BODY PHYSIQUE AND COMPOSITION OF THE FEMALE DISTANCE RUNNER Jack H. Wilmore Department of Physical Education University of Arizona Tucson, Arizona 85721 C. Harmon Brown Student Health Services California State University, Hayward Hayward, California 94541
James A. Davis National Athletic Health Institute Inglewood, California 90301 Recently, it has been established unequivocally that exercise is a primary factor in both the control and alteration of body composition.' This has been demonstrated in the normal population2 as well as in various athletic populat i o n ~ for , ~ males and females alike.4 Within the domain of athletics, the male distance runner is among the leannest of all athletes,5 with a distinct physique that is characterized as ectomesomorphic.6 This leanness is undoubtedly the result of both a genetic predisposition to leanness and to the tremendous volume of running that appears necessary in training for distance running, e.g., running in excess of 100 miles per week. Since females experience changes in body composition with endurance training programs similar to those found in males,? the question is raised as to how the male and female distance runners compare relative to body composition and physique. Is the female distance runner as lean as her male counterpart, or do the basic hormonal differences between the sexes dictate a greater amount of relative fat in the female as a result of higher estrogen levels? The latter would put the female at a distinct disadvantage in competition with males, as endurance performance has been closely linked to body composition; i.e., the greater the relative fat, the poorer the endurance performance.8* The purpose of the present study was to investigate the body composition and physique of the female distance runner to determine how she differs when compared to the male distance runner, female sprinters and middle distance runners, male and female athletes in various sports, and population norms for the average male and female of comparable age. In addition, the role of either or both reduced body weight and reduced body fat in menstrual irregularities was evaluated. Experimental Design
World-class and nationalcaliber athletes were selected for participation in this study. The sample consisted of female distance runners (n = 70), female sprinters and middle distance runners (n = 8), and female shot put, discus, and
764
Wilmore et af.: The Female Distance Runner
765
javelin throwers ( n = 9). I n addition, 15 members of the University of California, Davis, women's swimming team were selected as a comparison group. The physical characteristics of the subjects are defined in TABLES 1 and 2. All tests were conducted during the competitive season for each group. Body composition was assessed by the hydrostatic weighing technique.1° Residual volume was assessed by the oxygen dilution technique l1 using closedcircuit spirometry. Residual volume measurements were taken out of water in a seated position similar to that posture assumed during the underwater weighing. The procedures used for the underwater weighing have been described previously.'* A minimum of eight consecutive determinations were obtained for each subject. The representative underwater weight was selected on the basis of the highest weight if it was observed more than twice; the second highest weight if it was observed more than once, and if the first criterion was not met; o r the third highest weight if neither the first nor the second criteria were met. The equation developed by Siri l3 was used to estimate relative fat from body density. Body physique was assessed by the Heath-Carter modified somatotype method, using only anthropometric measurements to estimate each of the three component^.^^ The first component, endomorphy, is estimated from the sum of the triceps, subscapular, and suprailiac skinfold thicknesses. The second component, mesomorphy, is assessed on the basis of two bone diameter (humerus and femur) and two circumference measurements (upper arm and calf), the latter two being corrected for the calf and triceps skinfold thicknesses. These two diameters and two corrected circumferences are evaluated relative to body height. The third com nent, ectomorphy, is assessed strictly on the basis of the ratio, height/ weight. Somatotype was determined for approximately half of the sample of distance runners using only the anthropometric somatotype and not the combined photoscopic and anthropometric somatotype. The specific landmarks for each anthropometric measurement site have been described in detail in previous publications.l0*l5
+
Results and Discussion
The body composition data for all groups is presented in TABLE 1 and the body physique data for 37 of the 70 distance runners is presented in TABLE 2. Since the procedure of estimating relative fat from body density is suspect in individuals who have not attained full growth and maturation, the sample of runners was divided into those 16 years of age and younger, and those who were 17 years of age and older. In the physically immature individual, where the density of the lean tissue is in a continual state of change, the conversion of body density to relative fat usually results in an overestimation of relative fat due to a lean tissue density that is actually lower than that assumed in the formula.16 TABLE 3 provides a summary of studies that have assessed the body composition in both normal males and females of the ages assessed in this study. TABLES 4 and 5 contain body composition values for male and female athletes respectively in various sports. In comparison to the normal female population of similar age, the female distance runner is of average height, has a slightly lower total body weight, a lower fat weight, and a slightly higher lean body weight. This result,s in a considerably lower relative body fat in the distance runner when compared to
STUDY *
Throwers
4 7 4
9
-
-
18.8 -C 3.0
# Body density of 1.075.
t Body density of 1.061.
* Values represent means 2 standard deviations.
sprinters Middle distance Distance
Swimmers 165.1 24.3 166.6e 3.0 166.325.3
173.926.9
161.528.2 171.5 28.7 166.5 29.3
Sprinters and Middle Distance Runners 9-16 years 4 13.52 1.0 17-51 years 4 18.3k1.3 8 15.9 22.7 Total
Shot Put, Discus, and Javelin
157.1 29.3 166.8f6.9 162.929.2
13.42 1.7 25.0 29.1 20.229.3
28 42 70
57.1 24.7 66.8 &6.3 60.9 27.1
80.8 221.1
50.1 k8.2 57.8 27.7 54.02 8.4
42.8k7.6 54.3 26.4 49.728.9
48.723.9 505 A4.1 50.424.4
58.9 29.6
44.626.3 51.325.1 47.926.4
35.626.2 45.025.2 4 1.3 27.2
8.4k3.7 16.3e4.6 10.5 22.9
21.8212.2
5.622.9 6.622.8 6.1k2.7
7.222.4 9.3 24.2 8.4k3.7
TESTJD FOR TIUS
Distance Runners 9-16 years 17-5 1 year^ Total
TABLE1 FEMALEATHLETES
Group
OF 'IHE VARIOUS
Fat Weight (kg1
BODYCOMPOSITION
14.6zk5.9 24.125.6 17.122.6
27.0k8.4
10.724.2 # 11.123.6 10.923.6
16.5k3.9 t 16.926.4 16.825.5
(%I
Relative Fat
2
8 5'
%
r
Ei
ha
2
0
4
$
E
Wilmore
et
al.: The Female Distance Runner
767
TABLE 2 BODY PHYSIQUE OF THE FEMALE DISTANCE RUNNER*
Age Group 9-16 17-51
Total
n
Endomorphy
Somatotype Mesomorphy
Ectomorphy
14 23 37
2.1 &0.7 3.2-Cl.3 2.82 1.2
1.420.8 2.1f1.4 1.92 1.2
4.521.1 3.721.4 4.0k1.3
* Values represent means f standard deviations. the average, by approximately 6 to 8 percentage points. The average female is approximately 12-13 cm shorter than the average male at full maturity, 16-19 kg lighter in total weight, 19-21 kg lighter in lean weight, 1-2 kg heavier in fat weight, and 8-1 1 percentage points greater in relative fat. When comparing the fully mature female distance runner with her male counterpart, the female is approximately 10 cm shorter, 13 kg lighter in total weight, 16 kg lighter in lean weight, 2 kg heavier in fat weight, and 6 to 7 percentage points greater in relative fat. Compared to the average male, the female distance runner is shorter, lighter in absolute, lean and fat weight, and is approximately the same in relative fat. From the above, it would appear that the female distance runner is at a distinct disadvantage when compared to the male distance runner due to the additional fat she must carry during the run. From FIGURE 1, it is interesting to note that 7 of the 70 distance runners and 5 of the 8 middle distance runners
BODY COMPOSRION VALUES
TABLE3 NORMAL MALESAND FEMALES OF VARIOUS AGES Relative Fat *
Group
n
Males
95 66 57 48 133 297 55
10.0 9-12 13-16 17.0 22.0 28.7 33.2
56 31 62 128 94 64 50 60
9-12 9-13 13-16 21.4 20.4 19-23 20.2 44.7
Females
IN
(% 1
142.3
35.2
178.6 177.3 177.1 179.0
72.1 75.6 77.9 79.6
-
-
-
151.9
45.7
164.9 167.5 165.9 165.0 165.9
58.6 44.9 58.4 55.5 61.2
-
-
Reference
18.7 22.3 17.0 10.9 14.6 16.5 18.9
Wilmore and McNamara ParizkoviiIT ParfzkovA lT Michael and Katch lE Wilmore and Behnke Wright and Wilmore 8o Wilmore. er al.'
