COMPARISON OF RELATIVE ARM STRENGTH OF ATHLETES WITH DIFFERENT SOMATOTYPE STRUCTURES

Öz

The aim of this study was to compare the relative arm strength of athletes with different somatotype structures. The sample of the study consisted of 170 male students with balanced endomorphy (55 people) with an average age of 21,73±1,69 years, balanced mesomorphy (60 people) with an average age of 21,27±3,48 years and balanced ectomorphy (55 people) with an average age of 19,22±1,75 years. Statistical analysis of the data obtained from the athletes was performed in SPSS 29.0 package program. Frequency and descriptive analyses were used for descriptive statistics and Kruskal Wallis-H Test was used for comparison analyses. In conclusion, the best relative arm strength values were determined as balanced mesomorphy, balanced ectomorphy and balanced endomorphy, respectively, in this study in which the relative arm strength of athletes with different somatotype structures were compared. Considering the branch-specific body structure, the physical and physiological capacity and performance levels of the athletes with balanced mesomorphy component were higher than ectomorphy and endomorphy, which means that the muscle mass (hypertrophy) increased by strength training and accordingly increased strength value (pure strength) is not the actual strength value of the athlete, and since the healthiest way to determine the actual strength increase of the athlete is relative measurements, the use of relative arm strength method is especially important for grip strength, It is thought that the team will be very useful in the monitoring and evaluation of physically disabled athletes individually and in the correct evaluation of the development of arm strength with the increase in upper arm, lower arm and hand length of children in the developmental age.

FARKLI SOMATOTİP YAPILARDAKİ SPORCULARIN RELATİF KOL KUVVETLERİNİN KARŞILAŞTIRILMASI

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı, farklı somatotip yapılardaki sporcuların relatif kol kuvvetlerinin karşılaştırılmasıdır. Araştırmanın örneklemi gönüllü katılım esasına göre çalışmaya katılmayı kabul eden (Tesadüfi örnekleme yöntemi) dengeli endomorf (55 kişi) yaş ortalamaları 21,73±1,69 yıl, dengeli mezomorf (60 kişi) 21,27±3,48 yıl ve dengeli ektomorf (55 kişi) 19,22±1,75 yıl olan toplam 170 erkek öğrenciden oluşmaktadır. Sporculardan alınan verilerin istatistiksel analizleri SPSS 29.0 paket programında yapılmıştır. Tanımlayıcı istatistikler için frekans ve tanımlayıcı analizler, karşılaştırma analizleri için Kruskal Wallis-H Testi yapıldı. Sonuç olarak, farklı somatotip yapılardaki sporcuların relatif kol kuvvetlerinin karşılaştırılmasının yapıldığı bu çalışmamızda en iyi relatif kol kuvveti değerleri sırasıyla; dengeli mezomorfi, dengeli ektomorfi ve dengeli endomorfi olarak tespit edilmiştir. Branşlara özgü vücut yapısı dikkate alındığında dengeli mezomorfi komponentine sahip olan sporcuların fiziksel ve fizyolojik kapasite ve performans düzeylerinin ektomorfi ve endomorfiye göre daha yüksek olmuş olması kuvvet antrenmanları ile artan kas kütlesi (hipertrofi) ve buna bağlı olarak artan kuvvet değerinin (salt kuvvet) sporcunun gerçek kuvvet değeri olmadığı ve sporcunun gerçek kuvvet artışını belirlemenin en sağlıklı yolunun relatif ölçümler olmasından dolayı relatif kol kuvveti yönteminin kullanılmasının özellikle kavrama kuvvetinin önemli olduğu bireysel, takım, bedensel engelli sporcuların bireysel olarak ve izlenmesi ve değerlendirilmesinde, gelişim çağındaki çocukların üst kol, alt kol ve el uzunluğunun artması ile beraber kol kuvvetinin gelişimlerinin doğru bir şekilde değerlendirilmesinde oldukça faydalı olacağı düşünülmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Somatotip
• kuvvet
• relatif kol kuvveti
• performans

