This article was downloaded by: [Deakin University Library] On: 12 March 2015, At: 04:28 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/urqe20
The Effects of Age and Body Weight on Anthropometric Estimations of Minimal Wrestling Weight in High School Wrestlers a
a
a
a
Terry J. Housh , Glen O. Johnson , Dona J. Housh , Kathryn B. Kenney , Roger A. b
c
Hughes , William G. Thorland & Craig J. Cisar
d
a
School of HPER , University of Nebraska-Lincoln , Lincoln , NE , 68588-0229 , USA
b
Department of Physical Education , Cameron University , Lawton , OK , USA
c
Department of PESLS , Washington State University , Pullman , USA
d
Department of Human Performance , San Jose State University , San Jose , CA , USA Published online: 08 Feb 2013.
To cite this article: Terry J. Housh , Glen O. Johnson , Dona J. Housh , Kathryn B. Kenney , Roger A. Hughes , William G. Thorland & Craig J. Cisar (1990) The Effects of Age and Body Weight on Anthropometric Estimations of Minimal Wrestling Weight in High School Wrestlers, Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 61:4, 375-382, DOI: 10.1080/02701367.1990.10607502 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02701367.1990.10607502
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http:// www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
HOUSH, JOHNSON,HOUSH, KENNEY, HUGHES, THORLAND, AND CIsAR
REsEARCH QUAlmlRLY FOR EXilRCSB AND SPORT
1990, VOL. 61, No.4, pp. 375-382
The Effects of Age and Body Weight on Anthropometric Estimations of Minimal Wrestling Weight in High School Wrestlers TERRY J. HOUSH, GLEN O. JOHNSON, DONA J. HOUSH, AND KATHRYN B. KENNEY University of Nebraska-Lincoln ROGER A. HUGHES Cameron University
Downloaded by [Deakin University Library] at 04:28 12 March 2015
WILLIAM G. mORLAND Washington State University CRAIG J. CISAR San Jose State University
1981, 1987; Pollock & Jackson, 1984; Thorland, Johnson, Fagot, Tharp, & Hammer, 1984). Although recent crossvalidation studies (Housh et al., 1989; Oppliger & Tipton, 1988; Thorland,Johnson, Cisar, & Housh, 1987;Williford, Smith, Mansfield, Conerly, & Bishop, 1986) have recommendedequationsfor use on the general populationof high schoolwrestlers,it is likelythat the diversityin age and body weight within this population is a potentially significant influenceontheaccuracyof thebodycompositionestimations. Therefore,the purposeof this investigationwas to determine the effects of age and body weight on the degreeof accuracy of anthropometric estimationsof minimalwrestlingweightin high school wrestlers.
The purpose ofthis study was to determine the effects ofage and body weight on anthropometric estimations ofminimal wrestling weight (MWW) in high school wrestlers. Five hundred and twenty-two high school wrestlers (M age ± SD = 16.45 ± 1.03 years) volunteered as subjects for this study. The total sample (N =522) was dichotomized by age «16 years, n = 171; ';d6 years, n = 351) and body weight (S62.60 kg, n = 252; >62.60 kg, n = 270). Cross-validation analyses included examination ofthe constant error (eE), standard error of estimate (SEE), r, and total error (fE). The results indicated that the quadratic skinfold equation ofLohman (EQ1; Table 2) most accurately estimated MWW in each group. Furthermore, it was recommended that MWW be calculatedfrom EQ1 using the conversion constants ofLohman (((5.03/BD) - 459J x 100) to estimate relative fat from body density.
Key words: body composition,cross-validation, high school wrestlers, minimal wrestling weight, wrestlers.
Method
T he American College of Sports Medicine (1976) has recommended guidelines for reducing the "potential health hazards"associatedwith"makingweight"bywrestlers. Among theseguidelinesis a suggestionthateachwrestlerhavea body compositionassessmentprior to the competitiveseason.Due toa lackof accesstolaboratorytechniques suchas underwater weighing, it has often been necessary to use anthropometric estimationsof body compositionas the basis for determining a minimal wrestling weight (MWW), which is generally considered to be fat-freeweight plus 5% relative fat. Hence, the accuracyof the estimatedMWWis directlyrelated to the validityof theequationthatis usedto determinethewrestler's body compositionand thereforeis influencedby populationspecificfactorssuchasage,fitnesslevel,andskeletalmaturity (Jackson & Pollock, 1978; Katch & Katch, 1980; Lohman,
Five hundred and twenty-two high school wrestlers (M age± SD= 16.45± 1.03years)volunteeredas subjectsfor this study. The total sample (N = 522) was dichotomized by
age and body weight into younger « 16 years, n = 171)and older (~16 years, n = 351) as well as lighter (g)2.60 kg, n=252)andheavier(>62.60kg,n=270) groups.Bodyweight was determined to the nearest 0.1 pound using a calibrated physician's scale,and age was recordedto the nearestmonth (i.e., 15 years, 1 month etc.). All laboratory measurements were performed during the preseason (1-2 weeks prior to competition). Informed consent was obtained from the subjects and their parents prior to inclusion into the study. In a majority of cases, the younger and older groups representa divisionbetweenfreshman and sophomoreversusjuniorand
REsEARCH QUARTERLY FOREXERCSB AND SPORT, VOL.
375
61, No.4
Downloaded by [Deakin University Library] at 04:28 12 March 2015
HOUSH, JOHNSON, HOUSH, KENNEY, HUGHES,ThORLAND, ANDCIsAR
senior competitors. The lighter and heavier groups represent a division at the weight classification closest to the median body weight of the sample. Body composition characteristics were determined by underwater weighing using the procedures described by Thorland, Johnson, Fagot, Tharp, and Hammer (1981), with residual volume determined by oxygen dilution (Wilmore, 1969). Residual volume was determined on land with the subject in a position similar to that assumed during the underwater weighing. The average ofsimilar scores from two to three trials was used as the representative residual volume. Relative fat was calculatedusing both the conversion constants of Brozek, Grande, Anderson, and Keys (1963) and Lohman (1987). The conversion constants of Brozek et al. (1963) are commonly used for estimating relative fat from body density in adult populations, whereas those of Lohman (1987) were derived using nonathletic adolescents. Presently it is not known which sets of constants are most valid for use with athletic adolescent samples. While some of the younger wrestlers may not have been chemically mature compared to adult standards at the time ofthe body composition assessments, it is likely that the density of their FFW was greater than the 1.096 g-ml" proposed for nonathletic adolescents because of the increase in bone mineralization and muscle mass associated with physical activity (Lohman, 1987). Thus the wrestlers' true relative fat, FFW, and MWW were probably between the
estimations calculated using the two sets of conversion constants: relative fat (Brozek et al., 1963) =([4.57/body density] - 4.142) x 100 and relative fat (Lohman, 1987) =([5.03/body density] - 4.59) x 100. Fat-free weight values were then derived mathematically from the resultant relative fat values with minimal wrestling weights at 5% body fat calculated as FFW/O.95. Using the landmarks described by Behnke and Wilmore (1974), anthropometric measurements (see Table 1) were secured from each subject by an investigator who had previously shown test-retest reliability in the measurement of skinfolds, diameters, and circumferences at r > .90. The circumference measures were taken with a Lufkin metal tape fitted with a Gullick handle, and the diameters were measured with a broad-blade metal anthropometer. Skinfold measurements were taken on the right side of the body with Lange calipers with the average of repeated trials that agreed within 0.5 mm being used as the representative value. Chest depth was measured using the procedures described by Tcheng and Tipton (1973). The cross-validation analyses of the 10 equations in this study (see Table 2) consisted of evaluation of the actual versus predicted MWW based on calculation of the constant error (CE = predicted minus actual values), r, standard error of estimate (SEE = SD ...JI-R2), and total error (TE =...J'L [predicted - actual]%) as well as comparison of the
Table 1 Anthropometric Variables Used In Cross-Validation (N Variable Number
M± SD
Variable Name
=522) Range
Skinfolds (mm)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Triceps Subscapular Chest Midaxillary Abdominal Thigh Sum of (3, 5, 6) Sum of (1, 2, 5) Sum of (1,2, 4)
8.80 8.73 5.10 7.52 11.47 9.34 25.91 29.00 25.05
± 2.71 ± 2.49 ± 1.99 ± 3.01 ± 4.40 ± 2.83 ± 7.81 ± 8.82 ± 7.51
4.25 4.50 2.50 3.00 4.75 4.00 13.25 15.00 14.00
• -
24.50 24.00 22.00 23.00 29.50 36.50 68.25 75.00 69.00
Neck Chest Abdomen 1 Abdomen 2 Forearm Calf
35.54 87.29 72.22 73.91 25.51 34.72
± 2.51 ± 7.90 ± 7.18 ± 6.18 ± 2.01 ± 2.73
25.60 70.60 58.40 55.50 19.80 27.15
-
43.80 108.10 108.60 97.30 35.35 53.15
Bi-iliac Bitrochanteric Chest Width Chest Depth Ankle Wrist
26.65 31.01 27.79 18.94 6.82 5.33
± 1.93 ± 2.04 ± 2~20 ± 1.85 ± 0.46 ± 0.36
20.70 21.20 17.70 14.20 5.25 4.10
-
37.30 41.50 38.40 25.30 8.15 6.30
Circumferences (cm)
10 11 12 13 14 15 Diameters (em)
16 17 18 19 20 21
REsEARCH QUAIITERLY FOR EXERClSB AND SPOIIT, VOL.