26.0 23.2 22.8 25.7 28.6 21.9 22.9 29.8
ParlzkoviiIT Parizkovl and Roth Parizkovii IT Wilmore and Behnke sz Young * Katch and Michael * Sloan, Burt, and Blyth Pollock
* Calculated from body density values using the equation of Siri.=
Weight Lifters Power Olympic Body Builders Wrestlers
Shot Put
Discus
Track and Field
Runners
Athletic Group or Sport
*
77.2 92.0 88.2 83.1 81.8 75.7
177.8 176.0
26.0 27.0 22.0 19.6 15-18
2 9 9 37 94
74.8 66.3
-
174.6 172.3
104.7 110.5 112.5 126.2
166.4 176.1 177.1 172.4
188.2 191.6
186.1 190.8
24.9 26.3 25.3 29.0
71.6
64.5 64.2 71.6 67.2 67.1 66.8 70.7
14 3 11 2
-
177.4 175.7 180.7 174.7 175.7 175.6 176.5 180.6
28.3 26.4 27.0 22.0
-
22.5 26.1 40-49 50-59 -9 70-75 47.2 21.3
9 15 7 12 5 2
10 114 11 5 6 3 45
9.8 10.7 5.0 8.8 6.9
9.8 15.6 12.2 8.4
3.7 8.8 16.4 16.3 16.5 19.6
6.3 7.5 11.2 10.9 11.3 13.6 13.2
Reference
Gale and Flynn Parizkovi ' Sinning = Katch and Michael a
Wilmore Fahey et al." Behnke and Wilmore lo Sprynarovd and Parizkovi Fahey et al."
Lewis et a1.= Novak ef aZ.= Forsyth and Sinning Fahey et al."
Sprynarovi and Parizkovi Costill et al? Pollock et al.=
a2
%
Y
f
Lo
% R
4
Z
2
E
26.8
15
* Events not specified.
26.3
12
Ice Hockey Basketball
30.9
21
Jockeys
-
20.3
7
17-23 17-23 17-23 17-23 17-23 24.5 24.7 24.2 24.7 25.7 24.1
-
20.3
-
193.6
180.3
158.2
178.5
178.3 179.7 180.1 186.0 186.6 182.5 183.8 188.6 193.0 192.4 185.0
-
184.9
-
183.1
-
176.6 182.7
182.3 182.9
27.4
25.9 20.8
21.8 20.6
28 38 32 16 7
40
16 11 15 15 7 13 15 26
Football
Defensive backs Offensive backs Linebackers Offensive linemen Defensive linemen Defensive backs Offensive backs Linebackers OfTensive line Defensive line Quarterbacks, Kickers Tennis Gymnastics
9 10 17 16
13 7
Skiers Baseball players
Swimmers *
91.2
86.7
50.3
69.2
-
77.3 79.8 87.2 99.2 97.8 84.8 90.7 102.2 112.6 117.1 90.1
-
96.4
14.8 83.3 88.0
79.1 78.9
9.7
15.1
14.1
4.6
13.8 13.9 11.5 12.4 13.4 19.1 18.5 9.6 9.4 14.0 15.6 18.2 14.4 15.2
7.4 14.2 11.8 12.6
8.5 5.0
Wilmore
Wilmore, unpublished data
Forsyth and Sinning a Novak et aLa
Wilmore et al.”
Sprynarovi and Parizkovi Novak et al.Sprynarovk and Parizkovk Novak et al.* Forsyth and Sinning Wilmore Novak et al.” Forsyth and Sinning a Wickkiser and Kelly
2
El El
w c
0
a
g
U
3 E E
(D
$
a ..
sc
Annals New York Academy of Sciences
770
A
1
A
A 0 0
A 0
0 0
k
d
0
O F 0 0
0
O OO
l a a 0" --o-& ~
-
608 0
-
0
0
A
0
0
20
10
0
40
30
Sprint Middle Distance Discus - Javelin
50
Age, years
FIGURE1. Relative body fat values for female track and field athletes. TABLE5
BODY COMPOSXTION VALUESIN FEMALEATHLETES Athletic Group orsport
n
12 11
19.9 32.4
161.3 t 169.4
52.9 t 57.2
19.2 15.2
Sprinters 24 Jumpers & Hurdlers 11 Discus & Javelin 10 Throwers Shot-Putters 9 Gymnasts 4
20.1
164.9 t
56.7 t
19.3 t
20.3
165.9 t
59.0 t
20.7
t
21.1
168.1 t
71.0 t
25.0
21.5
167.6 t
78.1
t
28.0
t t
14 16 8 7
19.4 20.0 14.0 23.0 23.0
163.0 158.5
57.9 51.1
Basketball
21 17
19.1 19.4
Volleyball Swimmers *
10
9
Runners
* Events not specified.
Height Weight (cm) (kg)
Relative Fat
Age (yrs)
-
-
23.8 15.5 17.0 11.0 9.6
169.1 167.0
62.6 63.9
20.8 26.9
19.4
166.0
59.8
25.3
19.4
168.0
63.8
26.3
-
t Estimated from a graphic plot of the data.
