SOMATOTYPE PROFILE OF UNIVERSITY LEVEL

BADMINTON PLAYERS
A PROJECT REPORT
SUBMITTET TO

JASHORE UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY

FOR THE REQUIREMENT OF COURSE NO: 4000 OF
B.Sc. (HONS) IN PHYSICAL EDUCATION AND SPORTS SCIENCE

BY
MD. SHARID HASAN
ROLL:171221
SESSION:2017-2018
REGISTRATION NO:1712432

DEPARTMENT OF PHYSICAL EDUCATION AND SPORTS SCIENCE

JASHORE UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE &TECHNOLOGY

JASHORE-7408, BANGLADESH

MARCH, 2023
 TO
MY PARENTS &
ALL OF MY TEACHERS

i
 kvixwiK wk¶v I µxov weÁvb wefvM
h‡kvi weÁvb I cÖhyw³ wek¦we`¨vjq
h‡kvi-7408, evsjv‡`k|
‡dvb: +88 0421 62020,62030-221
d¨v·: +88 0421 61199, 62238
Dept. of Physical Education & Sports Science
Jashore University of Science and Technology
Jashore -7408, Bangladesh
Phone: +88 0421 62020,62030 -221
Fax: +88 0421 61199, 62238
E-mail: chairman.pess@just.edu.bd

Md. Zillur Rahman

Assistant Professor Date: ………………….

Dept. of Physical Education & Sports Science, JUST

CERTIFICATE
Certified that the project entitled “SOMATOTYPE PROFILE OF
UNIVERSITY LEVEL BADMINTON PLAYERS” completed by MD
SHARID HASAN under my direct supervision in his own work it fulfil the
requirement of course no:PESS-4000 of the degree of B.Sc. (HONS) in Physical
Education & Sports Science under the faculty of Health Science Of Jashore
University Of Science &Technology.

The project report is approved and forwarded for evaluation.

(Md.Zillur Rahman)
Supervisor

ii
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Fast and foremost I would to pay obeisance and gratitude to “Almighty Allah”
the faith in whom helps me always.

I wish to express my hearty gratitude towards Md. Zillur Rahman,Professor,

Dept. of Physical Education and Sports Science, Jashore University Of Science
&Technology, the work has culminated due to his meticulous guidance and
encouragement and most of his zest for perfection and ability to solve each and
every problem that cropped up during the completion of this work.

I convey my sincere gratitude to Dr. Md. Zafirul Islam, Chairman, Dept. of

Physical Education and Sports Science, Jashore University of Science
&Technology, for extending sympathetic co-operation and help for the
completion of the project.

I also thankful to Md. Robiul Islam Shuvo lecturer, Dept. Of Physical Education
and Sports Science, Jashore University of Science &Technology, for his humble
co-operation, suggestions and encouragement during the period of investigation.

I also extend my heartfelt thanks to Department of Physical Education and Sports

Science, Jashore University of Science &Technology for their kind co-operation
and suggestion during the period of investigation.

Finally, I wish to sincere thanks to all to collect my data. It is indeed felt that the
study would have not been completed without their sincere help and
cooperation.

Date……………………. ……………………..
(Md. Sharid Hasan)

iii
 Table of Contents
CHAPTRER -I .............................................................................................................................................................1
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................................1
1.1 GENERAL INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................................1
1.2 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM ......................................................................................................................7
1.3 DEFINATION OF TERMS .................................................................................................................................7
1.4 DELIMITATION ...............................................................................................................................................7
1.5 LIMITATION ....................................................................................................................................................8
1.6 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY ........................................................................................................................8
CHAPTER- II ..............................................................................................................................................................9
METHODOOLOGY .....................................................................................................................................................9
2.1 THE SUBJECT ..................................................................................................................................................9
2.2 MEASURING CRITERIA ...................................................................................................................................9
2.3 INSTRUMENTS & TOOLS USED ......................................................................................................................9
2.3.1 Instruments used. .......................................................................................................................................9
2.3.2 Tools used. ................................................................................................................................................10
2.4 PROCEDURE FOR COLLECTING DATA...........................................................................................................10
2.4.1 BODY WEIGHT ......................................................................................................................................10
2.4.2Standing Height .....................................................................................................................................10
2.4.3 Skinfolds ...............................................................................................................................................11
2.4.4 BREADTH ..............................................................................................................................................14
2.4.5 Girths ....................................................................................................................................................16
2.5 ANALYTICAL PROCEDURE ............................................................................................................................18
CHAPTER-III ............................................................................................................................................................19
PRESENTATION OF DATA & RESULT .......................................................................................................................19
3.1 THE DATA .....................................................................................................................................................19
3.2 PRESENTATION OF DATA .............................................................................................................................19
CHAPTER-IV ............................................................................................................................................................22
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION ...............................................................................................................................22
4.1 THE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................................22
4.2 CONCLUSIONS ..............................................................................................................................................24
BIBLOGRAPHY.........................................................................................................................................................25
APPENDICES ...........................................................................................................................................................26
APPENDIX – A: LIST OF THE NAME OF BADMINTON PLAYERS ..........................................................................26
APPENDIX – B: Heath-Carter Somatotype Rating From ....................................................................................26

iv
 CHAPTRER -I
INTRODUCTION

In this chapter the general introduction, statement of the problem, definition of

terms, delimitations, limitations, and significance of the study have been
presented to delineate the background of the study.

