Content uploaded by Ahmet Kurtoğlu
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Ahmet Kurtoğlu on Sep 18, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
Review began 09/06/2023
Review ended 09/12/2023
Published 09/17/2023
© Copyright 2023
Ciftci et al. This is an open access article
distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution License CC-BY 4.0.,
which permits unrestricted use, distribution,
and reproduction in any medium, provided
the original author and source are credited.
Examination of the Effect of Somatotype Profiles
on Athletic Performance Indicators in Children
Aged 48-72 Months
Rukiye Ciftci , Ahmet Kurtoglu
1. Department of Anatomy, Faculty of Medicine, Gaziantep İslam Bilim ve Teknoloji Üniversitesi, Gaziantep, TUR 2.
Faculty of Sports Sciences, Department of Coaching, Bandırma Onyedi Eylül University, Balıkesir, TUR
Corresponding author: Rukiye Ciftci, rukiyekelesciftci@hotmail.com
Abstract
Introduction: Physical fitness and anthropometric variables are crucial in achieving success in the field of
sports. These variables serve as the foundation and platform for children to showcase their athletic abilities.
The aim of this study is to examine the impact of somatotype profiles of children aged 48-72 months on
athletic performance in order to contribute to talent selection.
Methods: A total of 124 students (62 females, 62 males), aged between 48 and 72 months (mean age of
females: 5.75±1.00, mean age of males: 5.68±1.15), participated in the study. Somatotype analysis was
performed using the Heath-Carter method. Performance measurements of students included a 20-meter
sprint test, flexibility, leg strength, push-up tests, crunches, vertical jump, standing long jump, hand
strength, back strength, and hamstring length determination tests.
Results: In this study, there was a significant difference in favor of mesomorphic endomorph in crunches
(F=3.914, p=0.013) and push-up (F=4.864, p=0.004) exercises for female children compared to all
somatotypes. In male children, although the central group was dominant in athletic performance
measurements, there was no statistically significant difference (p>0.05).
Conclusion: Somatotype is a suitable method for enhancing athletic performance and directing individuals
to the appropriate sports discipline. Somatotype profiles are not fully developed in children aged 48-72
months. In the later years, children with suitable somatotypes are expected to demonstrate improved
athletic performance.
Categories: Pediatrics, Anatomy, Sports Medicine
Keywords: agility test, 20-meter sprint test, push-up test, crunches test, somatotype
Introduction
After birth, human beings go through three interconnected processes, especially in the first 20 years of life.
These processes are referred to as growth, maturation, and development [1]. As children grow, there are
increases in their height, body weight, and organ sizes. Changes in height and body weight are considered
the most easily observable indicators of growth [2].
The growth process involves individual-specific differences. Variations in the timing and rate of growth are
explained by the concept of physical aptitude [3]. Within the same chronological age, different levels of
growth can be observed. Even among children of the same chronological age, those with a higher level of
biological development tend to have grown more than their peers. Similarly, children of the same
chronological age but with a lower level of biological development tend to grow later or at a slower pace
than other children [4].
Different levels of growth within the same chronological age are closely related to biometric and athletic
performance as well. Body composition (BC) and performance differences related to growth vary depending
on the physical condition of the children [5]. This is because physically active children tend to have
advantages in biometric characteristics such as strength, speed, and endurance compared to other children
[1]. Knowing he BC is considered the gold standard for predicting children's physical characteristics [6].
BC, along with other environmental factors, is essential to understand the effects of diet, physical exercise,
disease, and physical growth on the human body. In fact, the absolute and relative components of body mass
change during growth, making them the primary focus of BC studies. Therefore, when selecting assessment
methods for children, it is important to be careful. One important way to determine BC is through
somatotype analysis.
Somatotype offers a method to assess and classify the general body shape based on three components:
1 2
Open Access Original
Article DOI: 10.7759/cureus.45430
How to cite this article
Ciftci R, Kurtoglu A (September 17, 2023) Examination of the Effect of Somatotype Profiles on Athletic Performance Indicators in Children Aged 48-
72 Months. Cureus 15(9): e45430. DOI 10.7759/cureus.45430
endomorphy (relative fatness), mesomorphy (relative muscularity and skeletal development), and
ectomorphy (thin, very low-fat content) [7]. While imaging techniques that directly measure body tissues
exist, they can be expensive, not universally applicable, and may not assess body shape. Therefore,
somatotype can provide an inexpensive method to indirectly inform about BC [8].
