 |
Publisher: Peytchinski Publishing Ltd.
ISSN: 1312-773X (Online)
Issue: 2020, vol. 26, issue1
Subject Area: Medicine
-
DOI: 10.5272/jimab.2020261.3005
Published online: 26 March 2020
Original article
J of IMAB. 2020 Jan-Mar;26(1):3005-3010
ANALYSIS OF ADOLESCENTS’ (11-14 YEARS OLD) SOMATOTYPE IN PLOVDIV, BULGARIA
Elena Merdzhanova
, Gergana Petrova 
, Valentina Lalova,
Department of Nursing, Faculty of Public Health, Medical University of Plovdiv, Bulgaria.
ABSTRACT:
Introduction: The somatotype is a method for complex evaluation of human body structure and shape on basis 10 anthropomorphic indexes.
Objective: The present analysis is part of the research of adolescents’ physical development at the age of 11 – 14 in Plovdiv and it aims to analyze and evaluate their somatotype depending on sex and age.
Materials and methods: a method for somatotype determination after The Heath -Carter method and mathematical-statistical methods have been applied (Pearson non-parametric test, dispersion analysis Oneway – ANOVA test). The results have been processed with SPSS Statistics v.19 program package.
Results: Somatotype changes for adolescents and for the 11 and 12 years old endomorphic somatotype is predominant, respectively 32 (40 %) and 34 (39.1 %). The greatest change in somatotype comes at the age of 14. The biggest share here is for ectomorphic 18 (48.6 %), and the smallest share is for endomorphic somatotype 6 (16.2 %). It has been established a statistically significant variance in both group age 11 – 12 and 13 – 14 somatotype, respectively for the boys (χ2 = 9.29; df = 2; p = 0.01), but there is no similar correlation for the girls (χ2 = 0.65; df = 2; p = 0.72).
Conclusion: The boys are more athletic especially for the age 13 – 14 years old in comparison to the girls where endomorphic somatotype is predominant for both age groups – they have more developed adipose tissue, but less developed muscle mass.
Keywords: somatotype, adolescents, physical development,
- Download FULL TEXT /PDF 4099 KB/
Please cite this article as: Merdzhanova E, Petrova G, Lalova V. Analysis of adolescents’ (11-14 years old) somatotype in Plovdiv, Bulgaria. J of IMAB. 2020 Jan-Mar;26(1):3005-3010.
DOI: 10.5272/jimab.2020261.3005
Correspondence to: Assoc. Prof. Gergana Petrova, PhD, Department of Nursing, Faculty of Public Health, Medical University – Plovdiv; 15, Vasil Aprilov blvd., 4002 Plovdiv, Bulgaria; E-mail: gkpg21@yahoo.com
REFERENCES:
1. Topuzov I. [Sport medicine and hygiene.] Blagoevgrad: South-West University “Neofit Rilski”-Blagoevgrad. 2007. 37p. [in Bulgarian].
2. Ferguson K, Cassells R, Macallister J, Evans GW. The physical environment and child development: An international review. International Journal of Psychology 2013 Jun 48;(4):437-468. [PubMed] [Crossref]
3. Tulyakova O, Chetverikova E, Cirkin V. [Features of somatic and neurological morbidity of children depending on the environmental situation in the place of residence.] Modern high technologies 2007; 8: 97-98. [in Russian] [Internet].
4. Bakieva N, Grebneva N. [Anthropic-physiological characteristic of children of preschool age.] Bulletin of Tyumen State University. Series: Medical and Biological Sciences 2011;6:116-122. [in Russian]
5. Dakenova K. [Anthropogenic influence of environmental factors on the composition of girls’ body mass in Almaty, Problems of modern human morphology.] Materials of the International Scientific-practical Conference dedicated to professor B. A. Nikituyka 80th anniversary, 2013; 9. [in Russian]
6. Petkov S, Toteva M, Maznev I, Dimitrova D. [Practically exercises on sports medicine.] Sofia: NSA. 2012. [in Bulgarian].
7. Slanchev P. [Sport medicine.] Sofia: New knowledge; 1998. [in Bulgarian].
8. Carter JE, Heath B. Somatotyping. Development and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1990.
9. Subramanian SK, Sharma VK, Rajendran R. Assessment of heart rate variability for different somatotype category among adolescents. J Basic Clin Physiol Pharmacol. 2018 Nov 13; 30 (3). [PubMed] [Crossref]
10. Nacheva A, Jecheva Y, Yankova I, Filcheva Z, Mitova Z, Yordanov Y. [Physical development of children and adolescents in Bulgaria between ХХ and ХХI century]. Sofia: Published by Prof. Marin Drinov, NSA 2012. [in Bulgarian].
11. Poliszczuk Т, Broda D. Somatic constitution and the ability to maintain dynamic body equilibrium in girls practicing rhythmic gymnastics. Pediatric Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism. 2010;16:2:94-99. [PubMed].
12.Lizana PA, Gonzalez S, Lera L, Leyton B. Association between body composition, somatotype and socioeconomic status in Chilean children and adolescents at different school levels. J Biosoc Sci. 2018 Jan;50(1):53-69. [PubMed] [Crossref].
13. El Ansari W, Dibba E, Labeeb S, Stock C. Body image concern and its corre-lates among male and female undergraduate students at Assuit University in Egypt. Glob J Health Sci. 2014 Sep; 6(5): 105–117. [PubMed] [Crossref]
14. Cocca A, Blanco JR, Perez JEP, Ramнrez JV. Actual, social and ideal body image in Mexican adolescents and their relation with body dissatisfaction: Gender differences. Retos. 2016;30:189-92.
15. Kiviruusu O, Konttinen H, Huurre T, Aro H, Marttunen M, Haukkala A. Self-es-teem and body mass index from adolescence to mid-adulthood. A 26-year follow-up. Int J Behav Med. 2016 Jun;23(3):355-63. [PubMed] [Crossref]
16. Kapczuk K. Elite athletes and pubertal delay. Minerva Pediatr. 2017 Oct;69(5):415-426. [PubMed] [Crossref].
Received: 10 May 2019
Published online: 26 March 2020