Anthropometric Profile of Powerlifters: Differences As A Function of Bodyweight Class and Competitive Success

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/271331626
Anthropometric proﬁle of powerlifters: Differences as a function of

bodyweight class and competitive success
Article in The Journal of sports medicine and physical fitness · January 2015

Source: PubMed
CITATIONS READS
18 1,737
2 authors:
Marcos Lovera Justin W L Keogh
1 PUBLICATION 18 CITATIONS
Bond University
306 PUBLICATIONS 5,336 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Application of stiffness variables in sports practice and injury prevention View project
Muscling-up against disability in older adults with home care packages – Implementing an evidence-based progressive resistance training service model of care View
project
All content following this page was uploaded by Justin W L Keogh on 06 February 2015.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

1
2
3
4 The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness
5
6
7
8
10 ========================================================
11
12
13
14 Title: THE ANTHROPOMETRIC PROFILE OF POWERLIFTERS: DIFFERENCES AS A FUNCTION OF
15 BODYWEIGHT CLASS AND COMPETITIVE SUCCESS
16 Paper code: J Sports Med Phys Fitness-4696
17
18 Submission Date: 2013-06-24 18:59:05
19 Article Type: Original Article
20
21
22
23 Files:
24 1): Reply letter to comments on the manuscript
25 Version: 1
26
27 File format: application/msword
28
29 2): Manuscript
30 Version: 3
PY
31
32 Description: Original manuscript
34
35 3): Tables 2
O
36
37 Version: 1
A
38 Description: Table I,Table II, Table III, Table IV, Table V
C
IC
40
41
ED
42 4): Figures 1
W
43 Version: 1
44 Description: Figure1, Figure2, Figure3, Figure 4, Figure5
M
E E
46
VA
47
48
IN I
49
EV
R
50
51
52
53
54
R
55
IM
56
57
58
ER
N
59
O
60
61
I
62
IZ
63
PE
64
ED
65
66
67
68
69
70
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
Page 1 of 36
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
18th November 2013
13
14
15
16 Prof Alberto Oliaro,
17
18 PhD Editor in Chief
19
21
22
23 Edizioni Minerva Medica
24
25 Corso Bramante 83-85
26
27 10126 Torino, Italy
28
29 Phone +39-011-678282, fax +39-011-674502
30
PY
31
32
33
34
35
O
36 Title: J Sports Med Phys Fitness -4696- THE ANTHROPOMETRIC PROFILE
37
A
38 OF POWERLIFTERS: DIFFERENCES AS A FUNCTION OF
C
39
IC
40
41 BODYWEIGHT CLASS AND COMPETITIVE SUCCESS
ED
42
W
43
44
M
45 Authors: Lovera & Keogh
E E
46
VA
47
48
IN I
49
EV
R
50
51
52 Dear Professor Oliaro,
53
54
R
55
IM
56 We wish to thank the Reviewers for their thoughtful comments on our submitted
57
58
ER
N
59
manuscript. Underneath each of the Reviewer’s comments we have attached our replies.
O
60
61 Within the revised manuscript, we have also highlighted the altered sections in yellow.
I
62
IZ
63 This has been done to highlight the changes to the revised manuscript or to the areas
PE
64
ED
65 which we believed the reviewer(s) may have missed in the original submission. We hope
66
67 that this will assist the reviewers and the editor in their re-examination of this manuscript.
68
69
70
81
82
83
84 Thanks
85
86 Marcos Lovera.
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
Page 2 of 36
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11 General comment (originality, scientific accuracy, strengths and/or
12
13
14 weaknesses):
15
16 The paper is original and the authors have done a nice job with reporting the data
17
18 accurately without "selling" it either way. The sample size has a small N, however, the
19
20 did acknowledge the limitations well. Would like to have seen 1st, 2nd, 3rd place versus
21
22
23 the rest or 1st and 2nd vs. the rest. This may have shown different findings.
24
25
26
27 Good paper with some corrections needed. Study is of medium priority to publish.
28
29
30
PY
31
32 Response: First of all we are grateful about the positive comments you have given. We
33
34 have tried to address your comments to increase the impact of the paper in relation to
35
O
36 talent identification, coaching as well as the understanding of the relationship between
37
A
38 anthropometry and strength and how this might apply to other aspects of exercise and
C
39
IC
40
41 sports science. In relation to your comments, we have tried to adjust all what it has been
ED
42
W
43 specified. We acknowledge the small “n” of 1 in the winners group of each bodyweight
44
M
45 class as a potential limitation of the study. As a result, we have recalculated the results
E E
46
VA
47 based on this suggested approach. When we initially compared the “top 2” vs “bottom 2”
48
IN I
49
EV
in each class, we found (as was to be expected) that the averages of both groups were a
R
50
51
52 bit closer each other and therefore that we saw a tendency for less significant effects.
53
54 This was magnified when we did “top 3” vs “bottom 3”. The other issue with this
R
55
IM
56 approach was that in some groups in which the number of participants was < 4, that an
57
58
ER
N
59
athlete could be included in both the top and bottom groups. As such, we request the
O
60
61 reviewer to be satisfied with the initial way that we presented the data in the initial
I
62
IZ
63 manuscript.
PE
64
ED
65
66
67
68
69
70 Major corrections (main criticisms):
81
82
83
84 1. In the Abstract; in the results section, the value for proportional muscle mass needs to
85
86 be reported.
87
88
89
90
91 Response: We have changed this in the abstract as suggested. (53.9 ± 2.2%).
92
93
94
95
Page 3 of 36
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11 2. Introduction is very wordy, find a way to shorten it and get to the point faster.
12
13
14
15
16 Response: We have attempted to improve this as suggested.
17
18
19
20 3. It is important to state whether these athletes are using gear (shirts, suits, wraps, etc..)
21
22
23 or not. And if they are, what they are using. These tools can often change the
24
25 biomechanics of each lift.
26
27
28
29 Response: We agree with that and we have now written this detail in the subject section
30
PY
31
32 of Methods as you request.
33
34
35
O
36 4. In the subject’s section the lifter’s ages and amount of years lifting were left out. Both
37
A
38 could have significant implications to the results.
C
39
IC
40
41
ED
42
W
43 Response: We acknowledge this point and have now added this data into the table 1. Here
44
M
45 it is in a short table for presenting the information.
E E
46
Table 6. Amount of year of experience in
VA
47
48
IN I
weight lifting by categories of competition.

49
EV
R
50 Categories Years lifting

51
52 56 1.8 ± 1.8
53 60 8.4 ± 15.1
54
R
67.5 5.7 ± 3.8

55
IM
56 75 10.5 ± 10.0
57 82.5 9.5 ± 10.3
58
ER
N
59 90 10.5 ± 7.8
O
60 100 11.0 ± 9.7

61 110 20.0 ± 19.8
I
62
IZ
63 125 8.0 ± 2.0

PE
64 13.2 ± 8.5
ED
.+125
65
66
67 Winners 10.8 ± 6.2
68 Non-Winners 9.3 ± 10.0
69
70
81
82 5. Are these lifters steroid free?
83
84
85
86 Response: The International Powerlifting Federation (IPF) has adopted and implemented
87
88
89 the WADA regulation. Worldwide doping controls are carried out in accordance with the
90
91 World AntiDoping Code and the International Standard for Testing, developed by
92
93 WADA in consultation with its stakeholders. Athletes who compete at the international
94
95
Page 4 of 36
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11 and national level may be tested anytime, anywhere. The test can be conducted at a
12
13
14 competition or away from a competition situation, such as at an athlete's home or training
15
16 venue, with no advance notice. Therefore, we feel that most of the lifters were steroid
17
18 free at the time of the competition, but obviously we can’t be 100% sure.
19
20
21
22
23 6. There is mention of a “ 12 week build-up involving three-four specific powerlifting
24
25 training sessions per week for this competition ”. Was this the same for all of the
26
27 athletes? This would include volume (intensity x sets) , amount of training sessions, time
28
29 during the day, etc…
30
PY
31
32
33
34 Response: Not all powerlifters or athletes in any other sport have identical training
35
O
36 programs even if they are trying to achieve the same competitive goal. This statement in
37
A
38 the initial manuscript reflected a general group average of the group data obtained from
C
39
IC
40
41 the participants whereby most lifters had a specific pre-competition training phase of 12
ED
42
W
43 weeks leading into this competition.
44
M
45
E E
46
VA
47 7. Describe how a Wilks score is determined. It is different than simply making the total
48
IN I
49
EV
weight relative to the body weight.

R
50
51
52
53
54 Response: The Wilks score is a validated measure of powerlifting strength used by the
R
55
IM
56 IPF (International Powerlifting Federation) in all competitions to normalize lifters

57
58
ER
N
59
independently of their body weights in an attempt of having the “pound for pound”
O
60
61 strongest lifter (1) . It is a more complicated approach than simply dividing through by
I
62
IZ
63 body mass and takes into account the tendency for lifters of smaller-moderate body mass
PE
64
ED
65 to have the greatest relative strength (kg lifted / kg body mass). Other powerlifting
66
67 federations use other scores to determine their overall winners such as the Schwartz and
68
69
70 Malone formulas so to achieve the same goal of determining the best overall lifter.
81
82
83
84 Minor corrections (page, paragraph, line where the author must make the
85
86 corrections):
87
88
89
90
91 1. In the results section of the abstract, line 65 starting with “Most of these
92
93 characteristics” need to be reworded and can easily be blended with the following
94
95
Page 5 of 36
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11 sentence.
12
13
14
15
16 Response: It has been reworded as suggest clarifying the idea.
17
18
19
20 2. On page 3, 18 starting with “this method…” seems to repeat itself.
21
22
23
24
25 Response: It has been reworded as suggest.
26
27
28
29 3. The Whole second paragraph in the introduction section may not be needed. It is
30
PY
31
32 definitely not needed to be known that these techniques are used in different training
33
34 programs.
35
O
36
37
A
38 Response: It has been deleted as suggested.
C
39
IC
40
41
ED
42
W
43 4. The sentence in line 42 on page 4, starting with “like Olympic weight lifters…” needs
44
M
45 to be reworded. It is too wordy and has a hard time conveying the point trying to be
E E
46
VA
47 given.
48
IN I
49
EV
R
50
51
52 Response: It has been rewritten as suggested.
53
54
R
55
IM
56 5. Line 54 on page 4, starting with “Nevertheless, the astute….” this sentence can be
57
58
ER
N
59
removed or reworded. This article is not written to evaluate coaching.
O
60
61
I
62
IZ
63 Response: It has been rephrased as suggested.