The relationships between somatotype and physical performance have also attracted scientific interest in
the general population. However, when compared to the extensive literature on children aged 48-72
months, studies are rare. Research conducted on physically active male children found that mesomorphy was
associated with higher muscle strength and ectomorphy with lower muscle strength. Ectomorphy and
mesomorphy have also been associated with better gains during aerobic fitness training in children [9].
The relationship between somatotype and physical fitness in children has significant implications for public
health because good cardiorespiratory fitness in childhood is associated with better metabolic risk factors,
and this relationship persists into adulthood [10].
When evaluating performance tests used for talent selection, neglecting the influence of training history
and/or biological development can result in the selection of individuals who are more developed and/or
better trained as "talented" rather than those with true talent [11]. The aim of this study is to contribute to
talent selection by determining the somatotype profiles of children aged 48-72 months and examining their
impact on athletic performance.
Materials And Methods
A total of 124 students (62 females, 62 males), aged between 48 and 72 months (mean age for females:
5.75±1.00, mean age for males: 5.68±1.15), participated in the study. Sample size calculation was performed
using the G-Power 3.1.7 software package, with a 95% confidence interval, α=0.05, and 1-β=0.80 [12]. Each
school, parent/guardian, and student were informed, gave consent, and had the right to withdraw from the
study. The study included students who a) were in kindergarten, preschool, or first grade; b) were aged
between 48 and 72 months; c) had no mental issues; and d) were enrolled in the same school. The study
excluded students who a) did not want to participate in the study; b) were not within the desired age range;
c) had mental problems; and d) had lost their ability to walk. A "Voluntary Consent Form" was obtained from
the families of all participants. Participants were informed about the tests to be conducted.
This research was conducted in accordance with the principles outlined in the Helsinki Declaration. Ethical
approval for the research was obtained from the Bandırma Onyedi Eylül University Institute of Health
Sciences Ethics Committee, with approval number 2023/3.
Data collection
The study only included students aged between 48 and 72 months who were enrolled in the same school.
After obtaining ethical approval for the study, data collection began. The students' performance
measurements included a 20-m sprint test, agility test, crunches and push-up tests, vertical jump, standing
long jump, hand strength, back strength, and hamstring length determination tests.
Somatotype measurement
Height was measured using a stadiometer with 0.1 cm sensitivity, and weight was measured using a
segmental body composition analysis device (model: BC 418; Tanita Corporation, Tokyo, Japan) with 0.1 kg
sensitivity. BMI was calculated using the formula weight (kg)/height (m²). Subsequently, body
circumferences (flexed and stretched upper arm circumference and calf circumference) were measured to
the nearest 0.1 cm using a flexible but non-stretchable tape (Holtain Ltd., Croswell, UK). The bi-epicondylar
humerus and femur widths were measured to the nearest 0.1 cm using a bicondylar caliper (Holtain Ltd.,
Croswell, UK). Participant skinfold thickness was determined using a skinfold caliper (Holtain Ltd., Croswell,
UK) in four regions (triceps, suprailiacus, subscapula, calf). Somatotype calculations were performed using
the "Somatotype for Windows 1.2.5 Trial Version" software.
20 m sprint test
A 20-m course was marked with photocells placed at the beginning and end of the track. Participants started
the sprint from 50 cm behind the starting line. Two trials were conducted, and the best time was recorded
[13].
Crunch test
Participants lay on their backs with their hands clasped behind their heads and knees bent slightly toward
the abdomen (knees at a 90-degree angle), with the soles of their feet flat on the ground. They were
instructed to raise themselves upward, bringing their elbows forward, and touch their knees at the end of the
movement. Throughout the entire movement, they ensured that their hands remained clasped behind their
heads. Upon returning to the starting position at the command of "Ready... Begin," they attempted to
2023 Ciftci et al. Cureus 15(9): e45430. DOI 10.7759/cureus.45430 2 of 10
perform as many repetitions as possible within a 30-s period. The result was recorded, and the test was
performed once [14].
Push-up test
Participants assumed the full push-up position with straight and tense elbows. Their body was lowered until
it touched the ground, and then they pushed their body back up to the starting position with straight and
tense elbows. They performed as many maximal push-ups as possible within 30 s, and the result was
recorded [14].
