Kinanthropometric comparison between young elite kayakers and canoeists

Abstract

The aims of this study were to describe and compare kinanthropometric characteristics of elite young kayakers and canoeists and to compare their proportionality with Olympic paddlers. One hundred and twenty young elite sprint paddlers (66 kayakers and 58 canoeists), aged 13- and 14-years-old, were assessed using a battery of 32 anthropometric dimensions. Somatotypes, Phantom Z-scores and corrected girths were calculated. Comparison between kayakers and canoeists showed that kayakers had greater height, body weight, sitting height, arm span and upper body lengths, breadths and girths than canoeists. Higher proportional humerus breadth and arm girths were also found in kayakers. However, canoeists had higher Z-scores in femur breadth. Olympic paddlers had higher proportional dimensions in upper body girths, and biacromial breadth in both disciplines. Mean somatotypes of kayakers were best described as balanced mesomorphs, while canoeists were ecto-mesomorphs. Differences between kayak and canoe paddlers may be explained by the continual need for physical development in kayakers, in order to remain competitive, compared to the young canoeists' need to place much greater emphasis on the development of their technical ability. The data provided in this study could be used as a guideline for talent identification in sprint canoeing and kayaking.

Full text

119
F. Alacid et al.: Anthropometry of Young Kayakers and Canoeists, Coll. Antropol. 39 (2015) 1: 119–126
dler is seated and the force is transmitted to the boat
through the seat and the foot-rest, whereas canoeists are
in a high kneeling position (up on one knee) in the boat.
Fu rthermore, kaya kers propel by means of a double-blade
paddle alternately on both sides of the boat and steering
is accomplished with a rudder attached with cords to a
tiller controlled by the feet, while canoeists do it with a
single-blade paddle always on the same side of the canoe
and use steering strokes to control their direction.
During the last 30 years, a considerable amount of lit-
erature has been published on biomechanical analysis of
paddling technique14–19 and analyzing pacing strate-
gies20 –22 for both canoeing and kayaking. However, only a
few research reports deal with the comparison of anthro-
pometric attributes of elite kayakers and canoeists. In a
review of the science and medicine of canoeing and kaya-
king, Shephard23 reported the results published by Ar-
A con sidera ble amount of liter ature has been publishe d
on anthropometric and body composition differences be-
tween playing positions. Most of these studies were fo-
cused on team sports such as soccer1,2, rugby, Australian
and American football3–5, volleyball6, basketball7–9, and
water-polo10. All pointed out that there were signifi cant
differences between playing position. Furthermore, in in-
dividua l spor ts some d ifferenc es have been found between
athletics disciplines11, swimming styles10 or lightweight
and open-class rowing12,13.
Both sprint kayaking and canoeing differ from rowing
in that rowers sit backwards, facing the stern of the boat
and the oar is attached to the boat sitting on a rowlock,
whereas paddlers move in the direction of the view and
the paddle is not att ached to anyth ing but t he ha nds of the
kayaker or canoeist. There are also some differences be-
tween sprint kayaking and canoeing. In kayak, the pad-
Coll. Antropol. 39 (2015) 1: 119 –126
Original scientifi c paper
Kinanthropometric Comparison between Young Kinanthropometric Comparison between Young
Elite Kayakers and CanoeistsElite Kayakers and Canoeists
Fernando AlacidFernando Alacid1, Michael Marfell-Jones, Michael Marfell-Jones2, José Maria Muyor, José Maria Muyor3, Pedro Ángel López-Miñarro, Pedro Ángel López-Miñarro4 and and
Ignacio MartínezIgnacio Martínez5
1 Universidad Católica San Antonio, Department of Physical Activity and Sports, Murcia, Spain
2 The Open Polytechnic of New Zealand, Wellington, New Zealand
3 Universidad de Almería, Department of Physical Education, Almería, Spain
4 Universidad de Murcia, Department of Physical Education, Murcia, Spain
5 Universidad de Murcia, Department of Physiotherapy, Murcia, Spain
A B S T R A C TABSTRACT
The aims of this study were to describe and compare kinanthropometric characteristics of elite young kayakers and
canoeists and to compare their proportionality with Olympic paddlers. One hundred and twenty young elite sprint pad-
dlers (66 kayakers and 58 canoeists), aged 13- and 14-years-old, were assessed using a battery of 32 anthropometric di-
mensions. Somatotypes, Phantom Z-scores and corrected girths were calculated. Comparison between kayakers and ca-
noeists showed that kayakers had greater height, body weight, sitting height, arm span and upper body lengths, breadths
and girths than canoeists. Higher proportional humerus breadth and arm girths were also found in kayakers. However,
canoeists had higher Z-scores in femur breadth. Olympic paddlers had higher proportional dimensions in upper body
girths, and biacromial breadth in both disciplines. Mean somatotypes of kayakers were best described as balanced meso-
morphs, while canoeists were ecto-mesomorphs. Differences between kayak and canoe paddlers may be explained by the
continual need for physical development in kayakers, in order to remain competitive, compared to the young canoeists’
need to place much greater emphasis on the development of their technical ability. The data provided in this study could
be used as a guideline for talent identifi cation in sprint canoeing and kayaking.
