Česká kinantropologie 2014, vol. 18, no. 3, p. 41 – 49
Kinanthropometric parameters
of swimmers placed in talented
youth groups*
Viera Smerecká & Pavel Ružbarský
Faculty of Sports, University of Prešov in Prešov, Slovakia
Abstract
The aim of the study was to determine the kinanthropometric parameters of swimmers placed in talented youth groups of the Slovak Swimming Federation, related to
their swimming specialisation. The selected group consisted of 35 swimmers (13 boys
and 22 girls), and the average age of the group was 13.8 years. The following basic
anthropometric indicators were recorded: body height, body weight, ten skinfolds, and
width parameters: epicondylus humeri, epicondylus femoris and thigh and arm circumference. A standard anthropometric set was used in order to gain the data, which served
as a basis when determining the subcutaneous fat percentage and the somatotype by
means of Somato software. Based upon the information obtained, the swimmers were
consequently divided into five categories of motor performance, reflecting the relation
between the somatotypes and kinetic abilities of the swimmers. The swimming specialisation was determined by the performances with the highest points scored during the
calendar year. The results of the selected group point at a significant heterogeneity
of kinanthropometric parameters. It is highly probable that, when selecting a swimming
discipline specialisation, the somatotype requirements of particular swimming styles
were not taken into consideration. Ectomorphic component was dominant with 51.4%
and the average somatotype was 2.7–3.2–4.3 for boys and 3.6–3.0–4.0 for girls. The
average value of subcutaneous fat was defined as low, 11.8% at boys and reduced,
16.2% at girls. Predominant category of five categories of motor performance was
determined as D at boys and A at girls.
Key words: Somatotype, Young talented swimmers, Swimming stroke and discipline
specialization, Subcutaneous fat, Category of motor performance.
Introduction
Psychologist William Sheldon classified people according to three body types – endomorphs, mesomorphs and ectomorphs. Many coaches follow this concept, while others
believe the generalisations are not sufficient and every individual possesses many other
qualities, which are to be studied prior to the training program formation. In general, the
somatotypes suggest their importance in relation to the actions of an organism to a training load (Likness, 2011).
Factors that determine the body structure, its size and muscularity, or the structure
of anatomic components of a human body, were analysed by Dovalil et al. (2002).
According to Dovalil (2002), the somatic factors are relatively stable in time, and their
ˉˉˉˉˉˉˉˉˉˉˉˉˉˉˉˉˉˉˉˉˉˉˉˉˉˉˉˉˉˉˉˉˉˉˉˉˉˉˉˉˉˉˉˉˉˉˉˉˉˉˉˉˉˉˉˉˉˉˉˉˉˉˉˉˉˉˉˉˉˉˉˉˉˉˉˉˉˉˉˉˉˉˉˉˉˉˉˉˉˉˉˉˉˉˉˉˉˉˉ
* The paper makes part of the research project VEGA No. 1/1020/11.
41
genetic determination is verifiable. From the individual perspective these concerned
with muscles, skeleton, ligaments and tendons. Dovalil et al. (2002) and Moravec et al.
(2004) include among the main somatic factors the body height and weight, the length
dimensions and proportions, the body structure, and the body type – somatotype.
Somatotype is a structural factor when increasing the aerobic preparedness and may
be helpful when identifying the talented individuals for long-distance swimming disciplines. However, it is not simple to exactly determine the influence of the somatotypetraining interaction effect on the aerobic capacity factors (Chaouachi & Chaouach
& Chamari & Chtara & Feki & Amri & Trudeau, 2005).
Empirically verified studies have proved that the important factors, more or less
determining the potential performance of an athlete in a particular discipline, definitely
include the whole scale of anthropometric parameters. Almost every single sports discipline has created some characteristic somatotypes, which help the trainers to determine,
which somatic parameters an individual should possess of, related to the particular
sports discipline (Urban & Kandráč, 2010, p. 141).
“Body structure can play an important part when determining the swimming performance level” (Faulkner, 1967, p. 33). Swimming performance is mostly determined
by the anatomic factors, such as the body dimensions and proportions, water resistance
influence by the size of a body intersection, the appropriate strength, especially that
of arms and torso, explosiveness (short distances) and endurance abilities (long distances).
Secondly, mastering the swimming technique and coordination of movements is important, along with flexibility of a shoulder joint (backstroke, front crawl and especially
butterfly), femoral joint, ankle and torso (Grasgruber & Cacek, 2008).
