Jakub Grzegorz Adamczyk^,2, Dariusz Boguszewski², Marcin Siewierski¹

1Jozef Pilsudski Academy of Physical Education Warsaw

Introduction

In all current systems of training are desired for optimization and maximization of sport results. Nowadays in professional sport there’s no possibility achieving without creating suitable structural base of sports mastery. This basis must include measurable and repeatable parameters of best competitors in the world. Beyond obvious elements of motor, technical, tactical, psychical as well as theoretical preparations, which doubtless decide about achieved results - exist different parameters which have an impact onto athlete effectiveness. For sure somatic build is one of these elements. She plays basic role in process of sport selection [2, 26].

Suitable somatic building, and first of all body height is factor which can decide about success in hurdle runs. No matter how it seems, that this dependence we can see in group of men runners (they run through higher hurdles), also insufficient body height can be factor limiting progress of women.

Independently from this, important element of 400 H run is suitable number of executed steps between hurdles. Through years dominating opinion was that hurdlers (both gender) should be tall, because this not only helps clearing the hurdles, but also it permits onto minimalizing number of steps on the distance and between the hurdles. Results of led analyses shows, that this parameter can have essential meaning for sport results. For best female hurdlers of the world, positive dependence between number of steps on distance got Letzelter [17, 18].

Considerable differentiation of body building which can be observed in group of best hurdlers permits to suppose, that body mass and height doesn’t have to determine in 100% achieving results. At present in world forefront we find as very high competitors (like Tatiana Tereszczuk-Antipova - 185 cm, Jana Rawlinson - 181 cm ) as much lower (Melaine Walker - 165 cm, Sheena Tosta - 165 cm, Tiffany Williams - 160 cm ). In the same group are very slim competitors (Huang Xiaoxiao, Anastasiya Rabchenyuk, Tetyana Tereszczuk-Antipova, Vania Stambolova, Angela Moroşanu) and with massive build (Tiffany Williams, Sheena Tosta).

Most of existing studies were dedicated for men but it seems, that with success it’s possible to use some regularities to training of women. Most important somatic feature of top hurdlers seems to be body height. Only this one parameter is not decisive factor. Gralka (1964) says: "( ...) High height doesn’t have to predestinate for good results in hurdle runs. Important are proper body proportions. Long neck or trunk can add you a few centimeters but do not makes easier clearing the hurdles" [8]. This opinion is similar to Puzio (1982), who said "( ...) level of body mass centre also isn’t decisive. Too strongly muscled trunk and heavy head raise up body mass centre but it won’t help you with hurdles" [25].

From the Olympic debut of women in 400 hurdles in 1976 past over 35 years, but from the very beginning they were running on the synthetic tracks. In that situation it wasn’t (like in men’s hurdles) factor so strongly stimulating development. From the other hand we can say with high probability that synthetic surface limited meaning of anthropologic parameters in getting high sport results. It became new chance for hurdlers with weaker somatic build.

The aim of the paper was verification of existing opinions about somatic build and finding actual parameters of sport mastery model in 400-metre hurdles run of women. That kind of information should be an essential in sports selection and in planning process of training.

Material and methods

In the examination was used body height and weight data characteristic for 100 best competitors in the 400-m hurdles race of women in years 2006 - 2008. Data were presented for three following years, to get an information about actual and invariable state.

In order to find out if there are any differences between competitors of diverse level - in top 100 results - hurdlers were divided on three levels of advancement.

• I - results better than 54 s,
• II - results between 54.00 and 54.99 s,
• III - results between 55.00 and 55.99 s.