Kaynakça

1. Wilber RL., Pitsiladis YP. (2012). Kenyan and Ethiopian distance runners: what makes them so good? International journal of Sports Physiology and Performance. 7(2), 92-102.
2. Massidda M, Toselli S., Brasili P., M Calo C. (2013). Somatotype of elite Italian gymnasts. Collegium Antropologicum. 37(3), 853-857.
3. Marangoz İ. (2019). Fiziksel performansın ölçümünde sık kullanılan bazı testler ve hesaplama programları. Gazi Kitabevi, Ankara.
4. Carter H. (2002). The Heath-Carter anthropometric somatotype-instruction manual. Department of Exercise and Nutritional Sciences San Diego State University.
5. Carter BH. (1990). Somatotyping: development and applications: Cambridge University Press.
6. Ryan Stewart H., Faulkner J., Jobson S. (2018). The influence of somatotype on anaerobic performance. PloS one. 13(5), e0197761.
7. Silventoinen K., Maia J., Jelenkovic A., Pereira S., Gouveia É., Antunes A., Thomis M., Lefevre J., Kaprio J., Freitas D. (2021). Genetics of somatotype and physical fitness in children and adolescents. American Journal of Human Biology. 33(3), e23470.
8. Marangoz İ. (2023). Somatotype and somatoturk calculation programme. Gazi Bookstore, Ankara.