PE
64
ED
65
66
67 6. The sentence starting on line 13 on page 7 starting with “all anthropometric
68
69
70 measures…” is very confusing.
81
82
83
84 Response: It has been rephrasing as suggest simplifying the idea.
85
86
87
88
89 7. On page 7 line 34, in the sentence starting with “lengths… ” lengths of what? Body
90
91 segments?
92
93
94
95
Page 6 of 36
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11 Response: It has been rephrased as suggest adding “body segmented lengths”.
12
13
14
15
16 8. On page 7 line 47, in the sentence starting with “these tools….” This sentence is not
17
18 needed. It should be reworked into the paragraph or removed.
19
20
21
22
24
25
26
27 9. On page 12 line 48, the sentence starting with “Such results appear” needs to be
28
29 removed or reworded, and mention of osteoporosis needs to be removed. This study does
30
PY
31
32 not focus on future problems of powerlifters.
33
34
35
O
37
A
38
C
39
IC
40
41 10. It should be noted earlier in the paper that the winners are based on their total of all
ED
42
W
43 three lifts, and not on their performance in individual lifts.
44
M
45
E E
46
VA
47 Response: It has been adding in the method section giving note how winners were
48
IN I
49
EV
selected by their total score.

R
50
51
52
53
54 Discretionary Revisions
R
55
IM
56
57
58
ER
N
59
1. On page 13, in line 13 The actual numbers are needed when talking about the
O
60
61 differences between the two groups for each of the criteria that they were differing in.
I
62
IZ
63
PE
64
ED
65 Response: It has been added and completed as suggested.

66
67
68
69
70 References
81
82 1. Vanderburgh, P.M. and A.M. Batterham. Validation of the Wilks powerlifting
83 formula. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 31:1869-1875. 1999.
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
Page 7 of 36
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13 THE ANTHROPOMETRIC PROFILE OF POWERLIFTERS: DIFFERENCES AS
14
15 A FUNCTION OF BODYWEIGHT CLASS AND COMPETITIVE SUCCESS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23 M. Lovera,1 J. Keogh2,3,4
24
25
26
27
28
29
30 1
University of San Martin, Institute of Rehabilitation and Movement Sciences, Argentina.
PY
31
32
33 2
34 Bond University Research Centre for Health, Exercise and Sports Sciences, Faculty of
35
O
36
37 Health Sciences and Medicine, Bond University, Australia
A
38
C
39
IC
40 3
41 Sports Performance Research Centre New Zealand, AUT University, Auckland, New
ED
42
W
43
44 Zealand M
45
E E
46
VA
47 4
48 Cluster for Health Improvement, Faculty of Science, Health, Education and Engineering,
IN I
49
EV
R
50
51 University of the Sunshine Coast, Australia
52
53
54
R
55
IM
56
57
58
ER
N
59
O
60
61
I
62
IZ
63
Acknowledgements: The authors would like to acknowledge the support of José Luis
PE
64
ED
65 Inguanti, the President of the Argentine Powerlifting Federation who supported the idea of
66
67
68 the project and allowed us work positively into the tournament. Also to all competitors
69
70
81 from the Argentine Championship who voluntarily participated in this project. And as well
82
83
84 as the participating anthropometrists who worked professionally in the evaluation process.
85
86
87
88
89
90
91 Corresponding author:
92
93
94
95
Page | 1
Page 8 of 36
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13 M. Lovera,
14
15
16 Institute of Rehabilitation and Movement Sciences
17
18
19 University of San Martin,
20
21 Roca 425,
22
23
24 Zip Code (1663), San Miguel, Buenos Aires, Argentina,
25
26
27 E-mail: [email protected]
28
29
30
PY
31
32
33
34
35
O
36
37
A
38
C
39
IC
40
41
ED
42 Abstract
W
43
44
M
45
E E
46 Aim. This study sought to better understand the relationship between anthropometric profile
VA
47
48
IN I
49 and maximal strength, as assessed in the sport of powerlifting as relatively little research
EV
R
50
51
52 has examined how differences in anthropometry may contribute to bodyweight-related
53
54
R
55 differences in performance or between more and less successful lifters in the same
IM
56
57
58 bodyweight class.
ER
N
59
O
60
61
I
62 Methods. To address this aim, 63 male powerlifters from an Argentine National

