Analysis of the morphological changes in beginning bodybuilders due to resistance training Department of weightlifting and box, Kharkov state academy of physical culture, UKRAINE

Abstract

Bodybuilding is the kind of sport in which a sportsman's body shape influences the competition results[1;23]. In spite of scientific researches in the sport anthropology there is the lack of information about morphological changes of beginner bodybuilders as a result of resistance training [17]. The aim of this study was to trace changes of somatotype of bodybuilders of first and second class during mass gaining period. Materials and methods involved: a total of 22 male first and second class bodybuilders aged from 19 to 26 year old participated in this study. Body weight, Height, Skinfolds thickness (Triceps, Subscapular, Abdominal and Medial calf, Girths of tensed arm and calf, and two Breadths (Biepicondylar Humerus Breadth and Biepicondylar Femur Breadth) from each participants were measured before and after the basic period. The Height was 180±1.11sm. The body mass in the beginning of study was 78.9±1.29kg, in the end it was 79.64±1.22kg (t=2.91, p<0.01). Measurement indicators of skinfolds in the beginning and the end of study were: Triceps-4.55±0.27mm; 4.59±0.21mm (t=0.25, p>0.05), Subscapular-6.91±0.51mm; 6.86±0.40mm (t=0.23, p>0.05), Abdominal-10.05±0.95mm; 9.14±0.67mm (t=2.3, p>0.05), Medial calf-4.68±0.26mm; 4.64±0.22mm (t=0.29, p>0.05). The Morphological level before and after study was: Endomorphy-2.45±0.20; 2.36±0.14 (t=1.05, p>0.05), Mesomorphy-5.20±0.13; 5.58±0.14 (t=4.7, p<0.001), Ectomorphy-2.08±0.11; 1.76±0.07 (t=3.03, p<0.01). The Girth of tensed arm was 41.3±0.33mm; 42.6±0.31mm (t=4.12, p<0.001), The Girth of Medial calf-40.23±0.27mm; 41.09±0.37mm (t=3.07, p<0.01). Our study has showed the changes of somatotype of bodybuilders 1st and 2nd class during the basic period of preparation. Bodybuilders shifted their somatotype towards mesomorphic type during mass gaining period.

Full text

Journal of Physical Education and Sport
®
(JPES), 18 Supplement issue 1, Art 52, pp. 382 - 386, 2018
online ISSN: 2247 - 806X; p-ISSN: 2247 – 8051; ISSN - L = 2247 - 8051 © JPES
382 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corresponding Author OLEKSANDR TYKHORSKYI, E-mail: tihorskiialeks@gmail.com
Original Article
Analysis of the morphological changes in beginning bodybuilders due to
resistance training
OLEKSANDR TYKHORSKYI
1
, VIKTOR DZHYM
2
, MYKOLAY GALASHKO
3
, EVGENIYA DZHYM
4
1,2.3.4
Department of weightlifting and box, Kharkov state academy of physical culture, UKRAINE
Published online: April 30, 2018
(Accepted for publication March 25, 2018)
DOI:10.7752/jpes.2018.s152
Abstract
Bodybuilding is the kind of sport in which a sportsman’s body shape influences the competition results[1;23]. In
spite of scientific researches in the sport anthropology there is the lack of information about morphological
changes of beginner bodybuilders as a result of resistance training [17]. The aim of this study was to trace
changes of somatotype of bodybuilders of first and second class during mass gaining period.
Materials and methods involved: a total of 22 male first and second class bodybuilders aged from 19 to 26 year
old participated in this study. Body weight, Height, Skinfolds thickness (Triceps, Subscapular, Abdominal and
Medial calf, Girths of tensed arm and calf, and two Breadths (Biepicondylar Humerus Breadth and
Biepicondylar Femur Breadth) from each participants were measured before and after the basic period. The
Height was 180±1.11sm. The body mass in the beginning of study was 78.9±1.29kg, in the end it was
79.64±1.22kg (t=2.91, p<0.01). Measurement indicators of skinfolds in the beginning and the end of study were:
Triceps - 4.55±0.27mm; 4.59±0.21mm (t=0.25, p>0.05), Subscapular - 6.91±0.51mm; 6.86±0.40mm (t=0.23,
p>0.05), Abdominal - 10.05±0.95mm; 9.14±0.67mm (t=2.3, p>0.05), Medial calf - 4.68±0.26mm; 4.64±0.22mm
(t=0.29, p>0.05). The Morphological level before and after study was: Endomorphy - 2.45±0.20; 2.36±0.14
(t=1.05, p>0.05), Mesomorphy - 5.20±0.13; 5.58±0.14 (t=4.7, p<0.001), Ectomorphy - 2.08±0.11; 1.76±0.07
(t=3.03, p<0.01). The Girth of tensed arm was 41.3±0.33mm; 42.6±0.31mm (t=4.12, p<0.001), The Girth of
Medial calf - 40.23±0.27mm; 41.09±0.37mm (t=3.07, p<0.01). Our study has showed the changes of somatotype
of bodybuilders 1st and 2nd class during the basic period of preparation. Bodybuilders shifted their somatotype
towards mesomorphic type during mass gaining period.
