EQOL Journal (2021) 13(1):
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Somatotypes and handgrip strength analysis of elite Serbian sambo athletes
Jelena Slankamenac1 • Tatjana Trivić1 • Damjan Jakšić1
• Miodrag Drapšin1,2 • Nemanja Lakićević3
• Patrik Drid1
✉
Received: 25th September, 2020 |
DOI: 10.31382/eqol.210601 |
Accepted: 28th October, 2020 |
|
© The Author(s) 2021. This article is published with open access. |
|
Abstract
The aim of this study was to establish whether there are differences between weight categories in different anthropometric measurements and handgrip strength between elite Serbian male and female sambo athletes divided into weight categories.
A total of 70 elite Serbian sambo athletes participated in the study, who were participants of the World Cadet Sambo Championship held in Novi Sad. Athletes are classified into categories according to gender and official weight categories. Using anthropometry, we calculated somatotypes and
Somatotype analysis shows that a typical somatotype in male sambo athletes was endomorphic mesomorphs. In female groups, the most common somatotype in the lightest categories was mesomorphic ectomorphs, and in the heaviest categories were endomorphic mesomorphs. Exami-
✉patrikdrid@gmail.com
1University of Novi Sad, Faculty of Sport and Physical Education, Novi Sad, Serbia
2University of Novi Sad, Faculty of Medicine, Novi Sad, Serbia
3University of Palermo, Sport and Exercise Sciences Research Unit, Palermo, Italy
ning the handgrip for both left and right hand, as well as in total, shows that there is a statistically significant difference between the categories. In total, the strength of the handgrip increases progressively in groups. In male categories, the difference exists between the first 4 groups and - 78kg, as well as between
Anthropometric measurements revealed a statistically significant difference between weight categories. Mesomorphy was the most dominant somatotype in male categories, while female athletes differed concerning weight category. The achieved results can serve as data to compare the somatotype and handgrip strength of elite sambo athletes on a national and international level. These findings suggest that the handgrip strength and somatotypes are the keys to success in relation to the weight category.
Keywords hand strength • skinfold • somatotypes
•body weight • martial arts • combat sports.
Introduction
Sambo is an international martial art (combat sport) that appeared in the USSR in the 1930s (Drid et al., 2018). Sambo wrestling is known as one of the national sports of the Russian Federation in which they had a long history of success. (Serporezyuk et al., 2014.). This type of martial arts is characterized by the performance of various throws, grabs, holds, and painful techni-
5
EQOL Journal (2021) 13(1):
ques. Because sambo is a young sport, the training technique of qualified athletes has not yet been fully researched. There are still significant differences in the technique and tactics of wrestlers specializing in sambo and combat sambo (Dadelo et al., 2013). At the same time, Sambo wrestling, as well as various other styles of wrestling such as
Anthropometry has long been the only available method of measuring the human body and its proportions. In 1921, the first formulas for predicting body fat based on measurements of body height, width, circumference, and thickness of skinfolds were developed (Matigka, 1921). The main advantages of anthropometry are that it is
The term handgrip strength is used in clinical and occupational settings and by strength athletes. Handgrip strength refers to muscular strength and force which can be produced by the hands. The strength of a handgrip is a measure of the maximum static force that the subject can produce by squeezing a dynamometer, through the voluntary muscle contraction and flexion of all finger’s joints, and wrists (Shyamal and Yadav, 2009). Factors considered during these activities include the muscle strength necessary to perform the tasks and the fatigue of the muscles responsible for these movements (Blackwell et al., 1999).
6
The aim of this study was to determine whether there are differences between weight categories in different anthropometric measurements and handgrip strength.
Method
This study consisted of 38 male sambo athletes and 32 female sambo athletes. All testing procedures were conducted during the World Cadet Sambo Championship held in Novi Sad (Serbia). Participants were divided into ten official male (−42, −46, −50, −55, −60, −66, −72, −78, −84, and +84 kg) and female categories (−38, −41, −44, −48, −52, −56, −60, −65, −70, and +70 kg). Written informed consent was obtained from the national team coach as their legal guardian during the championship. Participants were familiarized with all testing procedures used in the present study.