Key words: anthropometry, adolescent, somatotype, proportionality, canoeing/kayaking
IntroductionIntroduction
Received for publication June 17, 2011

120
F. Alacid et al.: Anthropometry of Young Kayakers and Canoeists, Coll. Antropol. 39 (2015) 1: 119–126
mand24, where kayakers were a little taller and 6.0 kg
heavier than canoeists, while Hirata25 found a mean dif-
ference of 3.5 cm in stature and 2.9 kg in body mass be-
tween kayakers and canoeists who won a gold medal at
the Montreal, Tokyo and Munich Olympic Games. Misigoj-
Durakovic & Heimer26 examined the morphological char-
acteristics of 29 sprint paddlers (18 kayakers and 11 ca-
noeists), candidates for the 1987 Universiade, concluding
that there were no signifi cant differences between the two
disciplines. At the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games, sprint
and slalom kayak and canoe paddlers were measured in
the Oz2000 Sydney Olympic Rowing, Canoeing and Kay-
aking anthropometry project27,28. Ridge et al.28 compared
12 slalom kayakers with 19 slalom canoeists, and found
that canoe paddlers possessed a greater sum of 8 skinfolds
and consequently higher ratings of endomorphy. There
was also a trend for canoeists to have a greater thigh girth
than kayakers, which could be attributed to a large thigh
skinfold.
In Spain, 13 and 14 year-old paddlers compete over
3000 m in single kayak or canoe in National Cups, and at
the National Championship over 1000 m in single, double
or quadruple boats. Once the competition season has fi n-
ished, National Development Camps are held in order to
facilitate the technical and morphological evolution of the
young paddlers. These camps provide an opportunity to
carry out comprehensive anthropometric investigations.
Therefore, the aims of this study were: to utilize the op-
portunity of the Development Camps (1) to describe and
compare body dimensions, somatotype and proportional-
ity of elite male young kayakers and canoeists; (2) to com-
pare the proportionality of young kayakers and canoeists
with Olympic paddlers; and (3) to establish an anthropo-
metric profi le for 13 and 14 year-old kayakers and canoe-
ists to be used for talent identifi cation and training.
Materials and MethodsMaterials and Methods
ParticipantsParticipants
One hundred and twenty four young elite male sprint
paddlers (66 kayakers and 58 canoeist; 13- and 14-year-
olds) were measured using a battery of 32 anthropometric
dimensions. They were selected by the Royal Spanish Ca-
noeing Federation as the best in their categories to par-
ticipate in the 2006, 2007 and 2008 National Development
Camps. The Institutional Ethical Committee of the Uni-
versity of Murcia approved the study and written informed
consent form was obtained from the parents of all the boys
before participation.
Data collectionData collection
All variables (listed in Table 1) were measured by a
Level 2 anthropometrist certifi ed by the International So-
ciety for the Advancement of Kinanthropometry (ISAK),
in accordance with the ISAK guidelines29. Variables were
taken twice, or three times (if the difference between the
fi rst two measures was greater than 5% for skinfolds and
1% for the rest of the dimensions), with the mean or me-
dian values, respectively, used for data analyzis. The tech-
nical error of measurement scores was required to be
within 5% for skinfolds and within 1% for the remaining
variables.
