Menu
Somatotype variations among elderly urban and rural women of Punjab have been investigated. A cross-sectional sample of 600 subjects (300 each group) ranging in age from 50-80 years, was measured from April, 2010 to April, 2012 from different areas of Punjab. The Heath- Carter anthropometric somatotype (1967) for different age groups is 6.75-4.41-0.62 (50 55 years), 8.23-4.71-0.88 (56-60 years), 6.16-4.12-0.91 (61-65 years), 6.414-4.06-0.82 (66-70 years), 5.28-3.09-1.37 (71-75 years) and 5.41-3.18-1.17 (76-80 years) for urban women and 6.60-4.23-1.09 (50-55 years), 6.59-4.12-1.04 (56-60 years), 5.9-3.24-1.77 (61-65 years), 5.46-3.62-1.43 (66-70 years), 5.55-3.08-1.35 (71-75 years), 5.92-3.13-0.99 (76-80 years). Thus pointing that all urban and rural women are endomorphic having maximum endomorphic value 8.23 (56-60 years) in urban and 6.60 (50-55 years) in rural women. Physique of both urban and rural women of age group 56-60 years is more diverse as reflected by higher value of SDM (7.41±4.26 and 6.37±3.30 respectively). Inter group differences for ectomorphy component are found to be relatively more than those for endomorphy and mesomorphy components of somatotype.
1. Bailey DA, Carter JEL and Mirwald R. Somatotype of Canadian men and women. Human Biology.1982;54:813-828.
2. Bodzsár ÉB and Susanne C. Secular Growth Changes in Europe. Eötvös University Press, Bu dapest.1998; 5-18.
3. Bolonchuk WW, Siders AS, Likken GI, Lukaski HC. Association of dominant somatotype of men with body structure, function during exercise and nutritional assessment. Am. J. Hum. Biol.2000;12: 167-180.
4. Bouchard C. Univariate and multivariate genetic analysis of anthropometric and physique characteristics of French-Canadian families. Ph.D. The sis, University of Texas, Austin.1977.
5. Bouchard C, Demirjian A and Malina RM. Heritability estimates of somatotype components based upon familial data. Human Heredi ty.1980;30:112-118.
6. Buffa, R, Succa, V, Garau, D, Marini E, Floris G. Variations of Somatotype in elderly Sardinians. Am. J. Hum. Biol. 2005; 17:403–411.
7. Carter JEL. The somatotypes of athletes: a review. Hum. Biol.1970;42: 535-569.
8. Carter JEL. The Heath-Carter Somatotype Meth od. SDSU Syllabus Service, San Diago,1980.
9. Carter JEL, Heath BH. Somatotype- Development and Applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,1990.
10. Due P, Hickman M and Komkov A 2001. Physical Activity In: Currie, C.; Samdal, O.; Boyce, W. and Smith, R. (eds.). Health Behaviour in School-aged Children: a WHO Cross-National Study (HBSC). Research Protocol for the 2001/2002 Survey. Child and Adolescent Health Research Unit (CAHRU), Univ. Edinburgh, 59-70.
11. Gaur R, Singh SP. Age differences in somatotypes of Garhwali males 17-60 years age. Am. J. Hum. Biol.1997;9:285-290.
12. Heath BH, Carter JEL. A modified Somatotype Method. Am. Journal of Phys. Anthropol. 1967; 27:57. 1
13. Katzmarzyk PT, Malina RM, Perusse L, Rice T, Province MA, Rao DC and Bouchard C. Familial resemblance for physique: heritibilities for somatotype components. Ann. Hum. Biol.2000;27: 467-477.
14. Kumar V, Kapoor AK, Tiwari SC. Physical activity and somatotypic evaluation of Bengali Kaystha boys of Delhi. Ind. J. Sport Sc. Phy. Ed.1997;9(182): 41-51.
15. Lohman TG, Roche AF,Marforell ER. Anthropometric Standardization Reference Manual. Hu man Kinetics: Campaign, IL,1988.
16. Malik SL, Prakash M, Mookherjee P. Impact of nutrition on body size, body shape and muscular strength: an evolution of a food aid program. Manand Life,1986;12: 61-68.
17. Malina RM, Katzmarzyk PT, Song TMK, Theriault G, Bouchard C. Somatotype and cardiovascular risk factors in healthy adults. Am. J. Hum. Biol.1997; 9:11-19.
18. Mibodi MA, Frahani MR. Study of normal range of anatomical dimensions of one day old newborn by cephalometry. J. Med. Council Islamic Rep. Iran.1996; 14(1): 1-8.
19. Okupe RF, Cooker OO, Gbajumo SA. Assessment of fetal biparietal diameter during normal pregnancy by ultrasound in Nigerian women. British J. of Obstetrics and Gynaecology,1984;99: 629-632.
20. Parizkova J, Carter JEL. Influence of physical activity on stability of somatotypes in boys. Am. J. Phys. Anthrop.1976;44: 327-40.
21. Parizkova J. Activity, obesity and growth. Mono graph: Soc. Res. and Child Developm.1970;170 (35): 28-32.
22. Ross WD and Willson BD 1973. A somatotype dispersion index. Research Quarterly, 44: 372-4.
23. Ross WD, Wilson NC. A Stratagem for proportional growth assessment. In: J.Borms and M.Heb belinck (eds.) Children in exercise. Acta. Paediat. Belg.1974; 28: 169-182.
24. Rougerie C and Courtois J. A Step toward adult hood: The first real job. Population, 1997;52:1297.
25. Singal P, Sidhu LS. Age changes and comparison of somatotypes during 20 to 80 years in Jat-Sikh and Bania females of Punjab (India). Anthropolo gia Anzeiger.1984;42:281.
26. Singh SP, Sidhu LS. Changes in somatotype during 4-20 years in Gaddi Rajput boys. Zeitschrift Fur Morphologic and Anthropologic.1980;71:285-293.
27. Singh SP, Singh SP. Inter-generational variation in body morphology and somatotype in Labana Sikhs. In: Man-Environment Relationship. M.K Bhasin and V. Bhasin (Eds.). J. Hum. Ecol.,Special issue No.2000; 9: 193-200.
28. Sodhi, HS. Effects of Physical activity on Body composition- A review. NIS Journal, 1976;10: 28- 33.
29. Tanner JM.Growth at Adolescence. 2nd Edition, Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford,1962.
30. Walker RN. Pre-school physique and late adolescents somatotypes. Ann. Hum. Biol. 1978;5: 113 129.
31. Zuk G H. The plasticity of the physique from early adolescence through adulthood. J. Genet. Psych.1958; 92: 205-214
Desh Bhagat University,
Off to NH-44, Amloh Road, Mandi Gobindgarh,
District Fatehgarh Sahib, Punjab- 147301, India