Key words: - bodybuilding, anthropometry, somatotypes, off-season period
Introduction
Anthropometry plays an important role in athlete selection and performance criteria in most kinds of
sport [8; 9].
The peculiarity of bodybuilding is that it is a kind of sport which involves development of muscle groups
that are estimated during the competition. The main aim of bodybuilding training is to develop muscles mass and
body symmetry with the lowest possible fat percent. Body composition one is the most important factors for
bodybuilders [12; 4]. Nevertheless, athletes with different somatotypes achieves outstanding performance during
competition [3;5]. Sportsmen in bodybuilding are judged not by performance but by appearance, therefore body
composition, muscle size and definition are critical elements of success. (J. Funct)
Somatometry is fundamental research method in anthropology. It can help to understand current
morphological condition of a sportsman, expressed through 3 basic components of body composition. The
somatotype is defined as the quantification of the present shape and composition of the human body [2; 22]. The
theory of somatotypes was developed by American physiologist William Herbert Sheldon in 1940. According to
this study, human body is related to three different biotypes and combinations of their components [20].
The Heath-Carter method of somatotyping is the most commonly used today [15; 16]. Endomorphy,
Ectomorphy and Mesomorphy may be determined by using mathematical formulas which have been described
by Carter [2]. According to Grasgruber and Cacek, 2008, the somatotype of bodybuilders is the closest to the
ideal mesomorph and often achieves extreme points of mesomorphy.
The appearance and body shape of a person is known to be determined by his genotype as well as
influenced by his environment, lifestyle, diet ets [8].
In scientific literature there are several data that show anthropometry of elite and low-profile sportsmen
who specialize in different kinds of sport. According to Gutnik, 2015, the range of mesomorphy for football
players was from 0 to 4.6, for basketball players from 4,5 to 5,9, and for kayaking 5,9 and higher.
Novoa-Vingnau shows that mesomorphic component was dominant in group of elite climbers, however
the level of ectomorphy also was significantly different from non-climbers group [13].
Mohd Irman [11] investigated comparison between somatotypes of Indian bodybuilders and
weightlifters. The result of this study showed that weight lifters have much more fat percentage than

OLEKSANDR TYKHORSKYI, VIKTOR DZHYM, MYKOLAY GALASHKO, EVGENIYA DZHYM
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JPES ®
www.efsupit.ro
383
bodybuilders [7]. Although there was no significant difference between this sportsmen in mesomorphy status,
bodybuilders showed slightly more developed muscles than weightlifters. Furthemore, ectomorphy status of
weightlifters tend to be less ectomorph than sportsmen who do bodybuilding. The research has also proven that
bodybuilders have rate of anthropometry (2.9; 5.95; 1.56), which affirmes that bodybuilders have strong level of
mesomorphy.
It is well known [24] that one of the most effective way to shift anthropometry towards mesomorphy is
gaining muscle mass. Now it is widely believed that hight-volume, multiple-set training is effective with respect
to muscle hypertrophy. The reason may be in a great total muscle tension, metabolic stress or damage of
muscles. Furthermore, it may be the result of the combination of all these factors [17; 21].
Existing data confirms that periodization is the most important aspect of the training in the kinds of sport
such as bodybuilding or powerlifting. Several basic training principles which are overload, variation, specificity,
and reversibility make a substantial effect in training process outcomes. In order of using the principles presented
above sportsmen can avoid overtraining, optimize adaptation and increase their performance.
Bodybuilding is usually planned in two phases: off-season which is requires mass gaining on account of
muscle hypertrophy and pre-competitive period, during which sportsmen try to develop muscle definition [14].
The mass-gaining period consists of anaerobic training with a high caloric and protein intake. Nevertheless,
nowadays bodybuilders try not to gain too much body fat during this phase, given the complexity of losing it in
the pre-competitive phase [18].
