Characteristics of the body type of children aged 8–12 with different levels of physical activity

Introduction. To expand our knowledge of body type characteristics across the modern population of different age and gender groups, as well as to expand the database for further comparison of research results, it is necessary to include body type assessment in physical development assessment programs.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the somatotypological characteristics of children aged 8–12 years with varying levels of physical activity.

Materials and methods. A total of 228 students (101 girls and 127 boys) in grades 2–5 of a Moscow comprehensive school were examined. The somatotypological profile was assessed using the Heath-Carter method and an apparatus-based ABC-01 Medass bioimpedance analyzer (Medass, Russia).

Results. Boys aged 8–12 years were significantly more mesomorphic and less ectomorphic than girls; boys were also less endomorphic, but the differences between the groups were not significant. No significant differences in body size or somatotypological profile were found between girls participating in sports clubs and those not. Boys who attended sports clubs had significantly lower ENDO and MESO component scores and significantly higher ECTO component scores. The group of girls participating in feminine sports was made up of more ectomorphic girls and less meso- and endomorphic girls.

Conclusion. When dividing children into groups based on their sport, participation in sports clubs, or non-attendance, no clear pattern in the dynamics of somatotypological profiles was found. This is due to the young age of the subjects and the presence of children with different body compositions in each age group.

1. Tutelyan V. A., Nikityuk D. B., Vybornaya K. V. and others. Anatomical and anthroponutrition methods for assessing the physical and nutritional status of children and adults with different levels of physical activity: guidelines. Moscow: Multiprint, 2022. 112 p. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.56188/978-5-6048236-0-6-2022

2. Carter J. E. L. The Heath-Carter anthropometric somatotype: instruction manual, 2002. 26 p. http://www.somatotype.org/Heath-CarterManual.pdf

3. Nikolaev D. V. Bioelectric impedance analysis of human body composition / D. V. Nikolaev, A. V. Smirnov, I. G. Bobrinskaya, S. G. Rudnev. M., Nauka, 2009. 392 p. (In Russ.).

4. Vybornaya K. V., Nikityuk D. B. Somatotyping according to the Heath-Carter scheme – the relationship between body type and gender, age and level of physical activity. Voprosy pitaniia. 2025; 94 (2): 18–37. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.33029/0042-8833-2025-94-2-18-37

5. Rudnev S. G., Kolesnikov V. A., Nikolaev D. V., Anisimova A. V., Godina E. Z., Permyakova E. Yu., Medvedeva L. V., Negasheva M. A. Bioimpedance assessment of somatotype according to Heath-Carter: updated formulas and software. Bulletin of Moscow University. Series 23: Anthropology 2025; 2: 26–44. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.55959/MSU2074-8132-25-2-3

6. Tóth T., Michalíková M., Bednarčíková L., Živčák J., Kneppo P. Somatotypes in Sport. Acta Mechanica et Automatica. 2014; 8 (1): 27–32. DOI: 10.2478/ama-2014–0005

7. Baranov A. A., Kuchma V. R., Skoblina N. A. Physical development of children and adolescents at the turn of the millennium. Moscow: Scientific Center for Children’s Health, Russian Academy of Medical Sciences, 2008. 216 p. (In Russ.). ISBN 5-7695-0581-8.

8. Tutelyan V. A., Nikityuk D. B., Burlyaeva E. A. and others. Using the method of complex anthropometry in sports and clinical practice: guidelines. M.: Sport, 2018. 49 p. (In Russ.).

9. Vybornaya K. V., Nikityuk D. B. Principles of selection of sports sections among primary school students. Journal of New Medical Technologies, e-edition. 2025; 4: 55–58. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.24412/2075-4094-2025-4-2-1

10. Heath B. H., Carter J. E. L. Growth and somatotype patterns of manus children, territory of Papua and New Guinea: Application of a modified somatotype method to the study of growth patterns. American Journal of Physical Anthropology. 1971; 35 (1): 49–67. DOI: 10.1002/ajpa.1330350107

11. Pařízková J., Carter J. E. L. Influence of physical activity on stability of somatotypes in boys. American Journal of Physical Anthropology. 1976; 44 (2): 327–339. DOI: 10.1002/ajpa.1330440215

12. Hunt E. A. Jr., Barton W. H. The inconstancy of physique in adolescent boys and other limitations of somatotyping. Am. J. Phys. Anthrop. 1959; 17 (1): 27–35. DOI: 10.1002/ajpa.1330170105

13. Stolz H. R., Stolz L. M. Somatic development of adolescent boys: a study of the growth of boys during the second decade of life. New York: Macmillan, 1951. 557 р. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015029853333&seq=12

14. Clarke H. H. Physical and motor tests in the Medford Boys’ Growth Study. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1971. 303 p. ISBN 0136655963. https://archive.org/details/physicalmotortes0000clar

15. Ross W. D., Day J. A. P. Physique and performance of young skiers. J. Sports Med. Phys. Fitness. 1972; 12 (1): 30–37. PMID: 5053524.

16. Sexual dimorphism and its reflection in sports: monograph / M. G. Tkachuk, A. A. Dyusenova. Ed. Erase. M. – Berlin: Direct-Media, 2019. 113 p. ISBN 978-5-4475-3840-8. (In Russ.).