Body mass was measured using a SECA 862 (SECA,
Germany), stretch stature, sitting height, arm span, 2 di-
rect lengths and 7 breadths with a GPM anthropometer
(Siber-Hegner, Switzerland), 11 girths with a metallic
non-extensible tape Lufkin W606PM (Lufkin, USA) and
8 skinfolds with a Harpenden skinfold caliper (British
Indicators, UK).
Data analysisData analysis
Means, standard deviations and Phantom Z-scores
were calculated for all variables. The equations of Carter
& Heath30 were used to calculate anthropometric somato-
types and the Phantom Stratagem31 was used to ca lculate
Z-scores of each raw variables. Body mass index (BMI),
sums of six and eight skinfolds were calculated. Girths
were corrected for the skinfold at the corresponding site
using the formula: corrected girth = girth – (π · skinfold
thickness).
Data were a nalyz ed separately for kayakers a nd canoe-
ists. The hypotheses of normality and homogeneity of the
variance were analyzed via Kolmogorov-Smirnov and
Levene tests, respectively. Parametric analysis was per-
formed because the data were normally distributed. An
independent t-test was conducted to examine differences
between both groups (kayakers and canoeists) for all de-
pendent vari ables. p va lues le ss tha n 0.05 were c onsidered
statistically signifi cant. Analyses were performed using
the SPSS 15.0 statistical software package.
Results and DiscussionResults and Discussion
Absolute body sizeAbsolute body size
Table 1 presents the anthropometric absolute size of
the two groups. Comparison between kayakers and canoe-
ists revealed that kayakers had higher values in all the
variables analyzed, with the same chronological age. Sig-
nifi cant differences were found in body mass, stretch stat-
ure, sitting height, arm span, arm length, all the breadths
except for the transverse chest and femur breadths and all
the girths with the exceptions of the upper- and mid-thigh
girths. The fi ndings of the current study were consistent
with those of Shephard23 who r epor ted a higher body mass
and stretch stature in elite kayakers and contrast with
those of Misigoj-Durakovic & Heimer26. Another impor-
tant fi nding was that the greatest differences between
kayakers and canoeists were found in upper body mea-
sures such as trunk and arm breadths and girths. Prior
studies had noted the importance of these measures and
their relationships with race performance in kayaking32–34.
However these associations had not previously been de-
scribed in canoeing. In terms of sums of six and eight
skinfolds, the results obtained by kayakers and canoeists

121
F. Alacid et al.: Anthropometry of Young Kayakers and Canoeists, Coll. Antropol. 39 (2015) 1: 119–126
were similar. These results differed from Ridge et al.28 who
found a greater sum of six and eight skinfolds in elite
slalom canoeists (kayakers: 31.3±5.7 mm and 45.8±9.0
mm, respectively; canoeists: 38.1±5.5 mm and 57.1±9.4
mm, respectively), but they were broadly consistent with
those reported by Misigoj-Durakovic & Heimer26 in sprint
paddlers (sum of fi ve skinfolds: kayakers: 29.8±8.0 mm;
canoeists: 31.9±7.7 mm).
These results may be explained by the fact that those
beginning paddling activities usually start in kayaking,
because it is easier to keep the s tabi lity i n lear ner k ayak s.
Subsequently some paddlers change to canoeing as their
competitive discipline, though most of them keep on kaya-
king and do not change. Those who continue as kayakers
mus t continue to i mprove thei r strength in ord er to rem ain
competitive. Those who change to canoeing, however, need
to adapt to an event which places far greater emphasis on
technique since canoeists paddle without the help of a rud-
der and on only one side of the canoe. It is diffi cult to keep
the canoe going in the right direction in good conditions
and much more diffi cult in windy conditions. Therefore,
particularly in young canoeists, paddling technique is far
more important than physical development in order to
achieve good results.
Furthermore, the ratio of kayakers to canoeists in the
National Competitions run by the Royal Spanish Canoe-
ing Federation in the seasons 2006, 2007 and 2008 was
approximately 3:1. Thus, it is easier to be selected for the
Annual National Development Camps in canoeing (than
in kayaking) because there are only a third as many com-
petitors. This difference in the number of competitors in
each discipline could be considered as a limitation of this
study.
ProportionalityProportionality
Body mass index did not show any signifi cant differ-
ence between kayakers (20.97±2.35 kg m2) and canoeists
(20.34±3.09 kg·m2).