In spite of scientific researches in the sport anthropology there is the lack of information about
morphological changes of beginner bodybuilders as a result of resistance training. The aim of our study is to
observe alterations in body composition of first and second class bodybuilders during three months of mass-
gaining phase.
Materials and methods
Participants: 22 male 1st and 2nd class bodybuilders aged from 19 to 26 years old took part in the study
conducted.
Methods: Body mass was measured on digital scales BEURER BG 17 with accuracy of 100g and height
with a vertical metric RPV-2000 with a 1mm accuracy; skinfold thickness was obtained by a Digital Body Fat
Caliper with a 0,2 mm accuracy; the girths were measured with a Lipoelastic Tape Technique with 1 mm
accuracy scale, breadths with a 1mm accuracy Rosscraft Campbell-type bone caliper.
For determination of a somatotype we used method of Carter and Heath [6]. Level of Endomorphy (EN)
was calculated by application of the formula:
EN = 0.7182 + 0.1451(X) - 0.00068( ) + 0.0000014( ,
Where X = ,
Where BH - body height (sm), TS - triceps skinfold (mm), SbS - Subscapular skinfold (mm), SpS -
Supraspinal skinfold (mm).
The formula for determine the level of Mesomorphy is:
M = 0.858(EW) + 0.061(KW) + 0.188(BC) + 0.161(CC) - 0.131(BH) + 4.5,
Where EW - Width of the elbow joint (sm), KW - Width of the knee joint (sm), BC - Circumference of
the flexed biceps (sm), CC - Circumference of the calf muscle (sm);
The level of Ectomorphy was calculated by the formula:
EC = 0.732 (HWR) - 28.58,
Where HWR is height-weight ratio:
HWR = ,
Where BH - Body height (sm), W - Weight (kg).
We used the formula above for calculate level of Ectomorphy, because HWR was in all cases.
All measurements were made in the beginning and in the end of study.
Statistical analysis. The results are presented as the Mean Standard Deviation (M SD). Since a
normal distribution was confirmed, a t-test for dependent samples was performed to define differences between
results. The data were analyzed with the licensed computer program Microsoft EXEL. Significant levels in all
tests were set at P 0.05.

OLEKSANDR TYKHORSKYI, VIKTOR DZHYM, MYKOLAY GALASHKO, EVGENIYA DZHYM
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JPES ®
www.efsupit.ro
384
Results
Results can be seen in the table I.
Table I.
Results obtained before and after three months of off-season period among bodybuilders first and second
class
Before After
Indicator
Mean ±
SD Mean ±
SD
t p
Weight, kg 78.9 ±
1.29
79.6 ±
1.22
2,91
<0.01
Triceps skinfold, mm 4.55 ±
0.27
4.59 ±
0.21
0,25
>0.05
Subscapular skinfold, mm 6.91 ±
0.51
6.86 ±
0.4 0,23
>0.05
Supraspinal skinfold, mm 10.05 ±
0.95
9.14 ±
0.67
2,3 <0.05
Calf skinfold, mm 4.68 ±
0.26
4.64 ±
0.22
0,29
>0.05
Circumference of the flexed biceps, sm 41.3 ±
0.33
42.6 ±
0.31
4,12
<0.001
Circumference of the calf muscle, sm 40.23 ±
0.27
41.09 ±
0.37
3,07
<0.01
Endomorphy level 2.45 ±
0.2 2.36 ±
0.14
1,05
>0.05
Mesomorphy level 5.20 ±
0.13
5.58 ±
0.16
4,7 <0.001
Ectomorphy level 2.18 ±
0.15
02.08 ±
0.11
3,03
<0.01
The results of analysis show us that bodybuilders have significantly shifted their anthropometry towards
mesomorphic somatotype. It occurs due to gaining sportsmen`s body mass. Indeed, there were observed
increasing of circumference of flexed biceps (p <0,001) and calf muscle (p <0,01), however, significant changes
of skinfold thickness were not discovered, except supraspinal skinfold (p <0,05). Furthermore, ectomorphic level
has decreased significantly (p <0,01). The change of level of endomorphy was not discovered.
The figure shows that sportsmen after basic period are nearer to the center of somatochart and higher than
before.
Fig. 1. Location of measured results in somatograph
Discussion
Despite the growing interest in bodybuilding research, there is still scant evidence about the
morphological factors that determine success in this kind of sport. The objective of the study was to describe
changes of somatotype of bodybuilders of the 1st and 2nd class during mass gaining period, which lasted three
month. In our study, we found significant positive shifting of anthropometric parameters towards
mesomorph [16]. It has been assumed that bodybuilders change their anthropometry parameters along with
increasing their mastership. This study can be considered actual has never before been researched changing of
bodybuilder’s anthropometry in the off-season period.
