THE RELATIONSHIP OF BODY TYPE. TO PERFORMANCE ON AN ACTWITY TEST fiATTERY AME THE PF W BY FREfiHMEN MEN AT MlCHIGAN NATE UNIVERSUTY Thesis {or the Degree (if M. A. MECBEGAN STATE UNIVERSITY Michaei Gaii Crain 1962 THESIS W M‘ LIBRARY Michigan State University —-.-.. ---— BUREAU OF E57,.“'VIEC77‘1'2'.-. (”3‘15”“ij ‘07 ' "- L‘ i :- I J \_4..' L. L— '-, .__ ‘ V .' . ML“. ”W4!” F, 9‘ . 9" -'- ‘V 5Y E.i\_li LI‘FV AHVU, [\‘IIUIIOLJI'\|4 THE RELATIONSHIP OF BODY TYPE TO PERFORMANCE ON AN ACTIVITY TEST BATTERY AND THE PF PLAN BY FRESHMEN MEN AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY BY Michael Gail Crain AN ABSTRACT OF A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Health, Physical Education, and Recreation 962 Approved fl‘j K W // O ABSTRACT THE RELATIONSHIP OF BODY TYPE TO PERFORMANCE ON AN ACTIVITY TEST BATTERY AND THE PF PLAN'BY PRESHMEN MEN AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY By Michael Gail Crain Statement of the Problem To determine the relationship between body type and performance on the activity test battery and the.RF Physical Fitness Plan by freshmen men at Michigan State University. Methodology At the beginning of fall term, an activity test battery, designed to measure strength, power, agility, and endurance, was given to all of the Foundations of Physical Education male students at Michigan State University. In addition, each student was body typed, using the Sheldon technique, and then placed on one of the starting charts of the PF Plan by means of percentile rankings derived from the activity tests. The PF Plan consisted of five general exercises which had to be completed during an eleven minute time period. There were twelve levels of achievement on each of the five charts which made up the plan. Near the end of the term a questionnaire was adminis- tered to each student, asking for his activity test scores. Michael Gail Crain his body type, and his PF Plan level achievement during the first four weeks. Nineteen body type groupings were then identified to facilitate the handling of comparisons due to the large number of individual body types. The data were then punched into IBM cards for statistical tabulations and analysis. Percentile tables and profile charts for each of the body type groupings on all of the activity tests and the first four weeks of the PF Plan were derived from the data. Conclusions There was a definite relationship between body type and performance on the activity test battery and the PF Plan by freshmen men at Michigan State University. Consideration should be given to body types in placing students on one of the starting charts of the PF Plan. THE RELATIONSHIP OF BODY TYPE TO PERFORMANCE ON.AN ACTIVITY TEST BATTERY AND THE PF PLAN BY FRESHMEN'MEN AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY BY Michael Gail Crain A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Health, Physical Education, and Recreation 1962 fie 2/ 7/3 :7 M, D 20A TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter I 0 TIE PROBLEM O O 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 Introduction to the Study . . . . Purpose of the Study . . . . . . Need for the Study. . o . . . . Limitations of the Study. . . o . Definition of Terms . . . . . . II. RELATED LITERATURE. . . . . . . . III. METHODOLOGY . . . . o . . o . . Introduction. . . . . . . . . Research Methods Used. . . . . . Subjects . . . . . o . . . . Tests Used . . . . . . . . . Testing Procedure . . . . . . . Analysis of Data . . . . . . . IV. ANALYSIS AND PRESENTATION OF DATA. . . Individual Profile Charts . . . . Comparison of Profile Charts . . . Summary of Findings . . . . . . V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Summary . . . . . . . . . . Conclusions . . . . . . . . . Recommendations. . . . . . . . BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . APPENDICES O 0 O O O O O 0 ° 0 O O 0 Appendix A The PF Plan and an Explanation Level Numbering . . . Appendix B A Letter from William Orban on Formulation of the SEX Plan . of the . 24 .24 .26 -26 .28 .30 032 o 55 o 56 o 56 Chapter Appendix C Appendix D The Questionnaire, Coding Plan, and IBM Procedure and Statistical Analysis . . . . . . A Body Type Grouping Frequency Table and a Table of the Body Type Groups and the Body Types Within Each Group. ii Page LIST OF CHARTS Chart Page 1. Profile Chart of Body Type Group #4 (Mesomorphic Endomorph) Performance on the Activity Test Battery and the First Four Weeks of the PF Plan . . . . . . . . . 33 II. Profile Chart of Body Type Group #9 (Strong Mesomorph) Performance on the Activity Test Battery and the First Four Weeks of the PF Plan . . . . . . . . . 35 III. Profile Chart of Body Type Group #10 (Moderate Mesomorph) Performance on the Activity Test Battery and the First Four weeks of the PF Plan . . . . . . . . . 37 IV. Profile Chart of Body Type Group #11 (Endomorphic Mesomorph) Performance on the Activity Test Battery and the First Four Weeks of the PF Plan . . . . . . . . . 39 V. Profile Chart of Body Type Group #12 (Ectomorphic Mesomorph) Performance on the Activity Test Battery and the First Four Weeks of the PF Plan . . . . . . . . . 40 VI. Profile Chart of Body Type Group #13 (Ectomorph-Mesomorph) Performance on the Activity Test Battery and the First Four Weeks of the PF Plan . . . . . . . . . 42 VII. Profile Chart of Body Type Group #18 (Mesomorphic Ectomorph) Performance on the Activity Test Battery and the First Four Weeks of the PF Plan . . . . . . . . . 44 VIII. Profile Chart of Body Type Group #19 (Balanced) Performance on the Activity Test Battery and the First Four Weeks of the PF Plan . . , . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Chart Page IX. Comparison of Profile Charts for Body Type Groups #4, #9, #10, and #11 . . . . . . . 53 x. Comparison of Profile Charts for Body Type Groups #12, #13, #18, and #19 . . . . . . 54 *All profile charts were superimposed over percentile tables-for the entire population. ACKNOWLEDGMENT The author wishes to express his sincere gratitude to Dr. Roy K. Niemeyer and Dr. Wayne D. Van Huss for their unfailing guidance and encouragement so often given him in this research project. Appreciation is also extended to all the Foundation's students and instructors who were most cooperative, and to Paul Klaver of the Data Processing Department. CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM Introduction to the Study Physical fitness is a term used rather loosely by Americans to describe the physical well-being of the body. The average American sometimes falsely prides himself as having a high level of physical fitness or admits that he is too lazy to take up a vigorous exercise program designed to build up his fitness. There is a definite need for a physical fitness plan which will bring the body up to an acceptable level of fit- ness and then maintain that level. At the same time the plan must not be too complicated, require long periods of exercise, or use any equipment which might be necessary for the execution of the exercises. In addition, there must be proof that the plan has worked for others. The average American will not take up a set of exercises unless he is assured that they will improve his fitness and, once he has started, he likes to be able to observe and chart his progress. With this type of physical fitness plan many Americans could be encouraged to start building up their fitness immediately. Others would follow as soon as they saw the results these people exhibited. However, they must under- stand that not everyone can achieve the same level of fitness. Differences in body size and proportion will affect performance and fitness greatly. In the world of today the American people must be strong of body as well as mind. In the fall of 1961 the Department of Health, Physical Education, and Recreation at Michigan State University instituted the PF Plan in the required Foundations of Physical Education course. The plan was incorporated from the SEX Plan used by the Royal Canadian Air Force. Basically, the plan consisted of five general exercises, which were done daily during an eleven minute time period. When the student completed a given number of these exercises in the allotted time period, he moved up to the next level of achievement. Not only did the number of exercises to be done in the allotted time period increase with each level, but the exercises themselves became more difficult from one chart to the next.1 Preceding the PF Plan was an activity test battery, which contained tests of strength, power, endurance, and 1 See Appendix A for a copy of the PF Plan and an explan- ation of the level numbering. flexibility. The purpose of this battery was two-fold; the first being a profile chart of performance on these tests, which was used as a means of placing students on the PF Plan, and the second being a starting point of performance to be compared with later tests on the same battery to determine improvement as a result of the PF Plan.2 Another part of the Foundations course was the body typing of each student by the individual instructors. The method of body typing used was the one developed by Sheldon, Stevens, and Tucker3 with some modifications made by Cureton.4 As a result of many previous studies on the subject of body type versus performance, the Foundations instructors made a fair guess as to how well the students should have done on the activity tests, where they should have started on the PF Plan, and what level they should have eventually attained. For example, the mesomorphic body types exhibit the best all-around performance in muscular 2 See Olson's study on page 22 for the results of the retest on the activity test battery. 3w. H. Sheldon, s. 5. Stevens, and w. B. Tucker, The Varieties of Human Physigye. New York and London: Harper Brothers, 1940. 4T. K. Cureton, Physical Fitness Workbook. St. Louis: C. V. Mosby Company, 1947. PP. 103-113. 4 endurance activities.5 Ectomorphs are superior to endomorphs 6 and apparently endomorphy ..in speed, agility, and endurance is a limiting factor in fitness.7 Therefore, the mesomorph would be expected to perform at a higher level on the test battery and the PF Plan than either the ectomorph or the endomorph. Also, it would follow that the ectomorph should perform better than the endomorph. If these studies are correct, then there should be a positive correlation between body type and performance on the activity tests and the PF Plan. If this is the case, then tables and charts for the test battery and for placement, improvement, and attainment on the PF Plan by body types can be set up. It was the feeling of many of the Foundations instructors that the present method of locating the starting and finishing points of students on the basis of certain test 5F. L. Joranko, "The Relationship of Improvement in Mucsular Endurance To Body Types," University of Illinois Abstracts of Graduate Theses in Physical Education. Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois, 1953, no. 12. 6F. D. Sills and P. w. Everett, "The Relationship of Extreme Somatotypes to Performance in Motor and Strength Tests," Research Quarterly. XXIV (May, 1953), pp. 223-228. 7C. E. Willgoose and M. L. Rogers, "The Relationship of Somatotype to Physical Fitness," Journal of Educational Research. XXLII (May, 1949), pp. 704-712. 5 results was questionable and that another method ought to be attempted. Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study was to determine the relation- ship between body type and performance on the activity test battery and the PF Plan by freshmen men at Michigan State University. The specific objectives of this study were as follows: 1. To investigate the relationship of body type to performance on the activity test battery and the PF Plan. To present percentile tables for the activity test battery and the first four weeks of the PF Plan for the entire population. To present percentile tables for the activity test battery and the first four weeks of the PF Plan for each of the nineteen body type groupings. To present profile charts for the activity test battery and the first four weeks of the PF Plan through the use of a mean and a one standard deviation range for each of the nineteen body type groupings. This study encompassed the entire Foundations of Physical Education Program for men and utilized a questionnaire, which was administered in each section of the course. The results of the study and the conclusions derived from it can probably be applied to other freshmen in later years, both at Michigan State University and at other institutions making use of this fitness plan. Need for the Study Everyone who had come in contact with the PF Plan seemed to agree that it was of great value for several reasons: 1. Only eleven minutes per day were required to perform the exercises. 2. There was no need for any equipment or devices to aid in the performance of the exercises. 3. The exercises were chosen in such a manner that even if the students performed them incorrectly they would still benefit from their use. 4. There was a level somewhere on the plan which offered a challenge to even a highly skilled Etudent. However, if the student was not motivated to perform the exercises daily, he would derive little or no benefit from them. It was very difficult to motivate a student who found an activity either too difficult or too easy for him. If he progressed either faster or slower than he was expected to, problems occaSionally arose. For this reason, the student must be placed accurately on one of the starting charts on the PF Plan. He must have a reasonable and attain- able goal and should have some idea of whether or not he is improving at a normal rate for his body type. Through this study it is hoped to be able to provide for;some of these needs. Consideration should be given to body types in formulating standards for achievement on strength, motor, and fitness tests.8 By setting up tables and charts of performance, the student might be placed on the PF Plan solely by body type or by a combination of body type and activity test percentile rankings. This might prove to be a more valid method than the one being used now. With profile charts for each of the nineteen body type groupings available, the instructors would have a better idea of how the student should be progressing and what level of performance he should attain. 8?. D. Sills and P. w. Everett, "The Relationship of Extreme Somatotypes to Performance in Motor and Strength Tests," esearch Quarterly. XXIV (May, 1953), pp. 223-228. The results of this study should provide for motiva- tion on the part of the students as well as making the entire PF Plan more valid. Percentile tables of performance as well as profile charts by body type will be set up and these can be refined and adjusted as more data are gathered in subsequent years until extremely accurate tables and charts will be available for general use to everyone using the activity test battery or the PF Plan. Limitations of the Study Instructors body typing. It must be noted that each of the students was not body typed by the same instructor. The eighteen Foundations instructors body typed all of the students in their sections. While it must be brought out that this caused some variance in body typing with certain individuals, this variance seldom caused a student to be placed in the wrong body type grouping.9 Student absences. This problem was two-fold: (1) Some students were occasionally absent from class and also failed to perform the exercises at home on that day. Thus they ' would have missed one day of work on the plan and as a result, 9See page 27 for the reliability of body typing by more than one individual. 