Anthropometric characteristics of elite Kenyan marathon runners

Introduction. Despite over the last ten years several studies attempted to explain the success of Kenyan marathon runners proposing explanations included environmental-, psychological-, and physiological-factors, little is known about the anthropometric characteristics of them. Consequently, the aims of this study were to describe the current anthropometric profiles of elite Kenyan marathon runners and establish a set of reference values useful for future investigations on athlete selection, talent identification, and training programme development. Methods In a cross-sectional design, 14 male Kenyan runners were assessed for the measurement of skinfolds, segment lengths, breadths, and girths according to previous works (Carter and Heath, 1990; Norton and Olds, 2004; Stuelcken et al., 2007). All variables except body mass and height were measured on the right side of the body in triplicate with the median value used as the criterion. To estimate body density (BD) multiple regression equations were calculated using the sum of 3-skinfolds method (Jackson and Pollock, 1978) and then converted to percentage of body fat (% BF) (Siri, 1961). The somatotype, somatotype dispersion mean (SDM), somatotype attitudinal mean (SAM), and height to weight ratio (HWR) were calculated using the method and equations of Carter and Heath (1990). Results The mean (s) of age, height, weight and marathon personal best were 27.7 (3.7) yrs, 171.2 (6.1) cm, 57.7 (4.0) kg, and 02h 07min 16s (01min 55s). The mean (s) of BD, % BF, SDM, SAM, and HWR were 1.13 (0.02), 8.8 (0.07) %, 4.6 (3.6), 0.5 (0.1), and 44.3 (1.0), respectively. The mean (s) endomorphy, mesomorphy, and ectomorphy were 1.5 (0.3), 1.6 (1.8), and 3.8 (0.7), respectively. Discussion The mean somatotype of Kenyan marathon runners evaluated could be defined as ectomorph, having ectomorphy as dominant, and endomorphy and mesomorphy more than one-half unit lower. Despite population comparisons would be required to identify any connection between specific anthropometric dimensions, these reference data should be useful to practitioners and researchers, providing useful information for talent identification and for the assessment of training progression in marathon. References Carter JEL, Heath BH. (1990). Somatotyping: Development and applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Jackson AS, Pollock ML. (1978). Br J Nutr, 40, 497-504 Norton K, Olds T. (2004). Anthropometrica. University of New South Wales Press Ltd., Sydney Siri WE. (1961). In Techniques for measuring body composition, 223. National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council, Washington, D.C Stuelcken M, Pyne D, Sinclair P. (2007). J Sports Sci, 25, 1587-1597