Toth showed the average value of bodybuilder`s somatotype as 6.03, that means localization in endo-
mesomorphic area. Similar result was obtained by Nikbakhsh [12], who showed low endomorphism
(0.92 0.24), high mesomorphism (6.86 0.89), and low ectomorphism (1.84 0.79) among Iranian
bodybuilders, which can be classified as a balanced mesomorphism. However, Brazilian sportsmen had

OLEKSANDR TYKHORSKYI, VIKTOR DZHYM, MYKOLAY GALASHKO, EVGENIYA DZHYM
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JPES ®
www.efsupit.ro
385
significantly higher level of mesomorphy (8.10 1.10). As a result, it can be suggested that low proportion of fat
and high proportion of muscle, is great advantage in kind of sport as a bodybuilding.
These results were proved by Irman, who compared somatotypes of bodybuilders and Weight Lifters. It
was showed that bodybuilers have level of mesomorphy as 5.95 0.92, Endomorphy - 2.90 0.49, Ectomorphy
- 1.56 1.19.
The question of body physique and dominant somatotype regarding the level of sportsmen within
different specialization have been investigated by Gutnik [8]. It was showed that the athletes of the elite groups,
unlike the groups of low profile sportsmen, demonstrated a higher variability of endomorphic and mesomorphic
level. Chatterjee proved this results and showed difference between constitution of low and high level athletes.
The index of mesomorphy depends on skeletal muscle mass in the human body. There are many kinds of
sport where mesomorphic index is dominant. The average somatotype in elite sportsmen is balanced
mesomorph. It has been shown that highly trained athletes demonstrate significantly greater measures of
mesomorphy than beginners or non-trained men. The training process in most kinds of sport includes strong
contractions of muscles that leads to increasing of muscle mass. Nevertheless, bodybuilders are interested in
gaining muscle mass without percentage of fat growing. For this aim sportsmen use aerobic exercise and special
diet which requires low carbohydrate [19].
Oroles’s [14] study shows the improvement of fitness level under the influence of weight training.
Sportsmen underwent the experiment during 40 weeks, and covered different training stages which included
resistance from 75% RM to 85%RM and amount of reps was from 6 to 10 for each set. The Standart split system
was used:
- Monday: pectoral, triceps, anterior deltoid;
- Wednesday: back, biceps, lateral and posterior deltoid
- Friday: things, calves, abdomen.
Exercises were changed and modified depending on goals of each stage. The improvement of strength
ability in the bench press exercise was shown.
The results of this study confirmed the conclusion made by O. Tykhorskyi [23], in which elite
bodybuilders during competitive period took part. According to this research percentage of body fat decreases in
order to improvement level of sportsmen. It occurs due to increasing lean muscle mass and decreasing amount of
fat in sportsmen’s body. A special training program and supplementation were used to achieve these goals.
The study has several notable limitations that must be taken into account. First, under observation were
male sportsmen so data does not apply to females. Second, in this study bodybuilders of 1st and 2nd class took
part so the results for higher level sportsmen may be different. Third, observation carried out during three-month
time however it would be useful to track changes during annual period. All of these last limitations point to
necessity of exploring these problems in future studies.
Conclusion
It has been found that first and second class sportsmen who specialized in bodybuilding have changed
their anthropometry indicators during mass gaining period which lasted three month. Monitoring of
morphological changes showed significant increase in mesomorphy level on account of resistance training.
Anaerobic exercises can be recommended for sportsmen of different specialization whose aim is to gain muscle
mass and increase level of mesomorphy.
Conflict of interest – The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.
References:
Antonio J. (2004) Human skeletal muscle hypertrophy. Sports Nutrition Journal 1(1), 1-13.
Carter, J. E. L. (2002). The Heath-Carter Anthropometric Somatotype, Somatotype Instruction Manual.
Department of exercise and nutritional sciences, San Diego, U.S.A.
Castillo F., Valverde T., Morales A., Perez-Guerra A., Garcia-Manso J. (2011). Maximum power, optimal load
and optimal power spectrum for power training in upper-body (bench press): a review. Rev Andal Med
Deporte 5(1), 18-27.
Chaouachi M., Chaouachi A., Chamari K., Chtara M., Feki Y., Amri M., Trudeau F. (2005). Effects of dominant
somatotype on aerobic capacity trainability. Br J Sports Med 39, 954-959.