Reference
(%)
t
Malina etaLm Wilmore and Brown" Malina e t d W
Conger and Macnab" Sinning and Lindberg '' Parfikovit8 Parizkovit and Poupa * Sinning" Conger and Macnab4'
Wilmore et al.: The Female Distance Runner
771
were below 10% relative fat. Two of the distance runners were only 6% fat, which is lower than the mean values reported in male distance runner^.^ These two runners were also the best performers of all 7 0 distance runners tested. In fact, nearly all of the distance runners and sprinters-middle distance runners below 10% fat were considered to be the elite or better runners. From this limited information, it would be tempting to conclude that females are at a disadvantage compared to males if they maintain relative body fats in excess of 10%. However, this must be considered pure speculation at this time until a more critical research design is implemented to validate this hypothesis. From the above it is apparent that the distance runner is considerably leaner than the average population of similar age by 6 to 8 percentage points for males and females alike. It is impossible to determine from this study or from previous investigations whether this is the result of the intensive training programs required of distance runners where daily caloric expenditure is quite high (i.e., 1,000 to 2,000 kcal or more per workout), the result of genetic factors, or a combination of the two. From previous research it is well known that considerable alterations in body composition do occur with endurance training, i.e., decreased absolute and relative fat, and increased lean weight.'. Also, one of the subjects in this study who was assessed at 6% fat, took up running in high school to help her lose weight as she was considered obese. Over a period of several years, she lost over 40 pounds of weight as a result of her running program, established several national running records, and at one time held the best time in the world for the marathon. At the other extreme, the fatest subject tested in this study (35.8%) recently established the best time in the world for women in the 50-mile run (7:05:31) just shortly after being tested. The potential genetic influence is, unfortunately, difficult to assess. Traditionally, distance runners have had a fairly characteristic somatotype (ectomesomorphic), and since somatotype is thought to change very little with age, indicating a probable genetic link, there must be a genetic component to distance running. There is also some evidence that muscle fiber type distribution by sport and event is genetically determined.4s For the moment, it must be concluded that both genetic and environmental factors are operating to account for the lower fat values in distance runners. Identification of the primary factor must await longitudinal research of a more definitive nature. When compared to other female athletes (TABLES 1 & 5 ) , the female distance runner is of similar height, but has a lower total weight and relative body fat, except when compared to the gymnasts reported in previous and the sprinters-middle distance runners reported in the present study have lower body fat values than the distance runners. The significance of this is not known at the present time. These lower values may be the result of a small sample size, or very low body fat may be a prerequisite for successful performance in the sport, since there is a high inverse correlation between body fat and physical performance where the body mass has to be moved either horizontally or vertically through space.*# With regard to somatotypes, the female distance runner is predominantly an ectomorph with a moderately high endormorphic component. This finding is somewhat consistent with previous data for women middle distance runners,& although the middle distance runners had a lower rating in endomorphy and a higher rating in mesomorphy (TABLES6 & 7 ) . Male runners are predominantly ectomesomorphs,6*45 with moderately high readings in both ectomorphy and mesomorphy. The differences between the male and female distance runner
26.7 25.8
-
19.2
59 49 32
65
Weight lifters Wrestlers
Swimmers
-
26.4
-
23.9 22.9 25.3
(YB)
23.5 27.3
78 41 34 19 20 9
n
Age
31 14
Track and Field: Jumpers Weight throwers
Marathon
Runners: Sprint Middle distance Long distance
or Sport
Athletic Group
TABLE 6
179.3
168.0 169.3 172.4
182.8 186.1
175.4 177.3 171.9 174.4 168.7 171.1
Height (cm)
72.1
76.6 70.6 72.0
73.2 102.3
68.4 65.0 59.8 60.8 56.6 59.9
Weight (kg)
2.1
2.4 2.2 2.7
1.7 3.5
1.7 1.5 1.4 2.7 1.4 2.6
5.0
7.1 6.3 5.6
4.4 7.1
5.0 4.2 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4
2.9
Tanner '' de Garay et al.'
?5
E
n
$t
1
1.6 2.5
%
Ha
#
0
.c
3s
E
m
de Garay et al.'
Tanner " de Garay et al.' Tanner ''
de Garay et al?
Reference
P
.o
3.4 1.o
2.8 3.6 3.6 4.3 3.5 3.9
Somatotype Endo Meso Ecto
S O M A T OVALUES ~E FOR MALE ATHLETES
Wilmore et al.: The Female Distance Runner
773
in endomorphy and mesomorphy are undoubtedly truly sex-linked, as estrogen promotes fat accumulation and testosterone promotes growth of the lean tissue, i.e., predominantly the muscle mass. The interactions of physical activity and the menstrual cycle have been of concern to sports physicians and coaches for many years. This interest has increased in recent years because of the greater number of women who are participating in intensive training programs, especially endurance activities. I n earlier surveys of top-caliber women athletes, Erdelyi 47 and Zaharieva 4R found that 85% of the women had normal menstrual cycles, and only 7 % to 9% had irregular or abnormal cycles. However, Erdelyi noted that those athletes who were in very strenuous or endurance sports tended to have irregular or absent menses during the competitive season. Menses generally returned to normal during the “off-season.” As women have become more involved in year-round training programs, the incidence of menstrual irregularities has become more frequent. In a recent survey, Foreman4” found that among a group of 47 TABLE7 SOMATOTYPE VALUES FOR FEMALE ATHLETES* Athletic Group or Sport Runners: Sprint Middle distance Track and Field: Jumpers Throwers Swimmers
Age (yrs)
Height (cm)
Weight
n 28 18
20.7 20.0
165.0 166.9
56.8 54.3
2.7 2.0
3.9 3.3
2.9 3.7
12 9 28
21.5 19.9 16.3
169.4 170.9 164.4
56.4 73.5 56.9
2.2 5.3 3.4
3.3 5.2 4.0
3.7 1.7 3.0
(kg)
Somatotype Endo Meso Ecto
* Reference: de Garay et al? nationally ranked long distance runners, 19% had irregular menstrual periods, and 23% had severe oligomenorrhea or amenorrhea. Similarly, only one of seven cross-country skiers could be considered as having normal menstrual cycles, while two were amenorrheic. Conversations with coaches and athletes have affirmed that this is a common problem among women runners, as well as gymnasts, dancers and figure skaters. The etiology of these menstrual changes has not been determined. While the “stress” of endurance training has been suggested as affecting the hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal axis, no studies have been done to clarify this theory. Frisch and McArthur have suggested that a minimal amount of relative body fat is necessary for the onset and maintenance of normal menstrual cycles, as young women who lose weight from a variety of causes are prone to amenorrhea. Further, these women resume menses once body weight (fat) is restored. In the present study, we have found that women long distance runners are quite lean compared to the average female. In previous studies of two groups of women distance runners, we found relative body fat of 15.2% and 11.7%, compared to a relative body fat of 23%-26% for the average young
7 74
Annals New York Academy of Sciences
woman.40. Further, several women distance runners with scant or absent menses reported a return of menses when training was stopped and they gained a few pounds. The relationships between fat mass, training, and the menstrual cycle remain to be further clarified. In conclusion, female distance runners can be classified as predominantly ectomorphs and lean compared to the normal female population, but on the average they are fatter and less muscular than male distance runners. However, it has also been observed that the better performing female distance runners are below 10% relative fat, approaching average values for male distance runners. It is probable that a lower relative fat facilitates the individual’s running performance, thus fat reduction to absolute minimal levels would seem desirable. Whether these low values seen in the better female runners are determined genetically, by diet and intensive training, or by a combination of these remains to be seen. It is possible, however, that these low fat values may also be associated with menstrual irregularities, which are frequently reported in highly trained female athletes. Whether this is an undesirable consequence of reduced fat stores through intense training remains to be determined.
References 1. OSCAI,L. B. 1973. The role of exercise in weight control. In Exercise and Sport Sciences Reviews. J. H. Wilmore, Ed., Vol. 1: 103-123. Academic Press.
New York, N.Y. 2. WILMORE, J. H. 1974. Physical exercise and body composition. In The Regulation of the Adipose Tissue Mass. J. Vague & J. Boyer, Eds., Excerpta Medica.