376
61, No.4
HOUSH, JOHNSON. HOUSH. KENNEY, HUGHES. ThORLAND, AND CISAR
were includedbecausethey had been recentlydeveloped but notcross-validated usingan independent sampleotherthanin the original derivation studies (Oppliger & Tipton, 1988; Tchenget at, 1988). Overall,six equations(EQl-6) directly predictedbodydensity,whilefour(EQ7-10)predictedMWW (seeTable2). Therefore. algebraic manipulation wasapplied to EQl-6 such that MWWestimations could be used as the dependentvariablefor all comparisons.
similarity in the standard deviations of the actual and predicted values.Equations 1-6 (see Table 2) were selectedfor evaluationbasedon thefmdings ofa previous cross-validation study,whichevaluated23 anthropometric equationsin terms of theresultanterrorintheestimation ofMWW in highschool wrestlers(Houshet al., 1989).Inaddition.theequation(EQ7) of Tcheng and Tipton (1973) was included because of its history of widespread use by practitioners, while EQ8-10
Table 2 Anthropometric Equations Which Were Cross-validated against Underwater Weighing Equation Number
R
References BO
Downloaded by [Deakin University Library] at 04:28 12 March 2015
Lohman (1981)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Thorland, Johnson, Tharp, Housh, & Cisar (1984)
BO
Katch & McArdle (1973)
BO
Forsyth & Sinning (1973)
Behnke & Wilmore (1974)
Jackson & Pollock (1978)
Tcheng & Tipton (1973)
Tcheng et al. (1988)
Oppliger & Tipton (1988)
Oppliger & Tipton (1988)
BO
BO
BO
MWW
MWW
MWW
MWW
SEE
1.0982 - 0.000815 (x8) + 0.00000084 (X8)2
.92
0.0071
1.1136 • 0.00154 (x9) + 0.00000516 (X9)2
.81
0.0056
1.09665 - 0.00103 (x1) - 0.00056 (x2) - 0.00054 (x5)
.86
0.0072
1.10647 - 0.00162 (x2) - 0.00144 (x5) - 0.00077 (x1) + 0.00071 (x4)
.84
0.0056
- 0.00145 (x13)
.87
0.0064
1.099075 - 0.0008209 (x7) + 0.0000026 (x7)2 ·0.0002017 (Age) - 0.00005675 (x12) + 0.00018586 (x14)
.92
0.0072
(1.84 (HT in inches) + 3.28 (x18) + 3.31 (x19) + 1.69 (x17) + 0.82 (x16) + 3.56 (sum of right and left wrist diameters) + 2.15 (sum of right and left ankle diameters)-281.72)/2.2046
.93
3.95
(0.296 (HT in cm) + 2.268 (x18) + 2.489 (x19) + 1.502 (x17) - 0.717 (x1) + 2.818 (right wrist diameter) + 2.212 (x14) - 0.249 (x5) + 1.107 (x16) + 1.455 (x15) + 1.964 (left ankle diameter) - 228.29)12.2046
.96
2.88
left ankle diameters)-294.14)/2.2046
.95
3.40
(0.49 (BW in Ibs) + 1.65 (HT in inches) + 1.81 (x18) + 6.70 (right wrist diameter) + 1'.35 (x19) 156.56)/2.2046
.96
2.90
1.05721 - 0.00052 (x5) + 0.00168 (x16) + 0.00114 (x10) + 0.00048 (x11)
(3.54 (x17) + 1.88 (HT in inches) + 3.98 (x19) + 5.32 (sum of right and left wrist diameters) + 1.77 (x16) + 1.97 (sum of right and
Note. The variable codes are defined in Table 1 and the Rand SEE values are from the original derivation studies. The SEE values for EQ1-6 are expressed in g'ml'l and EQ7-10 in kg. REsEARCH QUAIITERLY FOR EXBROSB AND SPORT. VOL.
377
61, No.4
HOUSH, JOHNSON, HOUSH, KENNEY, HUGHES, 'I'HORLAND, AND CISAR
Results Table 3 presents the descriptive characteristics of the subjects. The age, height, and body weight of the wrestlers were similar to those from previous investigations (Kateh & Michael,1971;Oppliger&Tipton, 1988;Tchenget al., 1988; Tcheng & Tipton, 1973;Williford et at, 1986). In addition, althoughthere was a significantcorrelation(r =.31,p < .001) betweenage and body weight for the total sample (N =522), less than 10% of the variance in body weight could be explained by differences in age. Table 4 includes the total cross-validation informationfor the equations in this study.
Downloaded by [Deakin University Library] at 04:28 12 March 2015
YoungerVersus Older Group (62.60kg)
Discussion
ThemeandifferencebetweenpredictedandactualMWW (CE)wasgreater (range =34 to 396%)in thelightergroup for 3 of the 10 equations (EQ2, 3, and 8). For the lighter group,
The following criteriawereusedto evaluatetheresultsof the cross-validation analyses: (a) the mean of the actual and
Table 3 Descriptive Characteristics of the Subjects by Group (N= 522; M± SO)
Variable
62.60 kg (n = 270)
Total (N= 522)
1. Age (years)
15.28 ± 0.46
17.02 ± 0.69
16.16 ± 0.99
16.72 ± 0.99
16.45 ± 1.03
2. Height (cm)
169.26 ± 7.65
172.40 ± 6.61
167.29 ± 6.30
175.18 ± 5.56
171.37 ± 7.12
3. Body Weight (kg)
60.45 ± 10.31
65.16 ± 9.42
55.41 ± 5.12
71.29 ± 6.73
63.62 ± 9.96
4. Minimal Wrestling Weight* (kg)
56.41 ± 9.25
61.37 ± 8.23
52.54 ± 5.48
66.35 ± 5.75
59.73 ± 8.92
5. Minimal Wrestling Weight** (kg)
57.66 ± 9.53
62.78 ± 8.51
53.77 ± 5.78
67.80 ± 5.91
61.09 ± 9.20
:*Calculated usi~g the conversi~n constants of Brozek et al. (1963): Relative Fat = ([4.57/body density] - 4.142) X 100. Calculated uSingthe conversion constants of Lohman (1987): Relative Fat = ([5.03Ibody density] - 4.59) X 100. REsEARCH QUARTERLY fOR EXERCISE AND SPORT, VOL.
378
61, No.4
HOUSH, JOHNSON, HOUSH, KENNBY, HUGHES, 1'HORLAND, AND CIsAR
predicted MWW should be comparable (Lohman, 1981); (b) thereshouldbecloseagreementbetween theSD oftheactual and predictedvalues (Lohman, 1981); (c) the total error (TE) shouldbe low becauseit reflectsthe truedifferencebetween
theactualandpredictedvalues,whilethe SEE reflectsonlythe error associated with the regression between the variables (Katch & Katch, 1980; Lohman,1981; Sinning, Dolny, & Little, 1985); (d) equationsthat use the sum of severalmea-
Table 4 Cross-Validation of Equations by Group and Total Sample (N
SDof Predicted Values (kg)
Equation Number
Downloaded by [Deakin University Library] at 04:28 12 March 2015
1.