Anthropometrical measurements
Following anthropometric measurements were conducted: height and body mass, four skinfolds (triceps, subscapular, supraspinal, calf), breadths (humerus and femur diameters), girths (arm and calf), breadths (humerus and femur diameters). Body height was determined using a Martin anthropometer (GPM, Switzerland), skinfolds were measured using a John Bull caliper (British Indicator Ltd, UK) accurate to 0.2 mm, girth measurements were acquired with a steel measuring tape, and wrist girth and bicondylar diameters of the femur and humerus were measured using a small spreading caliper (SiberHegner, Switzerland). Somatotypes were determined according to the Carter and Heath method (1990).
Handgrip strength
Maximum handgrip strength for both hands was measured with a portable Takei handgrip dynamometer (Takei Scientific Instrument CO., Tokyo, Japan).
Data are presented as means and standard deviation (±). A
EQOL Journal (2021) 13(1):
Results
The study involved 38 male and 32 female sambo athletes who participated in the World Cadet Sambo Championships held in Novi Sad, who modified their weight to compete in the appropriate category.
In the male sambo category, the first two weight categories show a statistically significant difference in body height compared to the last six categories. On average, the highest number of participants was in the
Somatotype analysis of male categories found a difference between the first four categories and the last category in endomorphy. In mesomorphy there is a difference between
Figure 1. Somatochart of Serbian elite cadet male sambo |
Figure 2. Somatochart of Serbian elite cadet female |
athletes by weight categories |
sambo athletes by weight categories |
In the female groups, body height differed statistically significantly between the first four groups and the last, heaviest group, between
between almost all groups of participants. Differences in the thickness of all skinfolds exist between > 70kg and all other categories (Table 2).
Somatotype analysis of female sambo wrestlers shown the difference in endomorphism exists between the heaviest category and all other categories. Significant differences between groups were not found in mesomorphy, except between the first group and
7
EQOL Journal (2021) 13(1):
a statistically significant difference between the lighter and heavier categories (Figure 2).
In the domain of handgrip strength, differences between weight categories in female athletes were found between the lightest group and last six groups in right hand and in total in favor of the last six. In the left hand, differences were found between the first group and last 5 groups, as well as for
Discussion
Quantifying human body composition plays a major role in monitoring
Considering the anthropometrical characteristics, the highest average height is observed in the
8
are negatively correlated with the performance of locomotion (Franchini et al., 2005; Franchini et al., 2016). Control of body composition is necessary to define an athlete's best weight category (Mendes et al., 2013). In male categories, triceps skinfolds did not differ between groups and show a progressive increase in weight groups, while supraspinal and subscapular skinfolds differed between the lighter and the heaviest categories. A significant difference in the skinfolds of the calf exists between
>84kg. Female categories show differences in the thickness of all skinfolds exist between > 70kg and all other categories. The largest percentage of male athletes had an endomorphic mesomorph somatotype. Female athletes in the heavier categories were represented by an endomorphic mesomorph somatotype, and among the lighter categories was dominated by a mesomorphic ectomorph somatotype. In a previous study, slightly different results were obtained for female athletes.