IZ
63
PE
64
ED
65 Tournament were assessed for 31 anthropometric variables taken using ISAK (International
66
67
68 Society for the Advancement of Kinanthropometry) protocols. Body fractionation (adipose,
69
70
81 muscle, bone, residual and skin tissue masses) was determined using the validated Kerr &
82
83
84 Ross five way fractionation model of body composition that has yet to be used with
85
86
87 powerlifters.
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
Page | 2
Page 9 of 36
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13 Results. Results indicated that the powerlifters showed very elevated values of
14
15
16 mesomorphy, muscle girths, muscle mass, bone breadths, and all this accompanied by a
17
18
19 medium to low stature. Most of these characteristics were more pronounced in the heavier
20
21
22 divisions. The winners had significantly larger proportional muscle mass (53.9 ± 2.2%),
23
24
25 muscle to bone mass ratio (5.3 ±1.0) and crural index (1.21 ±0.12) than the non-winners.
26
27
28 Conclusion. These comparisons reveal some potential key anthropometric determinants of
29
30
PY
31 high level powerlifting performance. These results further support the view that while
32
33
34 powerlifters have unique anthropometric profiles, more successful powerlifters typically
35
O
36
37 have higher degrees of muscle mass expressed per unit height and/or bone mass but similar
A
38
C
39
IC
40 segment lengths and segment length ratios to their less successful peers.
41
ED
42
W
43
44
M
45
E E
46
VA
47
48
IN I
49
EV
R
50
51
52 Keywords: powerlifting, anthropometry, ISAK, body composition, proportionality.
53
54
R
55
IM
56
57
58
ER
N
59
O
60
61
I
62
IZ
63
PE
64
ED
65
66
67
68
69
70
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
Page | 3
Page 10 of 36
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13 INTRODUCTION
14
15
16
17 Kinanthropometry is a discipline which uses a variety of direct measures such as skinfolds,
18
19
20 muscular girths, bony breadths and segment lengths to indirectly determine body
21
22
23 composition, proportions and somatotype in order to gain insight into the determinants of
24
25 1
26 sports performance . Regular kinanthropometric profiling can be useful for talent
27
28
29 identification and monitoring of training and nutritional strategies. One of the more
30
PY
31
32 advanced methods used by International Society for the Advancement of Kinanthropometry
33
34
35 (ISAK) practitioners is the five-way fractionation model of body composition 2, 3. The five-
O
36
37
way model provides data on components of lean body mass, muscle, and bone; is based on
A
38
C
39
IC
40
41 mathematical equations instead of multiple-regression equations and considers the
ED
42
W
43
44 dimensionality of tissues. This method has therefore been proposed to be more accurate
M
45
E E
46
than other models 4, especially when assessing larger athletes 5-7
. Otherwise, the five-way
VA
47
48
IN I
49
EV
model has only been applied to a few sport studies, and only one of these studies has used it
R
50
51
52
53 on relatively large muscular rugby players 4.
54
R
55
IM
56
57
58
ER
N
59
O
60
61 Research suggests that the anthropometric characteristics of powerlifters contribute to their
I
62
IZ
63
PE
5, 7-10
64 impressive displays of strength . Specifically, powerlifters have been shown to be
ED
65
66
67 highly mesomorphic, have large girths and bony breadths and relatively short segment
68
69 5, 7, 11, 12
70 lengths . High levels of mesomorphy, muscle mass, girths and/or cross-sectional
81
82
83 area aid powerlifting performance by increasing the muscular force and torque potential of
84
85 9, 10 13
86 the lifter . Like Olympic weightlifters , having short limbs may enhance the
87
88
89 performance of these powerlifts (particularly in the squat and bench press). This is due to
90
91
92
93
94
95
Page | 4
Page 11 of 36
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13 the tendency for shorter limbs to decrease the distance the bar has to be lifted and hence the
14
15
16 amount of muscular work performed, and to improve the mechanical advantage by
17
18
19 reducing the resistance moment arms. Nevertheless, it should be recognised that limb
20
21
22 proportions that are disadvantageous for one of the powerlifts e.g. bench press can be
23
24
25 advantageous for another lift e.g. deadlift 5.
26
27
28
29
30
PY
31
32
33 A small number of studies describing the powerlifting anthropometric profile have grouped
34
35
O
36 athletes into somewhat arbitrarily defined light, middle and heavy weight classes 7, 10 in an
37
A
38
C
39 attempt to determine the effect of body mass on powerlifters’ anthropometry and
IC
40
41
ED
42 performance. However, no study has yet presented anthropometric data for athletes across
W
43
44
M
45 all the weight classes during a competition. Normative anthropometric data for each
E E
46
VA
47
48 bodyweight class would assist all involved in talent identification and coaching in
IN I
49
EV
R
50
51 powerlifting. Further, relatively little research has examined anthropometric differences
52
53
54 between powerlifters of varying levels of performance 5. Keogh et al. 5 found that a group
R
55
IM
56
57 of stronger lifters (Wilks score > 410), had significantly more muscle mass and larger girths
58
ER
N
59
(in both absolute and Phantom-normalized terms) than a weaker group (Wilks score < 370).
O
60
61
I
62
IZ
63 However, no studies have yet compared the anthropometric profile of class winners to non-
PE
64
ED
65
66 winners during competition. Such an analysis may provide further insights into the
67
68
69 anthropometric determinants of powerlifting performance.
70
81
82
83
84
85 Therefore, the two objectives of this study are: First, to describe the anthropometric
86
87
88 characteristics of each man’s body weight class in the Powerlifting Argentine National
89
90
91 Tournament population. Second, to compare the winners of each bodyweight class to all
92
93
94
95
Page | 5
Page 12 of 36
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13 other competitors in their class in an attempt to gain further insight into the anthropometric
14
15
16 determinants of success in powerlifting. By using the five-compartment model in these
17
18
19 analyses, we hope to demonstrate the improved accuracy of this approach over that used in
20
21
22 previous anthropometric research of large, muscular athletes such as powerlifters. Such
23
24
25 data may be of interest to athletes and coaches and of general interest to those in the field of
26
27
28 strength and conditioning, sports nutrition and talent identification.
29
30
PY
31
32
33
34
35
O
36 MATERIALS AND METHODS
37
A
38
C
39
IC
40 Experimental Approach to the Problem
41
ED
42
W
43
44 The present study used a cross-sectional design to compare the anthropometric
M
45
E E
46
characteristics of nationally-ranked male powerlifters: 1) across all weight classes; and 2)
VA
47
48
IN I
49
EV
R
50 winners and non-winners of each weight class in order to gain further insight into the
51
52
53 importance of anthropometric profile in powerlifting performance. Dependent
54
R
55
IM
56 anthropometric measures spanned body composition, muscular girths, bone breadths and
57
58
ER
N
59 segment lengths variables, with most of these expressed in absolute and proportional terms.
O
60
61
I
62 Student T-tests were used to identify any significant differences between the winners and
IZ
63
PE
64
ED
65 non-winner groups.
66
67
68
69
70
81
82
83 Subjects
84
85
86
87 The subjects included in this study were 63 male volunteers out of 90 competitors from an
88
89
90 Argentine National Powerlifting Tournament. Within these 63 subjects, 8 winners of the 10
91
92
93
94
95
Page | 6
Page 13 of 36
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13 body weight divisions were included, the only exceptions being the winners of the <82.5 kg
14
15
16 and <125 kg classes who did not wish to participate in this study. As all the participants
17
18
19 were assessed at the National championships, they had typically all completed a specific
20
21
22 ~12 week build-up involving three-four specific powerlifting training sessions per week for
23
24 14
25 this competition. Like their British counterparts , many of the Argentinian lifters would
26
27
28 have utilized similar training techniques and periodization structures, however no two
29
30
PY
31 athletes would have likely used the exact training program during this time.This
32
33
34 competition was the primary competition or one of two primary competitions for each
35
O
36
37 athlete that calendar year. During competition, all lifters used approved lifting equipment
A
38
C
39
IC
40 including squat and deadlift suits, bench press shirts, knee wraps and wrist wraps in
41
ED
42
W
43 accordance with International Powerlifting Federation (IPF) regulations. Regarding the
44
M
45
AntiDoping test, the IPF has adopted and implemented the WADA regulation. Worldwide
E E
46
VA
47
48
IN I
49 doping controls are carried out in accordance with the World AntiDoping Code and the
EV
R
50
51
52 International Standard for Testing, developed by WADA in consultation with its
53
54
R
55 stakeholders.
IM
56
57
58
ER
N
59 Procedure
O
60
61
I
62
IZ
63 The anthropometric evaluation was carried out by ten Level 2 and 3 International Society
PE
64
ED
65
66 for the Advancement of Kinanthropometry (ISAK) anthropometrists utilizing standard
67
68
69 ISAK (International Society for the Advancement of Kinanthropometry, 2001) protocols.
70
81
82 All volunteers signed an informed consent form. The form was approved by the
83
84
85 Argentinean powerlifting federation authorities and oversaw by the University of San
86
87
88 Martin Ethics Committee who approved the study. The anthropometric measures assessed
89
90
91 were weight, stature, sitting height, arm span, segment lengths, bone breadths, muscle
92
93
94
95
Page | 7
Page 14 of 36
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13 girths and skinfolds. These assessments were performed 2 hours before the start of the
14
15
16 competition at the IPF official weight-in. Body weight was evaluated with a CAM weigh
17
18
19 machine (C.A.M, SRL, Buenos Aires). Stature and sitting height were assessed with wall-
20
21
22 mounted stadiometers (Rosscraft SRL, Buenos Aires), 50 cm high wooden boxes and a 90º
23
24
25 angle square which was set on the subjects’ head. The arm span was assessed with a
26
27
28 millimetred Rosscraft horizontal stadiometer. Body segment lengths were assessed using a
29
30
PY
31 Rosscraft segmometer. Campbell 20 calipers were used to assess large bone breadths and
32
33
34 Campbell 10 calipers for small bone breadths. Girths were assessed using metallic non-
35
O
36
37 extendible tapes (Lufkin w606pm and Rosscraft, Canada). Skinfolds were assessed using a
A
38
C
39
IC
40 Harpenden caliper (Batty, UK).
41
ED
42
W
43
44
M
45
E E
46
VA
47
48 Body composition was calculated with the five-way fractionation model. This method
IN I
49
EV
R
50
51 divides the body mass into 5 anatomically defined components, adipose, muscle, bone,
52
53 2, 3
54 residual and skin tissue masses . In addition, the difference between the ‘‘structured
R
55
IM
56
57 body mass’’ which is defined as the sum of the mass of these 5 separate components and
58
ER
N
59
the recorded body weight on the scale expressed as a percentage of body mass to provide
O
60
61
I
62
IZ
63 information on the percentage error of the model. The Health-Carter model 15 was used for
PE
64
ED
65
66 Somatotyping analysis, estimated by the anthropometric method. Proportionality was
67
68 1, 16, 17
69 evaluated through the Phantom stratagem , with the Phantom z-score data expressed
70
81
82 as group means and standard errors of the mean. Through the Phantom stratagem all
83
84
85 variables were first adjusted to the Phantom height of 170.18 cm and then transformed the
86
87
88 new values into z-scores allowing a proportional and more accurate comparison among
89
90
91 people of deferent heights. A number of derived indices were also calculated; the BMI
92
93
94
95
Page | 8
Page 15 of 36
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13 (body mass index) in kg · m-2; sum of 6 skinfolds in mm (∑ 6 skf.); muscle-to-bone ratio as
14
15
16 kg muscle · kg bone -1; cormic index as cm sitting height · cm stature -1
in percentage;
17
18 -1
19 brachial index as cm radiale-stylion length · cm acromiale-radiale length in percentage;
20
21
22 and crural index as cm tibiale laterale height · cm trochanterion-tibiale laterale length-1 in
23
24
25 percentage. The results obtained in the competition were taken for each competitor from the
26
27
28 original electronic record of the competition results. Winners within each bodyweight class
29
30
PY
31 are based on their total score obtained from the sum of their best three lifts. The overall
32
33
34 winner of the competition is decided by each lifters’ Wilks score which is a validated
35
O
36
37 system used by the IPF to normalize strength across the bodyweight classes18.
A
38
C
39
IC
40
41
ED
42
W
43
44 Statistics
M
45
E E
46
Data is presented for each of the bodyweight classes as means and standard deviations
VA
47
48
IN I
49
EV
(mean ± sd). The reliability of all measures was high, with all anthropometric variables
R
50
51
52
53 having intraclass correlations greater than 0.90 and the technical error of measurement was
54
R
55
IM
56 found to be less than 2% for all skinfolds and less than 1% for all bone breadths and limb
57
58
ER
N
59 girths and lengths. D’Agostino-Pearson tests for normal distribution were made for the
O
60
61
I
62 whole sample and for each weight class of competition, accepting normality in all breadths,
IZ
63
PE
64
ED
65 lengths, girths and almost all basic assessments excluding weight. Proportional differences
66
67 1, 17
68 between groups were realized by the Phantom method and compared through Z-score .
69
70
81 Differences in the means for the winners and non-winners groups were estimated by a
82
83
84 student T-test with statistical significance set at P< 0.05. All statistics were calculated
85
86
87 using SPSS (version 15.0, USA) and the Med Calc (version 9.5.2.0).
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
Page | 9
Page 16 of 36
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16 RESULTS
17
18
19 Descriptive characteristics of powerlifters sample.
20
21
22 No significant difference in age (Winners: 30.7 ± 6.8 years vs Non-Winners: 33.6 ± 14.9
23
24
25 years) or training experience (Winners: 10.8 ± 6.2 years vs Non-Winners: 9.3 ± 10.0 years)
26
27
28 was found between the winners and non-winners. Table 1 presents information on the
29
30
PY
31 amount of years of training experience and the results obtained in the competition. In
32
33
34 general, the weight lifted across the three exercises by the competitors increased with
35
O
36
37 bodyweight class.
A
38
C
39
IC
40
41
ED
42
W
43
44
M
45 Insert table I about here
E E
46
VA
47
48
IN I
49
EV
R
50
51
52
53 Table 2-4 provide details on the anthropometric profile of the different weight classes.
54
R
55
IM
56 Specifically, Table 2 contains general demographic and absolute anthropometric variables