Table 2 shows that the kayakers possessed signifi cant
higher proportional humerus breadth and arm relaxed,
fl exed and tensed, and corrected arm and forearm girths
than canoeists. Nevertheless, canoeists had higher Z-
scores in femur breadth. This result may be explained by
the fact that the implication of leg muscles in the paddling
movement in canoeing is greater than in kayaking17. No
signifi cant di fferences were found in proportional charac-
teristics in the rest of the measures.
The proportionality characteristics of young kayakers
and canoeists compared to Olympic paddlers27 are dis-
playe d in Fig ure 1. The dif ferences between the y oung a nd
word-class paddlers were similar in both disciplines. As
expected, the Olympic paddlers were proportionally larger
in all measures except the sum of eight skinfolds and fe-
mur breadth. The larger proportional skinfold sum in the
young confi rmed the pr opor tiona lly leaner physique of t he
elite paddlers, whereas the larger proportional femur
breadth typifi ed the morphology of 13 and 14 year old boys
(as compared to fi t adu lts) whether they be padd lers or not.
SomatotypeSomatotype
Individual and mean somatoplots for young kayakers
and canoeists are presented in Figure 2. With mean so-
TABLE 1TABLE 1
GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS AND ABSOLUTE SIZE OF
YOUNG SPRINT K AYAKERS AND CA NOEISTS
Var i able Kayakers
(N=66)
Canoeists
(N=58)
Age (years) 13.69±0.58 13.65±0.62
Paddling experience (years) 3.92±1.89** 2.97±1.40
Weekly training (hours) 7.20±1.55 7.16±1.44
Body mass (kg) 59.96±9.31* 55.08±12.06
Sum 6 skinfoldsa (mm) 64.86±23.67 64.70±37.76
Sum 8 skinfoldsb (mm) 82.13±30.55 80.57±47.64
Stretch stature (cm) 168.75±6.58** 163.71±8.72
Sitting height (cm)
88.29±4.23**
85.07±5.30
Arm span (cm) 172.82±8.19** 167.87±11.00
Arm length (cm) 31.38±1.59** 30.46±1.91
Forearm length (cm) 24.28±1.51 23.80±2.11
Biacromial breadth (cm) 37.63±2.06** 36.13±2.63
Biiliocristal breadth (cm) 29.18±2.67* 28.16±2.61
A-P chest depth (cm) 19.09±1.48* 18.38±1.81
Transverse chest breadth (cm) 27.42±2.06 26.72±2.58
Humerus breadth (cm)
6.93±0.34**
6.59±0.53
Femur breadth (cm) 9.73±0.50 9.64±0.60
Wrist breadth (cm)
5.62±0.30**
5.40±0.38
Arm girth relaxed (cm) 26.67±2.70** 24.98±2.82
Corrected arm girth (cm)
23.55±2.26**
21.85±2.20
Arm girth fl exed and tensed (cm)
29.60±2.72** 27.57±2.75
Forearm girth (cm) 25.03±1.87** 23.53±1.95
Wrist girth (cm)
16.23±0.89**
15.64±1.17
Chest girth (cm) 86.16±5.87** 82.75±8.35
Waist girth (cm) 73.80±6.50* 70.69±8.92
Hip girth (cm) 87.95±6.21* 85.27±7.44
Upper-thigh girth (cm) 53.50±5.11 51.69±5.49
Mid-thigh girth (cm) 47.84±4.06 46.29±4.76
Corrected mid-thigh girth (cm) 43.42±3.15* 41.77±3.89
Calf girth (cm) 33.62±2.54* 32.48±3.05
Corrected calf girth (cm) 30.41±2.08** 28.95±2.78
Ankle girth (cm) 22.47±1.40* 21.83±1.85
aSum of triceps, subscapular, supraspinale, abdominal, front thigh
and medial calf
bSum of triceps, subscapular, biceps, iliac crest, supraspinale, ab-
dominal, front thigh and medial calf
Signifi cant difference from canoeists (*p<0.05; **p<0.01)

122
F. Alacid et al.: Anthropometry of Young Kayakers and Canoeists, Coll. Antropol. 39 (2015) 1: 119–126
matotypes of 2.7–4.8–3.1, the kayakers were best de-
scribed as balanced mesomorphs, while the canoeists, at
2.6–4.5–3.2, were ecto-mesomorphs. The somatotype at-
titudinal mean (SAM), as a measure of the average disper-
sion of individual somatotypes from the group mean, in-
dicated a higher homogeneity in kayakers (1.49) than in
canoeists (1.71).