9 their data would not be quite accurate. (2) Several students were absent on the day that the questionnaire was administered to their section. Consequently, the study will not contain the complete population. In addition, a few of the students in each section failed to bring their Foundations work books to class, resulting in much of their data being incomplete. In spite of the above situations, approximately 85 percent of the twenty two hundred cases were included in the study. The gyestionnaire. This study was, of course, subject to the degree of validity and reliability which accompanies the use of the questionnaire technique. However, to raise the reliability, the questionnaire was personally administer- ed to each of the Foundations sections by the investigators.10 Lack of student participation on exercises. The main factor limiting the validity of this study was the fact that some of the students were failing to perform the exercises outside of class. Consequently, the data from these students 'was incomplete and partially invalid due to this lack of participation. However, since these tables and charts were set up for use in the Foundations Program, which is not an 10The investigator was assisted in the administration of the questionnaires by another graduate student, Jerome Weber, who also received data from them. 10 ideal situation, they should not have been derived from an ideal situation. Accuracy of stated achievement. There was little evidence to support the view that some students falsified their performance. However, this possibility must be considered and as a result, each student was required to perform the activity tests and the PF Plan on the level which he had achieved at the end of the term. Lack of adeguate sample for certain body type groupings. In some of the body type groupings there were very few cases on which to set up tables and charts due to the uncommon body types included in the groupings. As a result, those tables and charts might not have been as accurate as possible. How- ever, as was pointed out earlier, further data in these groupings will increase their accuracy. In addition, before viewing the data, the investigator decided not to include any body type grouping which contained less than fifty cases.1 Reliability of activity test battery and PF Plan. A final factor influencing this study was the reliability of 11This accounts for the fact that only eight body type groupings were studied out of the original nineteen. 11 the activity test battery and the PF Plan itself. If the methods of administering these tests and exercises varied greatly, the data were likely to be distorted. Definition g; Tegug Foundations course. The basic Physical Education course required of all freshmen men at Michigan State Univer— sity.12 PF Physical Fitness Plan. The same basic plan as the SEX Plan, with certain adaptations made to enable it to be incorporated into the Foundations Program. SEX Plan. This stands for "five basic exercises." The plan was conceived by William Orban with the intention of administering it to the cadets while he was Director of Physical Education for the Royal Canadian Air Force.13 Exercises. The five exercises included in the PF Plan. which are specifically detailed in a copy of the PF Plan in Appendix A. Briefly, they are toe-touching, situps, head and leg raises, pushups, and running in place. 12N. L. Labaw, "A Study of Acceptance and Rejection of the Foundations of Physical Education Course by Freshmen Men at Michigan State University," (A Doctoral Thesis, 1960) p. 5. 13See Appendix B for a copy of a letter from William Orban concerning the formulation of the SEX Plan. 12 Level. Any particular level of achievement on the PF Plan for all five exercises during the eleven minute time period. Starting pgiuu. The level on one of the starting charts of the PF Plan at which the student began working. At the time of the study this was determined by percentile rankings on the battery of activity tests. Finishing poinp. The level on one of the goal charts of the PF Plan which the student should reach. This percentile level should correspcnd to the one he began at on one of the starting charts. Actiyitv test battery. A series of tests measuring strength, agility, power, and endurance, which was administer- ed at the beginning of the term. Body type. The individual body build of each student. There are three distinct types of body builds: (l) endomorphic, (2) mesomorphic, and (3) ectomorphic. Body type is then registered as the degree to which an individual exhibits the characteristics of each type of body build on a scale cf one through seven. 14 See page 26 for a list of and references for the description of the tests. H ‘1) Endomorph. A body build tending toward obesity. Mesomorph. A body build tending toward huskiness. Ectomorph. A body build tending toward leanness. Body type groupings. A series of nineteen groupings which contained all the body types identified in the study. This was done to facilitate the easier handling of compari- sons due to the large number of indiviual body types.15 15See Appendix D for a list of the nineteen body type groupings and the body types within each grouping. CHAPTER II RELATED LITERATURE Ever since body typing had become accepted by physical educators, people began to wonder about its uses and implications. Attempts have been made to correlate body type with nearly every facet of mansn makeup. In many cases, results proved inconclusive or left room for doubt. However, in one area there seems to be general agreement and acceptance: physical performance. Since there are obvious differences in physical makeup, as well as physical performance, it becomes easy for one to accept studies which show a definite correlation between the two areas. Due to the fact that body typing is a relatively new pr ctice, there were very few studies before 1940, on the subject. Cureton,l in 1941, made one of the first attempts to study performance in athletic events and fitness tests in light of body type. American swimmers at the 1932 and 1936 Olympics were studied after being body typed by Cureton, using the Sheldon method. Most of the American Olympic l T. K. Cureton, ”Body Build as a Framework of Refer» ence for Interpreting Physical Fitness and Athletic Perform- ance," Research Quarterly, XII (May, 1941), pp. 30l~330. 15 swimmers had body types which ranged from 343 to 454 and very few extremes were found. All of these fell in the mesomorphic group while there were no extreme endomorphic or ectomorphic types found. All of the swimmers were found to be above average in strength, with the sprinters tending toward ecto- mesomorphy and the middle distance men tending twoard endo» mesomorphy. Cureton then studied physical education students at the University of Illinois and body typed them in the same manner. When performances involving strength and power were studied, it was found that the highest mean scores fell in the meso~ morphic groups with the lower scores falling toward the other two extremes. On the Brace test, which involved flexibility and agility, ectomorphic types scored highest, followed by the mesomorphs and then the endomorphs. Ectomorphs also exhibited the lowest scores on the McCurdwaarson test for circulation and respiration. The author concluded that the mesomorphic body types excell in activities involving strength and power while the ectomorphic body types excell in activities involving flexi- bility, agility, and endurance. 16 Willgoose2 and Rogers further investigated this rela- tionship in 1949 as they examined 153 students from Syracuse University to determine what affect body type ratings had on physical fitness. Each student was photographed from the front, side, and back and the photographs were sent to Shelw don and Dupertius at Columbia University for body typing. Following this, each student was given the Rogers Physical Fitness Index, which involved tests of strength and endurance. The endomorphs had a low PFI score and there was an inverse relationship between physical fitness and the endo- morphic component. In contrast, the mesomorphs had a high PFI score and a direct relationship between physical fitness and the mesomorphic component was indicated. The authors concluded that endomorphy was a limiting factor in physical fitness. There seemed to be a very low correlation between the PFI scores and the ectomorphic component which led Willgoose and Rogers to believe that ectomorphy may not influence physical fitness to any great extent. In 1954, Perbix3 studied the relationship between body 2C. E. Willgoose and M. L. Rogers, "Relationship of Somatotype to Physical Fitness," Journpl of_§ducational Research, XXLII (May, 1949). ppo 704412. 3 . J. A. Perbix, "Relationship Between Somatotype and Physim cal Fitness," Research Quarterly, XXV (March, 1954), pp. 84m90. 17 type and motor fitness in women at the University of Kentucky. The study consisted of eightymthree physical education majors and one hundred non-majors. Sheldon and his assistants came to body type the subjects as a part of their survey to estab- liSh norms for womens’ physiques. The tests used in the study were trunk extension, knee pushups, the Illinois Agility Run, and the medicine ball put. The findings indicated no relationship between body type ratings and trunk extension. However, significant relationships between mesomorphy and the medicine ball put and knee pushups were found. An inverse relationship was noted between endomorphy and knee pushups and the Illinois Agility Run when the mesomorphic component was low. Perbix concluded that mesomorphy was the determining factor in activities which involved agility, strength, and power. 4 and Mitchem in 1957 The results of a study by Sills seemed to bear out the findings of earlier studies. In addie tion to further proving the relationship between body type ratings and physical fitness, the authors set up tables for the prediction of performance by body types. The 433 male 4F. D. Sills and John Mitchem, "Prediction of Performm ence on Physical Fitness Tests by Means of Somatotype Ratings," Research Quarterly, XXVIII (March, 1957). pp. 64-71. 18 freshmen students at the University of Iowa were photographed, body typed by the Sheldon technique, and then given a battery of tests which included situps, pullups, the 100 yard pickwa- back-run, and the 300 yard shuttle run. Each student was placed in one of thirteen groupings according to his body type. Then these thirteen were narrowed down to four general body type groupings. Prediction equations were set up and the mean scores of these four groups were predicted. After testing, the comparison between the predicted scores and the actual scores revealed a high correlation and the tables were set up on the basis of T scores. The authors found that the group of mesomorphs and mesomorphs with high ectomorphic components scored highest on all tests. The group of moderate mesomorphs with high endomorphic components scored next highest on all of the tests while the group of ectomorphs and ectomorphs with high endomorphic components followed. The last group, which consisted of endomorphs and endomorphs with high ectomorphic components, scored lowest on all of the tests. Joranko,5 in his study on muscular endurance in 1953, 5F. L. Joranko, "The Relationship of Improvement in Muscular Endurance to Body Types," University of Illinois Abstracts of Graduate Thesesygn Physical Education. (Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois, 1953), no. 12. 19 found similar results. The purpose of his study was to demonstrate the effects of training on the muscular endurance of nine body type groups. Taking 123 students at the Univer~ sity of Illinois, who were taking courses in developmental activities, Joranko had them body typed by T. K. Cureton, using the Sheldon method, and then submitted them to a conditioning program. The program consisted of chins, dips, and sitting tucks, three times per week for a twelve week period. The subjects were then given motor fitness tests on the first, sixth, and last week of the program. The author found that while all body types improved in muscular endurance when subjected to a training program, the mesomorphic body types exhibited the best all-around performance in muscular endurance activities. However, mesomorphs were found to have a high level of muscular endurance to begin with; thus their improvement was slight when subjected to a training program. The mesomorphamedials and the ectomorph—mesomorphs demonstrated the most improvement while body types which had endomorphic tendencies exhibited very poor performances. It was noted, however, that both ectomorphs and endomorphs had similar initial performances. 20 Sills,6 in 1950, attempted to analyze the relationship of body type to the performance of motor skills involving strength and speed. Taking 158 freshmen in the Basic Skills course in Physical Education at the University of Iowa, he body typed them using the Sheldon technique and then administer- ed a battery of sixteen tests. After interpreting his findings, Sills concluded that there was no significant relationship between body type and strength and speed. Three years later, Sills7 and Everett followed up this study with one which was designed to clarify the relationship of endomorphy, mesomorphy, and ectomorphy to the performance of motor skills. In an effort to gain significant results, the authors chose thirteen extreme endomorphs, fourteen extreme mesomorphs, and sixteen extreme ectomorphs. It was hoped that by using these extreme body types, two body components would be held constant while a third was being investigated. 6F. D. Sills, "A Factor Analysis of Somatotypes and Their Relationship to Achievement in Motor Skills," Research Quarterly, XXI (December, 1950), pp. 424-437. 7F..D. Sills and P. W. Everett, "The Relationship of Extreme Somatotypes to Performance on Motor and Strength Tests,“ esearch Quarterly. XXIV (May, 1953), pp. 223,228. 21 Each subject was then given a battery of tests which dealt with strength, speed, agility, and endurance. After viewing the data, the authors concluded that the mesomorphs were stronger than endomorphs and the endomorphs, in turn, were stronger than ectomorphs. The mesomorphs were also found to be superior in speed, agility, and endurance. However, the ectomorphs were found to be superior to the endomorphs in activities involving these measurements. Sills and Everett reasoned that excess weight was a handicap to endomorphs and insufficient strength was a handicap to ectomorphs. In 1961, Fraber8 and Sproule conducted a study to assess the value of the SEX Plan by measuring the heart rate of subjects submitted to treadmill walking. The University of Alberta students were divided into three groups: 1. First year students enrolled in a required program of Physical Education to which the SEX Plan was added. 