57
58
ER
N
59 such as height, mass, segment lengths and bony breadths data. Table 3 presents data for
O
60
61
I
62 absolute girths and skinfolds, whereas Table 4 provides information on body segment ratio
IZ
63
PE
64
ED
65 indexes and body fractionation. In general, most of the absolute anthropometric

66
67
68 characteristics such as muscle mass, skinfolds, muscle girths, bony breadths and
69
70
81 somatotype tended to increase with bodyweight.
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89 Insert Tables 2-4 about here
90
91
92
93
94
95
Page | 10
Page 17 of 36
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17 Figure 1 illustrates the mean somatotypes for each bodyweight class and a comparison of
18
19
20 the winners and non-winners. It is apparent that all sub-groups showed a meso-endomorph
21
22
23 tendency.
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
PY
31 Insert Figure 1 about here
32
33
34
35 Figure 1. Somatoplot by categories of competition.
O
36
37
A
38
C
39
IC
40
41
ED
42
W
43 Differences between the winner group and the rest of the powerlifters.
44
M
45
E E
46
VA
47 Table 5 presents the comparison between the group of winners and the non-winners (rest of
48
IN I
49
EV
R
50 the lifters) in body composition, BMI, muscle to bone ratio, sitting height/stature, brachial
51
52
53 and crural indexes, as well as their competition results. The winners’ group had a
54
R
55
IM
56 significantly greater percentage of muscle mass (+ 2.7%, P= 0.0337), muscle-to-bone ratio

57
58
ER
N
59 (+0.6, P=0.0363) and crural index (+0.10, P=0.0427) than the non-winners. The winners
O
60
61
I
62 had significantly greater squat and bench press strength (+54 kg, P=0.0137 and +40 kg,
IZ
63
PE
64
ED
65 P=0.0142 respectively), and a non-significant tendency for greater dead lift strength (+33.7
66
67
68 kg, P=0.0640).
69
70
81
82
83
84
85
86 Insert Table 5 about here
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
Page | 11
Page 18 of 36
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13 Figures 2-5 displays the differences between the powerlifters who won their bodyweight
14
15
16 class (Winners) compared to the non-winners via their Z phantom scores 17. No significant
17
18
19 differences were observed in any of these proportional variables, although there was a non-
20
21
22 significant trend for the winners to have a superior flexed arm girth (P=0.0555) and tibiale
23
24
25 laterale (P=0.0965) length.
26
27
28
29
30
PY
31
32
33 Insert Figures 2-5 about here.
34
35
O
36
37 Figure 2. Comparison of the segment Lengths of the Winners and the Non-winners
A
38
C
39
IC
40 powerlifters through the phantom (mean ± standard error).
41
ED
42
W
43
44 Figure 3. Comparison of the Breadths of the Winners and the Non-winners powerlifters
M
45
E E
46
through the phantom (mean ± standard error). A-P chest deph = anterior – posterior chest
VA
47
48
IN I
49
EV
R
50 deph.
51
52
53
54 Figure 4. Comparison of the Girths of the Winners and the Non-winners powerlifters
R
55
IM
56
57 through the phantom (mean ± standard error).
58
ER
N
59
O
60
61 Figure 5. Comparison of the Skinfolds of the Winners and the Non-winners powerlifters
I
62
IZ
63
PE
64 through the phantom (mean ± standard error).

ED
65
66
67
68
69
70
81
82
83
84
85
86 DISCUSSION
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
Page | 12
Page 19 of 36
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13 The results of the present study add to our understanding of the role of anthropometric
14
15
16 characteristics in maximal strength performance by providing some normative powerlifting
17
18
19 data for different bodyweight classes and by describing the differences in the
20
21
22 anthropometric profile of winners of each weight class vs non-winners. As this was the first
23
24
25 study to use the five-way body fractionation model with powerlifters, the results of this
26
27
28 study also have methodological implications for the assessment of these anthropometric
29
30
PY
31 qualities, especially for large muscular athletes.
32
33
34
35
O
36
37
A
38
C
39 Although based on somewhat small sample sizes per weightclass, the results of the weight
IC
40
41
ED
42 class comparison provided some interesting trends. The muscle, bone and adipose masses
W
43
44
M
45 increased on average by 4.7 kg, 0.6 kg and 1.7 kg, respectively between bodyweight
E E
46
VA
47
48 divisions. The amount of muscle mass demonstrated by the powerlifters of the highest
IN I
49
EV
R
50
51 divisions was very impressive, with values between 60 and 70 kg common. The bone mass
52
53
54 values of the heaviest divisions (-125 and +125 kg) were also very high, averaging 12.5 ±
R
55
IM
56
57 0.7 kg with Z-phantom scores of 1.78, indicating that such athletes were almost two
58
ER
N
59
standard deviations above the mean for their height adjusted bone mass. An analysis of the
O
60
61
I
62
IZ
63 muscle to bone ratio was also conducted to determine if the greater muscle mass of the
PE
64
ED
65
66 heavyweight lifters was merely a result of their increased bone mass, as has been suggested
67
68
69 previously 19, 20. However, results indicated a substantially greater muscle to bone ratio for
70
81
82 the heavier than lighter lifters. This result would appear consistent with the increase in
83
84
85 mesomorphy observed for the heavyweight lifters, reflecting their greater ability to
86
87
88 accumulate muscle mass per unit of height or bone mass than the lighter lifters.
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
Page | 13
Page 20 of 36
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17 Results of the present study revealed that the winners had a significantly greater muscle
18
19
20 mass, muscle to bone ratio and crural index than the non-winners. In contrast,
21
22
23 proportionality comparisons via the Phantom showed no significant differences between the
24
25
26 winners and non-winners. As this might have reflected a lack of statistical power due to the
27
28
29 small sample size of winners (n=8), an inspection of non-significant trends (0.0500 < p <
30
PY
31
32 0.1000) was also performed. These non-significant trends also included the potential that
33
34
35 the winners may have had greater flexed arm girth as well as tibiale laterale length. Such
O
36
37 5
results therefore appear quite consistent with Keogh et al. who found that stronger
A
38
C
39
IC
40
41 powerlifters had bigger girths per unit height and greater muscle mass than weaker
ED
42
W
43
44 powerlifters, but that relatively few differences in segment lengths, either in absolute or
M
45
E E
46 5
relative terms were apparent. The results of the present study and that of Keogh et al.
VA
47
48
IN I
49
EV
therefore suggest that the ability to accumulate large amounts of muscle mass per unit
R
50
51
52
53 height is crucial for powerlifting success and that between-athlete differences in segment
54
R
55
IM
56 length proportions do not play a substantial role in differentiating the performance (overall
57
58
ER
N
59 total) of national level powerlifters. The lack of differences in segment lengths found in the
O
60
61 19-21
I
62 current study appears somewhat in contrast to earlier studies where significant