Amsterdam, Netherlands. 3. P A R ~ Z K O J. V1973. ~ Body composition and exercise during growth and development. In Physical Activity Growth and Development. G. L. Rarick, Ed., : 97-134. Academic Press. New York, N.Y. 4. WILMORE, J. H. 1975. Inferiority of female athletes: Myth or reality. J. Sports Med. 3: 1-6. 5. COSTILL, D. L., R. BOWERS& W. F. KAMMER.1970. Skinfold estimates of body fat among marathon runners. Med. Sci. Sports 2: 93-95. 6. DE GARAY, A. L., L. LEVINE & J. E. L. CARTER.1974. Genetic and Anthropolog-
ical Studies of Olympic Athletes. Academic Press. New York, N.Y. D. L., J. H. WILMORE, R. H. GIRANDOLA & J. P. ROYCE. 1972. The 7. MOODY, 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.
effect of a jogging program on the body composition of normal and obese high school girls. Med. Sci. Sports 4: 210-213. WILMORE, J. H., J. ROYCE, R. N. GIRANDOLA, F. I. KATCH & V. L. KATCH.1970. Body composition changes with a 10-week program of jogging. Med. Sci. Sports 2: 1 13-1 17. KIREILIS, R. W. & T. K. CURETON.1947. The relationship of external fat to physical education activities and fitness tests. Res. Quart. 18 123-134. BEHNKE, A. R. & J. H. WILMORE.1974. Evaluation and Regulation of Body Build and Composition. Prentice-Hall. Englewood Cliffs, N.J. WILMORE, J. H. 1969. A simplified technique for determination of residual lung volumes. J. Appl. Physiol. 27: 96-100. WILMORE, J. H. & A. R. BEHNKE.1968. Predictability of lean body weight through anthropometric assessment in college men. J. Appl. Physiol. 25: 349-
355. 13. SIRI, W. E. 1965. Body composition from fluid spaces and density. Donner
Laboratory of Medical Physics, University of California, Berkeley. Report. 19 March.
Wilmore et al.: The Female Distance Runner
775
AND J. E. L. CARTER.1967. A modified somatotype method. Amer. J. Phys. Anthrop. 27: 57-74. CARTER,J. E. L. 1972. The Heath-Carter Somatotype Method. San Diego State University. San Diego, Calif. WILMORE, J. H. & I. J. MCNAMARA. 1974. Prevalence of coronary heart disease risk factors in boys, 8-12 years of age. J. Pediat. 84: 527-533. P A R ~ Z K OJ.V ~1961. , Total body fat and skinfold thickness in children. Metabolism 10: 794-807. MICHAEL, E. D. JR. & F. I. KATCH. 1968. Prediction of body density from skinfold and girth measurements of 17-year-old boys. J. Appl. Physiol. 25: 747-
14. HEATH,B. H:
15. 16. 17. 18.
750. J. H. & A. R. BEHNKE.1969. An Anthropometric estimation of body 19. WILMORE, density and lean body weight in young men.. J. Appl. Physiol. 27: 25-3 I . 20. WRIGHT,H. F. & J. H. WILMORE.1974. Estimation of relative body fat and
lean body weight in a United States Marine Corps population. Aerospace Med. 45: 301-306.
21. PARhovI(, J. & Z. ROTH. 1972. The assessment of depot fat in children from
skinfold thickness measurements by Holtain (TannerIWhitehouse) Caliper. Human Biol. 44: 613-620. J. H. & A. R. BEHNKE.1970. An anthropometric estimation of body 22. WILMORE, density and lean body weight in young women. Amer. J. Clin. Nutr. 23: 267274. 23. YOUNG,C. M. 1961. Body fatness in normal young women. N.Y. State J. Med. 61: 1928-1931. 24. KATCH,F. I. & E. D. MICHAEL, JR. 1968. Prediction of body density from skinfold and girth measurements of college females. J. Appl. Physiol. 25: 92-94. 25. SLOAN,A. W., J. J. BURT& C. S. BLYTH. 1962. Estimation of body fat in young women. J. Appl. Physiol. 17: 967-970. M. L., E. E. LAUGHRIDGE, B. COLEMAN, A. C. LINNERUD & A. JACKSON. 26. POLLOCK, 1975. Prediction of body density in young and middle aged women. J. Appl. Physiol. 38: 745-749. 27. SPRYNAROV~, S. & J. PAR~ZKOV~. 1971. Functional capacity and body composition in top weight-lifters, swimmers, runners and skiers. Int. Z. Angew. Physiol. 2 9 184-194. M. L., H. S. MILLER,JR. & J. H. WILMORE.1974. Physiological char28. POLLOCK, acteristics of champion American track athletes 40 to 75 years of age. J. Geront. 2 9 645-649. H. KLEIN, J. HALPERN & P. D. WOOD. 1975. Pre29. LEWIS,s., W. L. HASKELL, 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37.
diction of body composition in habitually active middle-aged men. J. Appl. Physiol. 39: 221-225. NOVAK,L. P., R. E. HYATT& J. F. ALEXANDER. 1968. Body composition and physiologic function of athletes. J. Amer. Med. Assoc. 205: 764-770. FORSYTH, H. L. & W. E. SINNING.1973. The anthropometric estimation of body density and lean body weight of male athletes. Med. Sci. Sport. 5: 174-180. FAHEY,T. D., L. AKKA& R. ROLPH. 1975. Body composition and VOIm.. of exceptional weight-trained athletes. J. Appl. Physiol. 39: 559-561. WILMORE,J. H. 1976. Body composition of national-caliber discus throwers, and professional baseball, ice hockey and basketball players. National Athletic Health Institute. Unpublished report. GALE,J. B. & K. W. FLYNN. 1974. Maximal oxygen consumption and relative body fat of high-ability wrestlers. Med. Sci. Sports 6: 232-234. SINNING, W. E. 1974. Body composition assessment of college wrestlers. Med. Sci. Sports 6: 139-145. KATCH,F. I. & E. D. MICHAEL.1971. Body composition of high school wrestlers according to age and wrestling weight category. Med. Sci. Sports 3: 19&194. WICKKISER, J. D. & J. M. KELLY. 1975. The body composition of a college football team. Med. Sci. Sports 7: 199-202.
776
Annals New York Academy of Sciences
38. WILMORE, J. H., R. B. PARR,W. L. HASKELL,D. L. COSTILL,L. J. MILBURN & R. K. KERLAN.1976. Athletic profile of professional football players. Phys. Sportsmed. 4: 45-54. 39. MALINA,R. M., A. B. HARPER,H. H. AVENT& D. E. CAMPBELL.1971. Physique of female track and field athletes. Med. Sci. Sports 3: 32-38. 40. WUORE, J. H. & C. H. BROWN.1974. Physiological profiles of women distance runners. Med. Sci. Sports 6 178-181. 41. CONGER, P. R. & R. B. J. MACNAB.1967. Strength, body composition, and work 42. 43. 44. 45. 46.
capacity of participants and nonparticipants in women’s intercollegiate sports. Res. Quart. 3 8 184-192. SINNING,W. E. & G. D. LINDBERG.1972. Physical characteristics of college age women gymnasts. Res. Quart. 43: 226-234. PAR~ZKOVL, J. & D. POUPA.1963. Some metabolic consequences of adaptation to muscular work. Brit. J. Nutr. 17: 341-345. SINNING,W. E. 1973. Body composition, cardiovascular function, and rule changes in women’s basketball. Res. Quart. 44: 313-321. TANNER, J. M. 1964. The Physique of the Olympic Athlete. George Allen and Unwin, Ltd. London. ERICKSON, B. O., P. D. GOLLNICK & B. SALTIN. 1972. Muscle metabolism and enzyme activities after training in boys 11-13 years old. Acta. Physiol. Scand.
87: 231-239. 47. ERDELYI,G. 1960. Gynecological survey of female athletes. Second National
48. 49. 50. 51.
Conference on the Medical Aspects of Sports, American Medical Association, Washington, D.C. November 27. ZAHARIEVA, E. 1965. Survey of sportswomen at the Tokyo Olympics. J. Sports Med. 5: 215-219. FOREMAN, K. Unpublished survey. Seattle Pacific College, Seattle, Wash. FRISCH,R. & J. MCARTHUR.1974. Menstrual Cycles: Fatness as a determinant of minimum weight for height necessary for their maintenance or onset. Science 185: 949-95 1. BROWN,C. H. & J. H. WILMORE.1971. Physical and physiological profiles of champion women long-distance runners. Med. Sci. Sports 3: 1,h.