2.
< 16 years (n = 171) ~ 16 years (n = 351) s 62.60 kg (n = 252) > 62.60 kg (n = 270) Total (N= 522) < 16 years ~
16 years
s 62.60 kg > 62.60 kg
Total 3.
< 16 years ~
16 years
s 62.60 kg > 62.60 kg
Total 4.
< 16 years ~
16 years
s 62.60 kg > 62.60 kg
Total 5.
< 16 years ~
16 years
s 62.60 kg > 62.60 kg
Total
8.59 (8.72) 7.76 (7.87) 4.67 (4.78) 5.39 (5.48) 8.28 (8.40) 8.39 (8.51) 7.57 (7.67) 4.74 (4.85) 5.35 (5.46) 8.09 (8.21) 8.76 (8.90) 7.93 (8.05) 4.72 (4.83) 5.52 (5.61) 8.45 (8.59) 8.19 (8.30) 7.31 (7.38) 4.63 (4.74) 5.16 (5.27) 7.84 (7.93) 9.20 (9.40) 8.15 (8.30) 4.87 (5.00) 5.82 (5.96) 8.77 (8.94)
CE
r
(kg) 0.47 (0.52) -0.24 (-0.27) 0.27 (0.31) -0.33 (-0.36) 0.00 (0.00) 1.35 (1.49) 0.60 (0.67) 1.29 (1.43) 0.26 (0.29) 0.88 (0.96) 0.73 (0.80) 0.11 (0.13) 0.45 (0.50) 0.11 (0.13) 0.32 (0.35) 0.35 (0.38) -0.57 (-0.63) 0.40 (0.45) -1.05 (-1.15) -0.24 (-0.26) -0.79 (-0.86) -1.22 (-1.35) -1.11 (-1.22) -1.02 (-1.12) -1.06 . (-1.16)
REsEARCH QUAlUBRLY FOR EXBRCSB AND SPORT, VOL.
379
.97 (.97) .97 (.96) .91 (.90) .94 (.93) .97 (.97) .97 (.97) .96 (.96) .91 (.90) .93 (.92) .98 (.96) .97 (.97) .97 (.96) .92 (.90) .93 (.92) .97 (.97) .97 (.96) .96 (.95) .91 (.89) .92 (.90) .96 (.96) .96 (.96) .96 (.96) .91 (.90) .92 (.91) .97 (.96) 61, No.4
=522) SEE
TE
(kg)
(kg)
2.25 (2.47) 2.07 2.28 2.18 (2.40) 1.96 (2.16) 2.16 (2.37) 2.25 (2.46) 2.11 (2.32) 2.19 (2.39) 1.98 (2.18) 2.19 (2.41) 2.19 (2.41) 2.07 (2.27) 2.16 (2.37) 1.96 (2.16) 2.15 (2.37) 2.32 (2.56) 2.14 (2.35) 2.20 (2.42) 2.09 (2.30) 2.25 (2.46) 2.46 (2.71) 2.20 (2.42) 2.22 (2.45) 2.27 (2.49) 2.31 (2.52)
2.30 (2.53) 2.07 (2.28) 2.18 (2.40) 1.98 (2.19) 2.16 (2.37) 2.62 (2.83) 2.32 (2.52) 2.21 (2.42) 2.04 (2.28) 2.45 (2.70) 2.31 (2.55) 2.07 (2.27) 2.22 (2.43) 1.98 (2.19) 2.17 (2.40) 2.47 (2.72) 2.38 (2.62) 2.29 (2.52) 2.45 (2.69) 2.40 (2.63) 2.59 (2.84) 2.51 (2.77) 2.48 (2.72) 2.51 (2.75) 2.54 (2.79)
HOUSH, JOHNSON, HOUSH, KENNEY, HUGHES, THORLAND, AND CIsAR
Table 4 (continued)
SDof Predicted Values (kg)
Equation Number
6.
< 16 years ~
16 years
s 62.60 kg
> 62.60 kg Total
Downloaded by [Deakin University Library] at 04:28 12 March 2015
7.
8.
9.
< 16 years ~
16 years
9.00
~
62.60 kg
6.92
> 62.60 kg
6.51
Total
9.66
< 16 years
9.59
~
16 years
8.44
s 62.60 kg
6.42
> 62.60 kg
5.95
Total
9.11
< 16 years ~
10.62
16 years
9.43
s 62.60 kg
7.35
> 62.60 kg
6.93
Total 10.
9.02 (9.18) 8.91 (8.36) 4.74 (4.85) 5.78 (5.89) 8.72 (8.88) 10.24
10.10
< 16 years
9.72
~
16 years
8.71
s 62.60 kg
5.85
> 62.60 kg
5.92
Total
9.33
CE
r
(kg) 0.85 (0.94) 0.25 (0.26) 0.41 (0.45) 0.50 (0.56) 0.46 (0.50) 2.98 (1.73) 2.43 (1.02) 2.69 (1.46) 2.77 (1.32) 2.56 (1.20) 1.59 (0.34) 0.90 (-0.51) 1.70 (0.47) 1.27 (-0.18) 1.31 (-0.05) 2.49 (1.24) 2.25 (0.84) 2.21 (0.98) 2.52 (1.07) 2.28 (0.92) 1.54 (0.29) 1.33 (-0.08) 1.15 (-0.08) 1.69 (0.24) 1.34 (-0.02)
.96 (.96) .96 (.96) .91 (.90) .92 (.91) .97 (.96) .89 (.88) .87 (.85) .77 (.72) .72 (.71) .88 (.87) .93 (.92) .91 (.89) .83 (.78) .82 (.81) .92 (.91) .88 (.87) .85 (.84) .75 (.70) .70 (.69) .87 (.86) .95 (.94) .95 (.93) .88 (.84) .87 (.86) .95 (.94)
SEE
TE
(kg)
(kg)
2.36 (2.60) 2.12 (2.34) 2.20 (2.42) 2.15 (2.27) 2.25 (2.47) 4.16 (4.46) 4.09 (4.45) 3.51 (4.00) 3.99 (4.16) 4.17 (4.51) 3.36 (3.65) 3.49 (3.88) 3.07 (3.61) 3.33 (3.49) 3.47 (3.83) 4.42 (4.71) 4.33 (4.68) 3.66 (4.13) 4.17 (4.34) 4.42 (4.75) 2.96 (3.27) 2.67 (3.12) 2.61 (3.18) 2.87 (3.09) 2.80 (3.20)
2.53 (2.79) 2.14 (2.37) 2.22 (2.45) 2.27 (2.49) 2.30 (2.53) 5.63 (5.24) 5.15 (4.92) 5.22 (5.13) 5.41 (4.93) 5.32 (5.03) 3.48 (3.77) 3.87 (3.96) 4.02 (4.13) 3.78 (3.67) 3.90 (3.90) 5.76 (5.47) 5.49 (5.32) 5.40 (5.40) 5.74 (5.31) 5.58 (5.37) 3.60 (3.40) 3.17 (3.22) 3.07 (3.33) 3.55 (3.22) 3.32 (3.28)
Note. The values in parentheses were based on the calculation of relative fat from body density using the conversion constants of Lohman (1987) while those without parentheses were calculated using the conversion of Brozek et al. (1963). EQ7-10 predicted MWW directly and therefore the SD of the predicted values do not reflect the use of the conversion constants of Brozek et al. (1963) or Lohman (1987) as is the case for EQ1-6.
RESEARCH QUARTERLY POR EXERCISE AND SPORT, VOL.