2. First year medical students who took part in the SEX Plan. Robert Fraber and Brian Sproule, "Assessment of the SBX Plan by Measuring Heart Rate Responses to Various Intensities of Treadmill Walking," (An unpublished Abstract: University of Alberta, 1961). 22 3. First year medical students who continued their regular activity but did not take part in the SEX Plan° Each student was then exercised on the treadmill at 3.3 miles per hour, once a week for five minutes. The grade of the treadmill was raised.one percent each minute° The heart rate was measured at the end of each minute during the exercise and also during a five minute recovery periodo Groups one and two showed definite increases in tread- mill performance, while group two experienced the greatest difference between the first and last treadmill test. The major improvements for groups one and two occurred during the first three weeks of work on the SEX Plan and then their performance leveled off to some degreeo Group three, acting as a control group, displayed little improvement during the testing period and led the authors to conclude that the SEX Plan was of definite value to those wishing to increase their enduranceo Late in 1961, Olson9 conducted a study on freshmen men, enrolled in the Foundations of Physical Education course at 9 H. W. Olson, “The Value of the PF Plan in Regard to Physical Fitness," (Unpublished Data on the PF Plan: Michigan State University, 196l)° 23 Michigan State University, for the purpose of determining the value of the PF Plan. The tests, consisting of the Harvard Step Test, pushups, situps, dominant hand_grip strength, and vertical jump, were administered to approximately two hundred subjects before the PF Plan was started. The P? Plan was administered to the subjects for a period of eight weeks and then each student was retested with the original battery of tests. The results of the study showed significant increases in performance on all of the tests in the battery and the author concluded that the PF Plan was worthwhile as it contributed to these improvements in strength and endurance. CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY; Intrgductign o The PP Plan was introduced this year in the Foundations of Physical Education course at Michigan State University. The plan was designed to help students achieve an acceptable level of physical fitness through a series of five basic exer- cises. The students were placed on the plan by means of per- centile rankings from a battery of activity tests, given at the beginning of the term. In addition, the students were body typed by their instructors and then all of the data were gathered through the use of a questionnaire, administered at the end of the term. The purpose of this study was to examine the relation-- ship of body-type to performance on the activity test battery and the PF Plan as well as to set up percentile tables and profile charts for the test battery and the first four weeks of the PP Plan, based on the nineteen body type groupings. Researgh Methggs Used Background on the SEX Plan, of which the PF Plan was an outgrowth, was obtained through the exchange of letters 25 with the people involved in its origin. First, a letter was sent to the Queens Printer in Canada to obtain a copy of the sax Plan. Then a series of letters to Dr. William Orban, who developed the plan while at the Royal Canadian Air Force, brought to light the method used in formulating the plan. Following this, a letter was sent to Dr. Jack Alexander, who also did some work in this area, and an abstract of some research done on the SEX Plan was received. Finally, a letter sent to the Royal Canadian Air Force with the hope of uncover- ing some of the figures and statistics on the plan netted no results. The investigator then visited several of the Foundations classes and became familiar with their organization. In addition, the procedure followed in administering the acti- vity test battery, the PF Plan, and the body typing was carefully observed. Having done this, it was decided that due to the large number of subjects, a questionnaire administered to each of the Foundations classes was the best method of gathering the data needed. The questionnaire was developed in such a manner that the data could be transferred directly to IBM cards. This eliminated the step of transferring the information to data sheets before putting the information on the IBM cards. 26 With all of the information punched into eighty column IBM cards, the computers then tabulated all of the data and the investigator treated it statistically to gather the desired information. Subjects It must be pointed out that the entire population was used in this study rather than just a sample. Since data on all of the students in the Foundations Program was readily available to the investigator, it was decided to examine every student enrolled in the course, which would raise the validity of the study. The number of subjects studied was 1876. However, due to incorrect data, some of the cases had to be pulled out of the study, bringing the final total to 1769. The population was classified as male freshmen students, roughly between the ages of seventeen and twenty, enrolled in the Foundations of Physical Education course at Michigan State University in the fall of 1961. Tests Used The activity test battery, used to measure strength, power, agility, and endurance, consisted of the vertical jump, dominant and non-dominant hand grip strength, Harvard 27 Step Test, agility run, trunk flexion, trunk extension, situps, and pushups. A description and suggested testing procedure 1 for these tests is found in Physieal Activity in Modern Living. The body typing method used was the one developed by Sheldon, Stevens, and Tucker in Varietiee of Human Physigee2 with modifications by Cureton in the Physical FiEness Workbook.3 It was generally agreed by most authorities in the field that this was the best subjective method of measuring body type. In 1941, Cureton had eleven graduate assistants help him with the body typing of students in certain Physical Education classes. Using the same method as stated above, he found that the reliability of the body typing by the graduate 4 In another study by assistants ranged from .70 to .93. Sills in 1950, three faculty members body typed 158 students enrolled in Physical Education on the basis of front, side, \ 1W. D. Van Huss and others, Ph sical c ivit in M dern Living. (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc., 1960). pp. 91-92. 2 W. H. Sheldon, S. S. Stvens, and W. B. Tucker, The Vagieties of Human Physige . (New York: Harper Brothers, 1940). 3 T. K. Cureton, Physical Fitness Werkpeok. (St. Louis: C. V. Modby Company, 1947). PP. 103-113. 4T; K. Cureton, “Body Build as a Framework of Reference for Interpreting Physical Fitness and Athletic Performance,“ Reeearch geartegly. XII (May, 1941), p. 319. 28 and back views. Again using the Sheldon method, Sills found the reliability of the instructors body typing to be .917 for endomorphy, .904 for mesomorphy, and .946 for ectomorphy.5' 6 Testing Procedure The Foundations classes contained an average of forty-five students. Most of these classes were conducted in the gymnasium where the instructors introduced the students to new sports and activities or administered the activity test battery and the PF Plan. The other classes were spent in lecture rooms where the instructors related body functions to physical fitness, gave examinations, etc. When the battery of activity tests was given, the class was divided up and sent to the different stations where each of the tests was being administered. After a student finished one test, he moved on to the next station and the next test. One station was set up where the body typing took place. The students, clad in a pair of shorts, stood facing the instructor, then turned sideways, and then faced back to the front. The students remained in each position 5F. D. Wills, "A Factor Analysis of Somatotypes and Their Relationship to Achievement in Motor Skills," Research Qearterly, XXI (December, 1950). p. 427. See Appendix D for a comparison of Sheldon's body type frequency distribution to the ones in this study. 29 for a period of ten to fifteen seconds while the instructor subjectively determined their body types. The testing period usually lasted for about three days. When the students were finished with the testing and body typing, the PF Plan was started. A lecture pertaining to how the class was to be organized, how the plan would be administered, and how the students would determine their percentile rankings was given on the first day. The PF Plan itself was started on the next day as each student began work according to his percentile ranking. The classes were spread out and then the instructors kept time as the students perform- ed the exercises during the allotted time periods. Each student was responsible for recording the date next to the level he achieved on that day. Near the end of the term, each section was visited by the investigators and the questionnaire was administered. This took approximately fifteen minutes and during that time the students recorded their activity test scores, their body type, and their weekly PF Plan performance in addition to some information which was desired by the Physical Education Department.7 7See Appendix C for a copy of the questionnaire and the coding plan. 30 Analysis of Data All of the questionnaires were checked for the completeness and clarity with which they had been answered. If any empty blanks were found, they were filled with an ”0" which signified no information. The information on the questionnaires was then punched into eighty colum IBM cards and verified for accuracy. Due to the large number of cases, all of the statistical tabulations were conducted using IBM equipment. All of the subjects were first placed in one of the nineteen body type groupings. Then all of the activity test and PF Plan scores were sorted from high to low for both the entire population and each of the body type groupings. This was done to facilitate the computing of percentile tables by means of an actual score count. Following this, the mean and a one standard deviation range were computed for all of the activity test and PF Plan scores for each body type grouping.8 As a result of these tabulations and computations, percentile tables for all of the activity tests and the PF Plan for the entire population and each body type grouping. 8 See Appendix C for a more detailed description of the IBM procedure and statistical analysis. as well as profile charts for each body type grouping on the same tests, are presented in the following chapter. 31 CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS AND PRESENTATION OF DATA The following tables and charts are the products of the tabulated information from the questionnaires. They were statistically analyzed and the results and interpretations are presented in this chapter. First, each profile chart was analyzed in terms of how that body type grouping compared to the total population and then the body type groupings were compared with each other in terms of each test. Individual Profile Charts Shown in Chart I is the performance of the mesomorphic endomorph body type grouping on the activity tests and the first four weeks of the PF Plan. Due to the excess body weight with a tendency toward huskiness, which was a characteristic of this group, the scores on the vertical jump. pulse rate, agility run, trunk flexion, trunk extension, situps, and pushups were low as expected. Even though these individuals should be quite strong, they cannot lift their excess weight very far off the ground. Again in the pulse rate measurement, weight was a handicap as the mesomorphic endomorph must expend 33 Ml rummovmmmrflcmmcnmm) nmaummmuwmnmmmmwunm m :0. 9 01.- Int 0 0661 161-1.:- In.—0 ~-.fl shun-on» unn— n-Inn. 11-1-1. 011n- nnn- 0nn1n1nn1 1nd: 0000-0010. (nun) nu nun. no nun- run nu nu. noun 3 nun 1on1 an: 00.1 1.661 an; M 60 1n .0 n. 000 100. 100 10-. 10 13.0 nu. «9.0 In. ”.0 1n. ,9 10 10 0’ n 51 u 2.0 n. 161 10-. 106 1n. n 16., nu. 07., in. 16.0 1.6. 15 01 11 11 06 a 11 90 15.6 n. 1” 110. 100 110. 01 11.1 nu. 06.0 1n. 11.0 In. 69 11 11 00 10 11 a ”O‘ “u '~---mo “ "0’ 0“. “I, ._- no’ “a “ ” “ I, CI ” n 3 10.0 n. 401 100. 1:0 1n.‘~“ :- 11.1 u... 09-0 say—v" - i“ 8 15 w n " : 15—--0-‘ I'M—14.9 1n... — —m 11-... — -- 3": - 41.0 ”—fl.mc— —13.1 —— .41—— — 11— — —10 —- -11- - n—— 13—— I ' ’ ‘\ ’ \ 0 16 19 n a 10 11.0 n. 111 106. 111 11.. yo 10.04666. 05.. an. 11.1 no. ‘01 10 1 69 8.0 n.” 130 106. 111 1n. ,6 10.1 nu. o0.6 an. I.‘ an. 05“-” 13 16 10 11 00 60 n.6 n, 111 11.. 100 1n. :1 10.3 nn. o0.) 1n. 11.0 1.1. n 11~‘ 1! 19 10 00 I,” x 11.1 . 110 100. 116 100. :0 10.6 0000. «.1 a... 11.9 1.00. 01 16 ‘11- a ,41---n’ a :-—-a0 0—.- ” .-————“———-II.10000.——-0’-.I..——fl-,l..-—-J———”—-—n—=m—“-—”-H-n 05 01 1.0. 10.9 0n0. 03.0 In. 00.1 100. n I! II I! 1‘ 1. I Q n.0 In. 10.1 0-00. ’5 0' 11 I) I! I! I, h ..0 I 10 II I) 13 81 a--- 0-d‘0.‘-0—-"0"-0-——’—— ', —’-——:‘- ' IO 6 .‘c‘ “0 1‘0, “0 ‘ I, t' u “ 1s .0 n. 110 1n. ,1 10-. 60 10.1 nn. 60.6 h.’,10.9‘I-. 15 10 0 o'~ 10 I “ 10 16.1 n. ..u6nn—-— sun. 11 10.1 0000 ,4.si-. 1).) 1n. \ 11 16 1 0 10 10 11 , "0’ .0” 1'1”. ”1-.--~‘-1§-—--81M? ..I' In. 11., In. ‘fl---”---‘——-'-- ’—-”--n 0 6.5 n. 0: 10-. 15 116. 09 10.6 nu. 4.0 1.0. 1.0 1n. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 11” I‘M 1116 1‘10 10‘ 1161 1611 1111 1100 8100 1’ I” l” I“! mwnnnn-numnu—nm. — Il- ' ncwru non! mu - 121. 731. 621. 611. 631. 601. 601. as), 651. 651. 511. 531. 532. 501. 502. 5'}. 011. 011. ~11. ----— u ”m mu. m 1 mmwummntmmomu-mmmwn-mm-u-DM 1111110. Inn nun: 10 an Inna-0 1n.nn Inn-nu.“ 331.00.” unn- u-tnn. sun-1. 010n- nnnonnun1nn1nn1nn0nn rune-0110 ' (1.000) no M .10 w Mn .00 0n0. hon : bin 1.101 1.101 an: “1.1 Ian: M 100 16.0 1:. 191 100. 100 1n. n 11.} nu. ”.0 1n. 10.0 an. 15 )5 n 11 1: 1, )6 95 13.1 1:. 160 116. 151 106. 06 10.0 nu. +1.1 1.6. 16.0 1n. 15 30 13 11 11 I )1 ’0 11.0 n. 151 in. 1” 1n. :1 10.1 nu. 06.0 an. 15.: 1:0. 00 10 10 16 00 1: 16 a 12.1 “0 I” 1.0. U} I~0 5, I... We ”0, “I 8.1 I... ” a u 15 I, n N 00 11.1 In. 101 106. 110 no. 55 10.6 nu. «5.0 In. 10.) 1:16. 01 I 11 10 11 10 13 7, 10.5 I... I” 1.0. w “0. n no, ”.0 “07 D0 ”01 Ill. ” a u “ u I, a 10 10.1 n. 115 100. 111 100. 50 10.0 nn. 40.5 1n. 11.1 1.6. fl 1; 11 1) 1s 10 11 65 10.0 in. 111 1n. 110 116. 61 11.0 nu. +0.1 1.6. 11.6 1n. )6 13 10 11 10 11 10 60 10.0 1|. 130 11-. 110 116. 61 10.1 nn. «.0 1n. 11.1 1... 15 1: 10 11 10 16 10 95 19.0 1.. 116 11-. 110 1:0. 60 10.0 nu. 0.6 1.. 11.5 1.0. 11 11 9 11 13 1s 11 50 10.0 1:. 113 100. 111 1n. 6; 19.5 nu. 61.0 In. 10.1 In. 10 11 1 11 1) 10 16 05 10.0 n. 111 11.. 