James A. Davis National Athletic Health Institute Inglewood, California 90301 Recently, it has been established unequivocally that exercise is a primary factor in both the control and alteration of body composition.' This has been demonstrated in the normal population2 as well as in various athletic populat i o n ~ for , ~ males and females alike.4 Within the domain of athletics, the male distance runner is among the leannest of all athletes,5 with a distinct physique that is characterized as ectomesomorphic.6 This leanness is undoubtedly the result of both a genetic predisposition to leanness and to the tremendous volume of running that appears necessary in training for distance running, e.g., running in excess of 100 miles per week. Since females experience changes in body composition with endurance training programs similar to those found in males,? the question is raised as to how the male and female distance runners compare relative to body composition and physique. Is the female distance runner as lean as her male counterpart, or do the basic hormonal differences between the sexes dictate a greater amount of relative fat in the female as a result of higher estrogen levels? The latter would put the female at a distinct disadvantage in competition with males, as endurance performance has been closely linked to body composition; i.e., the greater the relative fat, the poorer the endurance performance.8* The purpose of the present study was to investigate the body composition and physique of the female distance runner to determine how she differs when compared to the male distance runner, female sprinters and middle distance runners, male and female athletes in various sports, and population norms for the average male and female of comparable age. In addition, the role of either or both reduced body weight and reduced body fat in menstrual irregularities was evaluated. Experimental Design
World-class and nationalcaliber athletes were selected for participation in this study. The sample consisted of female distance runners (n = 70), female sprinters and middle distance runners (n = 8), and female shot put, discus, and
764
Wilmore et af.: The Female Distance Runner
765
javelin throwers ( n = 9). I n addition, 15 members of the University of California, Davis, women's swimming team were selected as a comparison group. The physical characteristics of the subjects are defined in TABLES 1 and 2. All tests were conducted during the competitive season for each group. Body composition was assessed by the hydrostatic weighing technique.1° Residual volume was assessed by the oxygen dilution technique l1 using closedcircuit spirometry. Residual volume measurements were taken out of water in a seated position similar to that posture assumed during the underwater weighing. The procedures used for the underwater weighing have been described previously.'* A minimum of eight consecutive determinations were obtained for each subject. The representative underwater weight was selected on the basis of the highest weight if it was observed more than twice; the second highest weight if it was observed more than once, and if the first criterion was not met; o r the third highest weight if neither the first nor the second criteria were met. The equation developed by Siri l3 was used to estimate relative fat from body density. Body physique was assessed by the Heath-Carter modified somatotype method, using only anthropometric measurements to estimate each of the three component^.^^ The first component, endomorphy, is estimated from the sum of the triceps, subscapular, and suprailiac skinfold thicknesses. The second component, mesomorphy, is assessed on the basis of two bone diameter (humerus and femur) and two circumference measurements (upper arm and calf), the latter two being corrected for the calf and triceps skinfold thicknesses. These two diameters and two corrected circumferences are evaluated relative to body height. The third com nent, ectomorphy, is assessed strictly on the basis of the ratio, height/ weight. Somatotype was determined for approximately half of the sample of distance runners using only the anthropometric somatotype and not the combined photoscopic and anthropometric somatotype. The specific landmarks for each anthropometric measurement site have been described in detail in previous publications.l0*l5
+
Results and Discussion
The body composition data for all groups is presented in TABLE 1 and the body physique data for 37 of the 70 distance runners is presented in TABLE 2. Since the procedure of estimating relative fat from body density is suspect in individuals who have not attained full growth and maturation, the sample of runners was divided into those 16 years of age and younger, and those who were 17 years of age and older. In the physically immature individual, where the density of the lean tissue is in a continual state of change, the conversion of body density to relative fat usually results in an overestimation of relative fat due to a lean tissue density that is actually lower than that assumed in the formula.16 TABLE 3 provides a summary of studies that have assessed the body composition in both normal males and females of the ages assessed in this study. TABLES 4 and 5 contain body composition values for male and female athletes respectively in various sports. In comparison to the normal female population of similar age, the female distance runner is of average height, has a slightly lower total body weight, a lower fat weight, and a slightly higher lean body weight. This result,s in a considerably lower relative body fat in the distance runner when compared to
STUDY *
Throwers
4 7 4
9
-
-
18.8 -C 3.0
# Body density of 1.075.
t Body density of 1.061.
* Values represent means 2 standard deviations.
sprinters Middle distance Distance
Swimmers 165.1 24.3 166.6e 3.0 166.325.3
173.926.9
161.528.2 171.5 28.7 166.5 29.3
Sprinters and Middle Distance Runners 9-16 years 4 13.52 1.0 17-51 years 4 18.3k1.3 8 15.9 22.7 Total
Shot Put, Discus, and Javelin
157.1 29.3 166.8f6.9 162.929.2
13.42 1.7 25.0 29.1 20.229.3
28 42 70
57.1 24.7 66.8 &6.3 60.9 27.1
80.8 221.1
50.1 k8.2 57.8 27.7 54.02 8.4
42.8k7.6 54.3 26.4 49.728.9
48.723.9 505 A4.1 50.424.4
58.9 29.6
44.626.3 51.325.1 47.926.4
35.626.2 45.025.2 4 1.3 27.2
8.4k3.7 16.3e4.6 10.5 22.9
21.8212.2
5.622.9 6.622.8 6.1k2.7
7.222.4 9.3 24.2 8.4k3.7
TESTJD FOR TIUS
Distance Runners 9-16 years 17-5 1 year^ Total
TABLE1 FEMALEATHLETES
Group
OF 'IHE VARIOUS
Fat Weight (kg1
BODYCOMPOSITION
14.6zk5.9 24.125.6 17.122.6
27.0k8.4
10.724.2 # 11.123.6 10.923.6
16.5k3.9 t 16.926.4 16.825.5
(%I
Relative Fat
2
8 5'
%
r
Ei
ha
2
0
4
$
E
Wilmore
et
al.: The Female Distance Runner
767
TABLE 2 BODY PHYSIQUE OF THE FEMALE DISTANCE RUNNER*
Age Group 9-16 17-51
Total
n
Endomorphy
Somatotype Mesomorphy
Ectomorphy
14 23 37
2.1 &0.7 3.2-Cl.3 2.82 1.2
1.420.8 2.1f1.4 1.92 1.2
4.521.1 3.721.4 4.0k1.3
* Values represent means f standard deviations. the average, by approximately 6 to 8 percentage points. The average female is approximately 12-13 cm shorter than the average male at full maturity, 16-19 kg lighter in total weight, 19-21 kg lighter in lean weight, 1-2 kg heavier in fat weight, and 8-1 1 percentage points greater in relative fat. When comparing the fully mature female distance runner with her male counterpart, the female is approximately 10 cm shorter, 13 kg lighter in total weight, 16 kg lighter in lean weight, 2 kg heavier in fat weight, and 6 to 7 percentage points greater in relative fat. Compared to the average male, the female distance runner is shorter, lighter in absolute, lean and fat weight, and is approximately the same in relative fat. From the above, it would appear that the female distance runner is at a distinct disadvantage when compared to the male distance runner due to the additional fat she must carry during the run. From FIGURE 1, it is interesting to note that 7 of the 70 distance runners and 5 of the 8 middle distance runners
BODY COMPOSRION VALUES
TABLE3 NORMAL MALESAND FEMALES OF VARIOUS AGES Relative Fat *
Group
n
Males
95 66 57 48 133 297 55
10.0 9-12 13-16 17.0 22.0 28.7 33.2
56 31 62 128 94 64 50 60
9-12 9-13 13-16 21.4 20.4 19-23 20.2 44.7
Females
IN
(% 1
142.3
35.2
178.6 177.3 177.1 179.0
72.1 75.6 77.9 79.6
-
-
-
151.9
45.7
164.9 167.5 165.9 165.0 165.9
58.6 44.9 58.4 55.5 61.2
-
-
Reference
18.7 22.3 17.0 10.9 14.6 16.5 18.9
Wilmore and McNamara ParizkoviiIT ParfzkovA lT Michael and Katch lE Wilmore and Behnke Wright and Wilmore 8o Wilmore. er al.'
