversity oarsmen. Rev. 9:552* 1904. Physical Education M 1all* W. E .* M. T. Ashcroft* H. G. Lovell and F. Moore. A lo n g itu d in al study of the decline of ad ult height with age 1n two Welsh communities. Hum. B 1ol. 39:445-454* 1967. 90 53. Montoye, H. J. Health and longevity of former a th le te s . In : Johnson, W. R. and E. R. Buskirk (E d s .), Science and Medicine of Exercise in Sport (Second E d itio n ). New York: Harper and Row, p. 366, 1974. 54. Montoye, H. J. P a rtic ip a tio n In a th le tic s . 96:813, 1967. 55. Montoye, H. J . , W. D. Van Huss and J. W. Neval. Longevity and morbidity of college a th le te s : A seven year follow -up study. 3-l. Sports Med. EhyL- Fitness 2:133, 1962. 56. Montoye, H. J ., W. D. Van Huss, W. R. Pierson, H. W. Olson and A. C. Hudec. Longevity an4 M orbidity e£ College Athle t e s . In d ian ap o lis: Ph1 Epsilon Kappa, 1957. 57. Morgan, J. E. C r itic a l enquiry In to the a fte r-h e a lth of the men who rowed In the Oxford and Cambridge boat races from the year 1829-1859. In : Oxford U n iversity Oars. Cited by Harley and Llew ellyn, B r it . Med. J. 1:658, 1939. 58. M orris, J. N.» J. A. Heady and P. A, B. R a ffle . London busmen. Lancet 271:569-570, 1956. 59. M orris, J. N ., J. A. Heady, P. A. B. R a ffle , C. G. Roberts and J. W. Parks. Coronary heart disease and the physical a c tiv ity of work. Lancet 2:1053, 1953. 60. Olson, H. W. A comparison of longevity and m orbidity of ath letes and non-athletes. Unpublished Ph.D. th e s is , H ealth, Physical Education and Recreation, U n iv ersity of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1972. 61. Olson, H. W., H. J. Montoye, H. Sprague, K. E. Stephens and W. D. Van Huss. The longevity and morbidly of college a th le te s . Physician and Sports Medicine 6 :6 2 , 1978. Can. Med. Assoc, i*. Physique of 62. Paffenbarger, R. J. J r . , R. T. Hyde, A. L. W1ng and C. H. Stelnmetz. A natural histo ry of a th leticis m and cardiovascular h e a lth . JAMA 252:491-495, 1984. 63. Paffenbarger, R. S. J r . , J. N atkln, D. E. Krueger, P. A. Wolf, M. C. Thorne, E. J. LeBauer and J. L. W illiam s. Chronic disease 1n former college students. I I , Methods of study and observations on m o rta lity from coronary heart disease. Am. P u b lic Health 56:962-971, 1966. 64. Paffenbarger, R. S. J r . and A. L. W1ng. C ha ra cte ris tics 1n youth predisposing to fa ta l stroke 1n la t e r years. Lancet 1:753, 1967. 91 65. Paffenbarger, R. S. J r. and A. L. Wing. Chronic disease 1n former college students. X. The e ffe c ts of sin g le and m u ltip le char­ a c te r is tic s on ris k of coronary heart disease. Am. 1*. Epidemiol. 90:527-535, 1969. 66. Paffenbarger, R. S. J r. and A. W. Wing. Chronic disease In former college students. X I I . Early precursors of adult-onset diabetes m elH tu s. Am. 3 . Epidemiol. 97:314-323, 1973. 67. Paul, 0 . , M. H. Lepper, W. H. Phelan, G. W. D upertuls, A. MacMillan, H. McKean and H. Park. A lo n g itu d in al study of coronary heart disease. C irc u la tio n 26:20-31, 1963. 68. Perera, G. A. and A. Damon. H eight, weight, and th e ir r a tio 1n the accelerated form of primary hypertension. Arch. In te rn . Med. 100:263-265, 1957. 69. P e tt, L. B. and G. F. 0g1lv1e. The Canadian w elght-helght survey. In : Brozek, J . (E d .), Body Measurements and HumanN u tr itio n . D e tro it: Wayne U n iversity Press, pp. 67-68, 1956. 70. Polednak, A. P. Longevity and cardiovascular m o rta lity among former co lleg e a th le te s . C irc u la tio n 46:649, 1972. 71. Polednak, A. P. Longevity and cause of death among Harvard college a th le te s and t h e ir classmates. Ger.1 at r ie s 27:53, 1972. 72. Polednak, A. P. Previous health and longevity of male a th le te s . Lancet 2:711, 1972. 73. Polednak, A. P. The Longevity a l A th letes. S p rin g fie ld , I l l i n o i s : Charles C. Thomas Publisher, 1979. 74. Polednak, A. P. and A. Damon. College a th le tic s , longevity and cause of death. Hum. B1ol. 42:28, 1970. 75. Pomeroy, W. C. andP. D. White. Coronary heart disease fo o tb a ll players. JAMA 167:711, 1958. 76. Prout, C. 1972. 77. P y o ra la , K., M. J. Karvonen, P. Taskln en , J. Takkunen, H. Kyronseppa and P. P e lto k a lllo . Cardiovascular studies of former endurance s k ie rs . Am. J. C a rd io l. 20:191, .1967, L ife expectancy of college oarsmen. 1n former JAMA 220:1709, 92 78. RabMn* S. W. # F. A. L. Mathewson and P. Hsu. R elation of body weight to development of Ischemic heart disease 1n a cohort of young North American men a f te r a 26 year observation period: The Manitoba study. Am. J. C ardio l. 39:452-458# 1977. 