111 11-. 66 10.0 nu. 0.1 1n. 10.1 In. 10 10 0 10 11 10 10 00 11.1 1.. 111 116. 109 1b.. 66 10.1 nu. 91.1 1... 19.1 1:6. 10 10 0 10 11 u 1) )5 11.} 1a. 110 106. 105 116. 61 10.0 nu. a.) an. 10.: 1n. n 11 1 0 11 11 13 10 16.0 n. 111 106. 103 116. 60 10.0 nu. 01., an. 11.9 In. 10 10 1 0 10 11 11 a “0’ “a u, I". 1“ 3“. 7° ”0' .00. 61.2 “a “a, be I, I? ‘ . I. u 1’ 10 16.0 n. 111 1:... 100 116. 11 11.5 nu. 4.: 1n. 16.0 1116. 10 16 6 1 g 10 11 19 10.0 1.. 110 1n. ,6 11-. 11 11.1 nu. -1.6 1... 11.1 no. 19 15 s 6 0 9 10 10 10.) u. 100 106. 0, 10-. 16 11.6 nu. -1.9 in. 11.0 1.. 11 1) s 6 1 0 9 s 11.1 13. ,0 110. 10 11-. 00 13.0 nu. -0.0 1n. 11.1 In. 1) 10 0 5 6 6 1 0 6.0 n. 00 1n. ,0 1n. 9, 19.0 nu. .6.0 1.. 0.0 1... 1 1 1 s 0 0 0 u 110 110 111 103 101 111 106 100 111 110 101 101 101 100 34 more energy to perform the Harvard Step Test than the average person. Difficulty in stopping and Starting a large bulk accounted for the poor scores in the agility run. The extra weight also affected the range of motion which accounted for the limited flexibility. The inability to raise and lower the body was exhibited in the low situp and pushup scores. However, even though the mesomorphic endomorph's scores on dominant and non-dominant hand grip strength were somewhat higher than their other scores, it would be expected that they would be even above average in strength. Since body weight does not enter into this test, all of the subject's strength could be put to the task at hand. Due to the overall low scores on the activity tests, the mesomorphic endomorph group should have performed at a low level on the PF Plan; which was the case. The strong mesomorph group, illustrated in Chart II, performed at the 55th percentile level in the vertical jump and pulse rate, the 60th percentile in non-dominant hand grip strength and the agility run, the 65th percentile in dominant hand grip strength and situps, and the 70th percentile in pushups. This above average performance was expected due to a great amount of strength combined with average weight which was common to this grouping. The mu Puma-18000001880000!”ammunfnmmoummnmmmnmmrmmmwunm 35 811181 808 00 ll- nn.0- 010.800 Ilium-0 580.000.0660 1.11105- 9.10100. 8-1-0. 010.- nun-m1“ 0800 500.1 00001 nun-110' (an-n) 815 1800.10 805 000-300 run 800 0000. sun- 3 an. 00001 1.0001 1.061 1008 100.1 M 100 55.0 n. 80 100. 000 100. 8 ‘ 15.0 nn. 05.0 1.0. 8.0 1.5. 55 10 00 05 05 51 60 55 11.0 n. 161 100. 106 100. 00 16.5 nn. 0'... 1n. 06.0 1.0.. 15 01 15 8 06 8 51 50 05.6-n---155nn—-—10001k 05 ’,11.0nn.—-o6.0§0. 15.0100. 65 ’m---11---8--00- -I‘I- -I “ ’ ‘ u '0‘ “0 " I”. w 1.0 ‘~" :10, “0 .‘0’ “a \‘”I, ~-- “’ ” “ n ‘ a u 8 00.0 n. 101 18. 150 100. 50 11.1 nu. «5.0 no. 00.5 1.. 50 51 15 50 11 00 8‘ 10 15.0 10. 10.0 nu. 15.0 1.. 15.1 1.5. 1: 65 8.0 10. 00.6 100. 8.6 100. 8 8 00 60 8.6 n. 00.5 100. 8.0 an. 00 11 8 15 50——-01. ———— 1 0)J0..——00.00- --—55 ——05 8 05 8.0 1.. 18 100. 111 100. 61 10.5 0000. 51 8 10 8 00 8.0 n. 111 100. 110 100. 60 15.1 0000. 55 10 15 11 15 55 8.5 u. 18 100. 105 110. 65 15.5 nn. 55 15 10 16 10 50 00.0 n. 115 100. 100 116. 60 15.5 nn. 0... 80. 10.1 In. 51 ,8 10 11 ’15 15 11 I \\ I \ 8———15.5.o,.——-115 1n.— —-101 1n.———--65—-—)5.1 onu- —01.0 no.— —11.5 1n.—--50;J- —00— ——~5---114 - 15—‘15— -.16 00 10.0 n. ‘~111 100 116. 61 ,’ 84‘... 91.! an. 16.5 1.1. _, 10 15 5 11 11 ‘10’ 15 15 10.0 n. 110100.“~51nn-———-65’ 00.5 6008‘ 00.6100. ,10.5nr. 05 10 0 10 11 15 10 I s I 10 16.1 1.. 106 1n. 50 100. 11 00.1 nu. 00.5110. 15.5 100. 15 16 1 5 10 11 15 5 15.5 n. 100 18. 50 100. 15 11.6 0000. -0.1 1n. 11.5 100. 15 15 6 1 5 10 11 0 6.5 1.. 05 an. 15 100. 55 8.6 nn. -5.0 an. 1.0 an. 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1155 1101 1116 1605 1650 1165 168 1111 1100 118 1’ 181 185 185 mwnnm-MMuun-nm. — u ' mums 000! mu - 515. 161. 565. 151. 251. 555. ----— GI Rm mm. 1611. u mmwum-n(mm1mun-mwmnumm-nnunm noun, non nun-5 8 11- 0001.18. In..- 0.0-..— 511111.000.” 1.111610- tuna. 8—8:. 01080 nun-m1nn1nn 50661001.: 000080110 111-nu) 0:15 000-300 01-15 M tun nu 0000. nun 0 Inn- 10001 1.001 00061 lav-1 1.101 ”M ' 100 56.0 10. 150 110. 115 1.1.0. 50 16.0 nn. 65.0 an. 8.0 In. 05 55 8 51 55 05 50 55 00.0 n. 160 110. 156 11.0. 55 16.6 0000. 00.5 100. 16.1 100. 8 05 00 00 8 55 8 50 16.1 n. 101 100. 106 100. 00 11.0 nn. 11.5 100. 15.1 1n. 10 00 15 8 8 8 51 05 15.5 n. 150 110. 100 110. 01 11.1 nn. «6.5 1.0. 00.0 In. 15 8 11 8 00 50 55 00 00.1 n. 150 100. 155 12:0. 50 11.5 nn. 66.5 In. 00.5 In. 66 51 16 00 05 06 51 15 00.1 n. 105 110. 151 110. 51 11.6 nn. 06.0 100. 15.0 18. 55 56 16 1° 8 8 8 10 00.0 10. 101 110. 115 110. 50 11.0 0000. 65.1 1.0. 15.5 In. 55 50 15 10 8 10 06 65 05.5 1|. 100 1:0. 105 11.0. 55 11.5 0000. 05.5 100. 8.0 in. 51 8 15 11 00 15 8 60 15.0 n. 151 110. 111 110. 51 10.0 nn. 05.0 1111. 8.0 80. '1 51 10 11 15 8 8 55 8.5 8. 155 1:10. 100 in. 50 10.1 0000. 00.1 1.00. 11.1 18. 8 51 10 16 15 8 50 00 8.0 n. 116 1.0. 111 1'10. 61 10.6 nu. 65.0 us. 8.1 100. 8 8 11 15 11 8 8 55 11.0 n. 100 100. 110 1:6. 65 10.1 nn. 0’0, an. 15.0 as. 56 01 11 10 11 15 01 8 00.0 10. 18 116. 100 110. 60 15.0 nn. 65.1 80. 10.1 1.. 55 06 11 10 16 10 8 15 00.5 8. 18 100. 105 1:0. 65 15.1 0000. 61.0 1115. 11.0 1.. 51 8 11 15 16 10 15 00 00.0 n. 115 1:4. 101 110. 66 15.5 nu. 93.. 1.. 16.0 An. 50 00 10 15 15 11 15 15 10.5 n. 111 1a. 51 110. 60 15.1 nu. OI... an. 15.5 1n. 15 05 5 11 10 16 10 10 10.0 n. 105 100. 50 100. 11 10.1 nn. -0.5 an. 15.1 no. 16 8 0 11 10 15 11 5 16.6 n. 51 1:0. 15 1‘40. 15 10.0 0000. «.0 100. 0.1 In. 15 10 1 10 10 15 10 0 10.0 8. 05 11:0. 05 100. 00 13.1 0000. 4.0 1-0. 0.0 08. 15 5 0 6 5 10 5.0 I 18 106 100 110 115 100 110 18 18 101 110 18 1.8 111 36 strong mesomorph was found to be slightly below average in both trunk flexion and trunk extension. However, this was not too surprising since the heavily muscled body of the strong mesomorph is often not as flexible as that of the ectomorphic body types. In addition to these high test scores, the strong mesomorphs also performed at a high level on the PF Plan. averaging above the 65th percentile level. The moderate mesomorph grouping came the closest to average of any of the eight groupings studied. This fact is shown in Chart III where their performance curve closely approximates the 50th percentile level. The low vertical jump score was an unexpected finding since this group should possess a fair amount of strength and power with very little excess weight. This group would be a bit heavier and not quite as strong as the strong mesomorph and as a result, slightly below average agility run, trunk flexion, and trunk extension scores might be expected. Their performance on situps and pushups reached the 60th percentile level while their strength was only average. It was easy to see why the PF Plan performance of the moderate mesomorph group also fell along the 50th percentile since they came very close to being a mean group for the MIX! PIOIIHWOIIOWMOWPIIO (muumm)'nmmammnmnflmmmnmmmmo’mnrw 37 0011185 808 10 88 0000.0- 80.“ 000-000.“ 5010.00005001 0011100— 8.08.. mm. 80.0 10.800100800100000” 5000100000 1000000110' 11000001 88 0000800 810 01000000 01100 800 0n0. 0-00n 3 80000 10001 00001 10001 00001 10001 M 100 55.0 10. 80 100. 000 110. 00 15.0 0n0. 05.0 100. 8.0 100. 55 10 10 05 05 51 60 55 11.0 10. 161 100. 106 110. 8 16.5 n00. 01.5 100. 16.0 100. 15 01 15 11 06 8 51 50 05.6 10. 155 100. 100 110. 05 11.1 0n0. 06.0 100. 15.0 100. 65 51 11 8 00 11 8 H 00.60. 100 18. H4055..--——-'———-11.5¢0——-56.5-0——00.5fi‘ ‘1 ’55 15 8—-fl.——8 8 10.0 ur‘~101 d." 150 110. 50 11.1 0000. 05.0 1.00. 10.5 100. ‘~-50” n“~15- -.10” 11 00 8‘ ”.__—”0‘ h0——4~ 3-0——_m 1.. ————— ”——-—81.’0~0--050‘l-0-—”01I..—--§I———fl———l§-——11—- .--”_-‘ 10 15.0 10. 1.11 100. 18 100. 8 10.0 0n0. 05.0 100. 15.1 100. 05 50 10 16 15 8 05 65 8.0 10. 150 110. 111 100. 56 10.1 0000. 00.6 100. 11.6 100. 05 15 15 16 15 8 00 60 8.6 10. 151 100. 18 110. 51 10.5 0n0. 00.5 100. 8.0 100. _ ' 15 15 10 00 05 50———01.l100—— ' . .-—-55-——l5- 1‘ 7 —8 05 100. 111 100. . 51 05 15 1‘ 1O 8 00 | 100. 110 110. 61 15.1 0n0. 05.1 100. 15.6 100. 55 00 11 15 15 11 15 55 00.5 10. 18 100. 105 100. 65 15.5 0000. 01.1 100. 10.0 100. 55 15 10 15 10 16 10 50 8.0 8. 115 100. 100 110. 60 15.5 0n0. 01.1 80. 10.1 100. 51 11 10 10 15 15 11 15 10.0-00—-—0110-0000-—-51-0000-—-——65—— — 00.500000—-00.60-0w—40.548'. 05 10 ‘-0-—-10’ 11 ‘ 15——10 10 16.1 10. 106 110. 8 100. 11 8.1 0000. 00.5 100. 15.5 100. 15 16 1 5 10 11 15 5 15.5 10. 100 110. 50 110. 15 8.6 0000. 01.1 100. 11.5 100. 15 15 6 1 5 10 11 0 6.5 10. 05 100. 15 100. 55 15.6 0000. -5.0 100. 1.0 100. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1155 1101 1116 1605 1656 1165 168 1101 1100 1100 1’ 181 1500 085 00808810000001.81500081-00000—00001000~~00—10. _ 88 'ncwmnomm-uz.5u5,z5a. ~-. - - 0' ”AIM 311.011!!! 10110 111 mmwwm-IM(MIM) mc-mmw-mmm-IOIIIM 00010110 0000 0000007 00 8- 1000.1- h.“ Inn-000.1000 5100.00.0000 “111050- 8-01-100. 000.081. 011.0 1000000 00000110100011“ 50n0 0000: “10 (1‘00) '15 001.100 .15 000-3001 70100 800 0000. 80000 0 ”00 1.001 [00001 1.0001 1.0001 10001 101050 0000008 ’ .1 100 05.0 10. 100 110. 150 12.0. 51 15.5 0000. 05.0 100. 50.0 100. 15 51 10 10 56 00 60 55 06.1 10. 151 100. 105 100. 01 11.0 0000. 01.6 18. 17.0 100. 15 01 10 8 16 51 56 ” $09 I... 1” [1‘80 1” lb. .‘ ‘10, “0 “I, u. no, 1.. n ” n u ' n x 05 00.5 10. 105 1220. 151 12.0. 05 11.5 0000. 06.5 100. 05.1 100. 55 51 16 10 8 06 15 00 15.6 10. 101 110. 115 11.0. 51 11.0 0000. 06.0 100. 00.1 100. 50 56 15 10 8 10 11 15 15.1 10. 100 1:0. 115 100. 50 11.5 0000. 05.6 100. 00.0 100. 50 55 10 11 00 15 06 10 11.0 10. 156 110. 111 11.0. 56 10.0 0000. 05.5 100. 15.1 100. 00 51 10 16 15 11 15 65 8.6 10. 155 100. 110 100. 51 10.1 0000. 00.5 100. 8.0 100. 06 50 15 16 15 8 00 60 8.5 10. 151 1'10. 111 110. 50 10.0 nn. 00.6 100. 11.5 100. 05 15 15 15 10 11 15 55 8.1 10. 150 110. 115 100. 55 10.6 0000. 00.5 100. 8.5 100. 01 8 15 15 10 8 15 ” I10! “0 ‘8 1“0 m ‘3'. 6‘ ”0‘ 0.00 0,01 “0 ”0’ D0 ” “ II n “ n ‘ 00 00.1 10. 111 110. 110 110. 61 15.1 0n0. 05.0 80. 15.5 100. 51 15 11 15 16 10 8 55 8.5 10. 1.8 100. 101 100. ‘5 19.0 0000. 55.1 18. 10.’ 100. 55 I5 11 1! 15 11 15 ” ‘,0, “0 I.” 8&0 m 100. ‘5 "0, 0000. 0.01 “0 ”0‘ -0 ” u u II 1. “ II 15 15.1 10. 110 110. 101 110. 66 15.0 0000. 01.5 100. 11.6 100. 50 05 10 11 15 15 11 8 10.1 10. 111 110. 100 110. 60 00.0 0n0. 01.0 100. 16.5 80. 56 8 5 11 15 10 15 15 10.0 10. 110 110. 56 100. 11 00.5 0000. 01.6 100. 15.6 100. 8 8 0 10 11 15 10 10 11.1 10. 105 1:0. 51 1‘40. 15 00.6 0000. 00.6 100. 10.0 100. 11 15 1 5 11 11 15 5 16.1 10. 100 110. 05 1'00. 16 8.5 0000. -1.6 100. 15.5 100. 8 11 6 0 10 11 11 0 1.5 10. 00 100. 15 100. 01 05.0 0000. -0.0 100. 1.0 100. 15 1 5 0 5 6 1 0 111 111 110 155 160 110 151 165 110 161 156 155 18 160 38 entire population. The endomorphic mesomorph group, shown in Chart IV, should have been the strongest of all the groups studied. In spite of this fact, their vertical Jump score was slightly below average due to the excess weight carried. As expected, the grip strength scores paralleled the 65th percentile. Their pulse rate score at the 60th percentile was rather surprising, since the extra weight carried by this group might logically result in a lower score. The lower scores on the agility run, trunk flexion, and trunk extension were expected also because of the endomorphic tendencies of this group. This also was probably the cause of the situp scores being only slightly above average, but the great strength of this group resulted in pushup scores at the 65th percentile. Since the overall curve of this group ranged from the 65th percentile level to the 35th, its performance on the PF Plan would have been expected to fall around the 50th percentile or slightly higher, which was the case. The ectomorphic mesomorphs performed better on all the tests than any other group studied. It is shown in Chart V that every test fell in the 60th to 65th percentile range except for trunk flexion, at the 50th percentile level, and trunk extension. at the 40th percentile level. The vertical jump, 39 CHART XV PM!“ cum 0? BODY ”PE GROUP Ill (amamrc EMMN). I‘EFWEWCE (II M 057”}?! 7151‘ BATTERY AID 73!! FIRST MR 0185 0' 113 Y, "A. 00111111 808 10 ll:- 500-0.1- 000.0000 000.000.0000 580.000.1001 0.1111500: 8.01100. 000nm. 010.0 1000.0 0000110. 10000 00000 50000 00000 1000000110‘ 11000001 815 00000000 0010 00000.00 10100 0000 0000. 100000 3 100000 10001 10001 10001 10001 10001 M 100 55.0 10. 80 100. 100 100. 10 15.0 0000. 05.0 100. 51.0 100. 55 1o 00 0, 05 51 10 55 11.0 10. 161 100. 106 100. 01 16.5 0000. 01.5 100. 16.0 100. 15 01 15 8 16 8 51 ” '5,‘ II- ’J”“ - . 0“”; .9 l1.’ 0000. 0‘0. L.- ”0. 1.. a )7\ 3' fl 6‘ I "-- n I “ \ 05 10.6-1'07. 106 100. 155 100. “-00—— — 11.50000u-06.5.100. 10.5 100. 61” 55 \ 16 ’,19——66’ 15 50 8 10.0 10. 101 100. 150 100. 50 11.1 0000. 05.0 100‘ 10.5 100. .__..50 8 115’ 16 11 8 8, 15— — —15.6 10.— — -100 100.—— —115 100. ————— 51 - - — -11.5 00000- —05.0 100.—- 815.1-8K— — -51— — -51 -- -10- -— -15- — 8 — —15— -06 10 15.0 10. 50 16.0 0000. 05.0 100. 05.1 100. 05 50 10 16 15 8 65 65 11.0 10. 16.1 0000. 00.6 100. 8.6 100. 05 15 16 15 11 8 60 11.6 10. 16.5 0000. 00.5 100. 8.0 100. 01 15 15 10 50 ’ 55 66-1 10 16.6 0000. 00.1 100. 8.5 1.00. 0 u up .1. .y - 50——-11.0 .—-—-116 100.-——115 100. ————— 60-— -10.1 0000.- -—05.0 100.— —10.5 100.- 55 .3 —10— —16——15-—8 05 m 10. 18 100. 111 100. 6113- 05.0 100. 51 05 11 15 16 16 8 00 00.0 10. 111 100. 110 100. 61 15.1 . 55 10 11 15 15 11 15 55 10.5 10. 110 100. 105 100. 65 15.5 0000. . 55 05 10 15 10 16 10 50 10.0 10. 115 100. 100 100. 60 15.5 0000. 10.1 100. 51 8 10 11 15 15 11 15- — —15.5 10.— —;-115v0000-——101400.-_— — - -65 —— — -15.1 00000- —01.0 100.- —11.5 1000-— —50- — 78¢ —— 5— — -11— — 15— -15 -— —16 10 10.1 10” 111 100. 100 10., --— 51“ 8.1 0000. 01.1 100. 16.5 100. 8 ,1 15 \\ 5 ’,11-..n‘ u ’15 15 10.008. 110 100. r: 100. 65 ‘-00.5.‘000. 00.6 100. ,10.5.000.--.15’ 10 ‘0’ 10 11 \ 15’ 10 \ I \ I 10 16.1 10. 106 100. 51 100. 11 10.1 0000. No.58» 15.5 100. 15 16 1 5 10 11 15 5 15.5 10. 100 100. 50 100. 15 11.6 0000. -1.1 100. 11.5 100. 15 15 6 1 5 10 11 O ‘0, “a a 1.. u l”. ” ”0‘ I... -’0° “I ‘0. 1.0 g . ’ ‘ ‘ 1 ‘ 0 1155 1101 1116 1605 1656 1165 168 1111 1100 1106 158 181 185 1605 mewumfluflmunmmum. —— In! ° new!!! new 1m: - 271. >71. #72. 261. 561. 562. 061. 065. 565. 251. 551. 152. 051. 052. 055. 201. 501. 501. ----- OIII STAIN” ”VIATXOI 10010 rv murmwmmmn1(8mm1mammmwnmmmmm1-ounu 00010100 0000 0000005 10 1100 1000.:- 000.0000 000.000.1000 5110.10.00.00 0811000- 8.0800. 8000100. 010.0 1000.0 “1.1080108050000000. 00880110 (11001000) 0015 500.011 '15 500-00881 10100 800 0000. 80000 0 ~88 10001 10001 10001 10001 1.001 m ' 100 50.5 10. 100 100. 100 100. 50 16.1 0000. 05.0 100. 8.0 100. 01 55 8 11 51 06 55 55 16.1 10. 111 100. 150 100. 01 11.0 0000. 01.6 100. 16.6 100. 16 '1 15 05 8 55 8 50 15.0 10. 161 100. 101 100. 05 11.0 0000. 06.5 100. 15.1 100. 65 55 16 8 8 15 55 65 10.5 10. 151 100. 101 100. 06 11.6 0000. 06.5 100. 8.6 100. 60 51 16 15 15 16 51 00 10.5 10. 151 110. 151 100. 05 11.6 0000. 06.0 100. 10.0 100. 55 55 15 16 8 15 8 15 10.0 10. 101 100. 1.51 100. 50 11.5 0000. 