IZ
63
PE
64
ED
65 correlations were reported between segment lengths and strength in the three separate
66
67
68 powerlifts. This potential discrepancy may reflect a number of factors. For example, it may
69
70
81 reflect the relative lack of lifting experience and strength and heterogeneity of body mass
82
83
84 and height in these other studies compared to those recruited in the current study and that of
85
86
87 Keogh et al. 5. Further, the significant correlations between segment lengths and strength
88
89
90 reported in these other studies were typically reported for the three specific lifts rather than
91
92
93
94
95
Page | 14
Page 21 of 36
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13 overall performance. This is not overly surprising as the proportions advantageous for one
14
15
16 lift e.g. the deadlift may prove disadvantageous for another lift such as the bench press.
17
18
19 This is important to remember as the overall powerlifting score is the total sum of the
20
21
22 weight lifted across the squat, bench press and deadlift exercises. Therefore, the potentially
23
24
25 inverse relationship existing between certain segment ratios and the different lifts may
26
27
28 mean that, for the upper limbs, relatively normal segment length proportions offer the best
29
30
PY
31 overall potential for the bench press and deadlift. Alternately, for the lower limbs length
32
33
34 proportions, a higher crural index (shank : thigh ratio) could offer a significant advantage
35
O
36
37 for the squat as the relative reduction in the thigh length would reduce the work required
A
38
C
39
IC
40 and resistance moment arms in this exercise. It should also be acknowledged that other
41
ED
42
W
43 factors than anthopometric profile influence strength and could differ between the winners
44
M
45
and non-winners. Examples of these may include morphological factors such as muscle
E E
46
VA
47
48
IN I
49 fiber type, muscle pennation angle and muscle insertion point as well as a range of factors
EV
R
50
51
52 influencing the neural activation of the agonist and antagonist muscles 21.
53
54
R
55
IM
56
57
58 The five-way fractionation model as used in this study provides accurate information on
ER
N
59
O
60 4
61 adipose, muscle and bone mass which are the main morphological aspects for sports
I
62
IZ
63 22
PE
64 successes and general health as well as the residual tissue. This method also allows the
ED
65
66
67 calculation of a prediction error. This error is the difference between the structured weight
68
69
70 by the sum of 5 calculated tissue types and the weight on the scale and is expressed as a
81
82
83 percentage. For the population of these powerlifters the prediction error was 3.6 ± 2.4%
84
85
86 (2.9kg), which is considered acceptable as it is below 5% of the stipulated fidelity limit.
87
88
89 This result is also comparable to the 3.4 ±4.1% (3.0 kg) found in quite heavily muscled
90
91
92 rugby players reported by Holway and Garavaglia 4 using the same technique. In contrast,
93
94
95
Page | 15
Page 22 of 36
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13 Keogh et al. 7 reported a mean error of 16.7 kg (13.7%) for the body mass of heavyweight
14
15 23
16 powerlifters using the Drinkwater & Ross method. The greater accuracy of the five way
17
18 23
19 fractionation method than the Drinkwater and Ross approach used in previous
20
21 5-7
22 powerlifting studies comes from its use of mathematical equations that were directly
23
24
25 validated from cadavers. As a result, it would appear that all future studies using ISAK or
26
27
28 similar anthropometric methods for determining the body composition of large muscular
29
30
PY
31 athletes like powerlifters should use the five way model in preference to that of Drinkwater
32
33 23
34 & Ross . The small prediction error found in the current study and that of Holway and
35
O
36
37 Garavaglia 4 would also suggest that this method could be accurately used to better monitor
A
38
C
39
IC
40 changes in the 5 compartments body composition of large strength trained athletes.
41
ED
42
W
43
44
M
45
Nevertheless, this study still had a number of methodological limitations. The first
E E
46
VA
47
48
IN I
49 obviously is the small number (n = 8) of winners of each of the 8 classes in which the
EV
R
50
51
52 winner consented to participate and the fact that some of the extreme weight classes had
53
54
R
55 very low numbers. This was to be expected and reflects a normal distribution whereby most
IM
56
57
58 of the lifters compete in the moderate weightclasses and most competitors are non-winners
ER
N
59
O
60
61 rather than winners. As some powerlifters cut weight to make their weightclass it is also
I
62
IZ
63
PE
64 likely that the training anthropometric profile may have differed to the profiles we
ED
65
66
67 determined within 2 hours prior to the competition. Nevertheless, no powerlifting
68
69
70 competition is actually won or lost based directly on what is lifted in training, rather it is
81
82
83 the athlete who lifts best at the competition who wins.
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91 CONCLUSION
92
93
94
95
Page | 16
Page 23 of 36
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13 This study describes anthropometric and body composition data from the majority of lifters
14
15
16 at the Argentinian Powerlifting Championship in order to examine how anthropometric
17
18
19 measures may differ as a function of weight class and success within each class. These
20
21
22 comparisons revealed that an increase in muscle mass, muscle to bone ratio and
23
24
25 mesomorphy may all be key determinants of powerlifting performance. In contrast, the
26
27
28 influence of segment lengths and proportions on performance was less clear. But in spite of
29
30
PY
31 this, a higher crural index, which means a much longer shank relative to the thigh, may
32
33
34 represent an important factor in the performance of the lifters. Such information may assist
35
O
36
37 in talent identification and monitoring of training in powerlifting; and provide useful
A
38
C
39
IC
40 normative values for powerlifters of different weight classes. The greater accuracy of the
41
ED
42
W
43 five-way fractionation model found in the current study than that reported previously for
44
M
45
other powerlifting anthropometry studies, suggests that the five-way model should be used
E E
46
VA
47
48
IN I
49 when assessing the anthropometry of large, muscular athletes. We would therefore promote
EV
R
50
51
52 semi-regular anthropometric monitoring of powerlifters using the 5 way fractionation
53
54
R
55 model as it may identify anthropometric limitations for each lifter and allow more specific
IM
56
57
58 training for body parts that limit performance in the three lifts. Finally, future studies in this
ER
N
59
O
60
61 area should use similar methodologies to that of the current study, but strive to substantially
I
62
IZ
63
PE
64 increase sample size by obtaining data from larger higher-level international competitions
ED
65
66
67 or by pooling data from a number of smaller competitions. Such data will provide a greater
68
69
70 normative database, which will further enhance the representativeness and usefulness of
81
82
83 this information.
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
Page | 17
Page 24 of 36
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13 References
14
15
16
17 1. Ross WD, Marfell-Jones MF. Kinanthropometry. In: MacDougall JD, Wenger HA,
18
19
20 Green HJ, editors. The Physiological Assessment of High Performance Athletes.
21
22
23 Champaign, IL.: Human Kinetics, 1991: 223-83
24
25
26 2. Kerr DA. An anthropometric method for fractionation of skin, adipose, bone,
27
28
29 muscle and residual tissue masses, in males and females age 6 to 77 years. Vancouver:
30
PY
31
32 Simon Fraser University; 1988.
33
34
35 3. Ross WD, Kerr DA. Body mass fractionation: a new method for use in nutrition and
O
36
37
sports medicine clinic. Apunts of Sport Medicine 1991;28: 175-88.
A
38
C
39
IC
40
41 4. Holway FE, Garavaglia R. Kinanthropometry of Group I rugby players in Buenos
ED
42
W
43
44 Aires, Argentina. J Sports Sci 2009;27: 1211-20.
M
45
E E
46
5. Keogh JWL, Hume PA, Pearson SN, Mellow P. Can absolute and proportional
VA
47
48
IN I
49
EV
anthropometric characteristics distinguish stronger and weaker powerlifters? J Strength

R
50
51
52
53 Cond Res 2009;23: 2256–65.
54
R
55
IM
56 6. Keogh JWL, Hume PA, Pearson SN, Mellow P. To what extent does sexual
57
58
ER
N
59 dimorphism exist in competitive powerlifters? J Sports Sci 2008;26: 531-41.

O
60
61
7. Keogh JWL, Hume PA, Pearson SN, Mellow P. Anthropometric dimensions of
I
62
IZ
63
PE
64
ED
65 male powerlifters of varying body mass. J Sports Sci 2007;25: 1365-76

66
67
68 8. Fort C, Dore E, Defranca N, Van Praagh E. Anthropometric and performance
69
70
81 characteristics in elite powerlifters of both sexes. In: Marconnet P, Gaulard J, Margartis I,
82
83
84 Tessier F, editors. First Annual Congress, Frontiers in Sport Science, the European
85
86
87 Perspective. Nice: European College of Sports Science, 1996: 718-9
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
Page | 18
Page 25 of 36
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13 9. Fort C, Garcier JM, Viallet J, Vanneuville G, Van Praagh E. Muscle strength and
14
15
16 thigh muscle cross-sectional area in masters powerlifters. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1995;27:
17
18
19 S139.
20
21
22 10. Brechue WF, Abe T. The role of FFM accumulation and skeletal muscle
23
24
25 architecture in powerlifting performance. Eur J Appl Physiol 2002;86: 327-36.
26
27
28 11. Johnson GO, Housh TJ, Powell DR, Ansorge CJ. A physiological comparison of
29
30
PY
31 female body builders and power lifters. J Sports Med 1990;30: 361-4.
32
33
34 12. de Moura JAR, de Barros JJ, Cardoso MM, Busarello GDP, Bianchini L, Mafra R et
35
O
36
37 al. Morphological characteristics of powerlifters that participated in the XXIII Campeonato
A
38
C
39
IC
40 Brasileiro de Powerlifting. Rev Bras Cineantropom Desempenho Hum 2005;7: 44-54.
41
ED
42
W
43 13. Fry AC, Ciroslan D, Fry MD, LeRoux CD, Schilling BK, Chiu LZF.
44
M
45
Anthropometric and performance variables discriminating elite American junior men
E E
46
VA
47
48
IN I
49 weightlifters. J Strength Cond Res 2007;20: 861-6.

EV
R
50
51
52 14. Swinton PA, Lloyd R, Agouris I, Stewart A. Contemporary training practices in
53
54
R
55 elite british powerlifters: survey results from an international competition. J Strength Cond
IM
56
57
58 Res 2009;23: 380-4.
ER
N
59
O
60
61 15. Carter JEL, Heath BH. Somatotyping – development and applications. Cambridge:
I
62
IZ
63
PE
64 Cambridge University Press; 1990.