380
61, No.4
Downloaded by [Deakin University Library] at 04:28 12 March 2015
HOUSH, JOHNSON, HOUSH, KENNEY, HUGHES, THORLAND, AND CISAR
sores are preferred over equations that utilize individual measures due to less intertester error (Jackson, Pollock, & Gettman,1978;Thorland,Johnson,Fagot,Tharp, & Hammer, 1984);(e)thereshouldbeclosesimilaritybetweenTE and SEE becauseit reflectstherelationship betweentheregression line of the actual versuspredicted values and the line of identity (Sinninget al.,1985); and (t) a low SEE valueis desirableand evaluations based on SEE values are preferred over those based on correlation coefficients because correlations are likely to be affectedby variability between samplesin body fatness (Lohman, 1981). Although all of thesecriteriashould be considered, Sinninget al. (1985)havestatedthat the TE is the best single criterionfor determining the true differences between actual and predicted values. Lohman (1981) estimatedthat the TE from biologicaland technical variations in skinfoldestimatesof relativefat wasapproximately 3.3%fat, and Thorlandet al. (1987) have indicatedthat TE valuesapproaching2.0kg representa limitto thelevelof accuracythat canbe expectedforpopulations suchas highschoolwrestlers. In his extensivereview,Lohman(1981)also emphasized the need for largesamplesfor cross-validation studies,theerrors inherentin nonrandom samples,and the curvilinearrelationship betweenskinfoldsand body density. The results of this investigation support the use of the quadratic skinfold equation (EQl) of Lohman (1981) for estimatingMWW in high school competitors. EQI utilized thesumof threeskinfoldsandresultedinthelowestTE foreach group(1.98 to 2.53kg), small CE values(~0.52 kg),andclose similaritiesbetweentheSEEandTEvalues(differingby~O.06
kg). It should be recognized, however, that EQI condensed the distribution ofMWW in eachgroup, whichmayresult in errors for subjects at the extremesof the sample.The linear skinfoldequation(EQ3)ofKateh andMcArdle(1973)should be consideredan acceptable alternative to EQ1becauseof the low TE values,similarityin TE values for all groups,and the closeagreementbetweenthedistributions ofthepredictedand actualMWWscores.The useof individualskinfold measures in EQ3 (rather than the sum of SF values in EQ1), however, increases the potential for intertester variability (Jackson, Pollock,& Gettman,1978),and thereforeEQ1 is morehighly recommended. The results of this investigation also demonstrated that the accuracy of anthropometric estimations of MWWin high schoolwrestlers was dependenton the age of the subject. For 9 of the 10 equations in this study (EQI-7, 9, and 10) the greatest TE values occurredin the youngerwrestlers. These fmdings are especiallyproblematic given that youngerwrestlersare closer to the adolescentgrowthspurtand thereforein a more dynamicphase of development than the older group. Therefore, these wrestlerscan least afford an inappropriate MWW,whichmaylead to excessiveweightlossandpossibly impact on normal developmental processes (American College of Sports Medicine, 1976). In the present study, the infiuenceofbody weightontheerrorinpredicting MWWwas specificto theanthropometric equationthatwasutilized. Four of theequations(EQ1-3and8)resultedin a greaterTE for the
lightergroup,whilethesituationwasreversedfor theremaining equations. Therefore, the results did not demonstrate a consistenttrendregardingthe contribution of bodyweightto the error in estimating MWW. Given the error associatedwith anthropometric estimations of MWW, as well as the present lack of information concerning thevalidityoftheconversion constantsofLohman (1987) versus those of Brozek et al. (1963) for use with adolescent athletes,we recommenda conservative approach thatincludesthe useofEQI to estimatebodydensitywiththe conversion to relative fat using the constants of Lohman (1987). In thepresentinvestigation, thisprocedureresulted in a MWW that was approximately 1 kg greater than when the conversion constants of Brozek et al. (1963) were utilized. Adoption of these recommendations will help assure coach and athlete that the resultantMWWis appropriate and safe.
References American College of Sports Medicine (1976). Position statement on weight loss in wrestlers. SportsMedicineBulletin, II, 2-3. Behnke, A. R., & Wilmore, 1. H. (1974). Evaluation and regulation ofbody build and composition (pp. 39-50). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Brozek, 1., Grande, F., Anderson, 1. T., & Keys, A. (1963). Densiometric analysis of body composition: Revision of some quantitative assumptions. Annals oftheNew YorkAcademyof Sciences, 110, 113-140. Forsyth, H. L., & Sinning, W. E. (1973). The anthropometric estimation of body density and lean body weight of male athletes. Medicine and Sciencein Sports, 5, 174-180. Housh, T. 1., Johnson, G. 0., Kenney, K. B., McDowell, S. L., Hughes, R. A., Cisar, C. J., & Thorland, W. G. (1989). Validity of anthropometric estimations of body composition in high school wrestlers. ResearchQuarterlyfor Exercise and Sport. 60,239-245. Jackson, A. S., & Pollock, M. L. (1978). Generalized equations from predicting body density of men. British Journal ofNutrition, 40,497-504. Jackson, A. S., Pollock, M. L., & Gettman, L. R. (1978). Intertester reliability ofselected skinfold and circumferencemeasurements and percent fat estimates. ResearchQuarterly, 49, 546-551. Katch, F. I., & Katch, V. L. (1980). Measurement and prediction errors in body composition assessment and the search for the perfect prediction equation. ResearchQuarterly for Exercise and Sport, 51, 249-260. Katch, F. I., & McArdle, W. C. (1973). Prediction of body density from simple anthropometric measurements in college-age men and women. HumanBiology, 45, 445-454. Katch, F. I., & Michael, E. D. (1971). Body composition of high school wrestlers according to age and wrestling weight category. Medicine and Sciencein Sports, 3, 190-194. Lohman, T. G. (1981). Skinfolds and body density and their relation to body fatness: A review. HumanBiology,53, 181-225. Lohman, T. G. (1987). Applicability ofbody composition techniques and constants for children and youths. In K. B. Pandolph (Ed.),
REsEARCH QUARTERLY POR EXERCISE AND SPORT, VOL.
381
61, No.4
Downloaded by [Deakin University Library] at 04:28 12 March 2015
HOUSH, JOHNSON, HOUSH, KENNEY, HUGHES, THORLAND, AND CISAR
Exercise and sports sciences reviews (pp. 325-347). New Jersey: MacMillan. Oppliger, R. A., & Tipton, C. M. (1988). Iowa wrestling study: Cross-validation of the Tcheng-Tipton minimal weight prediction formulas for high school wrestlers. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 20, 310-316. Pollock, M. L., & Jackson, A. S. (1984). Research progress in validation of clinical methods of assessing body composition. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 16, 606-613. Sinning, W. E., Dolny, D. G., & Little, K. D. (1985). Validity of generalized equations for body composition analysis in male athletes. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 17, 124130. Tcheng, T. K., Bowers, R. W., Johnson, G. D., Kelly, J. M., Lohman, T. G., Oppliger, R. A., Thorland, W. G., & Tipton,C. M. (1988). The midwest wrestling study: Evaluating equations to predict a minimal weight Federation Proceedings, 2, A522. Tcheng, T., & Tipton, C. M. (1973). Iowa wrestling study: Anthropometric measurements and the prediction of a "minimal" body weight for high school wrestlers. Medicine and Science in Sports, 5, 1-10. Thorland, W. G., Johnson, G. 0., Cisar, C. J., & Housh, T. 1. (1987). Estimationofminimal wrestling weight using measures ofbody build and body composition. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 8, 365-370. Thorland, W. G., Johnson, G. 0., Fagot, T. G., Tharp, G. D., & Hammer, R. W. (1981). Body composition and somatotype characteristics of Junior Olympic athletes. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 13,332-338.
Thorland, W. G., Johnson, G. 0., Fagot, T. G., Tharp, G. D., & Hammer, R. W. (1984). Validity of anthropometric equations for theestimation ofbody density in adolescent athletes. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 16, 77-81. Thorland, W. G., Johnson, G. 0., ThllIp,G. D., Housh, T.J., & Cisar, C. J. (1984). Estimation of body density in adolescent athletes. Human Biology, 56, 439-448. Williford, H. N., Smith, J. F., Mansfield, E. R., Conerly, M. D., & Bishop, P. (1986). Validation of body composition models for high school wrestlers. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 18, 216-224. Wilmore, J. H. (1969). A simplified method for the determination of residual lung volume. Journal of Applied Physiology, 27, 96-100.
Submitted: April 6, 1989 Revision accepted: February 6,1990 Terry J. Housh and Glen O. Johnson are faculty members and Dona J. Housh and Kathy B. Kenney are graduate students in the School of HPER. University of NebraskaLincoln. Lincoln. NE 68588-0229. Roger A. Hughes is in the Department of Physical Education. Cameron University, Lawton. OK. William G. Thorland is in the Department of PESLS. Washington State University, Pullman. CraigJ. Cisar is in the Department ofHuman Performance, San Jose State University. San Jose. CA.
REsEARCH QUARTERLY FOR EXERCISBAND SPORT, VOL.