05.5 100. 15.5 1.. 51 55 10 56 8 8 8 10 15.5 10. 105 160. 150 100. 51 16.0 0000. 05.0 100. 8.6 100. 05 8 10 11 8 15 11 65 15.1 10. 101 100. 110 100. 50 16.1 0000. 00.1 80. 8.0 100. 05 51 10 16 8 8 8 60 8.5 10. 100 100. 111 100. 56 10.6 0000. 00.0 100. 8.1 100. 01 51 15 16 15 8 05 55 8.6 10. 156 100. 111 110. 56 16.6 0000. 00.1 100. 11.0 100. 00 15 15 15 16 8 8 50 8.5 10. 155 100. 110 100. 55 16.6 0000. 05.6 100. 8.1 80. 00 8 11 15 8 8 15 05 8.0 10. 151 100. 116 100. 60 15.0 0000. 05.0 100. 8.0 100. 8 06 11 10 11 15 8 00 11.1 10. 115 100. 116 100. 61 15.1 0000. 05.0 100. 15.1 100. 55 06 11 10 16 16 8 55 8.6 10. 110 100. 111 100. 60 15.1 0000. 01.6 100. 16.1 100. 55 65 11 15 15 16 8 50 8.5 10. 18 110. 110 110. 65 15.0 0000. 01.1 100. 16.0 100. 51 8 10 15 10 11 15 15 15.0 10. 110 100. 110 100. 65 15.6 0000. 01.1 100. 11.0 100. 50 15 10 11 10 16 16 8 15.1 10. 116 100. 106 100. 61 15.6 0000. 00.5 100. 16.0 100. 8 8 5 11 15 15 11 15 10.5 10. 111 100. 101 100. 10 8.1 0000. 00.1 100. 15.1 100. 11 8 5 11 15 10 16 10 11.1 10. 111 100. 100 100. 11 8.5 0000. 4.1 100. 10.1 100. 15 15 0 10 11 15 10 5 16.1 10. 101 100. 51 100. 15 8.5 0000. -5.6 100. 11.5 100. 11 10 6 5 10 11 15 0 5.0 10. 50 1110. 8 110. 01 15.6 0000. -0.0 100. 5.0 100. 15 5 5 6 1 0 1 I 165 165 165 155 160 161 106 166 165 165 151 106 105 161 CHART V PM?“ 0111117 0' DOW RPS GROUP '12 (1180010151111: MIMI). 10110101101: U M ACTIVITY 1‘" 001811 MD ”013 11111 101m 111m 0' m 11 '1” 4O 0011081 8000 00 11.8 0000.800 0n0.-00 000-000.“ 5010.00.10» 0.1110580 100001100. 1800100. 010.0 800.0 0000010. 10000 10000 50000 00000 800000110' 1100000) 811 00000100 810 000.100 8100 0000 0000. 000000 3 110000 10001 10001 10001 10001 10001 W 100 55.0 10. 000 100. 158 100. 00 15.0 0000. 05.0 100. 8.0 100. 55 10 10 05 05 51 60 55 11.0 10. 161 100. 106 100. 01 56.5.15. 01.5 100. 16.0 100. 15 01 15 ’lI--00‘\ 8 51 ,0 55. ~--155*—--100* 05 II 11.1 0807-06.83: 15.0 100. 65 ’m—-_11a’ 8 8 ‘ 11-_ 8 “ ’ \ I 00 8.0 10. 101 100. 150 100. 50 11.1 0000. 05.0 100. 10.5 100. 50 50 15 10 11' 8 8‘ 15—— —15.6 10.-— — —100 100.—- — —115 100. ————— 51 — — — -11.5 0000.- -—05.0 100.— —15.1 100.— — -51— - - 51- - —10— — —11 — —8— -15—--8 10 15.0 10. 18 100. 10.0 0000. 05.0 100. 15.1 100. 16 15 65 11 0 10. 00.6 100. 11.6 100. - .- 60 00.5 100. 8.0 100. 15 55 11.1 10. 150 100. 116 100. 50 10.6 11.5 100. 01 16 11 15 11 8 8 50———11.010.———116100.———115100. ————— 60——-40.100000- --55———15———11—-—10——16—-15——8 05 11.0 10. 18 100. 111 100. 61 10 51 05 11 15 16 10 8 00 00.0 10. 18 100. 110 100. 61 55 8 11 15 15 11 15 55 8.5 10. 18 100. 105 100. 65 15.5 0000. .1 100. - 55 05 10 15 10 16 10 50 00.0 10. 115 100. 100 100. 60 15.5 0000. 01.1 100. 10.1 100. 51 8 10 11 15 15 11 15— — 45.5.10: — 4.15 100.—— — 18 100.— — - —— 65— -—;,15.1 0000.- -01.0 100.- —11.5 100.— ——50—;,10‘:- 5 - --11- — 15—— 15- —16 10 10.1 10. ‘~111-0000-—-1000000——---61o" 00.1 . 01.1 100. 16.5 100.‘._.10' 15 ~05‘ 11 .11-— 10—- 15 15 10.0 10. 1.10 100. 51 100. 65 00.5 0008‘ 00.6 100. ’10.540r. 05 10 0 ‘8 10’ 11 15 10 I \ I 10 16.1 10. 106 100. 8 100. 11 10.1 0000. 50.580. 15.5 1.00. 15 16 1 9 10 10 15 5 15.5 10. 100 100. 50 100. 15 11.6 0000. -1.1 100. 11.5 100. 15 15 6 1 5 10 11 0 6.5 10. 05 100. 15 100. 55 15.6 0000. 05.0 100. 1.0 100. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1155 1101 1116 1605 1650 1165 168 1101 1100 1100 1500 1501 085 1605 50.000080080010000.uu01unu0000000000000000.80-10. m 11110011 UVUTIOI 0 111011185 ”I! m - 172. 17“, 152, 15}. 26}. 25“. ’5“. 152. 15}- 15“. 353. 29". 35'“. 1‘01. 1‘00 3”. I33- ‘hblo V mmfumoommmwnz (10808110810080)nmmummmmraafiumunmmmwmnm ”61'!" .0. ”.001 5551- 0000. .800 000. 110001 0000-0000. 11000 5 1110.110; 1000 1011105 1001 8000 Ha. 1800 0:0. 110 .0 800 .0 1000010. 1 29000 1 L000 5 21000 0 0000 1.0810110 (1.01100) 0015 301-00881 0015 000.00 111100 800 0000. 1001100 0 11101000 110001 10001 100001 1.0001 1.0001 i-;:22 Mona - 1. 55.0 10. 500 100. 175 1110. 50 15.0 0000. 09.0 110. 51.0 1110. 99 10 it 05 09 51 55 55 10.0 1.0. 110 11.0. 151 11.0. 55 16.5 0000. 00.0 100. 11.1 100. 16 05 10 15 50 51 00 50 16.0 10. 161 110. 105 100. 05 16.5 0000. 01.5 100. 06.1 100. 15 00 10 11 06 51 56 05 16.0 10. 151 100. 101 100. 05 11.0 0000. 06.0 100. 8.0 100. 10 51 11 8 8 8 8 00 15.1 10. 105 110. 155 100. 00 11.5 0000. 06.5 100. 10.0 100. 60 8 11 00 15 16 51 15 10.6 10. 100 1:10. 150 11.0. 05 11.5 0000. 06.1 100. 10.1 100. 51 55 16 15 8 15 50 1° ”0, ”0 1.1 1‘).- 12‘ ILI0 ” 310‘ ..‘. 9,0. m. ”I. 1.0 ” 3, ‘, I. a a ' 65 10.1 10. 100 110. 112 1:0. 55 11.0 0000. 05.0 100. 11.0 100. 51 8 15 10 11 10 11 60 15.5 10. 150 150. 111 100. 55 11.5 0000. 05.1 100. 8.5 100. 51 51 10 11 8 15 15 55 15.0 10. 15 1'00. 111 11.0. 56 10.0 0000. 00.0 100. 11.1 100. 05 50 10 16 15 11 10 50 11.1 10. 151 110. 119 1:10. 51 10.1 0000. 00.0 100. 11.1 100. 00 15 15 16 15 11 10 05 11.0 10. 150 100. 116 11.0. 55 10.1 0000. 00.0 1.00. 10.1 100. 00 8 15 15 10 10 8 00 11.1 10. 116 100. 111 12.0. 60 10.5 0000. 05.1 100. 15.5 100. 51 06 11 15 11 15 11 55 11.6 10. 111 1:10. 110 110. 61 10.1 0000. 05.0 100. 16.0 1.00. 55 16 11 10 16 15 11 50 11.0 10. 111 100. 109 100. 65 15.0 0000. 05.1 100. 10.1 100. 55 8 11 15 16 10 00 15 8.1 10. 110 100. 105 100. 65 15.1 0000. 01.6 100. 11.1 100. 51 10 11 15 15 11 15 10 8.1 10. 115 100. 101 1:0. 66 19.5 0000. 01.0 100. 15.5 100. 50 15 10 11 10 16 11 15 15.5 10. 111 110. 100 110. 65 15.1 0000. 01.0 100. 10.5 100. 11 11 10 11 15 10 16 10 10.1 10. 106 1'00. 55 100. 10 8 1 0000 00 0 100 11 5 100 8 15 5 10 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 u ‘ 5 16.1 10. 100 100. 01 100. 15 11.0 0000. -1.0 100. 5.5 100. 11 15 1 5 11 11 1: 0 6.1 10. 15 110. 10 100. 50 15.0 0000. -5.0 100. 1.0 1.00. 11 5 5 5 0 5 6 0 055 091 08 111 1'1 051 :11 05° 056 005 I59 I51 056 110 41 pulse rate, agility run, situp, and pushup scores were expected due to the adequate strength, small body weight, and flexibility exhibited by this group. However, groups with ectomorphic tendencies usually do not demdnstrate such great strength. An average score on trunk flexion was looked for, but perhaps a higher score on trunk extension could have been expected for this group. As anticipated from the test scores, the PF Plan performance of this group ranged from the 60th to the 65th percentile level. Shown in Chart V1 is the performance of the ectomorph- mesOmorph group. This was another group closely paralleling the 50th percentile, twice rising well above it and once dipping below it. With an even balance between ectomorphic and mesomorphic characteristics, this group could have been expected to possess an average amount of strength, power, and flexibility with above average endurance. Most of the test scores bear this out. However, the agility run score at the 50th percentile level should have been higher for this group, as should trunk flexion. Nevertheless, there seemed to be a tendency for all of the groups studied to score rather low on both trunk flexion and trunk extension. The ectomorph- mesomorph group was one of the few to score above the 50th percentile on trunk extension although this was to be expected. CHART VI 0 "10111.8 cum 0' 30" m GROUP '1} (Emma-mm) lemma! C. no: ACTIVITY 1111* 111mm “D TIC 11m POUR m 0' m n M 101-11m son 11 00‘ won.)— ooo.noo “on.“ Slimluphot 11.11119— mnoo. ”no. anon too-no nos-cu. 111-o1 10a: 9on1 0o..- ooooooouo' (ll-ho) on M on. oooqoo an. on. oooo. noooo ; noooo 1on1 noo1 no.1 noo1 [0001 m 100 99.0 n. 000 no. 100 no. 10 19.0 oooo. 49.0 no. 1.0 no. 99 10 I0 '9 '9 91 60 99 11.0 n. 161 no. 106 no. 01 16.9 oooo. 01.9 no. 16.0 no. 19 01 19 11 06 a 91 90 19.6 Q- 199 no. 100 no. ’09,~ 11.1 oooo. o6.0 no. 19.0 no. 69 91 11 00 00 ’11\ n ‘\ ’f’ ‘\ ’ \ 09 10.6 n. ‘00:“. 199 15”" ‘11.9.g. 4.9 no. 10.9 no. ’, 61‘ 99 16 ’,19__11’ 19 \90 00 10.0 n. 101 no. ‘~19ofio. 90 11.1 oooo.‘~o9.0.o.--10.9.r.' 90 ‘sx---19’ 10 11 10 n. 19 — - 49.6 n-—— 400 no.-- —119 no. ————— 91— — — —11.9 mop-99.0 no.— —19.1 no.- - -91 ———91—- —1o— — -11- - oo—— 19-— oo 10 19.0 n. 191 no. 111 no. 10.0 oooo. o9.o no. 19.1 no. 90 16 19 a 09 69 11.0 n. 190 no. 111 no. 10.1 oooo. «.6 no. 11.6 no. 19 16 19 11 “I u.‘ 1.. "’ l.- I” "o ‘.0, m. “I, I.- “ a ‘I 5’ 10.6 “I. . , .2 . . 90--— —16——19— -11 09 11 0 n. 111 no. 111 no. 61 10.1 no. 91 09 11 19 16 10 00 00 10.0 n. 111 no. 110 no. 61 ' . . 19.6 no. 99 10 11 19 19 11 19 99 10.9 n. no no. 109 no. 69 19.9 oooo. 4.1 no. 10.0 no. 99 19 1o 19 10 16 10 90 10.0 n. 119 no. 100 no. 60 19.9 oooo. o1.1 no. 10.1 no. 91 01 1o 11 19 19 11 ”—- -‘,o’*o: — “n, l'I—_ _' m m»- - -:’:---d’o7«f- -.:0. mo_' —‘10’ mo_ —-” _ - -”— - -’-‘ --u--”- —‘,--u 10 10.1 n. 111 no. no no.,” 00.1 n... 61.1 no.,.o16.9-op—- 00———19“ 9 11 ’“--“--” 19 10.0 n. ‘mooIou———91a". 69 10.9 oooo. ‘oo. 6.07 10.9 no. 19 10 ~0---n’ 11 19 n 10 16.1 n. 106 no. u no. 11 10.1 oooo. -o.9 no. 19.9 no. 19 16 1' 9 10 11 19 9 19.9 n. no no. 90 no. 19 11.6 oooo. 4.1 no. 11.9 no. 19 19 6 1 9 10 11 ° ‘0, II. .5 1.0 n 1.. ” ”0‘ I... ’,o° 1.. lo. “I . t ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ o 1199 1101 1116 1609 1690 1169 1601 1111 1100 1100 1’ 1’1 199 109 thmwum-Mu‘unw0-wm. — III] new now 3111 - 1%, 155. 2)}. 2"“. 255. 355- coo-coo—— on: 11110119 EVIL?!“ T1010 VI W111 ransoooaowfinoowrou (WW1muumwm-omvmmmorunm ..1V1Gy I... m U 11- Vofl.“ b.3106 Ion-mmllonl immatopmo 0311107" mun-o. mat. Inw- mm Stu-1111; [Hoot 2110.! 91!.“ 0190‘ mun Huh-o) r19 31mm My 801-00301: Moo ~00 Jon. 1.01100 0 m but 1.00.1 loom m1 you! w ' 100 90.0 n. 100 11.. 161 1'.o. 90 19.0 oooo. o9.0 no. 90.0 no. 01 60 11 16 x 00 91 99 11.6 n. 160 1n. 106 12.0. 99 16.9 oooo. 91.6 no. 16.9 no. 10 91 10 19 19 96 99 90 19.1 n. 192 1'o. no 11o. 00 11.1 oooo. o6.0 no. 19.1 no. 11 99 11 00 10 I x 09 10.9 n. no 13. 191 1:0. 06 11.6 oooo. 0‘.‘ no. 10.9 no. 60 x 16 19 19 16 19 00 10.9 n. no no. 119 no. 01 11.0 oooo. 69.6 no. 10.9 no. 61 91 19 10 11 19 10 19 10.0 n. 101 1210. 119 12o. 09 11.9 oooo. 05.) no. 19.0 no. 99 91 10 10 01 00 11 10 19.0 n. 100 1:0. 111 1210. 91 10.0 oooo. 05.. no. 19.9 no. 91 90 10 11 10 19 16 69 19.1 n. 199 no. 110 1o. 90 10.1 oooo. 60.6 no. 11.9 no. 90 10 19 16 19 11 19 60 11.9 n. 191 1». 119 no. 99 10.9 oooo. «.0 no. 11.0 no. 01 11 19 19 10 11 10 99 11.6 n. 191 to. 119 1'0. 96 10.6 oooo. o0.1 no. 11.6 no. 09 06 19 19 11 10 19 50 12.0 111. 116 1:10. 111 Lo. 57 13.6 0.01. 09.1 no. 21.0 no. 0) I: ll 10 17 III 11 09 11.0 n. 119 1'40. 111 1:0. 99 10.1 oooo. .9.0 no. 00.9 no. 01 19 11 10 16 19 11 0° 11.! n. 111 1:0. 110 1". ‘1 19.0 0.0. 09.1 no. 10.! no. 00 10 11 I! 16 1. 2° 99 10.9 n. 110 110. 106 1‘40. 61 19.1 oooo. 61.1 no. 10.0 no. 99 10 11 19 19 11 10 90 10.0 n. 119 no. 101 no. 69 19.9 oooo. 91.9 no. 19.9 no. 99 19 10 19 19 11 19 19 00.1 n. 119 12:0. 101 1'4. 69 19.9 oooo. 61.9 no. 10.0 no. 91 11 1o 11 n 16 19 10 19.9 n. 111 11o. 91 11o. 60 19.6 oooo. 11.0 no. 10.9 no. 90 11 9 11 10 16 10 19 19.1 n. 110 11.0. 99 1'10. 66 10.0 oooo. 00.0 no. 11.0 no. 00 10 0 11 19 19 16 10 10.6 n. 109 Ibo. 91 Lo. 60 10.1 oooo. 00.! no. 16.9 no. 19 10 1 10 11 19 19 9 11.0 n. no 1.0. 90 Do. 70 11.1 oooo. -1.9 no. 10.1 no. 11 16 6 9 11 11 11 0 11.0 n. 99 130. 10 1:0. 19 n.9 oooo. -6.0 no. 9.0 no. 19 11 0 9 0 9 10 I 191 190 199 119 191 199 119 191 199 191 119 111 110 119 43 The PF Plan performance first paralleled the 50th percentile and then rose above it. The mesomorphic ectomorph group contained more subjects than any other group in the study. Their performance is shown in Chart VII. In general, they scored below average on most_of the tests in the battery, although this was to be expected. Perhaps the agility run, trunk flexion, and trunk extension scores should have been somewhat higher due to the flexibility and agility usually exhibited by this group. Since all of the scores of the mesomorphic ectomorphs fell between the 55th percentile level and the 35th percentile level, its PF Plan performance would be expected to fall slightly below the 50th percentile, which it did. The performance of the final group studied, which was classified as balanced because it tended to exhibit the same -degree for each body type component, is shown in Chart VIII. While this group was slightly above average in strength, most of its other scores fell below average with trunk flexion down at the 30th percentile level. This score and the pushup score, which fell at the 35th percentile level, seem to be slightly below what might be expected for this grouping° ‘ The PF Plan scores, which ranged from the 35th percentile up to the 56th percentile, were also slightly below what one might mum '11 P801113 awn 07 DOB! HI! 00001 '13 (monotone mun)’ 11mm 00 1111 ACTH!!! 381' 011-1111 AID 1111 11m 1001 mo 0' m 19 11.10 10110111 ”I I! ll- ...” h.“ huh.“ 9.10.00Qh01 “1110'- NM. “.0. 010.0 0‘- ”In 1.. 0H 9.. 0“ boo-0110' (1.0) .10 000“ .10 000... Moo .00 0000. .0000 3 holoo 10001 10001 10001 00001 1.0001 eghhlllll 99.0 n. no no. 000 no. 00 19.0 oooo. 09.0 no. ”.0 no. 99 10 00 09 09 91 b 11.0 n. 161 no. 106 no. 00 16.9 oooo. 11.9 no. 16.0 no. 19 01 19 01 06 n 91 19.6 n. 199 no. no no. 09 11.0 0000- 4.0 no. 19.0 no. 69 ’1 11 u 00 11 n ’0‘ 0 I. m. ‘” l.- ”‘—-—410,*0 .‘0’ “0 ’0, “0 ‘3 ” u u . a ’ I I 19.0 n. 191‘. no no. 90 10.0 oooo. 69.0 no. 19.1 no. 09 90 10 16 19 n 09 11.0 10. 190 100. 101 100. 9‘ 10.1 0000. 00.6 no. 01.‘ 1.. 09 09 19 1‘ 19 01 fl 11.6 n. 191 100. 1. 100. 91 10.9 0000. 00.9 100. 11.0 m. 00 01 19 19 10 I 09 8.1 h. 1” 100. 11‘ 100. 10.5 0000. 00.1 1.. 01.9 In. '1 11 I . -'--u0. h0—_-m m0-_—m 1.0--- -uo' "0—".’0. SIP—..’ “.__ - ‘ ' o I. 1.. m 1.. .,0~ I... ’0‘ “0 - ..1 :11 111 11: 111 310 11! 00.0 n. 19 “0’ no ”0’ “.0 0.01 “0 ' I. “ 00.0 n. 1.19 no. 100 no. a 19.9 0000. 4.1 no. 10.1 no. 91 11 10 11 19 19 11 ———19.9 n.— — .119 no.—— —101 no.———— -69—— —49.1 oooo.— —o1.0 no.-- 11.9 no.-———9o———00--— 9—- —o1-- 19——19 - -16 10.1 n. 111 no. 100 no. 61 00.1 oooo. 01.1 no. 16.9 no. 10 19 9 11 1o 10 19 ”I. 0 m 1.. l.- -- --.J“--‘0‘--.“0 -- - ‘. . u I, u {0“ 91 ’ ..‘..69 9 09“ [’11“ 16.1 n. ‘4060n.———nafl 11 00.1 0000. 4.9 no. 19.9 no. 19 ‘~16—--1__-9/ n ~11-_19 19.9 n. 100 no. 90 no. 19 11.6 oooo. 4.1 no. 11.9 no. 19 19 6 1 9 1o 11 6.9 n. 09 no. 19 100. 99 19.6 0000. 4.0 no. 1.0 no. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1119 1101 1110 10! 1‘9. 11“ 1‘. 1101 1" 11' 1’ 1” 3” 1.9 mmmwumflmmnumwh—h. — u . m MD! m - m9 l’70 1260 1,60 l“, 2’60 2‘69 2&60 ”60 1250 1’50 1“5o 2’50 3.50 ”50 1’0 1’“- 0111 3111111111: 1211111011 h010 VII nmwoommmnocmmnmuumsnmmumm-nw-nu 10010109 no: 11090097 10 11- Von. a- nn. “-0 0011-11.. m 9 311.11. 0009 1001 “11119 - fol-11 71-. 11000 In. 011 .0 1.0 .0 000101“ 1 I000 ! I000 9 I001 0 110091 0.0.1110 11101100) 0119 11100310 0019 5:100:01 10100 n90 0000. 100000 0 1.0000 00001 10001 10001 10001 10001 W ' 1” ”0° 10. I” 12‘. 11° ".0 1, :50! “0 ”0° “0 ”0. 3.0 1, ,7 ‘, ” ” u g 99 16.0 n. 191 no. 199 1.0. 01 16.9 0000. 07.5 no. 16.9 no. 19 96 11 10 19 10 99 90 19.0 n. 101 no. 190 1:10. 06 11.9 0000. 06.9 no. 16.0 no. 69 9D 16 19 n 19 9o 09 10.6 n. 191 no. 110 1.0. 09 11.6 oooo. 050’ no. 19.1 no. 91 91 19 10 11 10 11 00 10.0 n. 190 1‘10. 111 1:0. 91 17.0 0000. 09.0 no. 10.0 no. 9} 90 10 11 a o 06 19 19.0 n. 191 1:0. 110 no. 99 11.9 0000. 09.0 no. 19.0 no. 91 00 10 16 19 n 19 10 19.1 n. 190 1.0. 