1. Anthropometric Assessment Systems
BPK303
Anthropometric Assessment Systems

2. Anthropometric Assessments
Comparison of Anthropometric measures to normative data.
Measures intended to reflect growth and/or body composition.
Reliable measurement of standardized techniques essential.
Appropriate norms?

3. C.F.S. - Canada Fitness Survey 1981 Canadian Fitness and Lifestyle Research Institute
The 1981 Canada Fitness Survey was the first nationally representative study of the physical recreation habits, physical fitness, and health status of an entire population.
More than 23,000 Canadians aged 7 and older participated in this historic survey, providing baseline data representing all Canadians except the 3% not living in households.
The anthropometric and performance data was then used as the normative data for the Canadian Standardized Test of Fitness

4. C.S.T.F. Canadian Standardized Test of Fitness Performance Tests
Step test, grip strength, push ups, sit ups, sit and reach.
Anthropometric Assessment consisted of:
% body Fat determined by the Durnin & Womersley equations based upon the sum of 4 skinfolds (Triceps, Subscapular, Biceps, and Iliac Crest)

5. Durnin & Womersley (1974)
Density = a (log10Sum 4 SF) + c
Sum of Triceps, Subscapular, Biceps, and Iliac Crest Skinfolds
a & c dependent upon age and gender specific equations
British sample measured on the left side of the body
% Fat = (4.95/Density)-4.5) x 100
Problems encountered by C.S.T.F.
Overpredicts by 3 - 5% Fat
Upper body sites

6. C.S.T.F. Canadian Standardized Test of Fitness
Revised Anthropometric Assessment included:
Body Mass Index
Sum 5 Skinfolds
Sum Trunk Skinfolds
Waist to hip girth ratio

7. C.P.A.F.L.A. The Canadian Physical Activity, Fitness & Lifestyle Approach
Modification of the C.S.T.F.
Change in style – Rather than using Health Risk Zones, Health Benefit Zones were identified
Anthropometric Assessment includes:
Body Mass Index (BMI)
Sum of Five Skinfolds (mm) (SO5S)
Waist Girth (cm) (WG)
Sum of Two Trunk Skinfolds (mm) (SO2S)
C.P.A.F.L.A. was taught in BPK 343 now it is C.S.E.P. PATH

8. CSEP-PATH 2013 Physical Activity Training for Health
Skinfolds removed
Subject embarrassment
Measurer training
Waist Girth definition changed
Girth at the level of the top of the iliac crests
Justified as more reliably located and better related to health consequences
Requires landmarks

9. Advanced O-SCALE System
for individual physique assessment

10. Developed to fill a need
% body fat predictions have unacceptably high S.E.E.’s
Individual assessments vs group validation
Designed with the expectation of becoming obsolete very soon

11. Components Anthropometric measures Geometric scaling
Height, Weight, Skinfolds, Girths, Humerus and Femur width
Geometric scaling
Maintain shape and composition
General appraisal of physique
A and W ratings
Detailed appraisal
Size and Proportionality Profiles

12. STANINE chosen for O-SCALE system based upon number of categories and equal width of categories
Stanine Category 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Percentage of Normal Distribution within Category 4% 7%
12%
17%
20%
Boundary Z-Scores
-1.75
-1.25
-0.75
-0.25
+0.25
+0.75
+1.25
+1.75
Boundary Percentiles 11 23 40 60 77 89 96

13. General description of physique
Adiposity rating based on skinfolds
Proportional weight rating
Stanine scores
equal width of categories
nine categories seemed appropriate

14. Adiposity Rating Proportional Sum of six skinfolds
Sum 6 SF * (170.18/Ht)
Comparison to age and sex specific norms via stanine scale

15. Females
23 year old female
Prop. Sum of 6 skinfolds
= 79.4
Adiposity (A) rating = 3

16. Proportional Weight Rating
WT * (170.18/HT)3
Comparison to age and sex specific norms via stanine scale

17. Females

18. A & W Ratings A = 7, W = 7, - Balanced physique
A = 7, W = 5, - Adiposity dominant
A = 5, W = 7, - Weight dominant

20. Detailed Description of Physique
Listing of all measures with 4th, 50th & 96th percentiles
Proportionality profiles
z-values plotted vs similarly scaled norm values

23. Active 303 Student

31. MALE

34. GAMMA

35. THETA

36. THETA

37. KIN-Scale Differences from O-SCALE system Normative Database:
Proportional Values rather than z-values:
Skinfold-adjusted Forearm Girth:
Scaling Height is 170cm rather than cm:
Detailed Description of Physique does not require Computer Software:
C.P.A.F.L.A. Indices shown as percentile charts based upon KIN-Scale norms