EQOL Journal (2021) 13(1):
Table 1. Differences in anthropometric variables and handgrip strength between weight categories of Serbian elite cadet male sambo athletes
MALE |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>84j |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||
(n=2) |
|
|
|
|
(n=4) |
|
|
|
(n=3) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(n=7) |
|
|
|
|
(n=3) |
|
|
|
|
(n=5) |
|
|
|
|
(n=3) |
|
|
(n=5) |
|
|
|
|
(n=2) |
|
|
(n=4) |
|
|
|
|
Statistics |
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||
Variable |
M±SD |
|
|
|
M±SD |
|
|
|
M±SD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
M±SD |
|
|
|
|
M±SD |
|
|
|
M±SD |
|
|
|
M±SD |
|
|
M±SD |
|
|
|
M±SD |
|
M±SD |
|
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
Body height (cm) |
155.50±11.46 |
e,g,h,i,j |
157.50±1.30 |
e,f,g,h,i,j |
166.73±.75 |
i |
165.46±4.68 |
h,i,j |
175.80±2.79 |
a,b |
169.94±4.86 |
b |
175.53±5.60 |
a,b |
176.94±4.68 |
a,b,d |
183.55±7.99 |
a,b,c,d |
178.95±6.35 |
a,b,d |
F=10.19, P=.000, |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
η2=.77 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Breadths |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
Humerus (cm) |
6.55±.07 |
|
6.03±.34 |
h |
|
5.87±.35 |
h |
|
|
6.49±.76 |
|
6.57±.47 |
|
|
6.62±.47 |
|
|
7.10±.26 |
|
|
7.14±.34 |
b,c |
7.30±.42 |
6.78±.15 |
|
|
F=3.17, P=.009, |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
η2=.51 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Femur (cm) |
9.35±.21 |
|
8.40±.37 |
h |
|
8.50±.52 |
|
|
|
8.96±.81 |
|
9.17±1.16 |
|
9.68±.83 |
|
|
9.63±.64 |
|
|
10.18±.39 |
b |
10.10±.14 |
9.98±1.00 |
|
F=2.92, P=.014, |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
η2=.48 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Girths |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Arm (cm) |
24.50±2.12 |
f,g,h,i,j |
24.93±2.29 |
d,e,f,g,h,i,j |
27.57±1.29 |
h,i,j |
28.79±1.32 |
b,h,i,j |
29.67±.29 |
b,h,i,j |
31.80±1.92 |
a,b |
31.33±1.15 |
a,b |
35.30±.91 |
a,b,c,d |
35.25±1.06 |
a,b,c,d,e |
34.43±3.01 |
a,b,c,d,e |
F=17.86, P=.000, |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
η2=.85 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
Calf (cm) |
29.25±1.06 |
e,f,g,h,i,j |
31.08±.70 |
e,f,g,h,i,j |
31.27±1.42 |
f,g,h,i,j |
32.16±1.58 |
f,g,h,i,j |
34.67±1.53 |
a,b,h,i,j |
36.60±1.19 |
a,b,c,d,i,j |
36.00±.50 |
a,b,c,d,i,j |
38.06±1.25 |
a,b,c,d,e |
41.00±.71 |
a,b,c,d,e,f,g |
41.07±1.89 |
a,b,c,d,e,f,gF=31.72, P=.000, |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
η2=.91 |
|||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Skinfolds |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
Triceps (mm) |
4.30±.71 |
|
6.78±3.17 |
6.33±2.50 |
|
6.09±1.41 |
|
7.33±.95 |
|
|
9.38±4.22 |
|
9.27±2.44 |
|
10.04±3.72 |
9.40±.57 |
11.60±4.14 |
F=2.00, P=.078, |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
η2=.39 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Supraspinale (mm) |
3.60±.28 |
j |
|
4.55±1.00 |
j |
5.20±2.25 |
j |
|
5.37±.39 |
j |
|
5.53±1.14 |
j |
|
6.72±2.27 |
j |
|
9.83±1.04 |
|
8.16±2.84 |
9.40±2.26 |
17.10±12.04 |
a,b,c,d,e,f F=3.17, P=.009, |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
η2=.51 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Subscapular (mm) |
5.40±.00 |
j |
|
5.98±1.50 |
j |
6.80±1.74 |
j |
|
6.89±1.15 |
j |
7.80±1.83 |
j |
|
9.48±1.47 |
|
10.37±1.37 |
10.56±.79 |
10.10±1.56 |
15.25±6.83 |
a,b,c,d,e |
F=4.89, P=.001, |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
η2=.61 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Calf (mm) |