111 no. 99 10.0 0000. 60.1 no. 19.0 no. 06 11 19 19 10 91 90 69 11.0 n. 116 11.1. 119 no. 96 10.1 0000. 00.0 no. 11.0 no. 09 06 19 19 11 10 19 60 11.9 n. 110 1'». 111 1'0. 91 10.9 0000. «.1 no. 11.9 no. 01 19 11 n 11 19 11 99 11.1 n. 111 no. 111 12o. 99 10.9 0000. 99.0 no. 11.9 no. 00 19 11 10 16 10 11 90 11.0 n. 111 1:0. 110 1'0. 60 10.6 0000. 69.9 no. 10.1 no. 90 19 11 19 16 10 00 09 11.9 n. 110 1'10. 106 1'4. 61 10.0 0000. 09.9 100. 19.9 no. 96 19 11 19 19 11 19 00 10.9 n. 116 1:0. 100 1'10. 61 19.1 0000. 4.9 no. 19.9 no. 90 11 10 11 n 16 10 99 10.0 n. 119 no. 101 1:10. 61 19.9 000.. 4.6 no. 10.1 no. 91 10 10 11 10 19 11 90 10.1 n. 111 151. 100 12.0. 60 19.9 oooo. 61.1 no. 10.1 no. 91 00 9 11 19 19 16 19 19.0 n. 111 1'4. 99 1:0. 69 19.1 0000. 91.1 no. 11.1 no. 90 19 9 11 19 10 16 00 10.1 n. 106 1' . 99 1:0. 61 10.0 oooo. 010’ no. 19.1 no. 11 10 o 10 11 19 19 ‘, ‘80. no u 1'... " 1.1.0 6, ”0‘ ..'0 ..01 I... ”a. “a a 17 1 , u " ‘. 10 11.1 n. 100 no. 08 1:0. 71 10.0 0000. :0.0 100. 11.0 no. 19 10 6 9 10 11 u 9 19.1 n. 90 no. 11 1:0. 16 11.9 oooo. 4.6 no. 1.1.9 no. 19 19 9 1 9 10 11 . ’0. 1|. 1, ‘3'. n 12.0 ” ”'5 IO... .10. 1.0 In. ..0 n . ’ , . , I 0 0a 000 996 900 000 009 909 009 000 999 911 996 991 909 45 CHART VIII norm cm 0' BODY ".171: GROUP I19 (W). 111170101006: on RE ACTIVIH m1 M'fl'lfl “D 1111 11m 1061 m 0' an '7 "oil 10111111 10116 90 n- 0001.0-0 000.0001 no-no.noo 9010.01.10“ 00111190. ”71.. 10010-0. 110.0 1010-0000001. 100. 10000 90000 000o0 0010-0110. (100100) .19 000-. .19 M 10100 .10 0000. 80010 3 ”00 10001 10001 10001 10001 10001 M 100 99.0 10. 110 no. 000 no. 16 19.0 0000. 09.0 100. 3.0 no. 99 10 09 69 91 60 99 11.0 n. 161 no. 106 no. a 16.9 0000. 01.9 no. 16.6 no. 19 01 19 u 16 I 91 90 19.6 n. 199 no. 100 no. 09 11.1 0000. 06.6 no. 19.6 no. 69 91 11 10 00 11 n 09 90.6._--1u~---199m- 66 11.9 ““1"“4 100. 16.9 no. 61 99 16 19 I u . ’0. “0 l“ ‘.0 m 1.0 ~--*---d101‘0 .,0.&_ ”I, “0 l’\ x ‘, u ’ ”--'--'S ”.__—19.6 n.———160 no.———119 no. ————— 91———-11.9 oooo.-—09.0 -19.1 m7a—n—v—n———10—--114—10——19——06 I \ 10 19.0 n. 191 no. 111 no. 90 16.0 0000. 09.0 no. ‘19.160. 09 ‘90’ 10 16 19 n 19 69 11.6 n. 190 no. 111 no. 96 16.1 0000. 00.6 no. 11.6 no. 09 09 19 16 19 11 16 60 11.6 n. 191 no. 110 no. 91 16.9 0000. 00.9 no. 11.0 no. 01 11 19 19 16 10 19 ” "0‘ “0 ”0‘ 0.0. “03 1.. no, “0 C1 “ II n .' . 90——-—11.610.— 100.———119 no.—— 0} ——19——-11——-10—-16-- . u “0. II. n 1.0 m I... "0’ “a .’0‘ “0 . 00 6:1 . 111 no. 110 no. . 09.1 11 19 99 10.9 n. 1.10 no. 109 no. 69 19.9 01.1 . 10.6 no. 99 19 16 11 90 00.0 n. 119 no. 100 no. 60 19.9 0000. . . . 16.1 no. 91 10 11 19 19 11 19— — —19.9 n.— — -1.19 no.— — —101 no. ————— 69 — — — -19.1 0000.- —01.6 no.--11.9 100.—— —90— — -10— —— 9 — — —11—_ 19— - 19-—16 16 16.1 n. 111 no. 160 no. 61 10.1 0000. 01.1 no. ,16.9001._ 16 19 9 11 10 16 19 19 16.0 n. ’4100000———91-0000-——--69\ 10.9 0000. 00.6 100.” 16.9 100. ‘~ 19‘ 16 6 10 11 19 16 I ‘1 I \ 10 16.740.’ 106 100. n no. 11 \‘fl.1~0—--0.9400. 19.9 no. 19 ‘016—-._ 1——-9-—16--11—-19 9 19.9 n. 100 no. 90 no. 19 11.6 0000. 4.1 no. 11.9 no. 19 19 6 1 9 10 11 0 6.9 n. 09 no. 19 110. 99 19.6 0000. -9.0 no. 1.0 no. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1199 1101 1116 1609 1696 1169 1611 1111 1100 1110 19“ 1’1 1” 109 mmwum-NMuMIhwh—u. — III . newt-.1 00!!! 171-11 - ”9. M, 090, 40169, 0400, 005, 090, 900. — — - - 0— Oil! 170111101111 111161171011 Table VIII nm1m101mwmm1h9(mlmmammmmmmmmnmmmwmnu 00610119 1001 31011007 n 91- V011.” ”.1100“ lou-kn.lnnl 3i'01n.81091006 “11161- 111-0011100. Mk6. 111000 MM 9001-111: 1”!“ 9“!“ 1000000110 (10011001 0019 61mm 0019 11000510 N100 n10 6000. 100000 0 11101000 10001 10001 10001 11001 10001 m ‘ 100 90.0 n. 119 1:0. 160 1:0. 99 16.0 0000. 09.0 no. 16.0 no. 16 00 19 10 16 00 09 99 11.1 n. 169 1'0. 199 1.0. 09 16.9 0000. 06.1 no. 16.6 no. 69 9‘1 11 11 19 19 99 90 15.6 10. 160 100. 16! 1:0. 09 17.9 0000. 01.9 100. 29.6 1.. 69 9. 16 19 I9 0‘ 90 09 10.6 n. 191 no. 196 no. 91 11.9 0000. 06.0 100. 10.9 no. 96 91 19 16 11 19 19 00 09.9 101. 108 130. 191 1.0. 90 18.1 0001. 09.8 1.110. 09.6 100. 91 89 19 11 00 Q 11 19 19.1 n. 109 11.0. 116 1'40. 99 16.1 0000. 09.9 100. 19.9 no. 91 11 10 11 I n 16 10 19.0 10. 100 130. 111 1.0. 96 16.9 0000. 00.6 no. 19.9 no. 66 16 19 16 19 11 00 69 11.6 10. 199 1:0. 111 1:0. 91 16.6 0000. 00.9 100. 11.7 no. 09 16 19 19 16 11 16 60 11.9 n. 191 no. 110 1'00. 96 16.6 0000. 09.9 no. 11.1 no. 01 19 19 19 11 10 11 99 11.9 n. 191 11.0. 116 1L0. 60 19.0 0000. 09.6 100. 11.1 no. 00 10 11 10 16 19 n 90 11.9 n. 190 no. 110 1.0. 61 19.1 0000. 09.9 no. 11.1 no. 00 19 11 10 19 10 10 09 10.6 n. 119 1:0. 111 110. 61 19.9 0000. 09.0 no. 10.1 no. 97 11 11 19. 19 11 19 00 10.0 n. 1.11 11.0. 110 120. 69 19.9 0000. 01.0 no. 16.1 no. 99 11 11 19 10 16 16 99 19.6 n. no no. 106 no. 60 19.1 0000. 01.6 no. 19.0 no. 99 06 10 11 10 16 16 90 19.1 n. 111 no. 100 110. 69 10.0 oooo. 01.1 no. 16.6 no. 91 10 10 11 19 19 11 19 16.9 n. 11.1 1.0. 101 11.0. 66 10.1 0000. 00.6 no. 11.0 no. 16 19 9 1.1 11 10 16 00 16.1 n. 111 130. 100 11.0. 69 10.9 0000. -0.1 no. 16.9 no. 19 16 6 10 11 19 10 ‘5 ‘10! no no lb.0 ” 1‘0 71 ”07 I“.- .‘0‘ ”I. ‘50, “I n 11 7 , n u ‘, 10 16.0 n. 166 no. 91 1:0. 11 11.0 0000. -1.6 no. 10.1 no. 11 19 6 6 10 11 19 9 11.6 n. 101 no. 90 11.0. 19 11.0 0000. 00.1 no. 11.6 no. 16 19 9 1 9 10 11 0 9.9 n. 60 1:0. 10 no. 66 19.0 0000. -9.0 100. 9.0 no. 19 9 1 1 1 1 9 0 199 101 101 199 199 101 1x 100 161 199 119 1.10 1. 196 46 expect of the balanced group. In general, all of the body type groupings performed as previous studies indicated they would. There were a few exceptions; the most notable being the low scores made by most of the groups on the trunk flexion and trunk extension tests . Comparison of Profile Charts Comparisons of the eight body type groupings on all of the activity tests and the first four weeks of the PF Plan are shown in Charts Ix and x. Vertical Jump. Most of the body type groupings performed on the vertical jump test as expected. The strong mesomorphs and mesomorphs with ectomorphic characteristics scored highest on this test due to their great strength and power with an average or below average amount of weight to lift off the ground. The endomorphic mesomorph group scored slightly higher than anticipated but this was probably due to the fact that they possessed the greatest amount of strength which simply overpowered their excess weight. The moderate mesomorph, mesomorphic ectomorph, and balanced groups possessed less strength and in most cases more weight which accounted for their below average scores. The mesomorphic endomorphs 47 scored the lowest of all, which was anticipated due to an excess in body weight. Grip Strength. As expected, the endomorphic mesomorph group was the strongest one studied. The extra weight of this group's members did not handicap them in these tests. Following closely behind were the strong mesomorphs and the ectomorphic mesomorphs; the latter group did surprisingly well in spite of its ectomorphic characteristics which usually belie a slight weakness. The mesomorphic endomorph, moderate mesomorph, balanced, and ectomorph-mesomorph groups all scored about average in strength, which was to be expected. The mesomorphic ectomorphs scored lowest on the strength tests as their ectomorphic component would lead one to expect. Pulse Rate. Both the ectomorphic mesomorph and the ectomorphemesomorph groups scored highest on pulse rate following the Harvard Step Test. The endomorphic mesomorphs followed closely behind in pulse rate which was quite surprising due to the endomorphic characteristics exhibted by this group. The strong mesomorphs and the mesomorphic ectomorphs scores fell slightly above average and it would seem that these two groups should be reversed with the endomorphic mesomorph group in pulse rate standing. Average scores were 48 turned in by the moderate mesomorph and balanced groups while the mesomorphic endomorphs fell well below average, which was looked for due to the excess weight carried by this group. Agility Run. The strong mesomorphs and the ectomorphic mesomorphs scored well above the other groups on the agility run. This was not surprising since these two groups possessed well muscled bodies with no extra weight to hamper their reactions and change of direction. Average scores were turned in by the ectomorph—mesomorph group and following immediately behind were the moderate mesomorphs, endomorphic mesomorphs, and the mesomorphic ectomorphs. One might have expected the ectomorph-mesomorphs and the mesomorphic ecto- morphs to perform at a slightly higher level. The balanced grouping came next and the group which scored lowest was, of course, the mesomorphic endomorph with excess weight which hampered body movements. Trunk Flexion. The highest scores on trunk flexion were found in the ectomorphic mesomorph group. It was interesting to note that their scores were only average for the total population. This was probably due to the fact that all but one of the ectomorphic body type groups, who normally score well on this test, were not included in this comparison because of the small number of cases in these groups. The 49 strong and moderate mesomorph groups followed with slightly below average scores, which was anticipated. Rather unexpect- ed was the low scoring of the ectomorph-mesomorph and mesomorphic ectomorph groups, whose ectomorphic characteristics should have enabled them to score higher on this flexibility test. The endomorphic mesomorphs, mesomorphic endomorphs, and balanced groups were poorest in this comparison since their physiques bore an excess of weight. Tpunk Extension. The ectomorph-mesomorph group scored highest on the trunk extension test. Although its Score was only slightly above average, this can be explained by the fact that all of the groups'sccres fell close together. The moderate mesomorph and the balanced group followed with scores slightly below average as expected. The other five body type groupings'scores were bunched closely together directly below. It would seem that the mesomorphic endomorph performed slightly above what might have been expected due to the lack of flexibility and strength, where body weight is concerned, which is characterized by this group. Also, the ectomorphic mesomorphs and the mesomorphic ectomorphs would have been expected to score higher due to less body weight and more flexibility, which is common to the ectomorphs. Sipups. The strong mesomorphs, ectomorphis mesomorphs, 50 and ectomorph-mesomorphs scored highest on the situp test as anticipated. These groups combined great strength with average flexibility and body weight to account for these scores. The moderate mesomorphs also did well with the endomorphic meso- morphs following. Only average scores were turned in by the mesomorphic ectomorph and balanced groups, although the former group might be expected to perform better due to its flexibility. Lastly, the mesomorphic endomorphs scored well below the other groups, as was looked for. Pushups. The highest scores on the pushup test were recorded by the strong mesomorph group while the endomorphic mesomorphs and the ectomorphic mesomorphs followed closely behind as anticipated. Next came the moderate mesomorphs and then the ectomorph-mesomorphs. Well below average came the mesomorphic ectomorph and balanced groups with the mesomorphic endomorphs lowest, as expected. This test came the closest to matching the performance looked for as a result of previous studies. PF Plan. The performance by each body type grouping on the PP Plan was not at all surprising, as each group followed closely its mean performance on the activity test battery. »The Astrong mesomorphs and the ectomorphic mesomorphs performed at the highest levels on the plan. The endormorphic mesomorph 51 and ectomorph-mesomorph groups performed slightly above average while the moderate mesomorphs followed closely behind. Slightly below average in performance on the PF Plan were the mesomorphic ectomorph and balanced groups. Lastly, matching their earlier performance on the activity tests, the mesomorphic endomorphs performed at the lowest level on the PF Plan. Summary of Findings 1. Mesomorphs and mesomorphs with endomorphic characteristics were the strongest of the body type groups studied while ectomorphs and ectomorphs with endomorphic characteristics were the weakest of all the body type groups when the lifting of body weight was involved. 2. Mesomorphs and mesomorphs with ectomorphic characteristics were the most flexible of the body type groups studied while endomorphs and mesomorphs with endomorphic characteristics were the least flexible. 3. Mesomorphs and mesomorphs with ectomorphic characteristics possessed the greatest agility of the body type groups studied while endomorphs possessed the least agility. 4. Mesomorphs, mesomorphs with ectomorphic 52 characteristics, and ectomorphs with mesomorphic characteristics had the best endurance of the body type groups studied while endomorphs had the poorest endurance. 5. Mesomorphs and mesomorphs with ectomorphic characteristics constitute the most natural physically fit body type groupings while those high in endomorphic characteristics constitute the least physically fit groupings. 6. Ectomorphy, with an accompaning lack of strength, was a handicap in certain areas of physical fitness. 7. Endomorphy, with an accompanying excess of weight, was a severe handicap in physical fitness. 53 mum-r x1 cwmm or norm mum-3 so: now 71m: camera A. 59. 1'10. Inn! on" m so. I! ll.- nono- h.“ loo-on.” 9|n.o9oooooo nun:- u—nono. ”no. on. too-no nomination shootout m. Col-loo) to M W on... Moo .6. loos. hon-o 3 hot-o boo! law: [not boot w M uo 99.6 n. no no. to no. u 19.o oooo. o9.o no. 2.6 no. 99 1o :9 99 99 93 6o 99 11.0 n. 361 no. :96 no. to 16.9 oooo. 01.9 no. “.6 no. 19 u 19 u 16 x )1 9o o9.6 n. 199 no. no no. 99 11.: oooo. 4.9 no. 19.6 no. 69 91 u no no :1 a 69 o9.6 n. no no. no no. to 11.9 oooo. 4.9 no. oo.9 no. 6; )9 16 19 on a so to oo.o n. an no. no no. so 11.1 oooo. .9.o no. to.) no. 96 x 19 16 n a 8 19—- -n.6 n... ——no no.— — — 139 no. ————— 9o - — — -11.9 ooooo- —95.0 no.— -u.1 no.—- -9x-- - -n— ——n — — -11- - on — —u— — o6 1. ”3 no 1“. m 1.. a 3:: “.o 3:: :0 3:: :o‘ ’f-? 6, u u. lak‘oocnoou ..'. m. . . \‘ 66 no.6 n. I, ’- :9: no.“ ~~832 "rm-fin? 1%“ A.) no. no.0 no. ~.\:§.- .;’ § ss Qfiv‘ no .... .. n u" .0 ”———&‘-—— pl‘ - +++ .r-- ".1 “IA- 9 lino—+-IO.9 f—”-——:—x ”9m -I| @ :9 a oooo' 9 1 "'1 T! 99 on n n :9 :1 :9 “ o o :‘o. o ..o ' .‘ 99 to.) n. I )9.) oooo. ‘ I, u u to 36 n so oo.o ' II n I! n 19 :1 n ”——- F-‘Io. “P—l'lo’ I.o--—”—— ' ————— I" a o .x.’ “I “I’ “a I. ” ' u 19 . «1.6 no. 36.9 no. 19 n n 99 n 19 16.1 n. 3116 no. 9: no. 11 no.1 one. 4.9 In. to.) no. u 16 1 9 u u u 9 19.9 n. no no. 9o no. 19 11.6 oooo. 4.1 no. 11.9 no. :9 u 6 1 9 u n o 6.9 n. 99 no. :9 no. 99 39.6 oooo. o9.o no. 1.0 no. I o a 1 a I x I m) 1161 11:6 :09 1696 3169 :6. $181 31' 11. 1’ on I” 1.9 mmwwum-mmnmu-nm. In (Woman: nmlom) : mcwms Dom firm - ‘m. .31. on, u». 02. Ga. #2. 03-3. 051. 052. 521. 551. 5):. 551. 9‘2. 5o}, an. M31. #52. .__--- n (3:116:10 rmwr-omt) . ntcwm now am: - )1}. 