The impact of skinfolds measurement on somatotype determination in Heath-Carter method

PLoS One. 2019 Sep 6;14(9):e0222100. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0222100. eCollection 2019.

Abstract

Objectives: The study aim was to determine if a difference exists in skinfold thickness measured by two interchangeable approaches; (1) supraspinale skinfold recommended in the Heath-Carter method and (2) iliac crest skinfold measurement. The question arises as to whether each approach has a similar or different effect on endomorphy determination, and whether there is a possibility to estimate the supraspinale skinfold based on other skinfold measurements.

Methods: A group of 186 male and 161 female students participated in this study. Anthropometric examination included all somatic measurements, as recommended in the Heath-Carter protocol, and the iliac crest skinfold measurement. Estimation of the supraspinale skinfold was performed based on the multiple linear regression procedure.

Results: Skinfold thickness measured in the supraspinale and iliac crest differed (p<0.001) in both men (5.41±1.65 mm and 9.55±4.05 mm, respectively) and women (8.87±4.08 mm and 15.20±6.85 mm), respectively. Endomorphy was significantly higher (0.46 in men, 0.63 in women) when the iliac crest skinfold was used. Subscapular skinfold and iliac crest skinfolds were included in the linear regression model for supraspinale skinfold estimation (R2 = 0.724, SE = 0.9 mm and R2 = 0.947, SE = 2.3 mm for men and women, respectively).

Conclusion: Two common skinfold approaches produced different measurements between the supraspinale and iliac crest skinfolds, which subsequently affected estimated endomorphy. Regression equations for supraspinale skinfold enabled correction of endomorphy in the case of improperly applied measurement (i.e. iliac crest) and thus, could allow for uniform somatotype estimation according to Carter and Heath approach.

MeSH terms

  • Female
  • Humans
  • Male
  • Skinfold Thickness*
  • Somatotypes*
  • Young Adult

Grants and funding

The authors received no specific funding for this work.