26.0 23.2 22.8 25.7 28.6 21.9 22.9 29.8
ParlzkoviiIT Parizkovl and Roth Parizkovii IT Wilmore and Behnke sz Young * Katch and Michael * Sloan, Burt, and Blyth Pollock
* Calculated from body density values using the equation of Siri.=
Weight Lifters Power Olympic Body Builders Wrestlers
Shot Put
Discus
Track and Field
Runners
Athletic Group or Sport
*
77.2 92.0 88.2 83.1 81.8 75.7
177.8 176.0
26.0 27.0 22.0 19.6 15-18
2 9 9 37 94
74.8 66.3
-
174.6 172.3
104.7 110.5 112.5 126.2
166.4 176.1 177.1 172.4
188.2 191.6
186.1 190.8
24.9 26.3 25.3 29.0
71.6
64.5 64.2 71.6 67.2 67.1 66.8 70.7
14 3 11 2
-
177.4 175.7 180.7 174.7 175.7 175.6 176.5 180.6
28.3 26.4 27.0 22.0
-
22.5 26.1 40-49 50-59 -9 70-75 47.2 21.3
9 15 7 12 5 2
10 114 11 5 6 3 45
9.8 10.7 5.0 8.8 6.9
9.8 15.6 12.2 8.4
3.7 8.8 16.4 16.3 16.5 19.6
6.3 7.5 11.2 10.9 11.3 13.6 13.2
Reference
Gale and Flynn Parizkovi ' Sinning = Katch and Michael a
Wilmore Fahey et al." Behnke and Wilmore lo Sprynarovd and Parizkovi Fahey et al."
Lewis et a1.= Novak ef aZ.= Forsyth and Sinning Fahey et al."
Sprynarovi and Parizkovi Costill et al? Pollock et al.=
a2
%
Y
f
Lo
% R
4
Z
2
E
26.8
15
* Events not specified.
26.3
12
Ice Hockey Basketball
30.9
21
Jockeys
-
20.3
7
17-23 17-23 17-23 17-23 17-23 24.5 24.7 24.2 24.7 25.7 24.1
-
20.3
-
193.6
180.3
158.2
178.5
178.3 179.7 180.1 186.0 186.6 182.5 183.8 188.6 193.0 192.4 185.0
-
184.9
-
183.1
-
176.6 182.7
182.3 182.9
27.4
25.9 20.8
21.8 20.6
28 38 32 16 7
40
16 11 15 15 7 13 15 26
Football
Defensive backs Offensive backs Linebackers Offensive linemen Defensive linemen Defensive backs Offensive backs Linebackers OfTensive line Defensive line Quarterbacks, Kickers Tennis Gymnastics
9 10 17 16
13 7
Skiers Baseball players
Swimmers *
91.2
86.7
50.3
69.2
-
77.3 79.8 87.2 99.2 97.8 84.8 90.7 102.2 112.6 117.1 90.1
-
96.4
14.8 83.3 88.0
79.1 78.9
9.7
15.1
14.1
4.6
13.8 13.9 11.5 12.4 13.4 19.1 18.5 9.6 9.4 14.0 15.6 18.2 14.4 15.2
7.4 14.2 11.8 12.6
8.5 5.0
Wilmore
Wilmore, unpublished data
Forsyth and Sinning a Novak et aLa
Wilmore et al.”
Sprynarovi and Parizkovi Novak et al.Sprynarovk and Parizkovk Novak et al.* Forsyth and Sinning Wilmore Novak et al.” Forsyth and Sinning a Wickkiser and Kelly
2
El El
w c
0
a
g
U
3 E E
(D
$
a ..
sc
Annals New York Academy of Sciences
770
A
1
A
A 0 0
A 0
0 0
k
d
0
O F 0 0
0
O OO
l a a 0" --o-& ~
-
608 0
-
0
0
A
0
0
20
10
0
40
30
Sprint Middle Distance Discus - Javelin
50
Age, years
FIGURE1. Relative body fat values for female track and field athletes. TABLE5
BODY COMPOSXTION VALUESIN FEMALEATHLETES Athletic Group orsport
n
12 11
19.9 32.4
161.3 t 169.4
52.9 t 57.2
19.2 15.2
Sprinters 24 Jumpers & Hurdlers 11 Discus & Javelin 10 Throwers Shot-Putters 9 Gymnasts 4
20.1
164.9 t
56.7 t
19.3 t
20.3
165.9 t
59.0 t
20.7
t
21.1
168.1 t
71.0 t
25.0
21.5
167.6 t
78.1
t
28.0
t t
14 16 8 7
19.4 20.0 14.0 23.0 23.0
163.0 158.5
57.9 51.1
Basketball
21 17
19.1 19.4
Volleyball Swimmers *
10
9
Runners
* Events not specified.
Height Weight (cm) (kg)
Relative Fat
Age (yrs)
-
-
23.8 15.5 17.0 11.0 9.6
169.1 167.0
62.6 63.9
20.8 26.9
19.4
166.0
59.8
25.3
19.4
168.0
63.8
26.3
-
t Estimated from a graphic plot of the data.