262. )0}, 19;. 252. )7}. ++ + ++ 110 ((033217. Jasmine”) 11“:me DOD! WM - 2-.2, )w}. 252. ................. n. (aura-amaze .mn-wu) ' mums: com arm - 241. m. 97:. 261. :61. 362. 901. ‘us. 56). 252. 351. :52. ~51. ~52. ~53. 1+1. M. M. CHART I munoo or mm: cum: POI! non fin mu In. no. no. no 119 no"!!! no. I! n.- Iooo.‘ on.“ ~-.~ Jumoooooooo noun-o “an. Ions-9. on- ”nomination out.“ mu. lull-o) ”W ”W kilo-to Coon. hot-o: ”I love: hoot boot Boot w M on 99.o n. ooo no. coo no. II 19.9 oooo. o9.o no. n.o no. 99 1o no I9 69 9: lo 99 21.o n. 161 no. 196 no. a “.9 oooo. 97.9 no. “.6 no. 19 u 39 I! 86 3o 91 99 29.6 n. 199 no. no no. 99 11.: oooo. o6.o no. 5.6 no. 69 91 11 no so 91 a 69 II.‘ n. no no. I,» no. I. 11.9 oooo. 96.! no. «.9 no. 61 99 :6 19 a .9 99 D oo.o n. on no. no no. 9o 11.1 oooo. 09.6 no. II.) no. 99 x 39 n n It I, 19— —-39.6 n.—— -390 no.—-—u9 no.——— -—9o—-—-o1.9 ooooo- —o9.o nor—19.1 no.—--51—- -Il——-“———u——-.—- u- -“ n no. “a I... 0000. ”a. ..- o.’ “a o, «.6 no. l.6 no. 69 99 :‘g‘;\ 99— - ¢-— -'* '9 III no. .‘ ..‘...g . - .. in.” a flea- "- + a If u 99 no.9 n. no i 'l- 6) :9.) Bot... n.o no. 99 n 19 n u u so 90.6 n. :19 no. no no. a 39.9 oooo. "at...“ 16.1 no. 91 on n n u :9 :1 o9———i9.9 n.— ——u9 no.—-—-m too.-— - — —69- — — 49.1 on»- -u.o no.- - 11.) no.—- -)o—— —oo- - — 9— — -n- — u- —::— -o6 no u.o n. In no. no no. 61 v.1 oooo. on: no. 16., no. oo 19 9 a II 19 :9 16.9 n. no no. 91 no. 69 oo.) oooo. 00.6 no. 19.9 no. as 16 o to u n n 16.1 n. :o6 no. fl no. 11 oo.1 oooo. 4.9 no. u.) no. u 36 1 9 to n u 9 19.9 n. no no. 9o no. 19 31.6 oooo. 4.1 no. 11.9 no. :9 u 6 1 9 so u o 6.9 n. 99 no. :9 no. 99 29.6 oooo. -9.o no. 3.6 no. t o I 1 I I I I 1199 :19: 1116 3699 1696 1169 16:9 rm :1” 1166 m m I” 109 wwwum-MMnQn-wm. n: (muffin momma) : new!” 3011! 11m - :72. 17», 162. 16}. 26;. 26h. 96a, :52. 153. 199. as). 254., 95». we. no). at), 132. ——_.—— ll} (mun-msouorml) . new: war 17m - nu, 155, 299, 2%, 255, 955. +.., +++ no (Immxxc mun!) ncwms non! fins - 127. 137. 126, :96. 1%. 296. 25.6, 256. ”6. 129. lb. 159, 23‘). 2%. 399. 199. 29a. onoooooooooooo '19 (DMD) . mm 3017! “m ‘ ”’, 3“, Q’“. “‘0’, w. 545. “536. 5A.“. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Summary The purpose of this study was to examine the relation“ ship of body type to performance on the activity test battery and the PF Plan by freshmen men at Michigan State University. A battery of activity tests, designed to measure strength, power, agility, and endurance, was given to all of the Foundations of Physical Education male students at Michigan State University in the fall of 1961. In addition. each student was body typed, using the Sheldon method, by the individual instructors. Then, on the basis of percentile rankings determined by the activity tests, the students were placed on the PF Plan which continued for an eight week period. At the end of this time, data were collected from each student on his activity test and the PF Plan scores as well as the body type given him by his instructor, through the use of a questionnaire. The data were then placed on IBM cards for statistical tabulation and analysis. As a result of this work, percentile tables and profile 56 charts were set up for the activity test battery and the first four weeks of the PF Plan for each of the eight body type groupings studied. Conclusions The following conclusions were based on the results of this study: 1. There was a definite relationship between body type and performance on the activity test battery and the PF Plan by freshmen men at Michigan State University. 2. Consideration should be given to body types in placing students on one of the starting charts of the PF Plan. Rgcommengations The following recommendations should prove helpful to anyone continuing this study or conducting one similar to it. 1. This study should be continued in following years until there are enough cases in each body type grouping to present accurate tables and charts for each one. 2. The method of body typing should be improved. Each student should be body typed by a small team of instructors or their photographs should be sent to Sheldon and his associates. 57 3. The activity tests should be very closely super- vised and the method of administration should be standardized to raids the reliability of the test battery. 4. The administration of the PF Plan should be more rigidly controlled to ensure the students participation in the exercises. 5. Another similar study should be conducted to examine this same relationship. A smaller number of body type groupings should be identified for the ease of making comparisons and each group should contain an equal number of students secured through a random sample technique covering the entire Foundations Program. All of the tests and the PF Plan should ‘ be rigidly controlled and the study should be continued until all of the groups reach their finishing level on the PF Plan. BI BLIOGRAPHY BI BLIOGRAPHY Books Clarke, H. H. Application of Measurement to Health and Physiw cal Education. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice» Hall, Inc., 1960. Cureton, T. K. Physical Fitness Workbook. St. Louis: C. V. Mosby Company, 1947. Cureton, T. K. and others. Physical Fitness Appraisal and Guidance. St. Louis: C. V. Mosby Company, 1947. Kretschmer, E. Physique and Character. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1925. Montessori, M. Pedagogical Anthropology. New York: Stokes, 1913. Sheldon, W. H., C. W. Dupertius, and Eugene McDermott. Atlas of Man. New York: Harper Brothers, 1954. Sheldon, W. H., S. S. Stevens, and W. B. Tucker. The Varieties of Human Physigg . New York and London: Harper Brothers, 1940. Van Huss, W. D. and others. Physical Actiyitypin Modern Living. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1960. Periodicals Cureton, T. K. "Body Build as a Framework of Reference for Interpreting Physical Fitness and Athletic Performance," Research Quarterly, XII (May, 1941). Joranko, F. L. "The Relationship of Improvement in Muscular Endurance to Body Types," University of Illinois Abstracts of Graduate Theses in Physical-Education, No. 12 (1953). 60 Sills, F. D. "A Factor Analysis of Somatotypes and Their Relationship to Achievement in Motor Skills," Research Quarterly, XII (May, 1941). Sills, F. D. and P. W. Everett. "The Realtionship of Extreme Somatotypes to Performance on Motor and Strength Tests," Research Qparterly, XXIV (May, 1953). Sills, F. D. and John Mitchem. ”Prediction of Performance on Physical Fitness Tests by Means of Somatotype Ratings," Research Quarterly, XXVIII (March, 1957). Perbix, J. A. ”Relationship Between Somatotype and Motor Fitness in WOmen," esearch Quarterly, XXV (March, 1954). Willgoose, C. E. and M. L. Rogers. "Relationship of Somatotype to Physical Fitness," Journal of Educational Research, XLII (May, 1949). Theses Labaw, N. L. "A Study of Acceptance and Rejection of the Foundations of Physical Education Course by Freshmen Men at Michigan State University," A Doctoral Thesis, 1960. Unpubliéhed Abstracts Fraber, Robert and Brian Sproule. "Assessment of the SBX Plan by Measuring Heart Rate Responses to Various Intensities of Treadmill Walking," Unpublished Abstract, University of Alberta, 1961. Olson, H. W. "The Value of the PF Plan in Regard to Physical Fitness," Unpublished Abstract, Michigan State University, 1961. APPENDICES APPENDIX A The PF Plan Explanation of Level Numbering m For PW What is it! This is the Physical Fitness Plan (P-F Plan) that enables you to obtain a high level of fitness by yourself, at your own rate of progress, in only eleven nitrates a day. the Pa? Plan uses five basic exercises that will enable you to advance to your own predetermined level of fitness without expensive equipnent or unnecessary dis- comfort. 'Ihese five exercises are a balanced set covering the major muscle groups of the body, designed to bring a high level of fitness to any healthy person. Why the P-F Plan? Exercising until it hurts is not necessary in order to acquire an adequate level of pmrsical fitness. As a matter of fact, greater benefits may be derived from exercise by avoiding this discanfort. There are two main ways in which the discomfort of muscle stiffness and sore- ness can be avoided: -«wamiog up properly thus eliminating pulled mscles, tendons, etc. ---starting any exercise progran with exercises that involve a low level of activity and progressing to more advanced levels by easy stages. This is a scientifically derived plan designed to take these two ideas into account by: Q-o-the arrangement of the exercises; and ---the manner in which these exercises are performed. As an illustration, the first exercise requires you to touch the floor. this type of activity loosens up the large muscles in the body, especially in the legs and back. hr starting very slowly without straining and gradually increasing the speed and force of pushing down, vamp is accomplished while actually doing the exercise. All five exercises can be done in this manner until the eleven minutes have elapsed. What is the Plan? This plan is composed of five exercises performed always in the sme order and within the maadnun time limit of eleven minutes. There are five charts arranged in progression of difficulty. As you progress from chart to chart there are slight changes in each exercise requiring a greater amount of activity and effort. Following is an explanation of the way in which the charts should be used. Consult Starting Chart 1 or 2 to better understand the meaning of the following terms: ' w a. *Adapted from the 513x Plan for Mica Fitness; sou Pmphlet 30/1, by permission of the Queen's Printer, Ottwa, Canada. EXERD'ISE The numbers 1, 2, 3, h, and 5 can be seen directly under this heading. The column headed 1 represents exercise 1 (toe touch), 2 (sit ups), etc. The figures in each column indicate the number of times that the exercise is to be repeated in the time allotted for that exercise. sarcomas IEVEL (9911.3 level) The numbers in this column are used to determine your P-F starting point and goal. They are in groups such as 9-12 or 61-63. MWTES FOR EACH EXERCISE At the bottom of each chart the allotted time for each exercise is given. These times remain the same for each chart. Total time for exercises 1 through 5 is eleven minutes. DATE(S) ATTEMPTED 03 DATE OR COMPLETION These columns are used to record the date that you were able to couplets that particular level within the specified time and/or the date (or dates) that each level was attempted. Where do you Start? Where do you Progress to? This is how you determine your starting point and the final level you should progress to: 1. On page 95 of your text, Meal Activity in Modern Living, you have your "Profile for Physical Tests". 2. Circle your score in each column to determine your percentile rank for . GGCh teSto 3. Total the percentile scores you obtained. 11. Divide this total by the mmber of tests scored. This gives your average percentile level. 5. Consult Starting Charts 1 or 2, as the case may be, and find the percen- tile level you possess. This is your starting point. 6. Now consult P-F Charts 1, 2, or 3 and locate the Percentile Level you possess. As an example, if your average was forty-six on P-F Goal Chart 2, on the left you will see the percentile grouping #6418. The score of forty-six falls in this category. Thus your own Goal in fitness is established. hiring the term you should attempt to reach or exceed your predicted P-F Goal, proceeding step by step from the starting point. If your Percentile level is lower than fifty, you will notice that you will. be starting on Chart 1. If your level is above fifty you will be starting somewhere on Chart 2. Now start at your own level on Starting Chart 1 or 2 and repeat each exercise in the allotted time or do the five exercises in eleven minutes. Move upward on the same chart to the next level only after you can complete all the -2- required movements at your present level within eleven mimtes. Continue to pro- grass upward in this manner until you can complete all the required movements at the highest level on the chart- within eleven munutes. Now start at the bottom of the next nimble. fasbim universe tmsh the levels. and from chart to c until you reach your level or, Goal‘determined by your test scores. ! I . . ., -u- I . .. .. How to Bean. '5 "4. Check your daily schedule and determine the time most convenient for you to do the exercises. 0n the days the exercises are not done in class you are expected to do them on your own initiative. It should be the same time each day. It is recommended that you spend at least one day at each level and possibly more. If you feel stiff or sore, or if you are unduly breathless at any time, ease up and slow down your rate of progression. If you reach your GOAL without any undue stress you can set a higher goal of fitness if you desire. ’ A hole m CAUTION ---Even if you feel able to start at a higher level and progress at a faster rate than indicateduDON'T DO ITuStart at your level on the chart indicated and work up fron level to level as recommended. ---For best results from the P-F Plan the exercises must be done reglary. Remember, it may take you a period of several months or more of 1y exercises to attain the level recommended for you, but once you have attainted it, only 3 Eriods of exercise per week will maintain this level of physical fitness. ---If for any reason (illness, inJury, etc. ) you step for five days or more doing the plan regularly and you wish to begin again, do not recommence at the level you had attained previously. Do drop back several levels--until you find one you can do without undue strain and precede up from there. We. P-F A man This exercise plan plus regular {participation in a few wholesome recreational activities could provide you with a lifetime of physical efficiency and enJoyment. GEHHZO 0:33.. we. 05H H CIRCA-v urge—lug E, [Hall an! I.- ..II J g It! on. gnarl... , H»... nun-nun an: I... .8. .: ..’. 9.1.» a s a s a. R Iflusflliiefitfirlhh . ##0##. U 3 8 3 . : ”assistant-E. 8.8 s s s a e. 5. turd.” I... is... .H mxmnnam. uusuo I 8 8 = . B lust-II. .88.... 8.3 e = a a 5 {on Lighfiagzs el- u-~es_.s=£ 3.38.31.833 ”Tu. a a e z a. be . Ewes? i Ii 3 = = a e. gefl we Bauhaus... 3.3 inn wanna-F Sam—”Dun n 5.3:...zamu ORIEBngfin-IHH win.» 3 3 .u = 8- B 53535; um::::! Raga-Lg .5 a . «Beggaoageagl on 2 3 a c a. D... E. aséeeaasaae .. any... I (I mom “new. t5.% d seen. ; "lulu - _ u - "orgasm—groans mefin-Mmu - -.f gangrene—avg . ¥§.E 3&9 .1. 53.3% . meflnfim a ix: 3032.5 093.." um some». 26 man: canoe—5:0. mxmwnafi m ml. 82. 953 p . 22% H UbnmAav a m8. 859. 2.9. cut-a. Bunnie non— ...95. 38.. use? 5. 32.. co- -. .. The... sheath. 2 . 3.. ”H0 nun-nun 5909 (one. 8 men was? 3358 a.w . Hbdmu. . u a a m agwflnom awash“. .52. a»: 5 men-canon .II ..‘ 5| are! a s a e .8 has; gell- ublua NV 08533 E 33W.— 33 ml. ,. B. mu 8 H I 8 In . an :3» is. r... a}... a... N008 I B C an ‘ MK 8.1—5.333532! . .. mfifiessszfi 8.: uses... hm 3339.83.21... 355m: Sufi. 3:33.: mN lasagna-salsa. Stetson... .3 gr... . s. Houpmlatmuu hbflum3e.