“Timely determination of the somatotypes of athletes helps to improve their performance and body development according to their needs, especially according to the individual
sports and disciplines” (Nigam, 2011). “Certain somatotypes have particular morphological predispositions for kinetic activity, whereas the variety of reactions to a physical load
provides diversified outcomes, so it is manifested with various somatotypes miscellaneously” (Urban & Kandráč, 2012, p. 237).
Aim
Determine the kinanthropometric parameters of swimmers placed in talented youth
groups of the Slovak Swimming Federation, related to their swimming specialisation.
Methods
The monitored group consisted of swimmer of the Slovak national junior swimming
team, preparing for the top level junior events, such as World Championship and EYOF.
The group consisted of 35 swimmers divided into two sex groups – 13 boys and
22 girls, averaging 13.8 years of age. Basic anthropomorphic values were recorded:
body height (cm), body weight (kg), ten skinfolds (mm) of head (face), neck (chin),
chest I., chest II., torso (abdominal), suprailiac, subscapular, triceps, thigh, medial calf;
width parameters (cm) of epicondylus humeri, epicondylus femoris and perimeter of an
arm and thigh. In order to gain the data we used a standard anthropometric set, consisting
of a stadiometer, scales, a little adjustable calliper, a skinfold calliper measuring and
a rolling meter. By means of a Somato software, based upon the data gained a somatotype
and fat percentage were determined. These information help when dividing the swimmers
42
into five categories of motor performance according to Chytráčková (1989), which represented the relation between a somatotype and motoric abilities. The division
of somatotypes by Štěpnička (1977), modified by Chytráčková (1989), defines 5 somatotype categories according to the motoric ability. In order to evaluate the motoric ability,
9 tests of fundamental motoric skills and 1 test to determine the explosive strength
of arms and shoulder girdle were used. Chytráčková (1989) defines the five somatotype
categories according to the motoric ability as follows: Category A includes children
with an average or under-average performance predispositions for speed, endurance
and motor skills. They possess good constituent predispositions for absolute power
manifestation. Endomorphic component represents 4–4.5 pts, mesomorph is at 3 or
above. Category B includes the most all-round and universal children, who have very
good predispositions for general physical performance, and high motoric activity is
characteristic of this category. Isomorphic component is the dominant one; endomorph
is not greater than 2pts. Category C represents obese children, possessing the worst
physical predispositions. The motoric activity is low, motivation and paying attention to
all the types is highly needed with this category. Physical performance is usually under
par in all aspects. Endomorphic component is the dominant one (5pts or above).
Category D represents slim and gracile children, with very good predispositions for
cardiovascular endurance and motor skills. It is necessary to form the body by means
of preventive and precautionary exercising, since the body poise and posture is often
fault and incorrect. Ectomorph is the dominant component of this category. Category E
is commonly very scarcely represented. It includes the individuals with bad motoric
predispositions. Low level of performance is likely caused by the low representation of
the mesomorph component of a somatotype. It is important to note that the above categorisation is not valid once the puberty has been cleared. Swimming specialisation was
determined upon the results with the highest point values for a calendar year. In order
to determine the relation between the variables towards the somatotypes particles and
swimming specialisation, a non-parametric correlation of Kendall was used. The results
were evaluated at the 0.01 and 0.05 significance level.
Results and Discussion
The studies confirm that within a majority of sports it is possible to observe concentration of somatotypes in a particular area of a somatograph, depending upon the
particularities of an individual discipline. In individual sports it is essential to determine a somatotype, as it greatly influences the level of a performance (Pavlík, 2011).
In our group an average somatotype was 3.3–3.1–4.1, classified as a mid-somatotype, i.e. for boys 2.7–3.2–4.3 (Table 1), for girls 3.6–3.0–4.0 (Table 2). Ectomorph,
mainly mesomorphic, was the most frequent, represented by 51.4%, in groups
of both sex. In a study focused on kinanthropometric parameters in swimming was
an average somatotype of male swimmers 253 and of female swimmers 343 (Carter
& Ackland, 1994). In comparison to our group the endomorph and ectomorph is represented less, unlike the mesomorph, which dominates both the constitute types. The
development phase of the swimmers of our group could be the reason for the difference.
“During the accelerated growth phase of boys (14–16 years) we notice ‘slendering’ of
somatotypes. The average mesomorphic values of the adult age can be estimated roughly
at the age of 17 years” (Grasgruber & Cacek, 2008; Malina & Bouchard, 1991).
43
Table 1
Anthropometric indicators and date of swimming specialisation of male swimmers
B
Age
BH
(cm)
BW
(kg)
B.M.