Reference
(%)
t
Malina etaLm Wilmore and Brown" Malina e t d W
Conger and Macnab" Sinning and Lindberg '' Parfikovit8 Parizkovit and Poupa * Sinning" Conger and Macnab4'
Wilmore et al.: The Female Distance Runner
771
were below 10% relative fat. Two of the distance runners were only 6% fat, which is lower than the mean values reported in male distance runner^.^ These two runners were also the best performers of all 7 0 distance runners tested. In fact, nearly all of the distance runners and sprinters-middle distance runners below 10% fat were considered to be the elite or better runners. From this limited information, it would be tempting to conclude that females are at a disadvantage compared to males if they maintain relative body fats in excess of 10%. However, this must be considered pure speculation at this time until a more critical research design is implemented to validate this hypothesis. From the above it is apparent that the distance runner is considerably leaner than the average population of similar age by 6 to 8 percentage points for males and females alike. It is impossible to determine from this study or from previous investigations whether this is the result of the intensive training programs required of distance runners where daily caloric expenditure is quite high (i.e., 1,000 to 2,000 kcal or more per workout), the result of genetic factors, or a combination of the two. From previous research it is well known that considerable alterations in body composition do occur with endurance training, i.e., decreased absolute and relative fat, and increased lean weight.'. Also, one of the subjects in this study who was assessed at 6% fat, took up running in high school to help her lose weight as she was considered obese. Over a period of several years, she lost over 40 pounds of weight as a result of her running program, established several national running records, and at one time held the best time in the world for the marathon. At the other extreme, the fatest subject tested in this study (35.8%) recently established the best time in the world for women in the 50-mile run (7:05:31) just shortly after being tested. The potential genetic influence is, unfortunately, difficult to assess. Traditionally, distance runners have had a fairly characteristic somatotype (ectomesomorphic), and since somatotype is thought to change very little with age, indicating a probable genetic link, there must be a genetic component to distance running. There is also some evidence that muscle fiber type distribution by sport and event is genetically determined.4s For the moment, it must be concluded that both genetic and environmental factors are operating to account for the lower fat values in distance runners. Identification of the primary factor must await longitudinal research of a more definitive nature. When compared to other female athletes (TABLES 1 & 5 ) , the female distance runner is of similar height, but has a lower total weight and relative body fat, except when compared to the gymnasts reported in previous and the sprinters-middle distance runners reported in the present study have lower body fat values than the distance runners. The significance of this is not known at the present time. These lower values may be the result of a small sample size, or very low body fat may be a prerequisite for successful performance in the sport, since there is a high inverse correlation between body fat and physical performance where the body mass has to be moved either horizontally or vertically through space.*# With regard to somatotypes, the female distance runner is predominantly an ectomorph with a moderately high endormorphic component. This finding is somewhat consistent with previous data for women middle distance runners,& although the middle distance runners had a lower rating in endomorphy and a higher rating in mesomorphy (TABLES6 & 7 ) . Male runners are predominantly ectomesomorphs,6*45 with moderately high readings in both ectomorphy and mesomorphy. The differences between the male and female distance runner
26.7 25.8
-
19.2
59 49 32
65
Weight lifters Wrestlers
Swimmers
-
26.4
-
23.9 22.9 25.3
(YB)
23.5 27.3
78 41 34 19 20 9
n
Age
31 14
Track and Field: Jumpers Weight throwers
Marathon
Runners: Sprint Middle distance Long distance
or Sport
Athletic Group
TABLE 6
179.3
168.0 169.3 172.4
182.8 186.1
175.4 177.3 171.9 174.4 168.7 171.1
Height (cm)
72.1
76.6 70.6 72.0
73.2 102.3
68.4 65.0 59.8 60.8 56.6 59.9
Weight (kg)
2.1
2.4 2.2 2.7
1.7 3.5
1.7 1.5 1.4 2.7 1.4 2.6
5.0
7.1 6.3 5.6
4.4 7.1
5.0 4.2 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4
2.9
Tanner '' de Garay et al.'
?5
E
n
$t
1
1.6 2.5
%
Ha
#
0
.c
3s
E
m
de Garay et al.'
Tanner " de Garay et al.' Tanner ''
de Garay et al?
Reference
P
.o
3.4 1.o
2.8 3.6 3.6 4.3 3.5 3.9
Somatotype Endo Meso Ecto
S O M A T OVALUES ~E FOR MALE ATHLETES
Wilmore et al.: The Female Distance Runner
773
in endomorphy and mesomorphy are undoubtedly truly sex-linked, as estrogen promotes fat accumulation and testosterone promotes growth of the lean tissue, i.e., predominantly the muscle mass. The interactions of physical activity and the menstrual cycle have been of concern to sports physicians and coaches for many years. This interest has increased in recent years because of the greater number of women who are participating in intensive training programs, especially endurance activities. I n earlier surveys of top-caliber women athletes, Erdelyi 47 and Zaharieva 4R found that 85% of the women had normal menstrual cycles, and only 7 % to 9% had irregular or abnormal cycles. However, Erdelyi noted that those athletes who were in very strenuous or endurance sports tended to have irregular or absent menses during the competitive season. Menses generally returned to normal during the “off-season.” As women have become more involved in year-round training programs, the incidence of menstrual irregularities has become more frequent. In a recent survey, Foreman4” found that among a group of 47 TABLE7 SOMATOTYPE VALUES FOR FEMALE ATHLETES* Athletic Group or Sport Runners: Sprint Middle distance Track and Field: Jumpers Throwers Swimmers
Age (yrs)
Height (cm)
Weight
n 28 18
20.7 20.0
165.0 166.9
56.8 54.3
2.7 2.0
3.9 3.3
2.9 3.7
12 9 28
21.5 19.9 16.3
169.4 170.9 164.4
56.4 73.5 56.9
2.2 5.3 3.4
3.3 5.2 4.0
3.7 1.7 3.0
(kg)
Somatotype Endo Meso Ecto
* Reference: de Garay et al? nationally ranked long distance runners, 19% had irregular menstrual periods, and 23% had severe oligomenorrhea or amenorrhea. Similarly, only one of seven cross-country skiers could be considered as having normal menstrual cycles, while two were amenorrheic. Conversations with coaches and athletes have affirmed that this is a common problem among women runners, as well as gymnasts, dancers and figure skaters. The etiology of these menstrual changes has not been determined. While the “stress” of endurance training has been suggested as affecting the hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal axis, no studies have been done to clarify this theory. Frisch and McArthur have suggested that a minimal amount of relative body fat is necessary for the onset and maintenance of normal menstrual cycles, as young women who lose weight from a variety of causes are prone to amenorrhea. Further, these women resume menses once body weight (fat) is restored. In the present study, we have found that women long distance runners are quite lean compared to the average female. In previous studies of two groups of women distance runners, we found relative body fat of 15.2% and 11.7%, compared to a relative body fat of 23%-26% for the average young
7 74
Annals New York Academy of Sciences
woman.40. Further, several women distance runners with scant or absent menses reported a return of menses when training was stopped and they gained a few pounds. The relationships between fat mass, training, and the menstrual cycle remain to be further clarified. In conclusion, female distance runners can be classified as predominantly ectomorphs and lean compared to the normal female population, but on the average they are fatter and less muscular than male distance runners. However, it has also been observed that the better performing female distance runners are below 10% relative fat, approaching average values for male distance runners. It is probable that a lower relative fat facilitates the individual’s running performance, thus fat reduction to absolute minimal levels would seem desirable. Whether these low values seen in the better female runners are determined genetically, by diet and intensive training, or by a combination of these remains to be seen. It is possible, however, that these low fat values may also be associated with menstrual irregularities, which are frequently reported in highly trained female athletes. Whether this is an undesirable consequence of reduced fat stores through intense training remains to be determined.
References 1. OSCAI,L. B. 1973. The role of exercise in weight control. In Exercise and Sport Sciences Reviews. J. H. Wilmore, Ed., Vol. 1: 103-123. Academic Press.
New York, N.Y. 2. WILMORE, J. H. 1974. Physical exercise and body composition. In The Regulation of the Adipose Tissue Mass. J. Vague & J. Boyer, Eds., Excerpta Medica.
Amsterdam, Netherlands. 3. P A R ~ Z K O J. V1973. ~ Body composition and exercise during growth and development. In Physical Activity Growth and Development. G. L. Rarick, Ed., : 97-134. Academic Press. New York, N.Y. 4. WILMORE, J. H. 1975. Inferiority of female athletes: Myth or reality. J. Sports Med. 3: 1-6. 5. COSTILL, D. L., R. BOWERS& W. F. KAMMER.1970. Skinfold estimates of body fat among marathon runners. Med. Sci. Sports 2: 93-95. 6. DE GARAY, A. L., L. LEVINE & J. E. L. CARTER.1974. Genetic and Anthropolog-
ical Studies of Olympic Athletes. Academic Press. New York, N.Y. D. L., J. H. WILMORE, R. H. GIRANDOLA & J. P. ROYCE. 1972. The 7. MOODY, 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.
effect of a jogging program on the body composition of normal and obese high school girls. Med. Sci. Sports 4: 210-213. WILMORE, J. H., J. ROYCE, R. N. GIRANDOLA, F. I. KATCH & V. L. KATCH.1970. Body composition changes with a 10-week program of jogging. Med. Sci. Sports 2: 1 13-1 17. KIREILIS, R. W. & T. K. CURETON.1947. The relationship of external fat to physical education activities and fitness tests. Res. Quart. 18 123-134. BEHNKE, A. R. & J. H. WILMORE.1974. Evaluation and Regulation of Body Build and Composition. Prentice-Hall. Englewood Cliffs, N.J. WILMORE, J. H. 1969. A simplified technique for determination of residual lung volumes. J. Appl. Physiol. 27: 96-100. WILMORE, J. H. & A. R. BEHNKE.1968. Predictability of lean body weight through anthropometric assessment in college men. J. Appl. Physiol. 25: 349-
355. 13. SIRI, W. E. 1965. Body composition from fluid spaces and density. Donner
Laboratory of Medical Physics, University of California, Berkeley. Report. 19 March.