€n.hshnu&3ae§ . , I 8 5 a 5 . . . 5-5 we I5 is. .5... a... if I} use: as -, sugars... .3...er Help» 3 = s u. «8 Nb. Igggafi-Wa mxmwQMm N Nam Nu; am can 2 = s = 2. ,. am“... 5.35.. paw. Ewan”? an 0 NF 8... 9.83 8 a... on :8... i.“ I 2 _-==' guano—5703. O. u NM) IE. 5:: Snow :09. 3.. use: . "to” n d — _ u . 832025 332:8». 88m! ., u @339: g nae—TIAnoci w anon . _ one a. _.m n r a II grammes? ”came. a 8. :32: w >22 2.24 .3 «3.3 00. 8 £002.25 WEEK... ”£02: :1... 33:33 .5:— 30530 003. 02. on «80... K 826—200. 8.“ 8398. m3. .808 an... 8 a. *mnmnnham osmnn.wm ocmn n50 men: wmfiomsnwwm. x a a 2 Z mxmfinam . .5! ~15... mxmwnam N mxmwnrmw u .11.)? mxmxnam a v||||A 33.3 memem u wlw QObr nm>WH N wanna: >nnm§0nmm fl... 2...... mm...» Fdflw _ N u . u gflagfi .3...» 8 s a 2 .8 .3 2-3 2 a a a a. 5. 3.3 8 2 8 2 .2 m» Owlou I 8 5 .- ’ RM “9...... 2 2 a 2 a. 2. $3 2 2 a a 2. cm 3-..... 2 2 2 2 .2 an. 20.3 2 2 c 2 .2 5 5L... 2 8 a 2 2. .20 3-..... 2 2 2 2 .8 _ .3 £75 2 2 2 2 2. Em. Swan 2 2 2 2 2. M3 "l”m n . _ . a . bemnmmm wmnnmnnwwm moonm on n20 nnmnm aura: Hanwnmnmm 20:2 mfivnoufiabnm m»fl§0¢0 moan. 553.520 v.05. mom—H .5.— :0; HO‘:% ”"0 swag-329.52... Gina—lg laden.— 303 3.8.8 I. ~03. {infiiggav 2.5.02. 0m 00:28. u ~Maw... 6.25. an... 32302. 03? 8 [W980 925335. 29% w...— .00... on. 3 pa lung“. .03 w...— 93; $36.... 0.5.. 9.... 6.05 55.5 003203? on noon. 0 13... .225. 550... 2.2.2. 90:59.. “vb—Bu a... 0.. 300.. '10.... on 300.. 9.... E00 .528 7033 3.2352 ..0 «25:5 00220... lfioov 003 £25... 9.1.5 So 323 304222... :2... 29.. 35. an .53... u gab—Q 3.13:... n no: 32. .33 r”... .00. .0238 2007.: :2 [.08 5:... Eng. mnnmflv nab 0 ”080.8%; 330:. 20200 . ...“... ...-.2. on La... .3 33... .... .2... . N0? 5200 0H8: ...8.. 08. :8 :28: .. I . 00.. .0030 ...—n: .040“ . n a 0 m 00.5.0000 1.0.8.4... 83.33... 323...”... 2222... gonoanfigfijcazo. .8 00 I339... E 2 2 2 2 .2 &.§axmflaa 03“.. co m» .08.. 2.8. .8. 03.0.2. .8. . @GUQBBE MD. £5.558g3? 3 I a 3 2 ... mu .Jmfluusaflfirflfiofis. 02-00 2 2 8 2 .2 mo Imfl.§§08..88503§ 9.23.3.1 2 2 2 2 .2 “83.08:... 50%.? 3.2%”... ”h 07w“. an 88.089 .085 mmlwc —I.—2u~a “G «Efiia a-.. T .. a ._ ... .... 1.5.... saga...“ 8.... T x a a ... ”MW ..nufifixiaa if. .F 2...... 2 2 2 2 .2 M. 82.8... 0..... . a. 8.2.0... 0 2...... 2 2 2 2 ... Mb .. 08.598.39.38... 58...... m 2 2 2 2 2. 2w. rflflufifiafigilfi \wmk ”an... 25.6001 98.20030... 38 .. ...-8- u . . . . ... 02.200.080.023... El . . . - . amino-.5 E002... 2 08.. f ( . . . 0 0. 00. 0 ... .5 0008 £000.??? MXmfin_md u 9.0 0:30.30 .0. .....0 00.2.3.8... "0.008. ....0 2...... 32.2.30 22.2.3.H ><000m0 w0000n0=0 M0000 0.. 020 .L0E%_.5808089. .088 00000 00.00.. 000000000 v.05. . ”08.... a... 008... .... an... 0... .98.. .. . . . 02.000.002.200 00.05000 mom... .. l.=8000. .Bixfiapfigg . . . 5.0000000 v.05. momw .50 200.. ”a... ...-.0... .50 .28.. 88 a t t . . 10...... .8. .52.... 3.8 .8. .3. 8300.. .0 8 as 359.... .33.. 3.020.... 2 in...» meflnfim u 67 EXPLANATION OF LEVEL NUMBERING The PF Plan consisted of five charts with twelve levels of achievement on each chart. Since the students were required to record their level achievement on the questionnaire, a simple method of numbering each level had to be devised. Due to the fact that there were a total of sixty levels of achievement on the five charts of the PF Plan, the levels were numbered in the following manner: 915;; Numbering Starting Chart #1 (O to 49th percentile) 01 to 12 Starting Chart #2 (50th to 100th percentile) 13 to 24 Goal Chart #1 (o to 36th percentile) 25 to 36 Goal Chart #2 (37th to 72nd percentile) 37 to 48 Goal Chart #3 (73rd to 100th percentile) 49 to 60 *See examples in the enclosed PP Plan. APPENDIX B A Letter from William Orban on the Formulation of the 53x Plan A LETTER FROM WILLIAM ORBAN UNIVERSITY OF SASKATCHEWAN School of Physical Education Saskatoon, Canada October 6, 1961. Mr. Michael G. Crain, 320 Oakhill East Lansing, Michigan Dear Mr. Crain: This is in reply to your letter of October 3, 1961 concerning infommation about the SEX Physical Fitness Plan for the Air Force. Naturally, I am very pleased that you are finding some value and use for this plan and hope that you have success with your research in this area. There was over two years of research that went into the devlopment of this Plan. When I was commissioned to do this -work the only counsel I got was that they wanted some physical fitness program which would get the combat pilots in good top physical condition. Naturally, I knew that the only way to get in condition was to exercise and therefore I set out to make a survey of all the Air Force personnel in the R. C. A. F. The purpose of this survey was to find out why people did not, or did not want to, do physical exercise to keep fit. Once we had this information in we then analyzed it to determine what were the basic causes for people not exercising. When we had reduced the number to relatively . few primary causes, we then set about to try and resolve the ' reasons why people did not exercise by designing a plan that would circumvent these objections. Briefly, we decided that the only way we could get people to exercise was to develop a plan that would be simple, would not require any instructor, would not require any apparatus, but could be done in the individuals own time and which would 70 not be too difficult for anyone at any level of condition and which would not cause undue discomfort due to stiffness and soreness at the onset of the training program. Thus, we knew we had to get a group of exercises that were few in number that would produce the desired results even if done relatively incorrectly. The first project, then, was to determine whatiexercises would be suitable for such a program. We spent the two and a half months with a team of about ten professional people at an R. C. A. F. station which had 120 college students training on it. We then set about selecting the exercises. The procedure we used was to determine the series of exercises which would be progressively more difficult and yet which would not change appreciably in their performance, and at the same time even if the exercises were left to the individual they would get some benefit from them. What we did then was to demonstrate, very briefly, an exercise to the students and then have them perform it. we observed them as they performed these exercises and then would subjectively determine whether the exercise was achieving the desired result or not. In this process we tried hundreds of exercises discarding practically all of them because of their unsuita- bility for this particular program we had in mind, up to this point it may be argued that our approach was very unscientific and too subjective in its method. However, once we did determine the number of exercises and the type of exercises which would be of value, we then subjected the students to repeating these a given number of times to make sure that they could be counted in a uniform manner. The results of these were recorded by the students themselves and then were tabulated and analyzed to determine whether they had any value as far as objectivity was concerned. A second project which utilized a similar population of about the same number was conducted the following year. During this time we tested the individuals in a variety of physical fitness tests and then subjected them to the SEX program. At the end of the 12 week period working up progressively from the very low level of the plan up to the high level, we determined the improvements that were brought on by this program. Records were kept and statistically analyzed and this used proper procedures and methods for this kind of work. I should have mentioned that all the tables that were used in this process were very arbitrary and were more or less guess 71 work in that we were interested in progression and the development of high level of fitness and did not have the tables with which to work. However, at the completion of this project we set one week aside in which through random sampling techniques we had the cadets perform each of the exercises in each of the tables and make a record of the number of repetitions which they could complete in the required time. This then was taken and statistically treated in order to determine the distribution and scores from which finally emerged the tables as they are in the SEX program. Unfortunately I left the air force just at the completion of the work and did not have time to make the scientific report on the research that was involved. However, the material ' and raw data are available at the Air Force Headquarters and they may be looked at if one desires doing so by contacting Wing Commander Tett. I also have the data but because of the nature of the work and my servance with the Air Force, I am not permitted to give any of this information out. However, I will send you any information which you desire even to the point of giving you some actual figures without giving you a full report if you so desire. I would be very interested in the results of your work and would certainly appreciate a copy of this study when it is completed. Please convey my kindest regards to Professor Van Huss and Professor Montoye. With kindest regards, I am, Sincerely, William A. Orban /s/ William A. Orban Director WAR03/4 APPENDIX C The Questionnaire Coding Plan IBM Procedure and Statistical Analysis .mmxom Ewan. mun. ..Ho Nae 2H BHOHQ mzo 2&5 mm"! ES .82 on .N 620205“ng g gmomm 52m no» .335 Ewan man. 2H GEE On. ZHOQm .32 on .d .nxmws mbum Houmm mcfixuo3 who: so» goes? so Hm>mn mm Hence .n2003 anon nouns asexuos 0H0: 90> noug3.co Hm>mn mm mmnmm .mx003 sonny nouns mcuxho3 OHOS 50> coucB co Ho>ma mm union .nme3 03» Magma mauxuo3 0Ho3_aoa snag? so H0>¢H mm mmlcm .xm03.mco Houmm mcHRHOS mum3_aOh goes? so Ho>ma mm mmlmm . .emam mm mom Ho>mH magnumum Hmaom “.0am m on npum>sou wn .m.m .Hwnesc nozoa ou nm>am£ m>a0v .uouusuunca an cm>wm mm>u hoom mNIhN .oucoomo oomnouou on mcoo amasusn mo Honesz oNImN .mocmomu oovuoomu 0» meat magnum coax 9:09 mo nonesz emlmm .Aocw uumumos on» 0» 9mm» cownamuxo gush» co muoom NNIHN .cvcu phenom: on» on unou sowxwam xcsuu so onoum omlma .ccoomm n no spam» pounce: on» 0» ask hUHHfimm so wuoow mated .unmu mmumv .mnauuoxm mcazoudom nocoomm om\aumu madam mated. .oaaom awesome as» a» menu new: nemeesoooao: co muoum mange occaom unmumm: on» 0» menu can: usmcweoo co mHoum OHIm Aeo.mo .zm.wo .eo.oH .gm.-v .socalmum: vacuums mzu on mafia amuuuuo> co ouoom him 02 Amy .wow AH. mcowumusoo Hmuamhsn mo um0> omuaavmu oco onu cmnu once mxmu on ucmuca 90» on v mma~m> mapped no any .maam> ommum>m mo an. .msam> umoum mo AH. "onuaoo nsowumocsom on» we .cOficho Mao» :H m meadows humans sum> «may .muum can oocmeom “we. .muqsoaoom «so: Aha. .mcaummeemcm “we. .coeumusom and. .muuc eoeumowesssoo Ava. .ummeamsm ”may .musuaauHume “may .muemummoum oz Add. new emanouem omoaaoo mm“ .hoauu soummnmu m ca mceunenmm mo onomusm may now waco couumuuoo magma mum can oomum H:o% mauumunsuom ca own: on uoc HHd3 msouunmsv mums? .mu03mcm Mach 0» odomumuuoo umnu nnmnadc och :Da3_noxon m>onm mnv ca Adam oueuz.aoz mm. h .uoonu coaummsv menu :0 05m: Hack “monaommHo N . Seleeee 1-2 8-10 11-13 14-15 16-18 19-20 21-22 23-24 25-26 27-29 30-31 32-33 74 ' CODING PLAN Information College enrolled in: (11) No Preference, (12) Agriculture, (13) Business, (14) Communciation Arts, (15) Education, (16) Engineering, (17) Home Economics, (18) Science and Arts, (19) Veterinary Medicine. Value of Foundations Course: (1) Great Values, (2) Average Value, (3) Little Value. Take more than one required year of Physical Education? (1) Yes, (2) No. Vertical jump score to nearest half inch: (22.5, 16.0, 06.5, 09.0). Dominant Hand Grip Strength score to nearest pound: (200, 157, 089). Non-Dominant Hand Grip Strength score to nearest pound. 30 second Pulse Rate: (95, 61, 38). Agility Run score to nearest tenth of a second: (20.7, 19.4, 14.9). Trunk Flexion score to nearest inch: Column 19- (1) Positive Score, (2) Negative Score; Column 20- The Score (9, 4,1). Trunk Extension score to nearest inch: (27,21, 16). Number of Bent Knee Situps: (75, 52, 39). NUmber of Pushups: (56, 37, 23). Body Type: (642, 462, 264, 246). Starting Level on the PF Plan : (09). One Week PF Plan Level Achievement: (15). Cglumns 34-35 36-37 38-39 40-41 42-43 75 Information Two week PF Plan Level Achievement: (24). Three week PF Plan Level Achievement: (30). Four Week PF Plan Level Achievement: (37). Five week PF Plan Level Achievement: (Very few students had reached this point and as a result, these columns were not included in the study). Body Type Grouping Numbers (04, ll, 18). 10. 76 IBM PROCEDURE Procedure Data from questionnaires punched into 80 column IBM cards and verified for accuracy. Scores for entire population were sorted from high to low for each test and the PF Plan. Individual body types were sorted out and placed into their respective groupings (cards with no body type were pulled out). Body type grouping numbers were punched into columns 42-43 of the IBM cards. Several "impossible" scores were noted in_the data. The "impossible" scores were sorted and pulled out. Step no. 2 was repeated. Step no. 2 was repeated for each body type grouping. For each test and the PF Plan, the N (number of scores), the Sum of x (sum of the scores), the X'(mean), and the Sum of X2 (sum of the scores squared) were computed for each body type grouping. Step no. 9 was repeated for columns 19-20 to take into account the presence of negative scores. Step 77 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS Before viewing the data, it was decided that no body type grouping which contained less than fifty cases would be dealt with (as a result, body type groupings #1. #2. #3, #5, #6, #7, #8, #14, #15, #16, and #17 were not included in the study). Percentile rankings for each of the tests and the PF Plan were computed for the entire population by means of an actual score count. Percentile rankings for each of the tests and the PF Plan Were computed for each of the body type groupings used in the study by means of an actual score count. The mean and standard deviation for each of the tests and the PF Plan were computed for each of the d ‘ type groupings used in the study (S. D.== Sum of x -X2 . N APPENDIX D A Body Type Grouping Frequency Table A Table of the Body Type Groups and the Body Types Within Each Group 79 BODY TYPE GROUPING FREQUENCY TABLE Group No. MSU~-~187§_ Sheldon--20001 #1 O 4 #2 1o 64 #3 23 48 #4* 120 117 #5 46 60 #6 4 63 #7 o 27 #8 4 10 #9* 143 154 #10* 187 89 #11* 174 164 #12* 315 175 #13* 143 83 #14 1 9 #15 28 148 #16 41 100 #17 1o 87 #18* 428 182 #19* 158 377 *Body type groupings used in the study. 1w. H. Sheldon, s. 8. Stevens, and w. B. Tucker, The Varieties of Human Physigg . (New York and London: Harper Brothers., 1940). 81 The body type groupings and the body types within each group were taken from The Varieties of Human Phygigugz by. Sheldon, Stevens, and Tucker. In addition, other body types identified in this study were added to these groupings. MICHIG fl 3 N STATE UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES 0 1293 3046 9682