382
61. No.4
Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/urqe20
The Effects of Age and Body Weight on Anthropometric Estimations of Minimal Wrestling Weight in High School Wrestlers a
a
a
a
Terry J. Housh , Glen O. Johnson , Dona J. Housh , Kathryn B. Kenney , Roger A. b
c
Hughes , William G. Thorland & Craig J. Cisar
d
a
School of HPER , University of Nebraska-Lincoln , Lincoln , NE , 68588-0229 , USA
b
Department of Physical Education , Cameron University , Lawton , OK , USA
c
Department of PESLS , Washington State University , Pullman , USA
d
Department of Human Performance , San Jose State University , San Jose , CA , USA Published online: 08 Feb 2013.
To cite this article: Terry J. Housh , Glen O. Johnson , Dona J. Housh , Kathryn B. Kenney , Roger A. Hughes , William G. Thorland & Craig J. Cisar (1990) The Effects of Age and Body Weight on Anthropometric Estimations of Minimal Wrestling Weight in High School Wrestlers, Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 61:4, 375-382, DOI: 10.1080/02701367.1990.10607502 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02701367.1990.10607502
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http:// www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
HOUSH, JOHNSON,HOUSH, KENNEY, HUGHES, THORLAND, AND CIsAR
REsEARCH QUAlmlRLY FOR EXilRCSB AND SPORT
1990, VOL. 61, No.4, pp. 375-382
The Effects of Age and Body Weight on Anthropometric Estimations of Minimal Wrestling Weight in High School Wrestlers TERRY J. HOUSH, GLEN O. JOHNSON, DONA J. HOUSH, AND KATHRYN B. KENNEY University of Nebraska-Lincoln ROGER A. HUGHES Cameron University
Downloaded by [Deakin University Library] at 04:28 12 March 2015
WILLIAM G. mORLAND Washington State University CRAIG J. CISAR San Jose State University
1981, 1987; Pollock & Jackson, 1984; Thorland, Johnson, Fagot, Tharp, & Hammer, 1984). Although recent crossvalidation studies (Housh et al., 1989; Oppliger & Tipton, 1988; Thorland,Johnson, Cisar, & Housh, 1987;Williford, Smith, Mansfield, Conerly, & Bishop, 1986) have recommendedequationsfor use on the general populationof high schoolwrestlers,it is likelythat the diversityin age and body weight within this population is a potentially significant influenceontheaccuracyof thebodycompositionestimations. Therefore,the purposeof this investigationwas to determine the effects of age and body weight on the degreeof accuracy of anthropometric estimationsof minimalwrestlingweightin high school wrestlers.
The purpose ofthis study was to determine the effects ofage and body weight on anthropometric estimations ofminimal wrestling weight (MWW) in high school wrestlers. Five hundred and twenty-two high school wrestlers (M age ± SD = 16.45 ± 1.03 years) volunteered as subjects for this study. The total sample (N =522) was dichotomized by age «16 years, n = 171; ';d6 years, n = 351) and body weight (S62.60 kg, n = 252; >62.60 kg, n = 270). Cross-validation analyses included examination ofthe constant error (eE), standard error of estimate (SEE), r, and total error (fE). The results indicated that the quadratic skinfold equation ofLohman (EQ1; Table 2) most accurately estimated MWW in each group. Furthermore, it was recommended that MWW be calculatedfrom EQ1 using the conversion constants ofLohman (((5.03/BD) - 459J x 100) to estimate relative fat from body density.
Key words: body composition,cross-validation, high school wrestlers, minimal wrestling weight, wrestlers.
Method
T he American College of Sports Medicine (1976) has recommended guidelines for reducing the "potential health hazards"associatedwith"makingweight"bywrestlers. Among theseguidelinesis a suggestionthateachwrestlerhavea body compositionassessmentprior to the competitiveseason.Due toa lackof accesstolaboratorytechniques suchas underwater weighing, it has often been necessary to use anthropometric estimationsof body compositionas the basis for determining a minimal wrestling weight (MWW), which is generally considered to be fat-freeweight plus 5% relative fat. Hence, the accuracyof the estimatedMWWis directlyrelated to the validityof theequationthatis usedto determinethewrestler's body compositionand thereforeis influencedby populationspecificfactorssuchasage,fitnesslevel,andskeletalmaturity (Jackson & Pollock, 1978; Katch & Katch, 1980; Lohman,
Five hundred and twenty-two high school wrestlers (M age± SD= 16.45± 1.03years)volunteeredas subjectsfor this study. The total sample (N = 522) was dichotomized by
age and body weight into younger « 16 years, n = 171)and older (~16 years, n = 351) as well as lighter (g)2.60 kg, n=252)andheavier(>62.60kg,n=270) groups.Bodyweight was determined to the nearest 0.1 pound using a calibrated physician's scale,and age was recordedto the nearestmonth (i.e., 15 years, 1 month etc.). All laboratory measurements were performed during the preseason (1-2 weeks prior to competition). Informed consent was obtained from the subjects and their parents prior to inclusion into the study. In a majority of cases, the younger and older groups representa divisionbetweenfreshman and sophomoreversusjuniorand
REsEARCH QUARTERLY FOREXERCSB AND SPORT, VOL.
375
61, No.4
Downloaded by [Deakin University Library] at 04:28 12 March 2015
HOUSH, JOHNSON, HOUSH, KENNEY, HUGHES,ThORLAND, ANDCIsAR
senior competitors. The lighter and heavier groups represent a division at the weight classification closest to the median body weight of the sample. Body composition characteristics were determined by underwater weighing using the procedures described by Thorland, Johnson, Fagot, Tharp, and Hammer (1981), with residual volume determined by oxygen dilution (Wilmore, 1969). Residual volume was determined on land with the subject in a position similar to that assumed during the underwater weighing. The average ofsimilar scores from two to three trials was used as the representative residual volume. Relative fat was calculatedusing both the conversion constants of Brozek, Grande, Anderson, and Keys (1963) and Lohman (1987). The conversion constants of Brozek et al. (1963) are commonly used for estimating relative fat from body density in adult populations, whereas those of Lohman (1987) were derived using nonathletic adolescents. Presently it is not known which sets of constants are most valid for use with athletic adolescent samples. While some of the younger wrestlers may not have been chemically mature compared to adult standards at the time ofthe body composition assessments, it is likely that the density of their FFW was greater than the 1.096 g-ml" proposed for nonathletic adolescents because of the increase in bone mineralization and muscle mass associated with physical activity (Lohman, 1987). Thus the wrestlers' true relative fat, FFW, and MWW were probably between the
estimations calculated using the two sets of conversion constants: relative fat (Brozek et al., 1963) =([4.57/body density] - 4.142) x 100 and relative fat (Lohman, 1987) =([5.03/body density] - 4.59) x 100. Fat-free weight values were then derived mathematically from the resultant relative fat values with minimal wrestling weights at 5% body fat calculated as FFW/O.95. Using the landmarks described by Behnke and Wilmore (1974), anthropometric measurements (see Table 1) were secured from each subject by an investigator who had previously shown test-retest reliability in the measurement of skinfolds, diameters, and circumferences at r > .90. The circumference measures were taken with a Lufkin metal tape fitted with a Gullick handle, and the diameters were measured with a broad-blade metal anthropometer. Skinfold measurements were taken on the right side of the body with Lange calipers with the average of repeated trials that agreed within 0.5 mm being used as the representative value. Chest depth was measured using the procedures described by Tcheng and Tipton (1973). The cross-validation analyses of the 10 equations in this study (see Table 2) consisted of evaluation of the actual versus predicted MWW based on calculation of the constant error (CE = predicted minus actual values), r, standard error of estimate (SEE = SD ...JI-R2), and total error (TE =...J'L [predicted - actual]%) as well as comparison of the
Table 1 Anthropometric Variables Used In Cross-Validation (N Variable Number
M± SD
Variable Name
=522) Range
Skinfolds (mm)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Triceps Subscapular Chest Midaxillary Abdominal Thigh Sum of (3, 5, 6) Sum of (1, 2, 5) Sum of (1,2, 4)
8.80 8.73 5.10 7.52 11.47 9.34 25.91 29.00 25.05
± 2.71 ± 2.49 ± 1.99 ± 3.01 ± 4.40 ± 2.83 ± 7.81 ± 8.82 ± 7.51
4.25 4.50 2.50 3.00 4.75 4.00 13.25 15.00 14.00
• -
24.50 24.00 22.00 23.00 29.50 36.50 68.25 75.00 69.00
Neck Chest Abdomen 1 Abdomen 2 Forearm Calf
35.54 87.29 72.22 73.91 25.51 34.72
± 2.51 ± 7.90 ± 7.18 ± 6.18 ± 2.01 ± 2.73
25.60 70.60 58.40 55.50 19.80 27.15
-
43.80 108.10 108.60 97.30 35.35 53.15
Bi-iliac Bitrochanteric Chest Width Chest Depth Ankle Wrist
26.65 31.01 27.79 18.94 6.82 5.33
± 1.93 ± 2.04 ± 2~20 ± 1.85 ± 0.46 ± 0.36
20.70 21.20 17.70 14.20 5.25 4.10
-
37.30 41.50 38.40 25.30 8.15 6.30
Circumferences (cm)
10 11 12 13 14 15 Diameters (em)
16 17 18 19 20 21
REsEARCH QUAIITERLY FOR EXERClSB AND SPOIIT, VOL.