3.80±1.13 |
6.70±3.19 |
5.80±2.95 |
|
5.71±1.38 |
j |
6.87±1.68 |
|
9.18±3.31 |
|
8.73±3.04 |
|
10.16±4.35 |
10.50±2.40 |
14.90±9.28 |
d |
F=2.18, P=.055, |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
η2=.41 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Somatotypes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
Endomorphy |
1.25±.27 |
j |
|
1.73±.72 |
j |
|
1.73±.78 |
j |
|
|
1.77±.25 |
j |
|
1.90±.44 |
|
|
2.53±.85 |
|
|
2.86±.49 |
|
|
2.75±.70 |
|
2.67±.20 |
3.92±1.80 |
a,b,c,d |
F=3.28, P=.008, |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
η2=.51 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mesomorphy |
4.54±1.85 |
3.54±.57 |
h |
|
2.80±.33 |
f,h,j |
4.16±1.24 |
|
3.52±1.12 |
h |
5.28±.84 |
c |
|
|
4.76±.99 |
|
|
5.98±.67 |
b,c,e |
5.67±.63 |
5.49±.71 |
c |
|
|
F=4.56, P=.001, |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
η2=.59 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ectomorphy |
3.98±1.99 |
j |
3.39±.21 |
j |
|
4.11±.23 |
h,j |
|
3.09±.87 |
j |
|
3.82±.32 |
j |
|
|
2.37±.83 |
|
|
2.19±1.16 |
|
1.71±.92 |
c |
|
2.08±1.01 |
.58±1.16 |
a,b,c,d,e |
F=5.57, P=.000, |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
η2=.64 |
different from: a
9
EQOL Journal (2021) 13(1):
Table 2. Differences in anthropometric variables and handgrip strength between weight categories of Serbian elite cadet female sambo athletes
FEMALE |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>70j |
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||
(n=2) |
|
|
|
|
(n=2) |
|
|
|
|
(n=2) |
|
|
|
|
(n=3) |
|
|
|
|
(n=4) |
|
|
|
|
(n=5) |
|
|
|
|
(n=3) |
|
|
|
(n=4) |
|
|
|
|
(n=3) |
|
|
|
|
|
(n=4) |
|
|
Statistics |
||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Variable |
M±SD |
|
|
|
|
M±SD |
|
|
|
M±SD |
|
|
|
M±SD |
|
|
|
|
M±SD |
|
|
|
M±SD |
|
|
|
|
M±SD |
|
|
|
M±SD |
|
|
|
M±SD |
|
|
|
|
|
M±SD |
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Body height (cm) |
151.80±3.82 |
i,j |
155.05±.07 |
j |
156.70±1.84 |
j |
158.03±2.95 |
j |
166.65±4.11 |
162.58±5.22 |
j |
167.17±4.33 |
166.67±2.23 |
169.63±2.90 |
a |
176.83±9.59 |
a,b,c,d,f |
F=6.84, P=.000, |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
η2=.74 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Breadths |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
Humerus (cm) |
4.75±.07 |
e,g,h,j |
5.75±.07 |
|
5.80±.57 |
|
|
|
5.77±.06 |
|
|
|
6.18±.56 |
a |
|
5.86±.65 |
|
|
|
6.27±.25 |
a |
|
|
6.33±.25 |
a |
|
6.07±.12 |
|
|
|
6.48±.48 |
a |
F=3.25, P=.012, |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
η2=.57 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Femur (cm) |
7.55±.35 |
h,j |
|
7.55±.07 |
h,j |
|
8.20±.57 |
j |
|
|
7.87±.85 |
h,j |
|
8.65±.77 |
j |
|
8.92±.49 |
|
|
|
8.70±.26 |
j |
|
|
9.55±.51 |
a,b,d |
8.70±.26 |
j |
|
|
|
10.20±.54 |
a,b,c,d,e,g,i |
F=7.40, P=.000, |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
η2=.75 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Girths |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Arm (cm) |
22.25±.35 |
c,d,e,f,g,h,i,j |
24.05±.07 |
h,i,j |
24.15±1.20 |
h,i,j |
27.67±1.15 |
a,j |
27.38±1.25 |
a,j |
28.50±.35 |
a,j |
|
29.13±2.40 |
a,j |
30.18±.95 |
a,b,c,j |
29.90±2.15 |
a,b,c,j |
35.13±2.80 |
a,b,c,de,f,g,h,i |
F=15.45, P=.000, |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
η2=.86 |
||||||||||||||||||||||
Calf (cm) |
27.50±2.12 |
d,e,f,g,h,i,j |
30.05±.07 |
h,i,j |
30.85±.21 |
h,j |
|
31.00±2.00 |
h,i,j |
32.60±1.14 |
a,j |
33.18±.60 |
a,j |
|
34.10±1.95 |
a,j |
36.38±2.11 |
a,b,c,d,j |
35.83±1.44 |
a,b,d,j |
40.88±2.25 |