The young male paddlers were less lean, robust mus-
culoskeletally and compact than Olympic sprint (1.6–5.7–
2.2) and slalom (1.7–5.4–2.5) paddlers27, 28. The somato-
type for both disciplines was similar in kayakers and
canoeists. The main difference with respect to Olympic
paddlers’ somatotype lays in a lower mesomorphy, as was
to be expected because of signifi cant age difference. The
variation from the mean somatotype was higher in young
paddlers than in Olympic sprint paddlers27, with SAM
values of 1.1.
The somatotype attitudinal distance (SAD) between
the mean somatotype of young paddlers and Olympic
TABLE 2TABLE 2
RELATIVE SIZE CHA RACTERISTICS F ROM PHANTOM
Z-SCORES OF YOUNG SPRINT K AYAKERS AND CA NOEISTS
Var i able Kayakers
(N=66)
Canoeists
(N=58)
Z Body mass –0.39±0.75 –0.40±0.94
Z Sum 6 skinfoldsa–1.47±0.67 –1.42±1.10
Z Sum 8 skinfoldsb–1.47±0.69 –1.45±1.10
Z Sitting height –0.20±0.45 –0.33±0.65
Z Arm span 0.26±0.54 0.28±0.69
Z Arm length –0.50±0.62 –0.49±0.57
Z Forearm length –0.06±0.86 0.11±0.94
Z Biacromial breadth –0.05±0.74 –0.26±0.83
Z Biiliocristal breadth 0.32±1.23 0.24±1.14
Z A-P chest depth 1.26±0.90 1.17±1.22
Z Transverse chest breadth –0.15±1.07 –0.10±1.08
Z Humerus breadth 1.45±0.83* 1.06±1.02
Z Femur breadth 0.62±1.00* 1.07±1.04
Z Wrist breadth 1.63±0.99 1.45±0.96
Z Arm girth relaxed 0.00±1.03* –0.41±1.00
Z Corrected arm girth 0.88±1.00** 0.34±0.89
Z Arm girth fl exed and tensed
0.18±0.97** –0.33±0.91
Z Forearm girth 0.07±1.11** –0.48±1.06
Z Wrist girth 0.03±1.06 –0.14±1.15
Z Chest girth –0.19±0.90 –0.37±1.24
Z Waist girth 0.56±1.28 0.36±1.89
Z Hip girth –1.07±0.88 –1.09±0.96
Z Upper-thigh girth –0.44±1.09 – 0.50±1.11
Z Mid-thigh girth –1.09±0.77 –1.12±0.83
Z Corrected mid-thigh girth – 0.99±0.71 –1.10±0.78
Z Calf girth –0.58±1.02 –0.65±1.04
Z Corrected calf girth 0.23±0.95 –0.07±1.13
Z Ankle girth 0.72±0.99 0.73±1.03
aSum of triceps, subscapular, supraspinale, abdominal, front thigh
and medial calf
bSum of triceps, subscapular, biceps, iliac crest, supraspinale, ab-
dominal, front thigh and medial calf
Signifi cant difference from canoeists (*p<0.05; **p<0.01)
Fig. 1. Proportionality (Phantom Z-Scores) of young kayakers
and canoeists comparing with Olympic paddlers27.
Fig 2. Somatoplots of sprint kayakers and canoeists. Large
circle = mean profi le each group.

123
F. Alacid et al.: Anthropometry of Young Kayakers and Canoeists, Coll. Antropol. 39 (2015) 1: 119–126
sprint paddlers was 1.7 and 1.9 for kayakers and canoeists,
respectively. Furthermore, the lower heterogeneity and
values of SAD from the somatotype of Olympic paddlers
and the higher mesomorphy could be related with the ne-
cessity of a greater physical development to achieve a good
result and for being selected in National Development
Camps in young kayakers.