14.3
177.4
62.4
235
mesomorph ectomorph
8.8
C.M.
14.3
184.4
68.6
135
mesomorph ectomorph
V.D.
13.8
174.8
56.5
235
T.M.
14.1
171
55.9
K.J.
15.0
184.8
T.N.
13.6
T.R.
14.1
Somatotype
% fat
Category
SS
Very low
D
50 VS, 100 VS
7.4
Very low
D
100 VS
mesomorph ectomorph
10.1
Low
D
200 VS, 200 PP
135
mesomorph ectomorph
8.7
Very low
D
200 VS
65.8
135
mesomorph ectomorph
7.9
Very low
D
200 P, 50 P
161.6
51.2
244
mesomorph ectomorph
10.5
Low
D
800 VS, 1500 VS
198.0
82.3
335
balanced ectomorph
10.6
Low
A
100 VS, 100 Z
T.J.
18.0 186.00 73.00
435
endomorph ectomorph
15.3
Normal
E
200 PP, 200 VS
T.R.
14.5
199.6
84.7
425
endomorph ectomorph
15.8
Normal
E
100 VS, 100 Z
L.U.
14.9
178.2
78.6
352
endomorph mesomorph
12.0
Lowered
A
800 VS
P.D.
14.1
168.6
55.3
434
mid somatotype
14.1
Normal
E
1500 VS, 800 VS
N.D.
16.1
181.0
69.0
334
mid somatotype
15.9
Normal
A
50 Z, 100 VS
J.F.
13.6
168.2
70.1
542
mesomorph endomorph
16.8
Increased
A
800 VS, 400 VS
x
14.6
179.5
67.2
334
mid somatotype
11.8
Low
–
–
Legend: B – boys, x – average value, SS – swimming specialisation, category – category of motor performance.
Carter (1984) in: Grassugruber & Cacek (2008) states the average somatotype of
Montreal Olympics in 1976 was for male swimmers 2.1–5.1–2.8, and for female it was
more homogenous at 3.2–3.9–3.0. The study of Ackland et al. at the WCH in Perth
1991 provides almost the same values, with a slight decrease of an endomorph.
Individuals with a significant ectomorph component manage the endurance activities
with an ease. The ectomorph is characterised with a significantly lower fat-free substance, a great part of which is represented by muscles. In case of a mesomorph component a skeleton and massive muscularity are dominant. Mesomorph and meso-ectomorph individuals show a more significant improvement of the aerobic capacity after
the aerobic training, and these individuals appear to be pre-equipped to profit from an
aerobic training.
Cureton (1947), when studying the samples of swimmers participating in two OG,
found out that the average somatotype for swimmers was approximately 3–4–3 and 4–5–4.
Sprinters are more likely to be ecto-mesomorph constitute types and mid-distance swimmers endo-mesomorph types. In our monitored group the relation between the variables
of subcutaneous fat and swimming distance was positive (0.307) at the 0.01 significance
level, as much as in relation between the endomorph component and swimming distance
(0.261) at the 0.05 significance level. The endomorph component is characterised by
a good potential for increasing of muscle substance, but reduction of a subcutaneous
44
fat seems to be its problem. In Cureton (1951) study the swimmers of 400 yards and
1500 m had higher values of the endomorph component, whereas the sprinters had higher
values in the mesomorph constituent. Body height and fat-free weight proved to be the
important correlatives with the swimming performance/level of female sprint swimmers
(Siders & Lukaski & Bolonchuk, 1993).
Table 2
Anthropometric indicators and date of swimming specialisation of female swimmers
G
Age
BH
(cm)
BW
(kg)
F.N.
11.2
155.6
41.6
235
mesomorph ectomorph
6.9
K.B.
12.7
162.6
47.8
235
mesomorph ectomorph
H.K.
12.2
164.9
46.3
225
L.L.
12.8
159.1
43.7
P.A.
11.8
160.0
Š.T.
12.1
L.L.
Somatotype
% fat
Category
SS
Very low
D
100 PP, 200 PP
5.2
Very low
D
100 PP, 400 PP
balanced ectomorph
7.2
Very low
A
100 Z, 200 Z
335
balanced ectomorph
12.5
Low
A
1500 VS, 200 VS
39.2
336
balanced ectomorph
13.9
Low
A
200 Z, 400 VS
160.0
45.7
335
balanced ectomorph
11.7
Very low
A
100 VS, 100 M
14.9
168.0
53.3
335
balanced ectomorph
18.0
Lowered
A
1500 VS, 800 VS
S.M.