ED
65
66
67 16. Ross WD, Ward R. Human proportionality and sexual dimorphism. In: Hall RL,
68
69
70 editor. Sexual dimorphism in homo sapiens: a question of size. New York: Praeger, 1982:
81
82
83 317-61
84
85
86 17. Ross WD, Wilson NC. A stratagem for proportional growth assessment. Acta
87
88
89 Paediatr Belg 1974;28(Suppl): 169-82.
90
91
92
93
94
95
Page | 19
Page 26 of 36
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13 18. Vanderburgh PM, Batterham AM. Validation of the Wilks powerlifting formula.
14
15
16 Med Sci Sports Exerc 1999;31: 1869-75.
17
18
19 19. Mayhew JL, McCormick TP, Piper FC, Kurth AL, Arnold MD. Relationships of
20
21
22 body dimensions to strength performance in novice adolescent male powerlifters. Pediatr
23
24
25 Exerc Sci 1993;5: 347-56.
26
27
28 20. Mayhew JL, Piper FC, Ware JS. Anthropometric correlates with strength
29
30
PY
31 performance among resistance trained athletes. J Sports Med Phys Fit 1993;33: 159-65.
32
33
34 21. Hart CL, Ward TE, Mayhew DL. Anthropometric correlates with bench press
35
O
36
37 performance following resistance training. Sports Train Med Rehabil 1991;2: 89-95.
A
38
C
39
IC
40 22. O'Connor H, Olds T, Maughan RJ. Physique and performance for track and field
41
ED
42
W
43 events. J Sports Sci 2007;25 Suppl 1: S49-60.
44
M
45
23. Drinkwater D, Ross WD. Anthropometric fractionation of body mass. In: Ostyn W,
E E
46
VA
47
48
IN I
49 Beunen G, Simons J, editors. Kinanthropometry II. Baltimore: University Park Press, 1980:
EV
R
50
51
52 177-88
53
54
R
55
IM
56
57
58
ER
N
59
O
60
61 TITLES OF TABLES
I
62
IZ
63
PE
64
ED
65
66
67 Table I. Results obtained in the competition by categories of competition (mean ± sd).
68
69
70
81 Table II. Powerlifting anthropometric data by categories of competition (mean ± sd).
82
83
84
85 Table III. Powerlifting anthropometric data by categories of competition (mean ± sd).
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
Page | 20
Page 27 of 36
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13 Table IV. Powerlifting body composition, somatotype and indexes by categories of
14
15
16 competitions (mean ± sd).
17
18
19
20 Table V. Comparison of the winners sample and the rest of the powerlifters.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27 TITLES OF FIGURES
28
29
30
PY
31
32 1. Somatoplot of all mean by categories of competitions; -56 (n=2), -60 (n=7), -67-5
33
34
35 (n=9), -75 (n=9), -82.5 (n=14), -90 (n=6), -100 (n=7), -110 (n=2), -125(n=3), +125
O
36
37
A
38 (n=4). And winners (n=8) and others (n=55) are also provided.
C
39
IC
40
41 2. Lengths comparison of winners (n=8) and non-winners (n=55) through the
ED
42
W
43
44 phantom. Values are means and standards error Zp-scores.
M
45
E E
46
VA
47 3. Breadths comparison of winners (n=8) and non-winners (n=55) through the

48
IN I
49
EV
R

51
52
53 4. Girths comparison of winners (n=8) and non-winners (n=55) through the phantom.
54
R
55
IM
56 Values are means and standards error Zp-scores.

57
58
ER
N
59 5. Skinfolds comparison of winners (n=8) and non-winners (n=55) through the