Standing long-jump test
In this test, participants placed the number '0' on a line, at the beginning of a steel meter. They stood with
the meter strip in the middle of both feet. Participants were instructed to jump as far as they could. After the
jump, the last point where the participants' feet landed was marked and measured. For reliability,
participants performed the test twice, and the best distance was recorded [14].
Vertical jump test
The vertical jump performance of the athletes was measured using the electronic Smart Speed Lite system.
The vertical jump test was conducted following a 15-minute active warm-up, consisting of 5 minute of
running, 5 minute of short sprints, and 5 minutes of stretching and mobility exercises. Participants were
instructed to jump to the highest point they could when they felt ready, and then they landed back on the
mat. The athletes' jump distances were electronically measured in centimeters, and the best of three
attempts was recorded [14].
Back strength
Back strength was measured using a back dynamometer. Participants placed their feet on the dynamometer
platform with their knees extended, and with their arms extended, their backs straight, and their bodies
slightly leaning forward, they pulled the dynamometer bar that they gripped with their hands vertically
upward. Two attempts were made, and the best result was recorded [15].
Handgrip strength
Participants stood with their arms at their sides while holding a hand dynamometer, with the measuring
portion of the dynamometer facing outward [16]. They squeezed the dynamometer with maximum force, and
the best measurement was taken twice for both hands and recorded in kilograms [17].
Hamstring length (sit-reach test)
The Baseline® device (Cooper Institute/YMCA, AAHPERD, New York, USA) was used for the test. Before the
measurement, the subject was asked to place their heels on the test device in a long sitting position and
then bend forward three times to warm up. Afterward, the subject's arm length on the device was
determined, and they were asked to stretch forward as far as possible by pressing on the measuring device
with their fingertips without lifting their knees. The measurements were taken three times, and the average
was recorded [18].
Procedure
The study was conducted at a special school. First, somatotype measurements were taken from the
participating students, and then the students were prepared for performance evaluations. Students were
shown a brief warm-up exercise, and they were asked to run on a 20-m track. After a 10-minute rest,
students were asked to perform sit-ups for 30 s, and the number of crunches performed was recorded. After
another 10-minute rest, students were asked to do push-ups within 30 s, and the number of push-ups
performed was noted. Following a 10-minute rest, students were asked to jump to the farthest point possible
on a platform with a starting point and the farthest point jumped was recorded. Students also jumped to the
farthest point they could on a mat, and the farthest distance they jumped was recorded electronically. Then,
hand strength was measured using a hand dynamometer, and hamstring muscle strength was assessed with
the sit-reach test.
Statistical analysis
Statistical analysis of the research was conducted using Statistical Product and Service Solutions (SPSS, ver.
25; IBM, Chicago, USA). Normality analysis of the data was performed using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test,
which determined that the data followed a normal distribution. The homogeneity of variances was assessed
using Levene's test. Based on these results, a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) test was applied to
analyze performance indicators according to somatotype categories (endomorphic mesomorph,
mesomorphic endomorph, endomorph-mesomorph, and central). The significance level in the study was set
at 0.05.
2023 Ciftci et al. Cureus 15(9): e45430. DOI 10.7759/cureus.45430 3 of 10
Results
The demographic information and anthropometric measurement results related to the participants' body
dimensions are presented in Table 1. A total of 150 children were assessed in the study. However, 36 children
who did not meet the inclusion criteria were excluded from the study. As a result, a total of 124 children (62
females, 62 males) were included in the study. The mean age of the females was 5.75±1.00, while the mean
age of the males was 5.68±1.15. In the study, four somatotype profiles were obtained: mesomorphic
endomorph, endomorph-mesomorph, endomorphic mesomorph, and central.