376
61, No.4
HOUSH, JOHNSON. HOUSH. KENNEY, HUGHES. ThORLAND, AND CISAR
were includedbecausethey had been recentlydeveloped but notcross-validated usingan independent sampleotherthanin the original derivation studies (Oppliger & Tipton, 1988; Tchenget at, 1988). Overall,six equations(EQl-6) directly predictedbodydensity,whilefour(EQ7-10)predictedMWW (seeTable2). Therefore. algebraic manipulation wasapplied to EQl-6 such that MWWestimations could be used as the dependentvariablefor all comparisons.
similarity in the standard deviations of the actual and predicted values.Equations 1-6 (see Table 2) were selectedfor evaluationbasedon thefmdings ofa previous cross-validation study,whichevaluated23 anthropometric equationsin terms of theresultanterrorintheestimation ofMWW in highschool wrestlers(Houshet al., 1989).Inaddition.theequation(EQ7) of Tcheng and Tipton (1973) was included because of its history of widespread use by practitioners, while EQ8-10
Table 2 Anthropometric Equations Which Were Cross-validated against Underwater Weighing Equation Number
R
References BO
Downloaded by [Deakin University Library] at 04:28 12 March 2015
Lohman (1981)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Thorland, Johnson, Tharp, Housh, & Cisar (1984)
BO
Katch & McArdle (1973)
BO
Forsyth & Sinning (1973)
Behnke & Wilmore (1974)
Jackson & Pollock (1978)
Tcheng & Tipton (1973)
Tcheng et al. (1988)
Oppliger & Tipton (1988)
Oppliger & Tipton (1988)
BO
BO
BO
MWW
MWW
MWW
MWW
SEE
1.0982 - 0.000815 (x8) + 0.00000084 (X8)2
.92
0.0071
1.1136 • 0.00154 (x9) + 0.00000516 (X9)2
.81
0.0056
1.09665 - 0.00103 (x1) - 0.00056 (x2) - 0.00054 (x5)
.86
0.0072
1.10647 - 0.00162 (x2) - 0.00144 (x5) - 0.00077 (x1) + 0.00071 (x4)
.84
0.0056
- 0.00145 (x13)
.87
0.0064
1.099075 - 0.0008209 (x7) + 0.0000026 (x7)2 ·0.0002017 (Age) - 0.00005675 (x12) + 0.00018586 (x14)
.92
0.0072
(1.84 (HT in inches) + 3.28 (x18) + 3.31 (x19) + 1.69 (x17) + 0.82 (x16) + 3.56 (sum of right and left wrist diameters) + 2.15 (sum of right and left ankle diameters)-281.72)/2.2046
.93
3.95
(0.296 (HT in cm) + 2.268 (x18) + 2.489 (x19) + 1.502 (x17) - 0.717 (x1) + 2.818 (right wrist diameter) + 2.212 (x14) - 0.249 (x5) + 1.107 (x16) + 1.455 (x15) + 1.964 (left ankle diameter) - 228.29)12.2046
.96
2.88
left ankle diameters)-294.14)/2.2046
.95
3.40
(0.49 (BW in Ibs) + 1.65 (HT in inches) + 1.81 (x18) + 6.70 (right wrist diameter) + 1'.35 (x19) 156.56)/2.2046
.96
2.90
1.05721 - 0.00052 (x5) + 0.00168 (x16) + 0.00114 (x10) + 0.00048 (x11)
(3.54 (x17) + 1.88 (HT in inches) + 3.98 (x19) + 5.32 (sum of right and left wrist diameters) + 1.77 (x16) + 1.97 (sum of right and
Note. The variable codes are defined in Table 1 and the Rand SEE values are from the original derivation studies. The SEE values for EQ1-6 are expressed in g'ml'l and EQ7-10 in kg. REsEARCH QUAIITERLY FOR EXBROSB AND SPORT. VOL.
377
61, No.4
HOUSH, JOHNSON, HOUSH, KENNEY, HUGHES, 'I'HORLAND, AND CISAR
Results Table 3 presents the descriptive characteristics of the subjects. The age, height, and body weight of the wrestlers were similar to those from previous investigations (Kateh & Michael,1971;Oppliger&Tipton, 1988;Tchenget al., 1988; Tcheng & Tipton, 1973;Williford et at, 1986). In addition, althoughthere was a significantcorrelation(r =.31,p < .001) betweenage and body weight for the total sample (N =522), less than 10% of the variance in body weight could be explained by differences in age. Table 4 includes the total cross-validation informationfor the equations in this study.
Downloaded by [Deakin University Library] at 04:28 12 March 2015
YoungerVersus Older Group (62.60kg)
Discussion
ThemeandifferencebetweenpredictedandactualMWW (CE)wasgreater (range =34 to 396%)in thelightergroup for 3 of the 10 equations (EQ2, 3, and 8). For the lighter group,
The following criteriawereusedto evaluatetheresultsof the cross-validation analyses: (a) the mean of the actual and
Table 3 Descriptive Characteristics of the Subjects by Group (N= 522; M± SO)
Variable
62.60 kg (n = 270)
Total (N= 522)
1. Age (years)
15.28 ± 0.46
17.02 ± 0.69
16.16 ± 0.99
16.72 ± 0.99
16.45 ± 1.03
2. Height (cm)
169.26 ± 7.65
172.40 ± 6.61
167.29 ± 6.30
175.18 ± 5.56
171.37 ± 7.12
3. Body Weight (kg)
60.45 ± 10.31
65.16 ± 9.42
55.41 ± 5.12
71.29 ± 6.73
63.62 ± 9.96
4. Minimal Wrestling Weight* (kg)
56.41 ± 9.25
61.37 ± 8.23
52.54 ± 5.48
66.35 ± 5.75
59.73 ± 8.92
5. Minimal Wrestling Weight** (kg)
57.66 ± 9.53
62.78 ± 8.51
53.77 ± 5.78
67.80 ± 5.91
61.09 ± 9.20
:*Calculated usi~g the conversi~n constants of Brozek et al. (1963): Relative Fat = ([4.57/body density] - 4.142) X 100. Calculated uSingthe conversion constants of Lohman (1987): Relative Fat = ([5.03Ibody density] - 4.59) X 100. REsEARCH QUARTERLY fOR EXERCISE AND SPORT, VOL.
378
61, No.4
HOUSH, JOHNSON, HOUSH, KENNBY, HUGHES, 1'HORLAND, AND CIsAR
predicted MWW should be comparable (Lohman, 1981); (b) thereshouldbecloseagreementbetween theSD oftheactual and predictedvalues (Lohman, 1981); (c) the total error (TE) shouldbe low becauseit reflectsthe truedifferencebetween
theactualandpredictedvalues,whilethe SEE reflectsonlythe error associated with the regression between the variables (Katch & Katch, 1980; Lohman,1981; Sinning, Dolny, & Little, 1985); (d) equationsthat use the sum of severalmea-
Table 4 Cross-Validation of Equations by Group and Total Sample (N
SDof Predicted Values (kg)
Equation Number
Downloaded by [Deakin University Library] at 04:28 12 March 2015
1.
2.