Wilmore et al.: The Female Distance Runner
775
AND J. E. L. CARTER.1967. A modified somatotype method. Amer. J. Phys. Anthrop. 27: 57-74. CARTER,J. E. L. 1972. The Heath-Carter Somatotype Method. San Diego State University. San Diego, Calif. WILMORE, J. H. & I. J. MCNAMARA. 1974. Prevalence of coronary heart disease risk factors in boys, 8-12 years of age. J. Pediat. 84: 527-533. P A R ~ Z K OJ.V ~1961. , Total body fat and skinfold thickness in children. Metabolism 10: 794-807. MICHAEL, E. D. JR. & F. I. KATCH. 1968. Prediction of body density from skinfold and girth measurements of 17-year-old boys. J. Appl. Physiol. 25: 747-
14. HEATH,B. H:
15. 16. 17. 18.
750. J. H. & A. R. BEHNKE.1969. An Anthropometric estimation of body 19. WILMORE, density and lean body weight in young men.. J. Appl. Physiol. 27: 25-3 I . 20. WRIGHT,H. F. & J. H. WILMORE.1974. Estimation of relative body fat and
lean body weight in a United States Marine Corps population. Aerospace Med. 45: 301-306.
21. PARhovI(, J. & Z. ROTH. 1972. The assessment of depot fat in children from
skinfold thickness measurements by Holtain (TannerIWhitehouse) Caliper. Human Biol. 44: 613-620. J. H. & A. R. BEHNKE.1970. An anthropometric estimation of body 22. WILMORE, density and lean body weight in young women. Amer. J. Clin. Nutr. 23: 267274. 23. YOUNG,C. M. 1961. Body fatness in normal young women. N.Y. State J. Med. 61: 1928-1931. 24. KATCH,F. I. & E. D. MICHAEL, JR. 1968. Prediction of body density from skinfold and girth measurements of college females. J. Appl. Physiol. 25: 92-94. 25. SLOAN,A. W., J. J. BURT& C. S. BLYTH. 1962. Estimation of body fat in young women. J. Appl. Physiol. 17: 967-970. M. L., E. E. LAUGHRIDGE, B. COLEMAN, A. C. LINNERUD & A. JACKSON. 26. POLLOCK, 1975. Prediction of body density in young and middle aged women. J. Appl. Physiol. 38: 745-749. 27. SPRYNAROV~, S. & J. PAR~ZKOV~. 1971. Functional capacity and body composition in top weight-lifters, swimmers, runners and skiers. Int. Z. Angew. Physiol. 2 9 184-194. M. L., H. S. MILLER,JR. & J. H. WILMORE.1974. Physiological char28. POLLOCK, acteristics of champion American track athletes 40 to 75 years of age. J. Geront. 2 9 645-649. H. KLEIN, J. HALPERN & P. D. WOOD. 1975. Pre29. LEWIS,s., W. L. HASKELL, 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37.
diction of body composition in habitually active middle-aged men. J. Appl. Physiol. 39: 221-225. NOVAK,L. P., R. E. HYATT& J. F. ALEXANDER. 1968. Body composition and physiologic function of athletes. J. Amer. Med. Assoc. 205: 764-770. FORSYTH, H. L. & W. E. SINNING.1973. The anthropometric estimation of body density and lean body weight of male athletes. Med. Sci. Sport. 5: 174-180. FAHEY,T. D., L. AKKA& R. ROLPH. 1975. Body composition and VOIm.. of exceptional weight-trained athletes. J. Appl. Physiol. 39: 559-561. WILMORE,J. H. 1976. Body composition of national-caliber discus throwers, and professional baseball, ice hockey and basketball players. National Athletic Health Institute. Unpublished report. GALE,J. B. & K. W. FLYNN. 1974. Maximal oxygen consumption and relative body fat of high-ability wrestlers. Med. Sci. Sports 6: 232-234. SINNING, W. E. 1974. Body composition assessment of college wrestlers. Med. Sci. Sports 6: 139-145. KATCH,F. I. & E. D. MICHAEL.1971. Body composition of high school wrestlers according to age and wrestling weight category. Med. Sci. Sports 3: 19&194. WICKKISER, J. D. & J. M. KELLY. 1975. The body composition of a college football team. Med. Sci. Sports 7: 199-202.
776
Annals New York Academy of Sciences
38. WILMORE, J. H., R. B. PARR,W. L. HASKELL,D. L. COSTILL,L. J. MILBURN & R. K. KERLAN.1976. Athletic profile of professional football players. Phys. Sportsmed. 4: 45-54. 39. MALINA,R. M., A. B. HARPER,H. H. AVENT& D. E. CAMPBELL.1971. Physique of female track and field athletes. Med. Sci. Sports 3: 32-38. 40. WUORE, J. H. & C. H. BROWN.1974. Physiological profiles of women distance runners. Med. Sci. Sports 6 178-181. 41. CONGER, P. R. & R. B. J. MACNAB.1967. Strength, body composition, and work 42. 43. 44. 45. 46.
capacity of participants and nonparticipants in women’s intercollegiate sports. Res. Quart. 3 8 184-192. SINNING,W. E. & G. D. LINDBERG.1972. Physical characteristics of college age women gymnasts. Res. Quart. 43: 226-234. PAR~ZKOVL, J. & D. POUPA.1963. Some metabolic consequences of adaptation to muscular work. Brit. J. Nutr. 17: 341-345. SINNING,W. E. 1973. Body composition, cardiovascular function, and rule changes in women’s basketball. Res. Quart. 44: 313-321. TANNER, J. M. 1964. The Physique of the Olympic Athlete. George Allen and Unwin, Ltd. London. ERICKSON, B. O., P. D. GOLLNICK & B. SALTIN. 1972. Muscle metabolism and enzyme activities after training in boys 11-13 years old. Acta. Physiol. Scand.
87: 231-239. 47. ERDELYI,G. 1960. Gynecological survey of female athletes. Second National
48. 49. 50. 51.
Conference on the Medical Aspects of Sports, American Medical Association, Washington, D.C. November 27. ZAHARIEVA, E. 1965. Survey of sportswomen at the Tokyo Olympics. J. Sports Med. 5: 215-219. FOREMAN, K. Unpublished survey. Seattle Pacific College, Seattle, Wash. FRISCH,R. & J. MCARTHUR.1974. Menstrual Cycles: Fatness as a determinant of minimum weight for height necessary for their maintenance or onset. Science 185: 949-95 1. BROWN,C. H. & J. H. WILMORE.1971. Physical and physiological profiles of champion women long-distance runners. Med. Sci. Sports 3: 1,h.