Parameters Gender
Mesomorphic
endomorph (nf=14,
nm=14 )
Endomorph-
mesomorph (nf=9,
nm=9 )
Endomorphic-
mesomorph (nf=31,
nm=31 )
Central
(nf=8, nm=8 ) p
Age (year)
Female 6.50±0.85 5.66±1.00 5.58±1.05 6.62±0.51 0.105
Male 6.38±0.97 5.40±0.84 5.78±1.15 6.00±1.30 0.115
Height (cm)
Female 120.96±9.63 114.77±9.82 116.09±11.05 126.57±6.18 0.053
Male 125.22±6.89 120.30±8.59 117.96±8.76 123.12±5.59 0.122
Weight (kg)
Female 23.69±4.80 21.16±4.28 21.18±4.67 25.61±6.52 0.103
Male 28.02±7.42 22.22±3.70 23.17±5.31 23.70±2.98 0.118
BMI (kg/m2)
Female 16.50±3.03 15.52±1.13 15.47±1.16 16.85±1.16 0.111
Male 15.34±1.25 16.73±1.91 16.69±2.44 16.20±1.57 0.137
Leg
circumference
(cm)
Female 24.62±2.44 27.68±9.74 22.98±4.44 25.04±3.31 0.115
Male 26.26±2.57 24.16±1.75 24.62±2.45 25.37±1.53 0.064
Arm
Circumference
(cm)
Female 18.13±1.43 17.52±1.06 17.16±1.25 18.17±3.19 0.201
Male 18.80±2.38 17.05±1.21 18.12±1.81 17.66±1.15 0.114
Bi-Femoral
Breadth (cm)
Female 7.34±0.71 7.18±0.71 6.99±0.68 7.41±0.71 0.315
Male 7.25±0.79 6.65±0.63 7.03±0.69 7.08±0.47 0.193
Bi-Humeral
Breadth (cm)
Female 5.20±0.29 5.06±0.29 5.00±0.13 5.28±0.38 0.011*
Male 5.17±0.25 4.91±0.33 5.12±0.31 5.05±0.10 0.122
Triceps Skinfold
(mm)
Female 9.40±3.51 10.57±3.65 9.80±2.72 10.65±3.76 0.760
Male 13.31±3.42 9.06±2.43 11.53±3.28 10.17±1.24 0.006*
Subscapular
Skinfold (mm)
Female 7.39±1.83 7.20±2.25 7.68±1.90 8.77±4.43 0.554
Male 10.28±5.56 7.13±1.62 8.88±3.04 7.40±1.32 0.124
Suprailiac
Skinfold (mm)
Female 8.59±4.61 6.94±1.22 8.79±3.19 8.25±5.14 0.613
Male 13.12±6.18 8.82±2.62 9.74±3.47 8.50±3.27 0.018*
Calf Skinfold
(mm)
Female 13.77±4.46 12.71±1.99 12.69±3.18 14.28±4.34 0.614
Male 17.90±6.51 13.77±4.50 15.05±5.89 12.37±2.36 0.107
TABLE 1: ANOVA test results of demographic characteristics according to somatotype were given
Data shown as mean ± SD, nf: number of w omen, nm: number of men, BMI: body mass index, p<0.05 indicating a statistically significant difference
between the groups.
In Table 1, there was a significant difference in bi-humeral breadth measurement among female children for
all somatotype profiles, while among male children, there was a statistically significant difference in triceps
skinfold and suprailiac skinfold values (p<0.05) (Table 1).
2023 Ciftci et al. Cureus 15(9): e45430. DOI 10.7759/cureus.45430 4 of 10
In Table 2, ANOVA results of performance parameters of female participants according to somatotype were
analyzed. Accordingly, there was a statistically significant difference between push-up test results (F3-
58=4.864, p=0.004) and crunches test results (F3-58=3.914, p=0.013) of female participants (Table 2, Figure
1).
Parameters Somatotype Mean±S.D. F(3-58) p
Back Strenght (kg)
Mesomorphic Endomorph (n=14) 23.85±9.60
0.218 0.884
Endomorph-Mesomorph (n=9) 16.66±13.32
Endomorphic Mesomorph (n=31) 17.03±13.17
Central (n=8) 20.62±13.47
Leg Strenght (kg)
Mesomorphic Endomorph (n=14) 23.76±6.97
1.694 0.183
Endomorph-Mesomorph (n=9) 32.58±8.58
Endomorphic Mesomorph (n=31) 28.85±9.81
Central (n=8) 27.95±6.22
20 m Sprint (sec)
Mesomorphic Endomorph (n=14) 5.36±1.30
1.127 0.346
Endomorph-Mesomorph (n=9) 5.53±0.98
Endomorphic Mesomorph (n=31) 5.67±1.80
Central (n=8) 4.90±0.22
Flexibility (cm)
Mesomorphic Endomorph (n=14) 10.57±6.84
0.786 0.507
Endomorph-Mesomorph (n=9) 15.22±1.20
Endomorphic Mesomorph (n=31) 13.61±5.04
Central (n=8) 14.75±2.13
Push-up
Mesomorphic Endomorph (n=14) 13.21±9.51
4.864 0.004*
Endomorph-Mesomorph (n=9) 5.33±6.57
Endomorphic Mesomorph (n=31) 5.64±4.96
Central (n=8) 8.66±4.22
Crunches
Mesomorphic Endomorph (n=14) 15.21±5.96
3.914 0.013*
Endomorph-Mesomorph (n=9) 10.11±5.62
Endomorphic Mesomorph (n=31) 9.45±7.10
Central (n=8) 16.00±1.67
Standing Long Jump (cm)
Mesomorphic Endomorph (n=14) 85.78±20.78