79. Reed# L. J. and A. G. Love. Lo ng evity of Army o f f ic e r s 1n re la tio n to physical fitn e s s . The M ilit a r y Surgeon 69:379# 1931. 80. Rook# A. An In v e s tig a tio n In to the longevity of Cambridge sports­ men. B r i t . Med. J. 1:773# 1954. 81. Rossman# I . Anatomic and body composition changes with aging. In : Finch# C. E. and L. H ayfU ck (Eds.)# Handbook o f the Biology of Aging. New York: Van Nostrand Relnhold Company# p. 193# 1977. 82. Ruger# H. A. and B. Stoesslger. Growth curves of c e rta in char­ a c te r is tic s Inm an (m ales). Ann. Eugenics 2:75-110# 1927. 83. Saavedra# A. M. Hippocrates and the external observation. Med1c1na ESuppl.3 44:181-184# 1964. 84. Salonen# J. T. and P.Puska. R elation o f serum cholesterol and trig ly c e rid e s to th e ris k of acute myocardial In farctio n # cerebral stroke and death 1n eastern Finnish male population. In t . J. Epidemiol. 12:26-31. 1983. 85. Schmid# V. L Contributions to th e study of the causes of death of sportsmen. S p o rtarzt und 5portmed1z1n 10:411# 1967. 86. Schnohr# P. Longevity and cause of death champions. Lancet 2:1364# 1971. 87. Schnohr# P. A th le tic 88. Schonfelder# V. M. and H. Zschoch. Konst1tut1on» korper-und herzgewlcht be1 koronarsklevose und m yokardlnfarkt. Zschr. Inn Med. 22:415-420# 1967. 89. Seltzer# C. C. Some re-evaluat1ons of the bu ild and blood pressure study# 1959 as re la te d to ponderal Index# scmatotype and m o rta lity . fcL_ Engl. I* . Med. 274:254-259# 1966. 90. Seltzer# C. C. and J. Mayer. Body measurements In re la tio n to disease. Postgrad. Med. 40:A145-A151# 1966. 91. Sheehan# G. A. 974# 1972. In male a th le tic a c tiv ity and lo ngevity. A th le tic a c tiv ity and longevity. Lancet 2:605# 1972. Lancet 2: 93 92. Sheehan* G. A. 1973. 93. Sheldon, W. H. The V a rie tie s of Human Physique. Harper and Brothers Publishers, 1940. 94. Sheldon, W. H ., C. W. Dupertuls and E. McDermott. A tlas of Men. New York: Harper and Brothers Publishers, 1954. 95. Society of Actuaries, B uild and Blood Pressure Study. Society of Actuaries, 1959. 96. S okal, R. R. and F. J. R o h lf. B io m etry. Freeman and Company, 1981. 97. S o rlle , P ., G. Tavla and W. B. Kannel. JAMA 243:1828-1831. 1980. 98. Spain, D. M., V. A. Bradess and I . J. G reenblatt. Postmortem studies on coronary ath erosclero sis, serum beta lip o p ro te in s and somatotypes. Am. J. Med. Scl. 229:294-301, 1955. 99. Spain, D. M., V. A. Bradess and G. Huss. Observations on atherosclerosis of the coronary a rte rie s 1n males under the age of 46: A necropsy study with special reference to somato­ types. Ann. In te rn . Med*. 38:254-277, 1953. TOO. Spain, D. M., D. J. Nathan and M. G e llls . Weight, body type and the prevalence of coronary ath ero s cle ro tic heart disease In males. Am. J. Med. Scl. 245:63-69, 1963. 101. Stephens, K. E ., W. D. Van Huss, H. W. Olson and H. J. Montoye. The lo n g e vity , m orbidity and physical fitn e s s of former a th le te s — An update. In : Eckert, H. M. and H. 0. Montoye (E d s .), Exercise and Health. Champaign, I l l i n o i s : Human K in etics Publishers, In c ., 1984. . Longevity of a th le te s . Am. Heart 86:425-426, New York: Chicago: San F ra n c is c o : W. H. Body build and m o rta lity . 102 Stoudt, H. W., A. Damon and R. A. McFarland. Heights and weights of white Americans. Hum. B1ol. 32:332-341, 1960. 103. Stoudt, H. W., A. Damon, R. A. McFarland and J. Roberts. Weight, height and setected body measurements j i f ad u lts. United States. 1960-1962. Public Health Service, P ublication No. 1000, Series 11, No. 8. Washington, D. C .: Government P rin t­ ing O ffic e , 1965. 104. Tanner, J. M. The re la tio n between serum cholesterol and physique 1n healthy young men. Physiol. 115:371-390, 1951. 9 ** 105. T ro tte r* M. and G. Gleser. The e ffe c t of aging on statu re , Am. Phys. Anthropol. 9:311-324* 1951. 106. Voors* A. W. * L. S. Webber* R. R. Frerlchs and G. S, Berenson. Body height and body mass as determinants of basal blood pressure in ch ild ren — The Bogalusa heart study. Am. 1L_ Epidemiol. 106(21:101-10B* 1977. 107. Waaler* H. T. Height* weight and m o rta lity . The Norwegian experience. Acta Med. Scand. CSuppl.] 679:1-56* 1984. 108. Wakefield* M. C. A study of m o rta lity among the men who have played 1n the Indiana high school s ta te fin a l basketball tournaments. Res. Quart. AAHPER 15:2* 1944.