O
60
61
I

IZ
63
PE
64
ED
65
66
67
68
69
70
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
Page | 21
Page 28 of 36
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Table 1. Results obtained in the competition by categories of competition (mean ± sd).
13
14 CATEGORIES .+125 .-125 .-110 .-100 .-90 .-82.5 .-75 .-67.5 .-60 .-56
15
16 n =4 n =3 n =2 n =7 n =6 n = 14 n =9 n =9 n =7 n =2
Y
17
18
19 Squat (kg) 297.5 ± 37.7 253.3 ± 30.6 223.8 ± 118.8 235.7 ± 44.8 248.3 ± 42.6 197.2 ± 17.6 208.2 ± 38.2 164.7 ± 51.4 155.0 ± 20.9 110.0 ± 0.0
IC P
20
21 Bench Press (kg) 218.8 ± 18.4 151.7 ± 33.3 162.5 ± 60.1 163.9 ± 17.8 165.0 ± 31.9 127.2 ± 19.6 121.7 ± 31.8 111.4 ± 30.1 88.3 ± 19.5 73.8 ± 12.4
O
22
23 Dead Lift (kg) 282.5 ± 17.1 240.0 ± 52.0 217.5 ± 102.5 237.1 ± 50.4 256.5 ± 28.7 222.5 ± 20.0 198.3 ± 24.0 188.9 ± 45.3 174.2 ± 19.3 148.8 ± 5.3
24
A
Sum (kg) 798.8 ± 57.2 645 ± 106.4 603.8 ± 281.1 636.8 ± 110.2 669.6 ± 97.0 546.9 ± 41.4 546.4 ± 77.4 465.0 ± 121.7 417.5 ± 55.7 332.5 ± 17.7
C
25
26
27 Winners sum (kg) 870.0 850.0 802.5 752.5 805.0 752.5 675.0 607.5 485.0 345.0
ED
28
W
29 Non-Winners sum (kg) 775.0 ± 39.1 635.0 ± 105 405.0 616.7 ± 105.7 643 ± 79.1 546.9 ± 41.4 521 ± 50.3 447.2 ± 116.9 404.0 ± 50.2 320
30
M
31
Age of training 13.2 ± 8.5 8.0 ± 2.0 20.0 ± 19.8 11.0 ± 9.7 10.5 ± 7.8 9.5 ± 10.3 10.5 ± 10.0 5.7 ± 3.8 8.4 ± 15.1 1.8 ± 1.8
E E
32
33
VA
34 experiece (years)
IN I
35
EV
36
R
37
38
39
40
41 R
IM
42
43
44
ER
N
45
46
IO
47
48
IZ
49
PE
50
ED
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62 Page 29 of 36
63
64
65
66
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11 Table II. Powerlifting anthropometric data by categories of competition (mean ± sd).
12
13
14 CATEGORIES .+125 .-125 .-110 .-100 .-90 .-82.5 .-75 .-67.5 .-60 .-56
15
16 n =4 n =3 n =2 n =7 n =6 n = 14 n =9 n =9 n =7 n =2
Y
17 Basics
18
19 Age (years) 35.3 ± 2.7 37.4 ± 18.0 40.4 ± 16.8 35.1 ± 10.6 32.7 ± 9.4 32.8 ± 13.7 35.9 ± 15.3 33.6 ± 20.5 29.0 ± 16.4 16.1 ± 2.6
IC P
20
21 Body mass (kg) 131.3 ± 6.5 119.5 ± 4.3 108.7 ± 1.3 96.0 ± 3.6 88.0 ± 1.8 79.3 ± 1.8 73.7 ± 0.7 65.9 ± 2.1 59.2 ± 1.0 54.5 ± 0.7
O
22 Stature (cm) 180.3 ± 10.3 184.1 ± 3.4 167.6 ± 9.8 171.9 ± 6.2 174.1 ± 5.6 170.5 ± 6.2 168.6 ± 4.2 165.3 ± 5.3 162.7 ± 8.3 162.3 ± 3.4
23
24 Sitting height (cm) 98.8 ± 3.6 97.3 ± 2.4 90.7 ± 4.7 92.2 ± 2.0 91.1 ± 4.1 91.4 ± 3.2 89.4 ± 1.7 88.9 ± 2.8 87.3 ± 3.8 84.5 ± 0.1
A
C
25
26 Arm Span (cm) 182.1 ± 12.5 192.0 ± 6.6 174.3 ± 13.7 177.9 ± 9.8 182.2 ± 5.2 174.7 ± 8.1 174.3 ± 6.2 169.9 ± 9.6 165.9 ± 6.3 169.8 ± 5.2
27 Lengths (cm)
ED
28
W
29 Acromiale-Radiale 33.6 ± 3.2 35.5 ± 1.3 32.9 ± 1.6 34.3 ± 2.1 34.3 ± 1.4 32.7 ± 1.8 32.6 ± 1.7 31.8 ± 1.5 31.6 ± 1.2 30.3 ± 0.4
30
M
31 Radiale-stylion 27.3 ± 1.3 27.9 ± 1.8 24.7 ± 1.3 25.3 ± 1.8 26.3 ± 0.8 25.3 ± 1.2 26.0 ± 1.2 24.7 ± 2.2 24.6 ± 1.6 25.3 ± 1.4
E E
32
33 Troch - T.Laterale 44.7 ± 4.5 44.7 ± 1.6 39.5 ± 5.0 44.4 ± 5.0 42.8 ± 2.9 41.3 ± 3.1 41.9 ± 3.8 40.2 ± 4.1 41.6 ± 2.5 36.1 ± 0.1
VA
34 Tibiale Laterale 48.1 ± 3.3 49.7 ± 2.5 46.5 ± 1.2 46.2 ± 2.2 48.9 ± 3.7 47.1 ± 3.3 47.5 ± 2.4 45.6 ± 1.9 44.3 ± 4.1 49.1 ± 1.3
IN I
35
EV
36 Breadths (cm)
R
37
38 Biacromial 45.0 ± 2.3 45.9 ± 1.6 43.3 ± 3.7 41.7 ± 0.9 41.9 ± 0.7 41.0 ± 1.6 39.6 ± 1.3 39.0 ± 1.4 38.7 ± 1.9 37.4 ± 3.4
39
40 Transverse chest 37.2 ± 1.8 36.0 ± 2.4 32.7 ± 4.7 32.0 ± 1.3 30.1 ± 2.9 30.2 ± 1.4 28.1 ± 1.4 27.0 ± 2.2 26.5 ± 1.8 26.6 ± 1.2
41 A-P chest depth 26.8 ± 1.7 25.2 ± 1.9 R
22.9 ± 3.3 22.4 ± 1.5 20.0 ± 1.4 20.2 ± 2.1 19.6 ± 1.4 18.0 ± 2.0 16.1 ± 1.8 17.0 ± 2.0
IM
42
43 Biiliocristal 33.8 ± 1.9 34.1 ± 1.9 32.6 ± 1.3 31.2 ± 2.9 28.6 ± 0.6 27.8 ± 1.2 27.5 ± 1.5 26.6 ± 1.1 26.1 ± 1.4 27.3 ± 0.4
44
ER
Humerus 7.8 ± 0.3 8.0 ± 0.4 7.2 ± 0.5
N 7.3 ± 0.2 7.2 ± 0.4 7.0 ± 0.3 6.9 ± 0.6 6.8 ± 0.4 6.9 ± 0.3 6.8 ± 0.5
45
46
IO
47 Femur 10.3 ± 0.4 10.6 ± 1.0 10.7 ± 0.1 9.5 ± 0.5 9.9 ± 1.0 9.3 ± 0.6 9.7 ± 0.6 9.5 ± 0.3 9.4 ± 0.4 9.6 ± 0.4
48
IZ
49 Troch - T.Laterale = Trochanterion - Tibiale Laterale; A-P chest depth = Anterior - posterior chest depth
PE
50
ED
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62 Page 30 of 36
63
64
65
66
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11 Table III. Powerlifting anthropometric data by categories of competition (mean ± sd).
12
13
14 CATEGORIES .+125 .-125 .-110 .-100 .-90 .-82.5 .-75 .-67.5 .-60 .-56
15 n =4 n =3 n=2 n =7 n =6 n = 14 n=9 n=9 n=7 n =2
16
Y
17 Girths (cm)
18
19 Head 61.0 ± 2.8 59.6 ± 1.9 57.4 ± 2.1 58.1 ± 0.7 57.5 ± 1.2 57.1 ± 0.9 56.0 ± 1.3 55.9 ± 1.7 55.8 ± 1.9 53.9 ± 0.9
IC P
20
21 Arm (relaxed) 45.9 ± 0.4 39.4 ± 2.6 42.0 ± 1.1 39.0 ± 2.9 37.1 ± 1.0 34.5 ± 2.4 33.3 ± 1.7 31.8 ± 1.8 29.3 ± 1.8 26.1 ± 2.2
O
22 Arm (flexed) 48.6 ± 0.4 42.5 ± 1.2 44.7 ± 2.6 41.7 ± 2.1 40.5 ± 1.3 37.7 ± 2.3 36.0 ± 1.6 35.1 ± 2.2 32.4 ± 1.6 30.2 ± 2.8
23
24 Forearm (maximum) 35.9 ± 0.9 34.1 ± 1.4 32.8 ± 0.8 31.3 ± 1.3 31.1 ± 0.8 29.6 ± 1.0 28.3 ± 1.0 27.2 ± 1.0 26.2 ± 1.0 24.8 ± 0.6
A
C
25
26 Chest (mesosternale) 129.7 ± 1.6 125.0 ± 1.6 123.2 ± 0.4 114.8 ± 3.4 110.0 ± 3.8 103.3 ± 5.5 102.0 ± 3.7 97.1 ± 3.6 93.1 ± 4.0 86.2 ± 3.7
27 Waist (minimum) 112.3 ± 3.3 107.6 ± 6.4 105.5 ± 9.9 96.2 ± 3.7 89.2 ± 4.1 84.0 ± 4.8 81.7 ± 3.0 74.7 ± 1.9 71.1 ± 4.0 70.3 ± 9.7
ED
28
W
29 Gluteal (hips) 118.2 ± 2.4 114.0 ± 1.0 116.0 ± 4.5 103.2 ± 3.3 99.8 ± 1.3 97.2 ± 2.1 94.2 ± 2.8 89.4 ± 1.0 85.0 ± 0.9 84.1 ± 1.9
30
Thigh (1 cm gluteal) 72.7 ± 1.1 69.3 ± 1.9 72.6 ± 0.8 64.6 ± 1.8 62.0 ± 2.2 59.1 ± 2.3 57.4 ± 2.7 53.9 ± 1.6 51.0 ± 1.5 48.2 ± 0.0
M
31
E E
32 Thigh (mid thonch-T.L) 66.6 ± 1.7 63.0 ± 0.4 65.8 ± 3.2 60.0 ± 3.2 58.5 ± 3.4 56.2 ± 3.2 53.8 ± 3.9 51.7 ± 2.1 47.9 ± 1.5 46.2 ± 0.4
33
VA
34 Calf (maximum) 43.5 ± 1.0 42.2 ± 1.7 42.1 ± 2.1 38.2 ± 2.8 38.6 ± 1.5 37.4 ± 2.7 35.5 ± 1.5 34.4 ± 0.9 33.6 ± 1.1 33.3 ± 0.9
IN I
35
EV
36 Skinfolds (mm)
R
37
38 Triceps 8.6 ± 1.3 14.5 ± 6.5 15.7 ± 5.8 9.5 ± 3.8 6.4 ± 1.9 6.6 ± 2.1 8.1 ± 3.1 7.4 ± 2.2 6.8 ± 1.3 6.8 ± 0.6
39 Subescapular 22.4 ± 3.8 27.5 ± 13.3 17.6 ± 4.5 19.0 ± 10.3 11.5 ± 3.0 12.7 ± 4.2 11.3 ± 2.2 9.2 ± 2.4 8.4 ± 1.3 5.4 ± 1.1
40
41 Supraspinale 8.6 ± 1.3 14.5 ± 6.5 R
15.7 ± 5.8 9.5 ± 3.8 6.5 ± 1.9 6.6 ± 2.1 8.1 ± 3.1 7.4 ± 2.2 6.8 ± 1.3 6.8 ± 0.6
IM
42
43 Abdominal 26.4 ± 5.3 31.7 ± 3.6 25.8 ± 11.6 16.8 ± 7.5 12.9 ± 7.5 12.9 ± 4.5 15.7 ± 3.7 9.6 ± 4.0 9.9 ± 3.0 5.9 ± 0.4
44 Front thigh 15.6 ± 2.9 14.2 ± 3.9 14.4 ± 0.8 11.5 ± 5.4 8.5 ± 1.3 8.5 ± 2.9 11.3 ± 3.0 10.2 ± 4.4 8.7 ± 1.7 6.5 ± 1.0
ER
N
45
46 Medial Calf 10.6 ± 5.2 17.1 ± 8.4 17.0 ± 4.5 9.1 ± 5.9 8.9 ± 2.3 6.7 ± 2.1 8.3 ± 3.1 7.4 ± 1.4 6.2 ± 1.7 5.5 ± 2.7
IO
47
48 Σ 6 Skinfolds 102.3 ± 15.5 132.1 ± 48.9 107.4 ± 38.5 79.9 ± 28.4 58.5 ± 13.9 55.6 ± 13.3 63.8 ± 16.2 50.4 ± 10.9 46.3 ± 9.0 36.2 ± 3.2
IZ
49
PE
50 Thigh (mid thonch-T.L) = Thigh middle thronchaterion - tibiale laterale; Σ 6 Skinfolds = Sum of 6 skinfolds
ED
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62 Page 31 of 36
63
64
65
66
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11 Table IV. Powerlifting body composition, somatotype and indexes by categories of comepetition (mean ± sd).
12
13
14 CATEGORIES .+125 .-125 .-110 .-100 .-90 .-82.5 .-75 .-67.5 .-60 .-56
15 n =4 n =3 n=2 n =7 n =6 n = 14 n =9 n=9 n =7 n =2
16
Y
17 Indexes
18
19 Sitting height/Stature 0.54 ± 0.01 0.53 ± 0.02 0.54 ± 0.00 0.54 ± 0.01 0.52 ± 0.02 0.54 ± 0.01 0.53 ± 0.01 0.54 ± 0.01 0.54 ± 0.02 0.52 ± 0.01
IC P
20
21 Brachial 0.82 ± 0.08 0.79 ± 0.07 0.75 ± 0.00 0.74 ± 0.04 0.77 ± 0.04 0.78 ± 0.03 0.80 ± 0.05 0.78 ± 0.06 0.78 ± 0.03 0.84 ± 0.03
O
22 Crural 1.08 ± 0.10 1.11 ± 0.09 1.19 ± 0.12 1.06 ± 0.18 1.15 ± 0.15 1.15 ± 0.11 1.14 ± 0.14 1.15 ± 0.14 1.06 ± 0.08 1.36 ± 0.04
23 2
24 BMI (kg/St ) 40.6 ± 3.9 35.3 ± 1.4 38.8 ± 4.0 32.6 ± 2.0 29.1 ± 1.6 27.4 ± 2.3 26 ± 1.5 24.2 ± 1.8 22.5 ± 2.1 20.7 ± 1.1
A
C
25
26 Muscle to Bone ratio 5.5 ± 0.4 4.6 ± 0.5 6.3 ± 1.6 4.8 ± 0.6 5.2 ± 0.7 4.9 ± 0.5 4.7 ± 0.6 4.3 ± 0.4 4.0 ± 0.6 3.5 ± 0.3
27 Masses ( % )
ED
28
W
29 Adipose tissue 20.3 ± 2.0 26.0 ± 5.6 21.0 ± 2.8 20.1 ± 4.0 18.7 ± 3.1 19.1 ± 2.3 21.6 ± 2.8 20.3 ± 2.4 20.7 ± 2.2 20.0 ± 2.8
30
M
31 Muscle mass 52.3 ± 1.8 47.0 ± 6.0 53.0 ± 5.6 51.4 ± 3.9 54.3 ± 5.5 52.7 ± 2.6 50.7 ± 2.4 51.3 ± 2.6 50.2 ± 3.4 48.5 ± 3.5
E E
32
33 Residual mass 13.7 ± 1.0 12.6 ± 1.1 13.0 ± 1.4 13.0 ± 1.1 11.6 ± 1.6 12.1 ± 1.0 11.7 ± 1.5 11.2 ± 1.2 10.4 ± 1.4 12.0 ± 0.0
VA
34 Bone mass 9.7 ± 0.5 10.0 ± 0.0 9.0 ± 1.0 10.8 ± 1.0 10.6 ± 0.8 11.0 ± 0.8 10.7 ± 1.0 11.8 ± 0.6 12.8 ± 1.0 14.0 ± 0.0
IN I
35
EV
36 Skin mass 4.0 ± 0.0 4.0 ± 0.0 4.0 ± 0.0 4.3 ± 0.5 4.8 ± 0.4 5.0 ± 0.0 5.0 ± 0.0 5.2 ± 0.4 5.7 ± 0.5 6.0 ± 0.0
R
37
38
39 Error %, Method vs Scale 3.12 ± 3.0 6.74 ± 4.1 1.21 ± 1.4 2.70 ± 1.8 2.67 ± 2.3 3.13 ± 1.7 3.88 ± 2.6 4.85 ± 2.3 3.93 ± 2.5 2.61 ± 1.8
40 Masses ( Kg )
41 R
IM
42 Adipose tissue 26.5 ± 3.6 31.3 ± 7.8 23.2 ± 2.9 19.36 ± 4.0 16.4 ± 2.8 15.2 ± 1.8 15.8 ± 2.1 13.4 ± 1.7 12.2 ± 1.5 10.9 ± 1.5
43
44 Muscle mass 68.7 ± 3.2 56.2 ± 5.1 57.7 ± 6.8 49.48 ± 4.4 47.8 ± 3.1 41.9 ± 2.6 37.5 ± 2.2 33.8 ± 2.1 29.8 ± 2.0 26.2 ± 2.2
ER
N
45 Residual mass 18.2 ± 1.8 15.0 ± 1.4 13.8 ± 1.6 12.54 ± 0.9 10.4 ± 1.4 9.68 ± 0.8 8.73 ± 1.2 7.3 ± 0.7 6.29 ± 0.8 6.57 ± 0.1
46
IO
47 Bone mass 12.5 ± 0.9 12.3 ± 0.5 9.4 ± 1.3 10.39 ± 1.1 9.26 ± 0.8 8.62 ± 0.7 7.98 ± 0.8 7.82 ± 0.5 7.57 ± 0.7 7.49 ± 0.0
48
IZ
49 Skin mass 5.09 ± 0.2 4.66 ± 0.2 4.51 ± 0.3 4.21 ± 0.1 4.09 ± 0.2 3.9 ± 0.2 3.67 ± 0.1 3.55 ± 0.2 3.35 ± 0.2 3.29 ± 0.2
PE
50
ED
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62 Page 32 of 36
63
64
65
66
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11 Table V. Comparison of the winners sample with the rest of powerlifters.
12
13 Winners (n=8) Non-winners (n=55) T-test
14 mean sd mean sd difference p
15
16 Masses (%)
Y
17
18 Adipose tissue 18.9 1.2 20.6 3.0 -1.71 0.1203
19
IC P
20 Muscle mass 53.9 2.2 51.2 3.4 2.67 0.0337
21 Residual mass 11.8 1.7 12.0 1.8 -0.25 0.7686
O
22
23 Bone mass 10.6 1.7 11.2 1.3 -0.58 0.2454
24
A
C
25 Skin mass 5.0 0.9 4.9 5.7 0.1 0.9609
26
27 Error %, Method vs Scale 4.2 2.7 3.5 2.4 0.68 0.4506
ED
28
W
29 Masses (Kg)
30
M
31 Adipose tissue 16.4 5.8 16.9 5.6 -0.5 0.8150
E E
32
33 Muscle mass 46.7 15.1 41.9 10.2 4.8 0.2480
VA
34 Residual mass 10.5 4.8 10.0 3.1 0.5 0.6937
IN I
35
EV
36 Bone mass 8.8 2.1 9.0 1.6 -0.2 0.7520
R
37
38 Skin mass 4.1 0.7 3.9 0.5 0.2 0.3197
39 Indexes
40
41 BMI (kg/St )
2
29.8 7.7 R
28.1 5.2 1.7 0.5879
IM
42
43 Muscle to Bone ratio 5.3 1.0 4.7 0.7 0.6 0.0363
44 Sitting height/Stature 0.53 0.01 0.53 0.01 0.00 1.0000
ER
N
45
46 Brachial 0.80 0.06 0.78 0.05 0.03 0.3007
IO
47
48 Crural 1.21 0.12 1.11 0.13 0.10 0.0427
IZ
49 Competition scores
PE
50
ED
51 Squat (kg) 254.1 78.1 199.4 51.7 54.7 0.0137