0.806 0.494
Endomorph-Mesomorph (n=9) 80.44±25.23
Endomorphic Mesomorph (n=31) 75.22±28.70
Central (n=8) 88.83±16.66
Vertical Jump (cm)
Mesomorphic Endomorph (n=14) 14.00±4.94
0.294 0.830
Endomorph-Mesomorph (n=9) 12.44±5.36
Endomorphic Mesomorph (n=31) 12.60±4.99
Central (n=8) 13.16±4.02
Handgrip Strenght-L (kg)
Mesomorphic Endomorph (n=14) 9.88±2.60
2.098 0.111
Endomorph-Mesomorph (n=9) 8.68±2.91
Endomorphic Mesomorph (n=31) 8.02±2.80
2023 Ciftci et al. Cureus 15(9): e45430. DOI 10.7759/cureus.45430 5 of 10
Central (n=8) 10.16±2.01
Handgrip Strenght-R (kg)
Mesomorphic Endomorph (n=14) 9.05±2.31
1.466 0.234
Endomorph-Mesomorph (n=9) 8.75±3.86
Endomorphic Mesomorph (n=31) 8.10±3.03
Central (n=8) 10.75±1.97
TABLE 2: Comparison of athletic performance of female participants according to somatotypes
according to ANOVA test results
Data shown as mean ± SD, nf: number of w omen, nm: number of men, p<0.05 indicating a statistically significant difference between the groups.
FIGURE 1: Somatoplot representations of the somatotype
characteristics of our study
1: endomorph ectomorph, 2: ectomorphic endomorph, 3: balanced endomorph, 4: mesomorphic endomorph, 5:
mesomorph endomorph, 6: endomorphic mesomorph, 7: balanced mesomorph, 8: ectomorphic mesomorph, 9:
mesomorph ectomorph, 10: mesomorphic ectomorph, 11: balanced ectomorph, 12: endomorphic ectomorph, 13:
central. It is the author's original work.
In Table 3, ANOVA test results between male participants' somatotype results and performance parameters
were analyzed. Accordingly, it was concluded that the performance indicators in men were not affected by
the somatotype (p>0.05) (Table 3, Figure 1).
Parameters Somatotype Mean±S.D. F(3-59) p
Mesomorphic Endomorph (n=14) 24.00±4.24
2023 Ciftci et al. Cureus 15(9): e45430. DOI 10.7759/cureus.45430 6 of 10
Back Strenght (kg)
Endomorph-Mesomorph (n=9) 22.00±8.83
0.720 0.544
Endomorphic Mesomorph (n=31) 23.31±5.01
Central (n=8) 26.20±9.11
Leg Strenght (kg)
Mesomorphic Endomorph (n=14) 23.94±6.22
1.188 0.322
Endomorph-Mesomorph (n=9) 27.35±7.77
Endomorphic Mesomorph (n=31) 27.16±7.81
Central (n=8) 29.25±8.09
20 m Sprint (sec)
Mesomorphic Endomorph (n=14) 5.80±0.68
1.899 0.139
Endomorph-Mesomorph (n=9) 5.42±0.69
Endomorphic Mesomorph (n=31) 5.59±0.86
Central (n=8) 5.07±0.45
Flexibility (cm)
Mesomorphic Endomorph (n=14) 16.33±4.96
0.512 0.676
Endomorph-Mesomorph (n=9) 17.35±4.60
Endomorphic Mesomorph (n=31) 15.37±4.86
Central (n=8) 16.0±1.66
Push-Up
Mesomorphic Endomorph (n=14) 5.83±4.54
0.430 0.732
Endomorph-Mesomorph (n=9) 5.50±4.27
Endomorphic Mesomorph (n=31) 6.93±5.86
Central (n=8) 7.75±3.91
Crunches
Mesomorphic Endomorph (n=14) 11.88±5.68
0.232 0.874
Endomorph-Mesomorph (n=9) 13.40±7.96
Endomorphic Mesomorph (n=31) 11.58±6.51
Central (n=8) 12.50±2.92
Standing Long Jump (cm)
Mesomorphic Endomorph (n=14) 81.16±18.67
1.305 0.281
Endomorph-Mesomorph (n=9) 89.40±22.67
Endomorphic Mesomorph (n=31) 81.53±24.42
Central (n=8) 96.68±17.62
Vertical Jump (cm)
Mesomorphic Endomorph (n=14) 12.33±2.58
1.914 0.127
Endomorph-Mesomorph (n=9) 12.70±5.55
Endomorphic Mesomorph (n=31) 14.90±4.90
Central (n=8) 15.50±3.02
Handgrip Strenght-L (kg)
Mesomorphic Endomorph (n=14) 8.91±2.06
1.463 0.233
Endomorph-Mesomorph (n=9) 9.62±2.90
Endomorphic Mesomorph (n=31) 8.07±2.70
Central (n=8) 9.72±3.06
Handgrip Strenght-R (kg)
Mesomorphic Endomorph (n=14) 9.46±2.27
1.758 0.164
Endomorph-Mesomorph (n=9) 8.35±1.67
Endomorphic Mesomorph (n=31) 8.31±2.78
Central (n=8) 10.26±2.65
2023 Ciftci et al. Cureus 15(9): e45430. DOI 10.7759/cureus.45430 7 of 10
TABLE 3: Comparison of athletic performance of male participants according to somatotypes
according to ANOVA test results