a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i |
F=16.59, P=.000, |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
η2=.87 |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Skinfolds |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
Triceps (mm) |
9.05±4.45 |
j |
|
6.85±.07 |
j |
|
7.20±.57 |
j |
|
|
10.20±.92 |
j |
|
7.95±2.72 |
j |
10.68±4.03 |
j |
|
10.47±1.27 |
j |
15.00±4.10 |
j |
14.30±1.66 |
j |
|
25.38±2.36 |
a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i |
F=12.82, P=.000, |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
η2=.84 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Supraspinale (mm) |
5.45±2.19 |
j |
|
4.05±.07 |
j |
|
4.50±.42 |
j |
|
|
5.40±.40 |
j |
|
|
5.25±1.24 |
j |
8.32±2.78 |
j |
|
|
7.27±1.22 |
j |
|
13.10±3.04 |
j |
15.20±3.20 |
j |
|
29.60±9.75 |
a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i |
F=12.96, P=.000, |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
η2=.84 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Subscapular (mm) |
7.10±2.97 |
j |
|
6.25±.07 |
j |
|
5.20±.28 |
h,i,j |
|
9.73±2.83 |
j |
|
7.45±1.56 |
h,j |
9.84±2.43 |
j |
|
|
8.47±.12 |
j |
|
|
12.95±1.46 |
c,e,j |
12.73±3.00 |
c,j |
27.05±2.99 |
a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i |
F=28.94, P=.000, |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
η2=.92 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Calf (mm) |
5.75±.92 |
j |
|
|
5.25±.07 |
j |
|
7.40±1.98 |
j |
|
9.20±1.39 |
j |
|
6.23±1.97 |
h,i,j |
9.94±4.51 |
j |
|
|
11.00±4.42 |
j |
16.05±6.36 |
e |
16.00±1.91 |
e |
23.00±1.78 |
a,b,c,d,e,f,g |
F=8.66, P=.000, |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
η2=.78 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Somatotypes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
Endomorphy |
2.36±1.28j |
|
1.77±.03 |
h,i,j |
1.71±.01 |
h,i,j |
|
2.73±.44 |
j |
|
|
2.02±.64 |
h,i,j |
3.00±1.05 |
j |
|
|
2.66±.09 |
j |
|
|
4.13±.68 |
b,c,e,j |
4.20±.45 |
b,c,e,j |
6.46±.26 |
a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i |
F=16.66, P=.000, |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
η2=.87 |
||||||||||||||||||
Mesomorphy |
1.58±.66 |
h,j |
|
2.81±.12 |
|
3.13±.83 |
|
|
|
3.33±1.27 |
|
3.31±1.08 |
3.93±.90 |
|
|
|
3.80±.90 |
|
|
4.82±1.11 |
a |
|
3.58±.57 |
|
|
|
5.36±1.27 |
a |
F=3.18, P=.013, |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
η2=.57 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ectomorphy |
4.91±1.79 |
h,i,j |
3.97±.00 |
j |
|
3.81±.14 |
j |
|
|
3.05±.60 |
|
|
|
3.89±.86 |
j |
|
2.45±1.09 |
|
|
2.40±.92 |
|
|
1.76±.53 |
a |
|
1.69±.56 |
a |
|
|
|
.57±1.35 |
a,b,c,e |
F=5.82, P=.000, |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
η2=.70 |
different from: a
10
EQOL Journal (2021) 13(1):
Conclusion
This study could help with profiling elite sambo athletes based on gender, age, and weight categories. Anthropometric characteristics show differences regarding weight categories. In male groups, the most common somatotype was endomorphic mesomorph, while in the female groups, heavier categories were represented by an endomorphic mesomorph somatotype, and among the lighter categories dominated mesomorphic ectomorph somatotype. Differences in
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
References
Ackland, T.R., Lohman, T.G.,
Blackwell, J.R., Kornatz, K.W., & Heath, E.M. (1999). Effect of grip span on maximal grip force and fatigue
of flexor digitorum superficialis. Applied Ergonomics, 30(5),
Carter JRL, Heath BH. Somatotyping: Development and Applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1990.