Chatterjee P., Bhattacarjee A., Banerjee A., Bandyopadhyay S., Bandyopadhyay A. (2017). Some important
metabolic markers in blood of trained endomorph, mesomorph and ectomorph male athletes. International
Journal of Physiology, Nutrition and Physical Education 2(1), 335-338.
DeWeese B., Hornsby G., Stone M., Stone M.H. (2015). The training process: Planning for strength-power
training in track and field. Part 1: Theoretical aspects. Journal of Sport and Health Science 4, 308-317.
DeWeese B., Hornsby G., Stone M., Stone M.H. (2015). The training process: Planning for strength-power
training in track and field. Part 2: Practical and applied aspects. Journal of Sport and Health Science 4,
318-324.
Gutnik B., Zuoza A., Zuoziene I., Alekrinskis A., Nash D., Scherbina S. (2015). Body physique and dominant
somatotype in elite and low-profile athletes with different specializations. Medicina (51), 247-252

OLEKSANDR TYKHORSKYI, VIKTOR DZHYM, MYKOLAY GALASHKO, EVGENIYA DZHYM
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JPES ®
www.efsupit.ro
386
Hasan N., Kamal H., Hussein Z. (2016). Relation between body mass index percentile and muscle strength and
endurance. The Egyptian Journal of Medical Human Genetics 17, 367-372.
Helms E., Fitschen P.J, Aragon A., Cronin J., Shoenfeld B.J. (2014). Recommendations for natural bodybuilding
contest preparation: Resistance and Cardiovascular Training. The journal of sports medicine and physical
fitness. 1-37.
Imaran M., Hussian I., Murtaza S., Jabin F., Ashad Bari M. (2015). A comparative study of bodybuilders and
weightlifters on somatotypes. Journal of Education and Practice, (3) online.
Nikbakhsh R., Akbari A., Zafari A., Taheri S. (2013). Somatotype and body composition of Iranian elite
bodybuilders. Annals of biological research 4(4), 176-179.
Novoa-Vignau M.F., Salas-Fraire O., Salas-Longoria K., Hernandez-Suarez G., Menchaca M. (2017). A
comparison of anthropometric characteristics and somatotypes in a group of elite climbers, recreational
climbers and non-climbers. Medicina Universitaria, 19 (75), 69-73.
Oroles F. (2014). Research regarding the efficiency of the body strength development procedures on the
ectomorph subjects. Marathon (1), 66-71.
Ploeg G., Brooks A., Withers R., Dollman J., Leaney F., Chatterton B. (2001). Body composition changes in
female bodybuilders during preparation for competition. European journal of Clinical Nutrition (55), 268-
277.
Robinson S., Lambeth-Mansell A., Gillibrand G., Smith-Ryan A., Bannock L. (2015). A nutrition and
conditioning intervention for natural bodybuilding contest preparation: case study. Journal of the
International Society of Sports Nutrition, 12-20.
Schoenfeld B. (2010). The mechanisms of muscle hypertrophy and their application to resistance training.
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 24(10) 2857-2872.
Schoenfeld B., Aragon A., Wilborn C., Krieger J., Sonmez G. (2014). Body composition changes associated
with fasted versus non-fasted aerobic exercise. Journal of the international society of sport nutrition. 11,
54.
Shinji O. (2010) The effects of body composition differences on placement at bodybuilding competition among
amateur bodybuilders. Research Papers. Paper 26.
Silva A., Mendes D., Oliveira E., Almeida H., Ascenso R. (2014). Bodyshifter - software to determine and
optimize an individual's somatotype. Procedia Technology 16, 1456-1461.
Temur H., Ozturker M., Karaman M., Selcuk M., Cinar V. Effect of eight weeks exercise on body composition
and some blood values in women. (2017). European Journal of Physical Education and Sport Science
3(11), 275-285.
Toth T., Michalicova M., Bernarcikova L., Zivicak J., Kneppo P. (2014). Acta mechanica et automatica 8, 27-
32.
Tyhorskyy O. (2016). Specific features of elite bodybuilder`s training process in competition period.
Pedagogics, Psychology, medical-biological problems of physical training and sport 6, 26-33.
Viana R., Gentil P., Brasileiro E., Pimentel G., Rodrigo V., Andrade M., Lira C. (2017). High resistance training
volume and low caloric and protein intake are associated with detrimental alterations in body composition
of an amateur Bodybuilder using anabolic steroids: a case report. Journal of functional morphology and
kinesiology. 2, 37-47.