Data shown as mean ± SD, nf: number of w omen, nm: number of men, p<0.05 indicating a statistically significant difference between the groups.
Discussion
In this study, where we aimed to determine the somatotype profiles of children aged 48-72 months and
examine their impact on athletic performance to contribute to talent selection, we found a significant
difference in favor of mesomorphic endomorph in crunches and push-up exercises among female children
for all somatotype profiles. However, among male children, although the central group was dominant in
athletic performance measurements, there was no statistically significant difference.
Somatotype is determined by anthropometric measurements and describes an individual's morphological
structure. The somatotype profile is essential in determining an individual's suitability for a particular sport.
Physical fitness tests have been used as criteria for examining the relationship between somatotype and
athletic performance. Strength, endurance, and speed tests, especially flexibility, balance, hand-eye
coordination, or limb movement speed tests, are more related to somatotype than extreme ends of physical
performance. In particular, somatotype plays an important role in exercises such as sit-ups, push-ups,
vertical jumping, and standing long-jump tests [19,20]. In our study, when we compared the athletic
performance of male and female children to all somatotype profiles, although differences were observed in
male children, the results were not statistically significant.
Especially in children, poor nutrition and sedentary behavior, particularly in the technological age, can
increase body fat percentage and disrupt body composition. It has been found that individuals with an
endomorphic somatotype have a higher body fat percentage compared to other somatotype profiles [21].
Widiyani et al. [21] found in their study that Nigerian primary school girls were more endomorphic. In our
study, the majority of female children had mesomorphic endomorph and central somatotype profiles.
Monyeki et al. mentioned that preschool girls tend to be dominant in mesomorphy throughout age groups
but less dominant in endomorphy [22]. Ayan et al. [23] reported in their study that girls had somatotype
values of endomorph-mesomorph, and Jurak et al. [24] reported mesomorphic endomorph. Although the
majority of the girls and boys included in our study had an endomorphic mesomorph somatotype profile, all
athletic performance values were in the mesomorphic endomorph and central groups.
When examining the relationships between somatotype structure and performance skills, it was observed
that the majority of girls had a mesomorphic endomorph somatotype, and they performed more push-ups
compared to boys. In girls, the central somatotype was found to be more effective in push-up and crunch
performances, which are important indicators of strength.
Revan et al. examined the performance parameters such as the vertical jump and standing long jump
according to somatotype in taekwondo athletes. They reported that foreign male taekwondo athletes had a
more mesomorphic-ectomorphic somatotype, while Turkish male taekwondo athletes had a somatotype of
mesomorph-ectomorph [25]. Considering that these individuals are actively involved in sports, we believe
that the main reason for the different results in our study is that the sample in our study was not actively
involved in any sports branch.
The population of our study consisted of preschool and first-grade students, with mesomorphic endomorph
being the dominant somatotype in most performance measures for girls and central for boys. The children in
our study need to have the appropriate somatotype for the sports they will choose in the future.