9. Chaabene H., Negra Y., Bouguezzi R., Capranica L., Franchini E., Prieske O., Hbacha H., Granacher U. (2018).
10. Tests for the assessment of sport-specific performance in Olympic combat sports: A systematic review with practical recommendations. Frontiers in Physiology. 9, 386.
11. Top E., Çelenk Ç., Marangoz İ., Aktug ZB., Yılmaz T., Akıl M. (2018). The effect of somatotype characteristics of athletes on the balance performance. Journal of Education and Learning. 7(5), 174-80.
12. Barlow MJ., Findlay M., Gresty K., Cooke C. (2014). Anthropometric variables and their relationship to performance and ability in male surfers. European Journal of Sport Science. 14(sup1), 171-177.
13. Sevim Y., Önder O., Gökdemir K. (1996). Effects of circuit training related to explosive strength on some conditional characteristics of male students aged 18-19 years. Gazi Journal of Physical Education and Sport Sciences. 1(3), 18-24.
14. Muratlı S., Kalyoncu O., Sahin G. (2007).Training and competition. Ladin Printing, Antalya.
15. Aydos L., Pepe H., Karakuş H. (2004). The Research of relative force evaluations in some team and individual sports. Gazi University Kırşehir Faculty of Education. 5(2), 305-315.
16. Hekim M., Hekim H. (2015). Overview to Strength development and strength trainings in children. The Journal of Current Pediatrics. 13(2), 110-115.
17. Günay M., Şıktar E. (2017). Training science, Gazi Bookstore. Ankara.
18. Özdemir S. (2009). The effects of complex training program on explosive power, strength, sprint and agility development between 14-16 aged young footballers. Doctoral dissertation, Master Thesis. Marmara University, Health Sciences Institute. Istanbul.
19. Marangoz İ. (2022) Determination of relative arm strength. Turkish Journal of Health and Sport. 3(2), 30-34. Demirel T., Taşkıran MY.(2020). Modifiye 5x5 madcow programının kas hipertrofisi ve gücü üzerine etkileri. Journal of Health and Sport Sciences. 3(3), 77-82.
20. Hanavan EP .(1964). A mathematical model of the human body: Aerospace medical research laboratories, aerospace medical division, aerospace medical division, Air Force Systems Command.
21. Miller DI., Morrison WE. (1975). Prediction of segmental parameters using the Hanavan human body model. Medicine and Science in Sports. 7(3), 207-212.
22. Norton KI. (2018). Standards for anthropometry assessment. Kinanthropometry and Exercise Physiology. 4, 68-137.
23. Narin S., Demirbüken İ., Özyürek S., Eraslan U. (2009). Relationship of the grip and pinch strength of the dominant hand with anthropometric measurements of forearm. Journal of Dokuz Eylul University Faculty of Medicine. 23(2), 81-85.
24. Keçelioğlu Ş., Akçay B. (2019). Multi-directional approach to evaluation of hand-wrist in athletic performance: Review. Izmir Democracy University Health Sciences Journal. 2(2),118-134.
25. Marangoz İ. (2022). Sporda kinantropometri. Gazi Kitabevi, Ankara.
26. Mathiowetz V. (2002).Comparison of rolyan and jamar dynamometers for measuring grip strength. Occupational Therapy International. 9(3), 201-209.
27. Lafayette. (2004). JAMAR Hydrolic hand dynamomete. Jamar Hydrolic Hand Dynamometer User Instructions Model J00105 USA.
28. Massy Westropp NM., Gill TK., Taylor AW., Bohannon RW., Hill CL. (2011). Hand grip strength: age and gender stratified normative data in a population-based study. BMC Research Notes. 4(1), 1-5.
29. Alpar R. (2020). Uygulamalı çok değişkenli istatistiksel yöntemler. Detay Yayıncılık, Ankara.
30. Cevahir E. (2020). SPSS ile nicel veri analizi rehberi. Kibele Yayınları.
31. Dopsaj M., Marković M., Kasum G., Jovanović S., Koropanovski N., Vuković M., Mudric M. (2017). Discrimination of different body structure indexes of elite athletes in combat sports measured by multi frequency bioimpedance method. International Journal of Morphology. 35(1),199-207.
32. Özkan F., Ünver F., Baltacı G. (2005). Somatotypes of American football players. Gazi Journal of Physical Education and Sports Sciences. 10(1), 35-44.
33. Açıkada C., Ergen E. (1990). Bilim ve spor. Büro-Tek Ofset Matbaacılık, Ankara.
34. Taş M., Özkan A., Uzun A., Koç H., Akyüz M., Kıyıcı F. (2008). Comparison of some physical fitness and somatotype characteristics of young wrestlers in national teams of two different countries. Selçuk University Journal of Physical Education and Sports Science.10(3), 1-9.
35. Podrihalo OO., Podrigalo LV., Bezkorovainyi DO., Halashko OI., Nikulin IN., Kadutskaya LA., Jagiello M. (2020). The analysis of handgrip strength and somatotype features in arm wrestling athletes with different skill levels. Physical Education of Students. 24(2), 120-126.
36. Fewell LK., Nickols R., Tierney AS., Levinson CA. (2018). Strength and power improvements in athlete and non-athletes during intensive eating disorder treatment. Journal of Clinical Sport Psychology.12(4), 562-577.
37. Szabolcs Z., Kormendi J., Ihász F., Koteles F., Szemerszky R. (2018). Physiological characteristics of aikido practitioners and aikido workouts. Archives of Budo.14, 259-266.
38. Oliveira A., Monteiro A., Jacome C., Afreixo V., Marques A. (2017). Effects of group sports on health‐related physical fitness of overweight youth: A systematic review and meta‐analysis. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports. 27(6), 604-611.
39. Marangoz İ., Genç V., Yağız K. (2022). The relationship between arm mass and arm relative strength of individual and team athletes using the upper extremity more actively. Journal of Physical Education and Sports Sciences. 16(2), 117-127.
40. Murphy AJ., Lockie RG., Coutts AJ. (2003). Kinematic determinants of early acceleration in field sport athletes. Journal of Sports Science & Medicine. 2(4), 144-150.
41. Marangoz İ. (2016). The effects of body composition and somatotypes on acceleration speed in male athletes. Erciyes University, Graduate School of Health Sciences , Department of Physical Education and Sports, PhD Thesis. Kayseri.
42. Marangoz İ., Polat Y. (2019). The effects of body composition and somatotypes on accelaration speed in male athletes. The Journal of Academic Social Science. 54(54), 345-360.
43. Köklü Y., Özkan A., Alemdaroğlu U., Ersöz G. (2009). Genç futbolcuların bazı fiziksel uygunluk ve somatotip özelliklerinin oynadıkları mevkilere göre karşılaştırılması. Spormetre Beden Eğitimi ve Spor Bilimleri Dergisi. 7(2), 61-68.