14.0
173.5
58.1
425
endomorph ectomorph
20.2
Normal
E
400 VS, 50 Z
K.S.
12.2
161.6
47.8
325
endomorph ectomorph
9.6
Very low
E
200 P, 100 P
B.B.
11.7
159.8
52.3
433
mid somatotype
14.5
Very low
A
200 PP, 200 P
B.E.
12.7
159.7
48.4
334
mid somatotype
9.5
Very low
A
100 VS, 200 VS
M.M.
13.1
161.3
52.7
433
mid somatotype
17.3
Lowered
A
100 Z
S.D.
12.8
161.7
48.9
334
mid somatotype
9.9
Very low
E
100 PP, 200 Z
F.N.
13.3
170.6
60.4
333
mid somatotype
14.6
Low
A
200 PP, 400 PP
F.N.
13.8
171.6
61.2
444
mid somatotype
24.9
Increased
A
200 PP, 400 PP
S.A.
12.9
161.5
55.7
543
mesomorph endomorph
18.8
Lowered
A
100 PP, 200 Z
B.E.
14.6
165.0
61.4
432
mesomorph endomorph
17.5
Lowered
C
400 PP, 200 PP
B.E.
15.0
165.5
61.8
642
mesomorph endomorph
26.5
High
C
400 PP, 200 PP
L.L.
15.3
168.7
56.7
534
ectomorph endomorph
28.5
High
E
1500 VS, 800 VS
S.M.
14.5
173.3
58.3
625
ectomorph endomorph
26.6
High
E
400 VS, 50 Z
M.C.
14.1
167.1
65.3
442
mesomorph endomorph
19.1
Normal
A
100 M, 200 M
M.C.
14.5
167.6
65.8
442
mesomorph endomorph
23.6
Increased
A
200 M, 100 M
x
13.3
164.5
53.3
434
mid somatotype
16.2
Lowered
-
-
Legend: G – girls, x – average value, SS – swimming specialisation, category – category
of motor performance.
45
The average value of body fat was 14.6%, for male swimmers evaluated as low,
11.8%, and for female swimmers as lowered – 16.2%. Mutual relation between
a fat-free body weight and fat content depends on the two groups of factors. The first
group includes inherited factors and theirs role when ‘forming’ somatotype components, number of fat cells and their capacity to increase or lower their content regularly
and thus also the content of body fat (Malina & Bouchard, 1991; Skibińska & Sklad,
1984).
The fat content also depends on the type of sport. The lower values of body fat
lower than 9% and 16% were recorded for male and female swimmers respectively.
In endurance and strength-speed sports the body fat values are lower when compared
to sports, in which the training is focused on kinetic abilities (Krawczyk & Sklad
& Majle, 1995, p. 245).
“Greater amount of fat is suitable for long-distance swimmers, where it provides lift
force and creates thermal isolation against the cold” (Grasgruber & Cacek, 2008, p. 225).
Carter-Ackland (1994), Carter & DeVries (1966), Counsilman (1968), Cureton
& Sparling & Evans (1978), De Garay & Levine-Carter (1974), Faulkner (1967),
Sprague (1976) and other studies the somatotypes of swimmers in various specialisations. The differences were determined not only between the swimming disciplines but
also between the swimming distances.
DeGaray et al. (1974) in the study of the Olympic swimmers did not notice any
significant differences between the groups of swimmers (according to a swimming
style) and body weight.
“Based upon the anthropometric indicators we gain the quantitative data about the
individual body segments and on the basis of morphological state of an individual,
so called merfo-phenotype, we can, to some extent, predict his/her performance”
(Urban & Kandráč & Lafko, 2010, p. 38). The classification of a constituent type
may represent an indicator of future top-level performance. However, it is essential
that the results and performance are stable within a time-frame. The studies proved
that some somatotypes are stable and other vary from its original state. These changes greatly reflect the predisposition, the type of a biological maturing and influence
of a kinetic activity (Grasgruber & Cacek, 2008). In our research we recorded a negative relation of ectomorph and mesomorph component at the 0.01 significance
level. Malina & Bouchard (1991) support the idea of accepting the stability of ectomorph component during body growth. Mesomorph and endomorph components of
young boys were not stable in time, and thus were unpredictable. During the growth
acceleration phase of boys (14–16 years) we notice decrease of mesomorph, mostly
endomorph and increase and growth of ectomorph. After this period, during the
pubescence, the value of mesomorph increases drastically, as a result of the testosterone levels. Average mesomorph levels of an adult can be estimated at about
17 years of age (Grasgruber & Cacek, 2008, Malina & Bouchard, 1991).