Determining somatotypes in children aged 48-72 months is important because, at this age, children's
somatotypes are not fully developed. However, according to the information obtained from the literature,
planning should be made for the ectomorphic body type to increase athletic performance [26].
Limitations
In this study, we examined athletic performance values according to somatotypes in children aged 48-72
months. If older children were included in the study, we could have made interpretations about how athletic
performance changes with age. In future studies, conducting the same study in the same sample or in a
different sample with older children could provide us with clearer information on which sports children
should be directed to.
Conclusions
Strength, speed, endurance, agility, and flexibility parameters are common and fundamental motor skills
present in most sports. The ability to perfect these skills, both generally and sport-specific, contributes to
providing athletes with physical fitness and enhancing sport-specific performance. When reviewing the
2023 Ciftci et al. Cureus 15(9): e45430. DOI 10.7759/cureus.45430 8 of 10
literature, it is observed that elite-level athletes tend to have ectomorphic or ectomorphic mesomorphic
body types. Therefore, in choosing an appropriate sports branch for preschoolers or determining the
required body type for achieving the target performance in existing athletes, planning for an ectomorphic
body type should be considered. It is expected that the results of our research will contribute to relevant
scientists, physical education teachers, coaches, experts involved in talent screening projects, children, and
parents.
Additional Information
Author Contributions
All authors have reviewed the final version to be published and agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the
work.
Concept and design: Rukiye Ciftci, Ahmet Kurtoglu
Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Rukiye Ciftci, Ahmet Kurtoglu
Drafting of the manuscript: Rukiye Ciftci, Ahmet Kurtoglu
Critical review of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Rukiye Ciftci, Ahmet Kurtoglu
Supervision: Rukiye Ciftci, Ahmet Kurtoglu
Disclosures
Human subjects: Consent was obtained or waived by all participants in this study. Bandırma Onyedi Eylül
University Institute of Health Sciences Ethics Committee issued approval Approval number 2023/3. Ethical
approval for the research was obtained from the Bandırma Onyedi Eylül University Institute of Health
Sciences Ethics Committee, with approval number 2023/3. Animal subjects: All authors have confirmed
that this study did not involve animal subjects or tissue. Conf licts of interest: In compliance with the
ICMJE uniform disclosure form, all authors declare the following: Payment/services info: All authors have
declared that no financial support was received from any organization for the submitted work. Financial
relationships: All authors have declared that they have no financial relationships at present or within the
previous three years with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work. Other
relationships: All authors have declared that there are no other relationships or activities that could appear
to have influenced the submitted work.
References
1. Sherar LB, Baxter-Jones AD, Faulkner RA, Russell KW: Do physical maturity and birth date predict talent in
male youth ice hockey players?. J Sports Sci. 2007, 25:879-86. 10.1080/02640410600908001
2. Malina RM, Bouchard C, Bar-Or O: Growth, Maturation, and Physical Activity, Second Edition . Human
Kinetics, Champaign, IL; 2004.
3. Philippaerts RM, Vaeyens R, Janssens M, et al.: The relationship between peak height velocity and physical
performance in youth soccer players. J Sports Sci. 2006, 24:221-30. 10.1080/02640410500189371
4. Valente-dos-Santos J, Coelho-e-Silva MJ, Martins RA, et al.: Modelling developmental changes in repeated-
sprint ability by chronological and skeletal ages in young soccer players. Int J Sports Med. 2012, 33:773-80.
10.1055/s-0032-1308996
5. Gonçalves CEB, Rama LML, Figueiredo AB: Talent identification and specialization in sport: an overview of
some unanswered questions. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2012, 7:390-3.
6. Silventoinen K, Maia J, Jelenkovic A, et al.: Genetics of somatotype and physical fitness in children and
adolescents. Am J Hum Biol. 2021, 33:e23470. 10.1002/ajhb.23470
7. Heath BH, Carter JE: A modified somatotype method . Am J Phys Anthropol. 1967, 27:57-74.
10.1002/ajpa.1330270108
8. Hu F: Obesity Epidemiology. Oxford University Press, Oxford; 2008.
9. Marta CC, Marinho DA, Barbosa TM, Carneiro AL, Izquierdo M, Marques MC: Effects of body fat and
dominant somatotype on explosive strength and aerobic capacity trainability in prepubescent children. J
Strength Cond Res. 2013, 27:3233-44. 10.1519/JSC.0000000000000252
10. Ruiz JR, Ortega FB, Meusel D, Harro M, Oja P, Sjöström M: Cardiorespiratory fitness is associated with
features of metabolic risk factors in children. Should cardiorespiratory fitness be assessed in a European
health monitoring system? The European Youth Heart Study. Journal of Public Health. 2006, 14:94-102.