< 16 years (n = 171) ~ 16 years (n = 351) s 62.60 kg (n = 252) > 62.60 kg (n = 270) Total (N= 522) < 16 years ~
16 years
s 62.60 kg > 62.60 kg
Total 3.
< 16 years ~
16 years
s 62.60 kg > 62.60 kg
Total 4.
< 16 years ~
16 years
s 62.60 kg > 62.60 kg
Total 5.
< 16 years ~
16 years
s 62.60 kg > 62.60 kg
Total
8.59 (8.72) 7.76 (7.87) 4.67 (4.78) 5.39 (5.48) 8.28 (8.40) 8.39 (8.51) 7.57 (7.67) 4.74 (4.85) 5.35 (5.46) 8.09 (8.21) 8.76 (8.90) 7.93 (8.05) 4.72 (4.83) 5.52 (5.61) 8.45 (8.59) 8.19 (8.30) 7.31 (7.38) 4.63 (4.74) 5.16 (5.27) 7.84 (7.93) 9.20 (9.40) 8.15 (8.30) 4.87 (5.00) 5.82 (5.96) 8.77 (8.94)
CE
r
(kg) 0.47 (0.52) -0.24 (-0.27) 0.27 (0.31) -0.33 (-0.36) 0.00 (0.00) 1.35 (1.49) 0.60 (0.67) 1.29 (1.43) 0.26 (0.29) 0.88 (0.96) 0.73 (0.80) 0.11 (0.13) 0.45 (0.50) 0.11 (0.13) 0.32 (0.35) 0.35 (0.38) -0.57 (-0.63) 0.40 (0.45) -1.05 (-1.15) -0.24 (-0.26) -0.79 (-0.86) -1.22 (-1.35) -1.11 (-1.22) -1.02 (-1.12) -1.06 . (-1.16)
REsEARCH QUAlUBRLY FOR EXBRCSB AND SPORT, VOL.
379
.97 (.97) .97 (.96) .91 (.90) .94 (.93) .97 (.97) .97 (.97) .96 (.96) .91 (.90) .93 (.92) .98 (.96) .97 (.97) .97 (.96) .92 (.90) .93 (.92) .97 (.97) .97 (.96) .96 (.95) .91 (.89) .92 (.90) .96 (.96) .96 (.96) .96 (.96) .91 (.90) .92 (.91) .97 (.96) 61, No.4
=522) SEE
TE
(kg)
(kg)
2.25 (2.47) 2.07 2.28 2.18 (2.40) 1.96 (2.16) 2.16 (2.37) 2.25 (2.46) 2.11 (2.32) 2.19 (2.39) 1.98 (2.18) 2.19 (2.41) 2.19 (2.41) 2.07 (2.27) 2.16 (2.37) 1.96 (2.16) 2.15 (2.37) 2.32 (2.56) 2.14 (2.35) 2.20 (2.42) 2.09 (2.30) 2.25 (2.46) 2.46 (2.71) 2.20 (2.42) 2.22 (2.45) 2.27 (2.49) 2.31 (2.52)
2.30 (2.53) 2.07 (2.28) 2.18 (2.40) 1.98 (2.19) 2.16 (2.37) 2.62 (2.83) 2.32 (2.52) 2.21 (2.42) 2.04 (2.28) 2.45 (2.70) 2.31 (2.55) 2.07 (2.27) 2.22 (2.43) 1.98 (2.19) 2.17 (2.40) 2.47 (2.72) 2.38 (2.62) 2.29 (2.52) 2.45 (2.69) 2.40 (2.63) 2.59 (2.84) 2.51 (2.77) 2.48 (2.72) 2.51 (2.75) 2.54 (2.79)
HOUSH, JOHNSON, HOUSH, KENNEY, HUGHES, THORLAND, AND CIsAR
Table 4 (continued)
SDof Predicted Values (kg)
Equation Number
6.
< 16 years ~
16 years
s 62.60 kg
> 62.60 kg Total
Downloaded by [Deakin University Library] at 04:28 12 March 2015
7.
8.
9.
< 16 years ~
16 years
9.00
~
62.60 kg
6.92
> 62.60 kg
6.51
Total
9.66
< 16 years
9.59
~
16 years
8.44
s 62.60 kg
6.42
> 62.60 kg
5.95
Total
9.11
< 16 years ~
10.62
16 years
9.43
s 62.60 kg
7.35
> 62.60 kg
6.93
Total 10.
9.02 (9.18) 8.91 (8.36) 4.74 (4.85) 5.78 (5.89) 8.72 (8.88) 10.24
10.10
< 16 years
9.72
~
16 years
8.71
s 62.60 kg
5.85
> 62.60 kg
5.92
Total
9.33
CE
r
(kg) 0.85 (0.94) 0.25 (0.26) 0.41 (0.45) 0.50 (0.56) 0.46 (0.50) 2.98 (1.73) 2.43 (1.02) 2.69 (1.46) 2.77 (1.32) 2.56 (1.20) 1.59 (0.34) 0.90 (-0.51) 1.70 (0.47) 1.27 (-0.18) 1.31 (-0.05) 2.49 (1.24) 2.25 (0.84) 2.21 (0.98) 2.52 (1.07) 2.28 (0.92) 1.54 (0.29) 1.33 (-0.08) 1.15 (-0.08) 1.69 (0.24) 1.34 (-0.02)
.96 (.96) .96 (.96) .91 (.90) .92 (.91) .97 (.96) .89 (.88) .87 (.85) .77 (.72) .72 (.71) .88 (.87) .93 (.92) .91 (.89) .83 (.78) .82 (.81) .92 (.91) .88 (.87) .85 (.84) .75 (.70) .70 (.69) .87 (.86) .95 (.94) .95 (.93) .88 (.84) .87 (.86) .95 (.94)
SEE
TE
(kg)
(kg)
2.36 (2.60) 2.12 (2.34) 2.20 (2.42) 2.15 (2.27) 2.25 (2.47) 4.16 (4.46) 4.09 (4.45) 3.51 (4.00) 3.99 (4.16) 4.17 (4.51) 3.36 (3.65) 3.49 (3.88) 3.07 (3.61) 3.33 (3.49) 3.47 (3.83) 4.42 (4.71) 4.33 (4.68) 3.66 (4.13) 4.17 (4.34) 4.42 (4.75) 2.96 (3.27) 2.67 (3.12) 2.61 (3.18) 2.87 (3.09) 2.80 (3.20)
2.53 (2.79) 2.14 (2.37) 2.22 (2.45) 2.27 (2.49) 2.30 (2.53) 5.63 (5.24) 5.15 (4.92) 5.22 (5.13) 5.41 (4.93) 5.32 (5.03) 3.48 (3.77) 3.87 (3.96) 4.02 (4.13) 3.78 (3.67) 3.90 (3.90) 5.76 (5.47) 5.49 (5.32) 5.40 (5.40) 5.74 (5.31) 5.58 (5.37) 3.60 (3.40) 3.17 (3.22) 3.07 (3.33) 3.55 (3.22) 3.32 (3.28)
Note. The values in parentheses were based on the calculation of relative fat from body density using the conversion constants of Lohman (1987) while those without parentheses were calculated using the conversion of Brozek et al. (1963). EQ7-10 predicted MWW directly and therefore the SD of the predicted values do not reflect the use of the conversion constants of Brozek et al. (1963) or Lohman (1987) as is the case for EQ1-6.
RESEARCH QUARTERLY POR EXERCISE AND SPORT, VOL.