In analyzed years number of each group were:

• Results 52,00-53,99 s:

2006 - n= 7; 2007 - n =6; 2008 - n=6;

• Results 54,00-54,99 s:

2006 - n=13; 2007 - n=12; 2008 - n=11;

• Results 55,00-55,99 s:

2006 - n=21; 2007 - n=22; 2008 - n=19;

On the base of the collected information three factors of the slenderness were described: Rohrer’s, Quetelet I and Quetelet II. Factors were counted with following formula [7]:

ROHRER’S FACTOR = (body mass [g] x 100) / (body height [cm])³

QUETELET’S I FACTOR = body mass [g] / body height [cm]

QUETELET’S II FACTOR = body mass [kg] / (body height [m])²

Data including body mass and body height were taken from the current statistic publications of International Athletics - IAAF [5, 6], European Athletics Associations - EAA [11, 23], ATSF [19, 20, 21] and also from official publications from Athletics World Championships [3] and European Championships in Athletics [16]. If needed, this data were replenished from the official athletics websites - IAAF [9] and EAA statistician [10].

Data were presented with arithmetical averages (), with standard deviations (±SD).

Dependence among sport level (result in run on 400 metres hurdles) and parameters of body building were estimated by Pearson’s coefficient of correlation. Difference somatic build in each group of advancement were counted with t-Student test. Essential dependences were accepted on level 0,05.

Calculations were made with use of Statistica (v. 7.1) and Microsoft Excel software.

Results

Average result of chosen competitors group can be import ant information about level of analyzed event. In case of selected in examination top 100, average result was characterized with small changeability (tab. 1). In analyzed years the best average were noted in 2007 (year of Osaka’s World Championships). In the same year hundredth result was also best over three years. W tym samym roku setny wynik na świecie był najlepszy na przestrzeni trzech lat (2007 - 57,26 s; 2006 i 2008 - 57,46 s). Determinant of changing level can be also number of results below 56 seconds. In 2006 were noted 41 of such results, next year 40 and in year 2008 - 36. In analyzed years no significant differences in average results of top 100 hurdlers were found.

Body height of best hurdlers oscillated about 170 cm (tab. 2). Observing average value of this parameter for top 100, we can see small increase tendency year by year. Dependence like this cannot be observed for any of analyzed group of results. Opposite tendency were observed for competitors with best results but especially in 2007 it happened with large dispersion of results (tab. 2). Highest average body height (175,9 cm - tab. 2) was characteristic for competitors who run in borders of 54,00-54,99 s in year 2007. Attention should be paid to large standard deviation (always above 5 cm) in all groups what suggests massive dispersion of this factor in hurdlers group. No statistically essential relations between body height and sport results were observed in any of groups.

In group of hurdlers with best results average body mass shown similar dependence like body height. We noticed smaller values every next year (tab. 3). In other groups there’s no such dependence but we can see that in 2006 and 2007 competitors in II and III group (results 54,00-54,99 s and 55,00-55,99 s) were lighter than fastest hurdlers. In refer to world’s top 100 hurdlers, body mass seems to be more stable parameter, what is superbly illustrated by identical average for years 2007 and 2008 (tab. 3). However SD values shows considerably smaller differentiation this parameter (in relation to body height), but it’s still large. Statistical analysis didn’t show any significant relation between body mass and results in 400 m H at any group.

At the same time Quetelets’ I indicator values increases from year to year in group of athletes who have a range of results between 54,00 and 54,99 s. The most stable values (similar to 337 - fig. 1) were observed in group of whole runnersAverage values of Quetelets’ I factor showed no statistically significant dependence with results in hurdle run.

Average values gathered for Quetelets’ II factor confirm notable slender of best competitors, with noticeable increase of this parameter in group of those competitors who are right behind the best (fig. 2). Much smaller differentiation is in third of separated group of advancement, where occurs from year to year growth is minimal. Some knd of "mirror image" are values for top 100 showed in fig 2. In that case we can see slight but steady decrease of this parameter. None of the group as well as for community, sport results weren’t statistically dependent from Quetelets’ II value.

Rohrer’s indicator value in top 100 group, slightly dropped after year 2006 and in two following years was on the same level (1,15).

Discussion

Analysis made in women’s world’s best 400-metre hurdlers group, showed massive differentiation of somatic build. Gathered average values shows only part of the sports mastery model but we must remember that sport nowadays is hugely individualized.