Dadelo, S., Mečkovskis, A., & Štarevičius, E. (2013). Sports and combat sambo exposure and differences in
Drid, P., Tabaković, S., Eliseev, S., Selimovic, N., Jakšić, D., Trivić, T., & Ostojić, S. (2018). Somatotypes of elite male and female junior sambo athletes. Archives of Budo, 14,
Franchini, E., Takito, M.Y., Kiss, M.A.P.D.M., & Strerkowicz, S. (2005). Physical fitness and
anthropometrical differences between elite and non- elite judo players. Biology of Sport, 22(4), 315.
Franchini, E.,
Franchini, E., Julio, U.F., Panissa, V.L., Lira, F.S., Gerosa- Neto, J., & Branco, B.H. (2016).
Goran, M.I., Gower, B.A., Treuth, M., & Nagy, T.R. (1998). Prediction of
pubertal children. International Journal of Obesity, 22(6),
Lagan Evans, C., Close, G., Morton, J. (2011). Making weight in combat sports. Strength and conditioning Journal, 33(6),
Loucks, A.B. (2004). Energy balance and body composition in sports and exercise. Journal of Sports Sciences, 22(1),
Matigka, J. (1921). The testing of physical efficiency. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 4, 223- 230.
Mendes, S.H., Tritto, A.C., Guilherme, J.P.L., Solis, M.Y., Vieira, D.E., Franchini, E., ... & Artioli, G.G. (2013). Effect of rapid weight loss on performance in combat sport male athletes: does adaptation to chronic weight cycling play a role? British Journal of Sports Medicine, 47(18),
Osipov A.Y., Kudryavtsev, M.D., Jagiełło, W., Iermakov, S.S., & Błach, W. (2020). Increasing of special physical fitness of the female athletes practicing sambo. Archives of Budo, 16,
Serporezyuk, S.D., & Chekhranov, Yu.V. (2014). Formation of basics of tactics of wrestling in standing position in junior sambo wrestling. Physical Culture: upbringing, education, workout, 2,
Shyamal, K., & Yadav, K.M. (2009). An association of handgrip strength with some anthropometric variables in Indian cricket players. Facta
Vardar, S., Tezel, S., Öztürk, L., & Kaya, O. (2007). The relationship between body composition and anaerobic performance of elite young wrestlers. Journal of Sport Science and Medicine, 6,
11
EQOL Journal (2021) 13(1):
How to cite this article:
APA: |
Slankamenac, J., Trivić, T., Jakšić, D., Drapšin, M., Lakićević, N., & Drid, P. |
|
(2021). Somatotypes and handgrip strength analysis of elite Serbian |
||
|
sambo athletes. Exercise and Quality of Life, 13(1), |
|
|
doi:10.31382/eqol.210601 |
|
MLA: |
Slankamenac, Jelena, et al. "Somatotypes and handgrip strength analysis of elite |
|
Serbian sambo athletes." Exercise and Quality of Life 13.1 (2021): |
||
|
||
|
Slankamenac, Jelena, Tatjana Trivić, Damjan Jakšić, Miodrag Drapšin, |
|
|
Nemanja Lakićević, and Patrik Drid. "Somatotypes and handgrip |
|
Chicago: |
strength analysis of elite Serbian sambo athletes." Exercise and |
|
|
Quality of Life 13, no. 1 (2021): |
12