In our research we did not record significant relation between a swimming style
and the monitored variables. According to Holmes (1977), no significant variations
of somatotypes among the swimming styles and distances were determined.
According to Sprague (1976) and Stroup (1964), even though in his research no
significant correlations were proved and confirmed, there was a tendency to support
46
the hypothesis that there is a correlation between the swimming performance and
body weight and height. Sprague (1976) came to a conclusion that the body height
should provide a speed advantage when turning in front crawl, when compared to
other styles.
From the perspective of classification into the categories of motor performance,
a category A was dominant, which according to division of Štěpnička (1977), modified by Chytráčková (1990), in: Riegrová & Přidalová & Ulbrichtová (2006), includes children with pre-condition of average or even under-average performance
in speed, endurance and coordination activities. They have good constituent pre-conditions to display an absolute strength. Category D and E were each represented by
23%. The D category is a category of slim children, which have very good pre-condition for cardiovascular endurance and also coordination activities. The dominant
constituent is ectomorph. The E category is generally not widely spread. The reason
for its low performance probably lies in the low representation of a mesomorph constituent. In two cases the C category was formed, consisting of children with dominant endomorph constituent, awarded with 5 or more points. This case occurred
in mid-distance girl swimmers, which can be connected to the fact that girl from
13 years onwards experience a rapid increase of endomorph, while mesomorph and
ectomorph decreases. After the growth is stable at 16 years of age, it is possible to
observe a slight increase of a mesomorph constituent (Grasgruber & Cacek, 2008;
Malina & Bouchard, 1991).
Conclusion
There are sports in which, without a set of specific physical parameters, a toplevel performance is almost impossible, swimming being one of them. When recruiting talented youth it is recommended to pay an extra attention to the somatotype
pre-conditions. If an individual has to compensate for the body-structure insufficiencies, he is at disadvantage against his opponent, since they are better physically
‘equipped’ (Moravec, 2004, p. 152).
In our group was the average somatotype 3.3–3.1–4.1, classified as a mid-somatotype, for boys 2.7–3.2–4.3 and 3.6–3.0–4.0 for girls. Ectomorph was most frequent
at 51.4%, and was mostly mesomorphic for both sex groups. From the found relations we considered as negative the relation of ectomorph and mesomorph component at the 0.01 significance level, which only confirms the fact that during the
accelerated growth phase for boys (14–16 years) ‘slendering’ of the somatotype has
been observed. Subcutaneous fat %values correlated positively with the swimming
distance at the 0.01 significance level as much as the endomorph component did
with the swimming distance at the 0.05 significance level. These findings confirmed
outcomes of other studies (Carter &Ackland, 1994; Cureton, 1947, Cureton 1951;
Grasgruber & Cacek, 2008), in which the mid and long distance swimmers were
more endo-mesomorph types and had higher values of endomorph constituent.
When swimming style is concerned, we did not notice any relation to any of the variables monitored. With regard to the classification into the categories of motor
performance the Category A dominated, having good constituent pre-conditions
to display an absolute strength.
47
References
CARTER, J. E. L. (1966) The somatotypes of swimmers. Swimming Technique (pp.76–79).
CARTER, J. E. L. & ACKLAND, T. R. (1994) Kinanthropometry in aquatic sports:
A study of world class athletes. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 174 p. ISBN 0873226585.
CHAOUACHI, M. & CHAOUACHI, A. & CHAMARI, K. & CHTARA, M. & FEKI, Y. & AMRI, M.
& TRUDEAU, F. (2005) Effects of dominant somatotype on aerobic capacity trainability.
Br. J. Sports Med., 39: (pp. 954–959). doi: 10.1136/bjsm.019943.
COUNCILMAN, J. B. (1968) The science of swimming. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
CURETON, K. J. & SPARLING, P. B. & EVANS, B. W. et al. (1978) Effect of experimental alterations
in excess weight on aerobic capacity and distance running performance. Med. Sci. Sports.,
10: (pp. 194–199).
CURETON, T. K. (1947) Physical Fitness. Appraisal and Guidance. London: Henry Kimpton.
CURETON, T. K. (1951) Physical Fitness of Champion Athletes. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
DeGARAY, A. L. & LEVINE, L. & CARTER, J. E. L. (1974) Genetic and Anthropological Studies
of Olympic Athletes. New York: Academic Press.