Two most often use parameters of somatic build are body: mass and height. Some tendency can be observed in here in top 100 group. Those hurdlers are little bit taller and heavier, but body mass in that case is more stable (tab. 1-2). It is happening with totally different situation in subgroup of fastest runners, who are smaller and (what is obvious) lighter. Results like this makes conclusion that necessity of being tall to be good at hurdles is not so obvious. At the same time, group of fastest competitors (sub 54 s), being for sure world’s best (potential finalists and medalists of Olympic Games, World Championships) is rather small (6-7 hurdlers) so it’s hard to treat their somatic build as fully representative for all hurdlers population.

About two times numerous is group of those who are right behind fastest (results 54,00-54,99 s). Consistently during three analyzed seasons, this group was characterized by higher body mass and height. It can be therefore assumed that independently from somatic build, best competitors have better motor preparation and this is decisive factor in having top results in 400 H. This thesis can be confirmed by statistical analysis, which indicates no significant correlation between sport results and body mass and height.

It’s obvious that analysis of somatic build cannot be focused only on these two basic parameters. Important information can be deliver by indicators which shows proportion between body mass and height. Three indicators used in that research allows for closer look for that problem. Values of each indicator, place hurdlers in all levels of advancement in medium type of somatic build.

Characteristic that all used tools (slenderness indicators) showed analogical situation like in case of body mass and height - more muscular body build of group with 54,00-54,99 s results and slender build of fastest competitors. The same tendency we can observe for all top 100. Year by year, hurdlers are more slender. However this thesis it’s supported by All analyzed indicators, their values are differ.

It seems that less informative from them is Quetelets’ II indicator called Body Mass Index (BMI). Some authors show onto fact that this is not best tool for eveluation of sportsmen [7]. Because of low level (according to population) of adipose tissue and high muscle mass, BMI value can be quite high and suggest overweight. In practice this overweight is rather not possible especially in group of world’s best athletes. BMI value slightly dropped down but still stayed close to 20.

More credible indicator seems to be Quetelets’ I. Except situation in best subgroup, this factor is similar to 336-340 in all other subgroups and years. Also in that one tendency to be more slender can be observed (especially fastest runners). Because of limited number of competitors in sub 54 s group, it’s hard to treat this as an regularity.

Last of the analyze parameter was Rohrers’ indicator. It’s worth to notice, that values for all "100" were the same in 2007 and 2008 (1.15). Best hurdlers were more massive than others but even them (like whole group) showed tendency to slender the mastery model. Rohrers’ value for best 400-metre hurdlers in 2006-2008 was close to 1.15.

However in men’s 400-metre hurdles, alalysis of somatic build were made few Times, in women’s they are very rarely.

One of the first research were studies made by Ważny and Sozański as well as Sozański and et. al., who deal with somatic build of the Olympic finalists from years 1972, 1976, 1980, 1988 [27, 28, 29]. Characteristic that only in one of this studies basic parameters like body mass and height were analyzed in group of "middle hurdles". Average height 400 H finalists at Olympic Games in Seoul was 172,6 cm and medalists 172,7 cm. We must also admit that in this run, much spread between runners was observed (over 20 cm - 165-179 cm). Average for medalists body mass was 61,3 kg and slightly lower for finalists- 60,4 kgs, with range 57-66 kgs [27].

International literature also treat this event without proper attention. Small and heterogeneus groups (including athletes from different events) or taking other parameters to analysis causes that it’s hard to look for them as an global view.

For sure we can tell that comparing with men’s group of best hurdlers shows that female runners must have more slender build. In 400-metre hurdles run of men reference values were defined by Adamczyk et. al. (Rohrer’s ca. 1.20, Quetelets’ I ca. 400 and Quetelets’ II ca. 22) [1].