11. Sanivar K, Acikada C, Kirmizigil B: Adolesan erkek basketbol oyuncularında biyolojik kronolojik ve
antrenman yaşlarının, performans uzerine etkileri. Aksaray University Journal of Sport and Health
Researches. 2023, 4:92-114.
12. Uzun GB, Tok Y: Investigating the correlation between 2D:4D finger digit ratios and attention gathering
skills of 60-72 month-old children. Early Hum Dev. 2023, 176:105712. 10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2023.105712
13. Investigation of the relationship between agility, speed, power and strength in young football players by
age. (2013). Accessed: September 18, 2023: http://acikerisim.baskent.edu.tr:8080/handle/11727/1468?
show=full.
14. Kamar A: Ability, skill and performance tests in sports. Nobel. 2019, 25:96.
2023 Ciftci et al. Cureus 15(9): e45430. DOI 10.7759/cureus.45430 9 of 10
15. Bozdogan TK, Kizilet A: The relationship of back and leg strength with agility ability in badminton players
of developmental age (11-13 years old). Gaziantep University Journal of Sport Sciences. 2017, 2:69-82.
16. Deniz G, Kavakli A, Sikoglu OK, Perilioglu AZ, Ece Y, Ogeturk M, Bilek F: In patients with osteoarthritis and
rheumatoid arthritis, effects of hand physical features on hand function. Kafkas J Med Sc. 2021, 11:67-75.
10.5505/kjms.2021.05935
17. Reisberg K, Riso EM, Jürimäe J: Physical fitness in preschool children in relation to later body composition
at first grade in school. PLoS One. 2021, 16:e0244603. 10.1371/journal.pone.0244603
18. Akınoğlu B, Paköz B, Hasanoğlu A, Kocahan T: Investigation of the relationship between sit-and-reach
flexibility and the height, the leg length and the trunk length in adolescent athletes. Balt J Health Phys Act.
2021, 13:29-37. 10.29359/BJHPA.13.4.04
19. Beunen G, Claessens M, Ostyn R, Renson J, Simons D, Van Gevren D: Children and Exercise XI . Human
Kinetics, Champaign, IL; 1985. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?
hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=19.+Beunen+G%2C+Claessens+M%2C+Ostyn+R%2C+Renson+J%2C+Simons+....
20. Raudsepp L, Jürimäe T: Somatotype and physical fitness of prepubertal children . Coll Antropol. 1996, 20:53-
60.
21. WidiyaniI T, Suryobrot B, Budiarti S, Hartana A: The growth of body size and somatotype of Javanese
children age 4 to 20 years. HAYATI J Biosci. 2011, 18:182-92. 10.4308/hjb.18.4.182
22. Monyeki KD, Toriola AL, de Ridder JH, et al.: Stability of somatotypes in 4 to 10 year-old rural South African
girls. Ann Hum Biol. 2002, 29:37-49. 10.1080/03014460110054984
23. Ayan V, Mülazimoğlu O: Talent selection in sports and assessment of the physical characteristics and some
performance profiles of male children between 8-10 years old in guidance to sports (Ankara sample). FÜ Sağ
Bil Tıp Derg. 2009, 23:113-8.
24. Jurak G, Kovač M, Strel J: Impact of the additional physical education lessons programme on the physical
and motor development of 7-to 10-year-old children. Kinesiology. 2006, 38:105-15.
25. Revan S, Arikan Ş, Şahin M, Balci ŞS: Comparison of the body composition and somatotype of Turkish and
foreign country national team taekwondo athletes. European Journal of Physical Education and Sport
Science. 2017, 3:10.5281/zenodo.1112294
26. Ölmez C, Vedat A, Yüksek S, Öztaş M, Civil T: Investigation of the relationship between the somatotype
structures and performance characteristics of 11-13 years old male taekwondo athletes. Ulusal Spor Bilimleri
Dergisi. 2019, 3:1-13. 10.30769/usbd.534672
2023 Ciftci et al. Cureus 15(9): e45430. DOI 10.7759/cureus.45430 10 of 10
