<i>Relation of Specific Gravity to Body Build in a Group of Healthy Men</i>

Dupertuis, C. Wesley; Pitts, G. C.; Osserman, Elliott F.; Welham, W. C.; Behnke, Albert R.

doi:10.1152/jappl.1951.3.11.676

Cited by 37 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In previous studies (Dupertius et al, 1951;Wilmore, 1970;Slaughter and Lohman, 1976;Bolonchuk et al, 1989), the highest component of the somatotype rating was clear. In previous studies (Dupertius et al, 1951;Wilmore, 1970;Slaughter and Lohman, 1976;Bolonchuk et al, 1989), the highest component of the somatotype rating was clear.…”

Section: Structure Function and Nutrition With Exercisementioning

confidence: 78%

“…Dupertius et al (1951) found a significant negative correlation between specific gravity and endomorphy and nonsignificant correlations between specific gravity, mesomorphy, and ectomorphy. This hypothesis rests on observed correlations between body composition determinations and somatotype ratings.…”

Section: Structure Function and Nutrition With Exercisementioning

confidence: 78%

“…Sheldon et al's (1940) procedure for determining the somatotype of an individual did not require body measurements, although measurements from cadaver studies were used to establish morphological characteristics. It is not surprising, then, that many studies have attempted to relate body composition variables and somatotype (Tanner et al, 1960;Bulbulian, 1984;Slaughter and Lohman, 1976;Dupertius et al, 1951;Bolonchuk et al, 1989). It is not surprising, then, that many studies have attempted to relate body composition variables and somatotype (Tanner et al, 1960;Bulbulian, 1984;Slaughter and Lohman, 1976;Dupertius et al, 1951;Bolonchuk et al, 1989).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…But subsequently developed methods to more objectively estimate the somatotype of an individual (Parnell, 1958;Heath and Carter, 1967) utilized body measurements and many of those measurements were similar to measurements utilized to anthropometrically determine body composition. It is not surprising, then, that many studies have attempted to relate body composition variables and somatotype (Tanner et al, 1960;Bulbulian, 1984;Slaughter and Lohman, 1976;Dupertius et al, 1951;Bolonchuk et al, 1989). These studies have found that, on average, endomorphs were heavier, taller, and fatter than mesomorphs or ectomorphs, that mesomorphs had greater fat-free weights and were shorter than endomorphs or ectomorphs, and that ectomorphs had less fat and lower body weights than mesomorphs or endomorphs.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Association of dominant somatotype of men with body structure, function during exercise, and nutritional assessment

et al. 2000

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examined the hypothesis that somatotype determines body structure, functional responses at peak exercise, and nutritional status of 63 men ages 18–40 years who lived under controlled conditions. Data were grouped by dominant somatotype to emphasize differences in body types. Dominant ectomorphs (n = 19) had less (P < 0.05) body weight, fat weight, and percent body fat than endomorphs (n = 14) and mesomorphs (n = 30). Fat‐free weight (FFW), total body potassium (TBK), and body cell mass (BCM), normalized for stature, were lower (P < 0.05) in the ectomorphs than in the endomorphs and mesomorphs. Comparisons between measured and predicted FFW and TBK showed that only the ectomorphs had less (P < 0.05) FFW and TBK than expected. Although all groups had the same peak power output, the ectomorphs had different functional responses during peak exercise. Ectomorphs had the greatest respiratory exchange ratio (P < 0.05), ventilatory equivalent for oxygen, and end‐exercise plasma lactate concentrations (P < 0.05), and lowest peak oxygen uptake (L/min; P < 0.05). Nutrient intakes and blood biochemical markers of nutritional status were within the range of normal values in all groups. Correlations between measures of body structure, function, and nutritional status and dominant somatotype components were calculated after controlling for the effects of the other two somatotype components. Partial correlations were variable, with significant correlations ranging from −0.30 to 0.87. These data indicate that ectomorphs, as compared to endomorphs and mesomorphs, have deficits in FFW and BCM which are associated with differences in functional capacity. Am. J. Hum. Biol. 12:167–180, 2000. Published 2000 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.

show abstract

Section: Structure Function and Nutrition With Exercisementioning

confidence: 78%

Section: Structure Function and Nutrition With Exercisementioning

confidence: 78%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Association of dominant somatotype of men with body structure, function during exercise, and nutritional assessment

et al. 2000

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Furthermore, the coefficient of correlation between ectomorphy and specific gravity through underwater weighing was found to be only -f-0.369. 13 This distribution of ectomorphy is just about what one would expect if the obese were endomorphs with moderate or strong secondary meso¬ morphy. The absence of high ectomorphy indicates that in the obese there must be a tendency toward a restricted somatotype configuration, for if the endo¬ morphy observed was in fact just fat, then one would expect to find strength in the ectomorphic component in a predictable number of cases.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 92%