ConclusionsConclusions
One of the more signifi cant fi ndings emerging from
this study is that young kayakers were heavier, taller,
with greater sitting height, arm span, arm length, upper
body breadths and girths than canoeists. These differ-
ences may be explained by the continued need for physical
development in kayakers, in order to remain competitive,
whereas young canoeists need to place a much greater
emphasis on the development of their technical ability.
Mean somatotypes of both kayakers and canoeists were
very similar, although kayakers were best described as
balanced mesomorphs, while canoeists were ecto-meso-
morphs. Proportionality is a useful tool for talent identi-
fi cation; Olympic paddlers had higher proportional dimen-
sions in arm fl exed and tensed, chest and waist girths, and
biacromial breadth than young paddlers. This study offers
the anthropometric profi le of the young elite kayakers and
canoeists, which could be used as a guideline for talent
identifi cation in sprint canoeing and kayaking.
AcknowledgementsAcknowledgements
This study was supported by grant nº 11951/PI/09
(Evolution of sagittal spinal curvatures, hamstring exten-
sibility, low back pain, and anthropometric characteristics
in elite paddlers) from the Fundación Séneca-Agencia de
Ciencia y Tecnología de la Región de Murcia (II PCTRM
2007–2010).
We thank the collaboration of the Royal Spanish Ca-
noeing Federation and the paddlers who participated in
this study.
R E F E R E N C E S REFERENCES
1. HENCKEN C, WHITE C, Eur J Sport Sci, 6 (2006) 205. — 2.
SU TT ON L , SC OTT M, WA LL ACE J, RE IL LY T, J Spor ts S ci, 27 (2 00 9)
1019. — 3 . HOLWAY F E, GARAVAGLI A R, J Spor ts Sc i, 27 ( 2009) 1 211.
— 4. PYNE DB, GA RDNER AS, SHEEHAN K, HOPKINS WG, J Sci
Med Sport, 9 (2006) 143. — 5. STUEMPF LE KJ, DRURY DG, PETRIE
DF, K AT CH F I, J Stre ngt h Co nd Re s, 2 3 (20 09 ) 788 . — 6 . DU NCA N MJ ,
WOODFIELD L, AL-NA KEEB Y, Br J Sports Med, 40 (2006) 649. — 7.
ACKLAND TR, SCHREINER AB, KERR DA, J Sports Sci, 15 (1997)
485. — 8. CARTER JE, ACKLAND TR, KERR DA, STA PFF A B, J
Sports Sci, 23 (20 05) 1057. — 9. GONCETAS A, LAN DOR A, Paper An-
thropol, 14 (2005) 42. — 10. CARTER JEL , ACKLAND T, Kinanthro-
pometry in aquatic spor ts. A study of world class athletes. (Human K inet-
ics, Champaign, IL, 1994). — 11. VUCETIC V, MATKOVIC BR,
SENT IJA D, Coll Antropol, 32 (2 008) 863. — 1 2. JÜRI MÄE J, JÜ RIM ÄE
T, Paper Anthropol, 11 (20 02) 71. — 13. KERR DA, ROS S WD, NORTON
K, HUME P, KAGAWA M, ACKLAND TR, J Sports Sci, 25 (2007) 43.
— 14. KENDAL SJ, SANDERS RH, Int J Sport Biomech, 8 (1992) 233.
— 15. LOGA N SM, HOLT LE, Natl Strength Condition Assoc J, 7 (1985)
4. — 16. MA NN RV, KEAR NEY JT, Med Sci Spor ts Exerc, 12 (1980) 183.
— 17. PELHAM T W, BURKE DG, HOLT LE, Natl Strength Condition
As soc J, 14 (199 2) 6 . — 18 . P LAG ENH OEF S , R es Q, 50 ( 1979 ) 44 3. — 19.
SANDERS R H, KEN DAL SJ, Australian J Sci Med Sport , 24 (1992) 25.
— 20. AL ACID F, LOPEZ-M INARR O PA , ISORNA M, R ev Int Med Cienc
Ac t Fí s De por te, 10 (2 010) 20 3. — 2 1. B ISH OP D, BON ET TI D , DAWS ON
B, Med Sci Sports Exerc, 34 (20 02) 1041. — 22. ISSUR IN V, Analyzis of
the race strategy of world-class kayakers. In: ISSU RIN V (Ed) Science &
practice of canoe/kayak high-performance training: selected articles in
memo ry of j unior world ch ampion Nevo E itan ( Elit e Spor t Depa rtment of
Israel, Tel-Aviv, 1998). — 23. SHEPHARD RJ, Sports Med, 4 (1987) 19.