52
53 Bench Press (kg) 169.7 53.6 129.7 39.2 40.0 0.0142
54 Dead Lift (kg) 244.7 55.3 211.0 45.1 33.7 0.0640
55
56 Sum (kg) 668.4 180.2 543.9 130.6 124.6 0.0230
57
58
59
60
61
62 Page 33 of 36
63
64
65
66
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14 Figure 1. Somatoplot by categories of competition.
15
16
17 - 110
18 + 125
19
20
21
22
23
- 90
24
- 100
25 - 125 - 82.5
26
27 - 75- 67.5
28 - 60
29
30
- 56
PY
31
32
33
34
35
O
36
37
A
38
C
39
IC
40
41
ED
42
W
43
44
M
45
E E
46
VA
47
48
IN I
49
EV
R
50
51
52
53
54
R
55
IM
56
57
58
ER
N
59
O
60
61
I
62
IZ
63
PE
64
ED
65
66
67
68
69
70
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
Page 34 of 36
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17 Acromiale-Radiale
18
19
20 Radiale-stylion
21
22
23
24
25
26 Trochanterion-T.Laterale
27
28
29
30 Tibiale Laterale
PY
31
32
33
34
35 -3.00 -2.00 -1.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00
O
36
37
Figure 2. Comparison of the segment lengths of the Winners and the Non-winners powerlifters
A
38
C
39
IC
40
through the Phantom (mean ± standard error)
41
ED
42
W
43
44
M
45
E E
46
VA
47
48
IN I
49
EV
R
50
51
52
53 Biacromial
54
R
55
IM
56 Transverse chest
57
58
ER
N
59
A-P chest depth
O
60
61
I
62
IZ
63 Biiliocristal
PE
64
ED
65
66
67 Humerus
68
69
70 Femur
81
82
83
84
85 -2.00 -1.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00
86
87 Figure 3. Comparison of the Breadths of the Winners and the Non-winners powerlifters through
88
89 the Phantom (mean ± standard error). A-P chest deph = Anterior - Posterior chest deph
90
91
92
93
94
95
Page 35 of 36
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18 Head
19
20 Arm (relaxed)
21 Arm (flexed and tensed)
22
23 Forearm (maximun)
24
25
26 Chest (mesosternale)
27 Waist (minimun)
28
29 Gluteal (hips)
30 Thigh (1 cm gluteal)
PY
31
32 Thigh (mid thonch-tib.lat)
33
34 Calf (maximun)
35
O
36
37 -2.00 0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00
A
38
C
39
IC
40 Figure 4. Comparison of the Girths of the Winners and the Non-winners powerlifters
41
ED
42 through the Phantom (mean ± standard error)
W
43
44
M
45
E E
46
VA
47
48
IN I
49
EV
R
50
51
52 Triceps
53
54
R
55 Subescapular
IM
56
57
58
ER
N
59 Supraspinale
O
60
61
I
62
IZ
63 Abdominal
PE
64
ED
65
66
67 Front thigh
68
69
70 Medial Calf
81
82
83
84
85 -3.00 -2.00 -1.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00
86
87
88 Figure 5. Comparison of the Skinfolds of the Winners and the Non-winners
89
90 powerlifters through the Phantom (mean ± standard error)
91
92
93
94
95
Page 36 of 36
View publication stats

Anthropometric Profile of Powerlifters: Differences As A Function of Bodyweight Class and Competitive Success

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Anthropometric Profile of Powerlifters: Differences As A Function of Bodyweight Class and Competitive Success

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Anthropometric Profile of Powerlifters: Differences As A Function of Bodyweight Class and Competitive Success

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Anthropometric proﬁle of powerlifters: Differences as a function of

Article in The Journal of sports medicine and physical fitness · January 2015

Marcos Lovera Justin W L Keogh

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

weight lifting by categories of competition.

50 Categories Years lifting

67.5 5.7 ± 3.8

60 100 11.0 ± 9.7

63 125 8.0 ± 2.0

weight relative to the body weight.

56 IPF (International Powerlifting Federation) in all competitions to normalize lifters

63 Response: It has been rephrased as suggested.

selected by their total score.

65 Response: It has been added and completed as suggested.

62 Methods. To address this aim, 63 male powerlifters from an Argentine National

56 Specifically, Table 2 contains general demographic and absolute anthropometric variables

65 indexes and body fractionation. In general, most of the absolute anthropometric

56 significantly greater percentage of muscle mass (+ 2.7%, P= 0.0337), muscle-to-bone ratio

64 through the phantom (mean ± standard error).

62 current study appears somewhat in contrast to earlier studies where significant

anthropometric characteristics distinguish stronger and weaker powerlifters? J Strength

59 dimorphism exist in competitive powerlifters? J Sports Sci 2008;26: 531-41.

65 male powerlifters of varying body mass. J Sports Sci 2007;25: 1365-76

49 weightlifters. J Strength Cond Res 2007;20: 861-6.

64 Cambridge University Press; 1990.

47 3. Breadths comparison of winners (n=8) and non-winners (n=55) through the

50 phantom. Values are means and standards error Zp-scores.

56 Values are means and standards error Zp-scores.

59 5. Skinfolds comparison of winners (n=8) and non-winners (n=55) through the

62 phantom. Values are means and standards error Zp-scores.

51 Squat (kg) 254.1 78.1 199.4 51.7 54.7 0.0137

View publication stats

You might also like