DeVRIES, H. A. (1966) Physiology of exercise. Dubuque: Wm. C. Brown Co. Publishers.
DOVALIL, J. et al. (2002) Výkon a trénink ve sportu. Praha: Olympia. 336 p. ISBN 80-7033-760-5.
DUPERTUIS, C. W. (1965) Body composition of swimmers. A paper presented to the american College
of sports medicine annual meeting, Research section, Dallas.
FAULKNER, J. A. (1967) What research tells the coach about swimming. Washington, D. C.:
American Asociation of Health, Physical Education.
GRASGRUBER, P. & CACEK, J. (2008) Sportovní geny. Antropometrie a fyziologie sportů.
Sport a rasa. Doping. Brno: Computer Press, a.s., 480 p. ISBN 978-80-251-1873-3.
CHYTRÁČKOVÁ, J. (1989) Longitudinal kinanthropometric research of primary school pupils
attending the 1. – 3. Class. In Proceed. Physicae Educ. Sport of Child. and Youth (pp. 62–65).
Bratislava: FTVŠ UK.
KRAWCZYK, B. & SKLAD, M. & MAJLE, B. (1995) Body components of male and female
athletes representing various sports. Biology of sport, vol. 12, no. 4, 275 p.
LIKNESS, J. Body Types for Training: Ectomorph, Endomorph, Mesomorph.pdf.
Retrieved from: <http://articles.losefatnotfaith.com/index_itemid=516.php>.
MALINA, R. M. & BOUCHARD, C. (1991) Growth, maturation and physical activity.
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
MORAVEC, R. et al. (2004) Teória a didaktika športu. 1. vyd. Bratislava: FTVŠ UK, 212 p.
ISBN 80-89075-22-3.
NIGAM, S. S. Relationship between different swimming styles and somatotype in national
level swimmers. Retrieved from: <http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/44/Suppl_1/i13.2.abstract>.
PAVLÍK, J. Tělesná stavba jako faktor výkonnosti sportovce.
Retrieved from: <http://home.pf.jcu.cz/~rvobr/somatotyp.htm>.
RIEGROVÁ, J. & PŘIDALOVÁ, M. & ULBRICHTOVÁ, M. (2006) Aplikace fyzické antropologie
v tělesné výchově a sportu (příručka funkční anatomie). Olomouc: Hanex.
SIDERS, W. A. L & LUKASKI, H. C. & BOLONCHUK, W. W. (1993) Relationship among swimming
performance, body composition and somamtotype in collegiate swimmers. Reprinted from
the Journal of sports medicine and Physical Fitness, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 166–171.
SKIBIŃSKA, A. & SKLAD, M. (1984) Genetic determination of Heath and Carter somatotype.
Biology of Sport, 1: (pp. 37–53).
SPRAGUE, H. A. (1976) Relationship of certain physical measurements to swimming speed.
Research Quarterly, 47, pp. 810–814.
STROUP, F. (1964) Height, weight and swimming time. Physical educator, 21:19, March.
ŠTĚPNIČKA, J. (1979). Somatické předpoklady ke studiu tělesné výchovy.
Praha: Univerzita Karlova. 114 p.
48
URBAN, F. & KANDRÁČ, R. (2010) Kategorizácia somatotypov v hádzanej z hľadiska hráčskych
postov. Pohyb člověka – základní a sportovní motorika, diagnostika a analýza (elektronický zdroj):
sborník příspěvků z mezinárodní vědecké konference. Ostrava: Ostravská univerzita v Ostravě,
Pedagogická fakulta (pp. 137–142). ISBN 978-80-7368-777-9.
URBAN, F. & KANDRÁČ, R. (2012) Somatotypy vrcholových hráčov hádzanej z aspektu hráčskych
funkcií: Majstrovstvá Európy do 20 rokov. Acta Facultatis exercitationis corporis universitatis
Presoviensis. Prešov: Prešovská univerzita v Prešove, Fakuta športu (pp. 237–244).
ISSN 1338-001X.
URBAN, F. & KANDRÁČ, R. & Lafko, V. (2010) Antropometrický profil slovenských
reprezentantov do 20 rokov v hádzanej. Telesná výchova a šport, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 37–40.
ISSN 1335-2245.
Mgr. Viera Smerecká, Ph.D.
Faculty of Sport, Ul. 17. novembra č. 13, 081 16 Prešov,
University of Prešov in Prešov, Slovakia
e-mail: [email protected]
49