Can we, in the light of collected data defined new model values, chich can be helpful in sport selection process? Doubtless is fact that height and body mass aren’t only decisive factors. Very important are body proportions as well as other parameters. Slender build of Niezmiernie ważne są również odpowiednie proporcje w budowie ciała a także inne wymiary ciała. Milicerowa affirms, for example, that in 400 m hurdles a slender structure of the shin is desirable [22]. Iskra in his research [14, 15] proves: the height of the body, the length of the foot, the width of the chest, a high value of mass of the active tissues and muscular ones as well as a low level of the adipose tissues are the parameters strongly correlated with the attained performance. It is advisable to put emphasis on the fact that the complex anthropometrical test run on a large group of best competitors (from many countries) is, in principle, impossible, hence the need of the research of simpler parameters perceptible in a easier way. Beyond this we’re trying to take those morphological features, which has high diagnostics value but doesn’t change much in training process, being strongly genetically conditioned [24]. That is why we used easier parameters, which can be useful in selection.

Recapitulating we must emphases that being successful in 400 hurdles doesn’t have to be closely dependent from fulfill criteria known as mastery model. Sport practice shows that success can achieved by competitors of different motor and technical predispositions [12] as well as different somatic build [1, 13, 14, 15]. Especially somatic parameters doesn’t have to be decisive. For sure it can help but if someone don’t have proper somatic features - it doesn’t cross out his chances for high sport results. Key factor seems to be motor preparation of hurdlers. Wanting to mark "border values" we notice that nowadays there are not too many competitors below 165 cm in the advanced party, or above 180 cm too. However Carter (1984) point for mesomorphy as dominant element of hurdlers build there are very few of them of a very muscular body [4].

Conclusions

The obtained results, in the light of existing research in this direction, prove that the meaning of the height of body is less significant at present than it was a dozen or a few dozen years ago.

Concluding, one should state that the gathered values should be used as a selection criteria in 400m hurdles run. The average body height in the group of best hurdlers amounts to 170-173 cm at the body mass of about 57-58 kgs and these parameters do not diversify competitors’ different sport levels.

Widening the research by slenderness factors is also legitimate and the values characteristic of the best hurdlers should be:

• Rohrer’s (ca. 1.15),
• Quetelet’s I (ca. 337),
• Quetelet’s II (ca. 20).

Rohrer’s factor is particularly valuable in this case. These values work well with most of the analyzed leading competitors of the world and apart from the indicators of the motor preparation this can be helpful information while choosing the specialization.

1. Adamczyk J., Siewierski M., Boguszewski D. An Attempt at the Identification of Anthropometric Conditioning of Sport Results in 400-Metre Men’s Hurdles. Baltic Journal of Health and Physical Activity 2010; Vol.2, No 1, pp. 56-65.

2. Bloomfield J. R., Ackland T., Elliot B. Body typing in sports. [in:] Bloomfield J. R., Ackland T., Elliot B. (red.). Applied Anatomy and Biomechanics in sports. Blackwell Scientific Publications. 1994, pp. 46-64.

3. Butler M. et al. 11th IAAF World Championships in Athletics STATISTICS HANDBOOK - Osaka 2007. Monaco. IAAF. 2007, 60 p.

4. Carter J. E. L. Somatotypes of Olympic Athletes. Part II: Kinantropometry of Olympic Athletes. 1984, vol.18, pp. 80-109.

5. Castellini O. et al. IAAF World Lists 2007. Monaco. IAAF. 2007, 60 p.

6. Castellini O. et al. IAAF World Lists (Top 50) 2008. Monaco. IAAF. 2008. 64 p.

7. Drozdowski Z. Anthropometry in physical education [in Polish], Poznan, AWF. 1998, 200 p.

8. Gralka H. Hurdle runs [in Polish], Warszawa, Sport i Turystyka, 1964, 160 p.

9. http://www.iaaf.org/athletes/biographies/index.html (at 17.11.2011).

10. http://www.tilastopaja.org/ (at 17.11.2011).