380
61, No.4
Downloaded by [Deakin University Library] at 04:28 12 March 2015
HOUSH, JOHNSON, HOUSH, KENNEY, HUGHES, THORLAND, AND CISAR
sores are preferred over equations that utilize individual measures due to less intertester error (Jackson, Pollock, & Gettman,1978;Thorland,Johnson,Fagot,Tharp, & Hammer, 1984);(e)thereshouldbeclosesimilaritybetweenTE and SEE becauseit reflectstherelationship betweentheregression line of the actual versuspredicted values and the line of identity (Sinninget al.,1985); and (t) a low SEE valueis desirableand evaluations based on SEE values are preferred over those based on correlation coefficients because correlations are likely to be affectedby variability between samplesin body fatness (Lohman, 1981). Although all of thesecriteriashould be considered, Sinninget al. (1985)havestatedthat the TE is the best single criterionfor determining the true differences between actual and predicted values. Lohman (1981) estimatedthat the TE from biologicaland technical variations in skinfoldestimatesof relativefat wasapproximately 3.3%fat, and Thorlandet al. (1987) have indicatedthat TE valuesapproaching2.0kg representa limitto thelevelof accuracythat canbe expectedforpopulations suchas highschoolwrestlers. In his extensivereview,Lohman(1981)also emphasized the need for largesamplesfor cross-validation studies,theerrors inherentin nonrandom samples,and the curvilinearrelationship betweenskinfoldsand body density. The results of this investigation support the use of the quadratic skinfold equation (EQl) of Lohman (1981) for estimatingMWW in high school competitors. EQI utilized thesumof threeskinfoldsandresultedinthelowestTE foreach group(1.98 to 2.53kg), small CE values(~0.52 kg),andclose similaritiesbetweentheSEEandTEvalues(differingby~O.06
kg). It should be recognized, however, that EQI condensed the distribution ofMWW in eachgroup, whichmayresult in errors for subjects at the extremesof the sample.The linear skinfoldequation(EQ3)ofKateh andMcArdle(1973)should be consideredan acceptable alternative to EQ1becauseof the low TE values,similarityin TE values for all groups,and the closeagreementbetweenthedistributions ofthepredictedand actualMWWscores.The useof individualskinfold measures in EQ3 (rather than the sum of SF values in EQ1), however, increases the potential for intertester variability (Jackson, Pollock,& Gettman,1978),and thereforeEQ1 is morehighly recommended. The results of this investigation also demonstrated that the accuracy of anthropometric estimations of MWWin high schoolwrestlers was dependenton the age of the subject. For 9 of the 10 equations in this study (EQI-7, 9, and 10) the greatest TE values occurredin the youngerwrestlers. These fmdings are especiallyproblematic given that youngerwrestlersare closer to the adolescentgrowthspurtand thereforein a more dynamicphase of development than the older group. Therefore, these wrestlerscan least afford an inappropriate MWW,whichmaylead to excessiveweightlossandpossibly impact on normal developmental processes (American College of Sports Medicine, 1976). In the present study, the infiuenceofbody weightontheerrorinpredicting MWWwas specificto theanthropometric equationthatwasutilized. Four of theequations(EQ1-3and8)resultedin a greaterTE for the
lightergroup,whilethesituationwasreversedfor theremaining equations. Therefore, the results did not demonstrate a consistenttrendregardingthe contribution of bodyweightto the error in estimating MWW. Given the error associatedwith anthropometric estimations of MWW, as well as the present lack of information concerning thevalidityoftheconversion constantsofLohman (1987) versus those of Brozek et al. (1963) for use with adolescent athletes,we recommenda conservative approach thatincludesthe useofEQI to estimatebodydensitywiththe conversion to relative fat using the constants of Lohman (1987). In thepresentinvestigation, thisprocedureresulted in a MWW that was approximately 1 kg greater than when the conversion constants of Brozek et al. (1963) were utilized. Adoption of these recommendations will help assure coach and athlete that the resultantMWWis appropriate and safe.
References American College of Sports Medicine (1976). Position statement on weight loss in wrestlers. SportsMedicineBulletin, II, 2-3. Behnke, A. R., & Wilmore, 1. H. (1974). Evaluation and regulation ofbody build and composition (pp. 39-50). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Brozek, 1., Grande, F., Anderson, 1. T., & Keys, A. (1963). Densiometric analysis of body composition: Revision of some quantitative assumptions. Annals oftheNew YorkAcademyof Sciences, 110, 113-140. Forsyth, H. L., & Sinning, W. E. (1973). The anthropometric estimation of body density and lean body weight of male athletes. Medicine and Sciencein Sports, 5, 174-180. Housh, T. 1., Johnson, G. 0., Kenney, K. B., McDowell, S. L., Hughes, R. A., Cisar, C. J., & Thorland, W. G. (1989). Validity of anthropometric estimations of body composition in high school wrestlers. ResearchQuarterlyfor Exercise and Sport. 60,239-245. Jackson, A. S., & Pollock, M. L. (1978). Generalized equations from predicting body density of men. British Journal ofNutrition, 40,497-504. Jackson, A. S., Pollock, M. L., & Gettman, L. R. (1978). Intertester reliability ofselected skinfold and circumferencemeasurements and percent fat estimates. ResearchQuarterly, 49, 546-551. Katch, F. I., & Katch, V. L. (1980). Measurement and prediction errors in body composition assessment and the search for the perfect prediction equation. ResearchQuarterly for Exercise and Sport, 51, 249-260. Katch, F. I., & McArdle, W. C. (1973). Prediction of body density from simple anthropometric measurements in college-age men and women. HumanBiology, 45, 445-454. Katch, F. I., & Michael, E. D. (1971). Body composition of high school wrestlers according to age and wrestling weight category. Medicine and Sciencein Sports, 3, 190-194. Lohman, T. G. (1981). Skinfolds and body density and their relation to body fatness: A review. HumanBiology,53, 181-225. Lohman, T. G. (1987). Applicability ofbody composition techniques and constants for children and youths. In K. B. Pandolph (Ed.),
REsEARCH QUARTERLY POR EXERCISE AND SPORT, VOL.
381
61, No.4
Downloaded by [Deakin University Library] at 04:28 12 March 2015
HOUSH, JOHNSON, HOUSH, KENNEY, HUGHES, THORLAND, AND CISAR
Exercise and sports sciences reviews (pp. 325-347). New Jersey: MacMillan. Oppliger, R. A., & Tipton, C. M. (1988). Iowa wrestling study: Cross-validation of the Tcheng-Tipton minimal weight prediction formulas for high school wrestlers. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 20, 310-316. Pollock, M. L., & Jackson, A. S. (1984). Research progress in validation of clinical methods of assessing body composition. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 16, 606-613. Sinning, W. E., Dolny, D. G., & Little, K. D. (1985). Validity of generalized equations for body composition analysis in male athletes. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 17, 124130. Tcheng, T. K., Bowers, R. W., Johnson, G. D., Kelly, J. M., Lohman, T. G., Oppliger, R. A., Thorland, W. G., & Tipton,C. M. (1988). The midwest wrestling study: Evaluating equations to predict a minimal weight Federation Proceedings, 2, A522. Tcheng, T., & Tipton, C. M. (1973). Iowa wrestling study: Anthropometric measurements and the prediction of a "minimal" body weight for high school wrestlers. Medicine and Science in Sports, 5, 1-10. Thorland, W. G., Johnson, G. 0., Cisar, C. J., & Housh, T. 1. (1987). Estimationofminimal wrestling weight using measures ofbody build and body composition. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 8, 365-370. Thorland, W. G., Johnson, G. 0., Fagot, T. G., Tharp, G. D., & Hammer, R. W. (1981). Body composition and somatotype characteristics of Junior Olympic athletes. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 13,332-338.
Thorland, W. G., Johnson, G. 0., Fagot, T. G., Tharp, G. D., & Hammer, R. W. (1984). Validity of anthropometric equations for theestimation ofbody density in adolescent athletes. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 16, 77-81. Thorland, W. G., Johnson, G. 0., ThllIp,G. D., Housh, T.J., & Cisar, C. J. (1984). Estimation of body density in adolescent athletes. Human Biology, 56, 439-448. Williford, H. N., Smith, J. F., Mansfield, E. R., Conerly, M. D., & Bishop, P. (1986). Validation of body composition models for high school wrestlers. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 18, 216-224. Wilmore, J. H. (1969). A simplified method for the determination of residual lung volume. Journal of Applied Physiology, 27, 96-100.
Submitted: April 6, 1989 Revision accepted: February 6,1990 Terry J. Housh and Glen O. Johnson are faculty members and Dona J. Housh and Kathy B. Kenney are graduate students in the School of HPER. University of NebraskaLincoln. Lincoln. NE 68588-0229. Roger A. Hughes is in the Department of Physical Education. Cameron University, Lawton. OK. William G. Thorland is in the Department of PESLS. Washington State University, Pullman. CraigJ. Cisar is in the Department ofHuman Performance, San Jose State University. San Jose. CA.
REsEARCH QUARTERLY FOR EXERCISBAND SPORT, VOL.
382
61. No.4
