ISAK Home

Vol. 2 No. 1 (2022): Volume 2, Issue 1, Year 2022

Articles

Comparison of physical and anthropometrical parameters of teen-age male rowers, kayakers, canoers and sedentary school children

Tamoghni Manna
Post-Graduate Department of Physiology, Hooghly Mohsin College, The University of Burdwan, College Road, Hooghly-712101, West Bengal, India
Snehunsu Adhikari
Department of Physiology, Sports Authority of India, Netaji Subhash Eastern Centre, Sector-III, Bidhan Nagar, Kolkata-700106, West Bengal, India
Alak Kumar Syamal
Post-Graduate Department of Physiology, Hooghly Mohsin College, The University of Burdwan, College Road, Hooghly-712101, West Bengal, India
PDF
DOI: https://doi.org/10.34256/ijk2214

Published 30-06-2022

Keywords

  • BMI,
  • Fat %,
  • Sit-up,
  • Push-up,
  • Arm-length,
  • Hand-grip
    • ...More
    Less

How to Cite

Manna, T., Adhikari, S., & Syamal, A. K. (2022). Comparison of physical and anthropometrical parameters of teen-age male rowers, kayakers, canoers and sedentary school children. International Journal of Kinanthropometry, 2(1), 25–30. https://doi.org/10.34256/ijk2214

Copyright (c) 2022 Tamoghni Manna, Snehunsu Adhikari, Alak Kumar Syamal

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Dimensions

Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

Abstract

Aim: It is to compare anthropometrical and physical parameters of teen-aged young male rowers, kayakers, canoers and control population. Methods: Our study was carried on 173 children (n=53 rowers, age=16.24±1.51 years; n=38 kayakers, age= 17.0±3.99 years; n= 37 canoers, age= 15.1±0.53 years; and control group, n=45, age=15.0±0.46). Several bio-parameters, body height (cm), body weight (kg) and (body mass index) (kg/m2), skin fold thickness (mm)  biceps, triceps, sub-scapula, supra-illiac and calf, diameters of humorous and femur (cm), arm length (cm), arm span (cm), fore leg length (cm), thigh length (cm), foot length (cm), upper arm length, fore arm length (cm), shoulder breadth (cm), trunk length (cm), thigh and calf girth (cm), body fat percentage, the grip strength (right and left ) hands, trunk flexibility, relative back strength, sit up, push up  were measured. Results: Body height (cm) of male rowers was higher than male canoers and control group (p<0.05). Standing broad jump (cm) of male rowers was significantly higher than kayakers and control group (p<0.05). Flexibility of male rowers was significantly higher than male canoers and control group (p<0.0.5). Relative back strength (kg) of male rowers, kayakers and canoers was significantly higher than control group. Sit up /minute of male canoers was significantly higher than both male rowers (p<0.01) and kayakers (p<0.05). Push up/minute of male canoers was noted higher significantly than control group (p<0.01) and kayakers and rower (p<0.05). The arm span of rowers was significantly higher than control group (p<0.01) and kayakers and canoers (p<0.05). Fore arm length (cm) of male rowers was significantly higher than control group (p<0.01). It was also found higher in male kayakers and canoers than control group (p<0.05). Conclusion: Our athletes have significant difference in some parameters as they are well trained and the control group has no such previous training at all.

PDF

References

  1. Alacid, F., Marfell-Jones, M., Muyor, J.M., Lopez-inarro, P.A., Martinez, I., (2015). Kinanthropometric Comparison between Young Elite Kayakers and Canoeists, Collegium Antropologicum, 39 (1): 119–126.
  2. Bourgois, J., Claessen,s A.L., Vrijens, J., Philippaerts, R., Renterghem, B.V., Thomis, M., Janssens, M., Loos, R., Lefevre, J., (2000). Anthropometric characteristics of elite male junior rowers, British Journal of Sports Medicine, 34 (3):213–217. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsm.34.3.213
  3. Gee, T., Olsen, P., Berger, N., Golby, J., Thompson, K., (2011). Strength and conditioning practices in rowing, Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 25(3): 668-682. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181e2e10e
  4. Hagner-Derengowska, M., Hagner, W., Zubrzycki, I.Z., Krakowiak, H., Słomko, W., Dzierżanowski, M., Rakowski, A., Wiącek-Zubrzycka, M., (2014). Body structure and composition of canoeist and kayakers: Analysis of Junior and teenage Polish national canoeing team, Biology of Sport, 31(4):323-326. https://doi.org/10.5604/20831862.1133937
  5. Manna, T., Adhikari S., (2018). A comparative study of anthropometric and physical profiles of male junior rowers, kayakers and canoers, Medicina Sportiva, 14 (2): 3028-3036.
  6. Mitchell, J.H., Haskell, W., Snell, P., Van Camp, S.P., (2005). Task Force 8: Classification of Sports, Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 45(8):1364–1367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2005.02.015
  7. Penichet-Tomas, A., Pueo, B., Selles-Perez, S., Jimenez-Olmedo, J.M., (2021). Analysis of Anthropometric and Body Composition Profile in Male and Female Traditional Rowers, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(5):7826. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18157826
  8. Siri, W.E., (1961). Body composition from fluid spaces and density analysis of methods, National Academy of Sciences, Washington DC, 223–244.
  9. Steinbright, J., (2002). Qayaqs and Canoes: Native Ways of Knowing, Alaska Native Heritage Center, Achorage, Alaska, United States.
  10. Tesch, P.A., (1983). Physiological characteristics of elite kayak paddlers, Canadian journal of applied sport sciences, 8(2): 87–91.
  11. WHO, (1995). Physical status: the use and interpretation of anthropometry, Report of a WHO Expert Committee, World Health Organization Technical Report Series, 854:1-452.