11. Huguenin F., O'Callaghan P. European Athletics Yearbook 2006 - 07. 2007. Lausanne. EAA. 2007, 48 p.

12. Iskra J. 400-metre hurdles run [in Polish], 1999, Rzeszow, 240 p.

13. Iskra J. Somatic build and it’s connection with level of results [in Polish], Wychowanie fizyczne i Sport, 2000, vol.1, pp. 61-87.

14. Iskra J. Morphological and functional conditioning of results in hurdle runs [in Polish]. 2001, Katowice, AWF, 164 p.

15. Iskra J. Influence of chosen element of hurdle rhythm on results in 400m hurdles run [in Polish]. Sport Wyczynowy. 2003, vol.1, pp. 9-10.

16. Jalava M. et al. Statistics Handbook - EC '06. 2006. Malmo. EAA. 2006. - 68 p.

17. Letzelter H., Letzelter M. To influence of standard and technique at that 400-m. Hurdenlauf Manner and women "Leistungsport" 1979, vol.1, pp. 12-19.

18. Letzelter H.: Stride pattern in the 400 m hurdles women. [in:] Women’s track and field athletics. 1st IAAF Congress on women’s athletics. 1983. Mainz., 240 p.

19. Mappa P. All-Time 1000 performances. 2008. Firenze.ATSF. 2008, 100 p.

20. Matthews P. ATFS - ATHLETICS 2006 The International Track and Field Annual. SportsBooks Limited. Cheltenham.2006. -220 p.

21. Matthews P. ATFS - ATHLETICS 2008 The International Track and Field Annual. SportsBooks Limited. Cheltenham.2008. -212 p.

22. Milicerowa H. Somatic build as sport selection criteria, [in:] Pilicz S. (ed.). Chosen problems of sport selection [in Polish], 1971. Biblioteka trenera PKOl, 196 p.

23. O'Callaghan P., Anderson K. European Athletics Yearbook 2007 - 08. 2008. Lausanne. EAA. -160 p.

24. Orkwiszewska A. Morphological Diversity of Athletes. Research Yearbook, 2007, vol.13(2), pp. 249-253.

25. Puzio W. 400-metres hurdles run. [in:] Mulak J. (ed.): Athletics - technique - metodics - training [in Polish], Warszawa.1982, 200 p.

26. Reilley T., Williams A. M., Nevill A., Franks A. A mulitidisciplinary approach to talent identification in soccer. Journal Sports Science. 2000, vol.18(9), pp. 695-702.

27. Sozanski H., Perkowski K., Kosmol A. Athletics and swimming on Montreal and Seoul Olympic Games [in Polish]. Sport Wyczynowy. 1989, vol.1, pp. 21-46.

28. Wazny Z. Diversification of athletes somatic build in athletics who started in Rome and Tokio Olympic Games [in Polish], Wychowanie Fizyczne i Sport. 1967, vol.3, pp. 53-67.

29. Wazny Z., Sozanski H. Looking of sport mastery model factors - analysis of chosen parameters of participants of Olympic Games in Moscow, Montreal and Munich [in Polish], Sport Wyczynowy. 1980, vol.12, pp. 13-56.

Богущевски Дариуш
jadamczyk@wum.edu.pl
Медицинский университет в Варшаве
ул.Звирки и Фигуры 61, 02-091, Варшава, Польша.

Сивирски Марцин
jadamczyk@wum.edu.pl
Академия физического воспитания имени Й.Пилсудского в Варшаве
ул.Маримонская 34, 00-968, Варшава, Польша.

Adamczyk Jakub Grzegorz
jadamczyk@wum.edu.pl
Jozef Pilsudski Academy of Physical Education Warsaw
Marymoncka str. 34, 00-968 Warszawa 45, Poland

Boguszewski Dariusz
Medical University of Warsaw
ul. Zwirki i Wigury 61, 02-091 Warsaw, Poland.

Siewierski Marcin
Jozef Pilsudski Academy of Physical Education Warsaw
Marymoncka str. 34, 00-968 Warszawa 45, Poland