38. Fall 2012 students W Rating A Rating Balanced 20 (23.8%)
W Rating
Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 %
A Rating
3.6 10
11.9
4.8 19
22.6 13
15.5 11
13.1
1.2 18 15 22 84
6.0
8.3
21.4
17.9
26.2
10.7
Balanced
20 (23.8%)
Weight Dominant
33 (39.3%)
Adiposity Dominant
31 (36.9%)

39. A – W Difference indicates relative Musculo-Skeletal Development
5 - 2
4 - 2
4 -8

40. Geometric Similarity Scaling

41. 5 - 2 4 - 2 4 - 8 Muscularity Upper Arm Forearm Thigh Calf Muscularity
Upper Arm
19.4
19.1
19.6
19.9
20.4
20.8
21.0
21.5
21.9
22.2
22.3
22.6
23.0
23.2
23.4
23.6
24.2
24.8
25.5
26.8
Forearm
19.7
20.0
20.2
20.5
21.2
21.4
21.6
21.8
22.0
22.4
22.7
23.9
Thigh
42.0
43.2
44.4
45.7
46.8
47.4
48.0
48.5
49.0
49.3
49.9
50.5
51.1
51.7
52.2
53.0
53.7
54.7
55.7
57.9
Calf
29.0
28.2
29.4
29.7
30.1
30.5
31.0
31.3
31.6
32.0
32.5
32.6
33.0
33.2
33.6
34.2
34.7
35.3
36.5
4 - 2
Muscularity
Upper Arm
22.4
19.1
19.6
19.9
20.4
20.8
21.0
21.5
21.9
22.2
22.3
22.6
23.0
23.2
23.4
23.6
24.2
24.8
25.5
26.8
Forearm
21.1
19.7
20.0
20.2
20.5
21.2
21.4
21.6
21.8
22.0
22.7
23.9
Thigh
45.2
43.2
44.4
45.7
46.8
47.4
48.0
48.5
49.0
49.3
49.9
50.5
51.1
51.7
52.2
53.0
53.7
54.7
55.7
57.9
Calf
30.8
28.2
29.0
29.4
29.7
30.1
30.5
31.0
31.3
31.6
32.0
32.5
32.6
33.0
33.2
33.6
34.2
34.7
35.3
36.5
4 - 8
Muscularity
Upper Arm
23.8
19.1
19.6
19.9
20.4
20.8
21.0
21.5
21.9
22.2
22.3
22.6
23.0
23.2
23.4
23.6
24.2
24.8
25.5
26.8
Forearm
19.7
20.0
20.2
20.5
21.2
21.4
21.6
21.8
22.0
22.4
22.7
23.9
Thigh
60.8
43.2
44.4
45.7
46.8
47.4
48.0
48.5
49.0
49.3
49.9
50.5
51.1
51.7
52.2
53.0
53.7
54.7
55.7
57.9
Calf
39.8
28.2
29.0
29.4
29.7
30.1
30.5
31.0
31.3
31.6
32.0
32.5
32.6
33.0
33.2
33.6
34.2
34.7
35.3
36.5

42. Anthropometric Assessment of Special Populations
bpk
303
Anthropometric Assessment of Special Populations

43. What is a Special Population?
One that can not be assessed by orthodox methodology
Body Composition
% Fat estimates tend to be very sample specific
Anthropometric Assessment
Are standardized techniques still valid in special groups

44. Which Measures are OK? Validity & Feasibility
Can the standardized measurement position be achieved
Recumbent or seated subjects
Can other conditions of standardization be achieved
Deformities or Contractures

45. Seniors who can not stand
Estimated required caloric intake based upon age, height & weight
Predicting Height from Knee Height
Men (0.04 x age) + (2.02 x Knee Height)
Women (0.24 x age) + (1.83 x Knee Height)
Predicting Weight from Girths & Skinfolds
Men (arm girth) (calf girth) (subscapular skinfold)
Women (arm girth) (calf girth) (subscapular skinfold)

46. Cerebral Palsy vs Down’s Syndrome
Norms Available?
Cerebral Palsy vs Down’s Syndrome
Which groups warrant their own norms

47. Treatment and Rehabilitation of Children with cerebral palsy, brain injuries and other neuromotor problems

49. Pediatric Anthropometry
Assessment of Nutritional Status of Children
Children with developmental disabilities are at increased nutritional risk because of:
feeding problems,
abnormal levels of physical activity
and altered weight and growth patterns.

50. Cerebral Palsy Two main problems:
Presence of muscular contractures, spasms and scoliosis often lead to inaccuracy for measurements of height or recumbent length
Body part splints, braces or wheelchair accessories do not permit easy access for anthropometric measures.

51. S.H.A.P.E.S. Anthropometric Techniques: Stretch Stature, Weight
Upper Arm Length, Tibial Length
Triceps, Abdominal, Medial Calf Skinfolds
Relaxed Arm and Maximum Calf Girths

52. S.H.A.P.E.S. custom computer software
serial plotting
anthropometric profile