— 24. ARMAND JC. Surveillance médicale de l’entrainement d’une
équipe de canoe-kayak de haut niveau de performance. MD Thesis. In
Fr ench . (P ari s Oue st, P ari s, 19 83). — 25 . HI RAT A K, S elect ions of oly m-
pic champions (Hirata Institute, Tokio, 1977 ). — 26. MISIGOJ-DURA-
KOVIC M, HEIMER S, J Sports Med Phys Fitness, 32 (1992) 45. — 27.
ACKLAND TR, ONG KB, KERR DA, RIDGE B, J Sci Med Sport, 6
(2003) 285. — 28. RIDGE B, BROAD E, KERR D, ACKLAND T, Eur J
Sport Sci, 7 (2007) 107. — 29. MARFELL-JONES M, OLDS T, STEW-
ART A, CARTER L, International standards for anthropometric assess-
ment (ISA K, Potchefstroom, South Africa, 2006). — 30. CARTER JEL ,
HEATH BH, Somatotyping: development and application (Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, 1990). — 31. ROSS WD, MARFELL-
JONES M, Kinanthropometry. In: MACDOUGAL J, WENGER H,
GREEN H (Eds) Physiological testing of the high performance athlete
(Human K inetics, Champaign, I L, 1991). — 32. FRY RW, MORTON A R,
Med Sci Spor ts Exerc, 23 (1991) 1297. — 33. VAN SOM EREN KA , HOW-
ATSON G, Int J Sports Physiol Perform, 3 (2008) 207. — 34. VAN SO-
MEREN KA, PALMER GS, Can J Appl Physiol, 28 (2003) 505.
F. Alacid
Universidad Católica San Antonio, Department of Physical Activity and Sports, Campus de los Jerónimos s/n, 30107
Guadalupe, Murcia, Spain
e-mail: falacid@ucam.edu

124
F. Alacid et al.: Anthropometry of Young Kayakers and Canoeists, Coll. Antropol. 39 (2015) 1: 119–126
KINANTROPOMETRIJSKE USPOREDBE IZMEĐU MLADIH VRHUNSKIH KAJAKAŠA I KANUISTAKINANTROPOMETRIJSKE USPOREDBE IZMEĐU MLADIH VRHUNSKIH KAJAKAŠA I KANUISTA
S A Ž E T A KSAŽETAK
Ciljevi ovog istraživanja bili su opisati i usporediti kinanthropometrijske karakteristike vrhunskih mladih kajakaša
i kanuista te usporediti njihovu proporcionalnost s olimpijskim veslačima. Stotinu i dvadeset mladih vrhunskih sprint
veslača (66 kajakaša i 58 kanuista), u dobi od 13 i 14 godina, ocijenjeni su pomoću baterije s 32 antropometrijske mjere.
Izračunati su somatotipovi, Z-rezultat i ispravljeni omjeri. Usporedba između kajakaša i kanuista pokazala je da su
kajakaši viši, imaju veću tjelesnu težinu, sjedaću visinu, raspon ruku i dužinu gornjeg tijela, duljine, širine i opsege nego
kanuisti. Viša proporcionalna širina humerusa i opsega ruke su također u kajakaša. Međutim, kanuisti imaju veće Z-
rezultate u širini bedrene kosti. Olimpijski veslači su veći u proporcionalni dimenzijama gornji dijela tijela, opsega i
biakromijalne širine, u obje discipline. Srednji somatotipovi za kajakaše najbolje je opisati kao uravnoteženi mezomor-
fni, dok su kanuisti su ekto-mezomorfni. Razlike između veslača kajaka i kanua mogu objasniti trajne potrebe za tjele-
snim razvojem u kajakaša, kako bi ostali konkurentni, u usporedbi s mladim kanuistima, gdje su potrebe i puno veći
naglasak na razvoj njihove tehničke sposobnosti. Podaci u ovoj studiji mogu se koristiti kao smjernica za otkrivanje
talenta u sprint veslanju kanua i kajaka.