1.1 GENERAL INTRODUCTION

The problem of attempting to classify human shape has intrigued scientists for
many years and history of the classification of body types is a long one. Before
the year 400 Be, Hippocrates distinguished two extreme body types: habitus
apoplectics (short & thick) and habitus phthisic us(long & thin). In 1797, Halle
recognised four types: abdominal, muscular, thoracic and nervous(cephalic). In
1928 Rostan also recognized four types: digestive, muscular, respiratory, and
cerebral. In 1925 Kretschmar suggested a three types of classification: pyknic
(round, compact), athletic and leptosome(asthenic). All these classifications had
one basic weakness. They had too few categories and it was impossible to classify
all types into three or four categories. Few people belonged to on clearly
discerned type. There was a need to classify total body from on continuous scales
which could be expressed in a simple value (Carter 1975).

Sheldon’s (1940) somatotype Method

It was Sheldon (1940) who concluded that there were three distinct types of body
structure. Further investigations by Sheldon et.al. (1940),conducted on a number
of cadavers, revealed interesting facts. One body type had large digestive organs,
whereas the heart and kidneys were of moderate size. Another type had well
developed muscles, large arteries, heart, and bones. Finally, the third type had a
predominance of skin surface area. Since embryologically the digestive organs
are derived from thee endoderm, muscles and bones from the mesoderm and skin

1
from the ectoderm. Sheldon named the body types as endomorphy, mesomorphy
and ectomorphhy. The term “somatotyping” was coined, which Sheldon et.al
(1940) defined as “a qualification of the three primary components determining
the morphological structure of an individual expressed as a series of three muscles
, the first referring to endomorphy,the second to mesomorphy and the third to
ectomorphy”-Carter and Heath (1971 P .10).

Sheldon saw the somatotype as a trajectory or pathway along which an individual

was destined to travel under average conditions of nutrition and in the absence of
major illness. The somatotype was determined from 17 measurements taken on a
negative or photograph. This method,however was soon replaced by the
photoscopic procedure. An individual was rated on a seven-point scale for the
three dimensions. Although the photoscopic method appeared simple there were
many subtleties and satisfactory rating could not be achieved without
considerable practice and training.

As a result of Sheldon’s work a number of varying somatotype methods were

evolved. A review of these methods may be found in Heath and Carter (1971).
The most significant of these methods has been the Heath-Carter technique.

Heath-Carter Somatotype Method

In 1963 Heath criticized certain limitations of Sheldon’s method and described

some modifications designed to overcome these limitations. Firstly, she state that
the seven-point scale was arbitrary and proposed a rating scale with equal
appearing intervals, theoretically beginning with zero (one half in practice) and
having no arbitrary upper end point. Secondly, she eliminated the restriction on
the limit of the sum of the components. Thirdly, she reconstructed Sheldon’s table
of somatotypes and height- weight ratios, in order to preserve a linear relationship
throughout. Finally, she questioned the “permanence” of the somatotype and then
eliminated extrapolations for age and used similar height-weight ratio tables for

2
both sexes and all ages. Heath’s somatotype rating was neither predictions of
future somatotypes, nor estimates of the somatotype at age 18, as were the
Sheldonian somatotypes. Her somatotype ratings were present somatotypes or
morphothion types, which reflected changes in physical status with ageing,
training, and nutrition.

In 1967 Heath and Carter further objectified Heath’s system by incorporating

Parnell’s M4 technique of somatotyping. This Heath-Carter somatotype method,
which is widely used today, is expressed by a three-numeral rating of the three
primary components of physique, which describes individual variations in human
morphology and composition. Their somatotype is defined as a “present
morphological conformation”.

The first component, endomorphy, refers to relative fatness and leanness;

describes the relative degree of adiposity of the body, regardless of where or how
it is distributed. It also describes corresponding physical aspects such as
roundness of body, the softness of the contours, the relative volume of the
abdominal trunk and distally tapering of the limbs.

The second component, mesomorphy, refers to relative musculoskeletal

development per unit of height. This component can be thought of as lean body
mass relative to height. It also describes corresponding physical aspects such as
the apparent robustness of body in terms of muscular or bone, the relative value
of the thoracic trunk and the possible hidden muscle bulk. The definitions of
endomorphy and mesomorphy reflect the anatomical model of body composition.

The third component, ectomorphy, refers to relative linearity of individual

physiques and its rating s are based largely,but not entirely,on the height-weight
ratio which evaluate the form and degree of longitudinal distribution of the first
and second components.

3
Extremes for each component are found at both ends of the scale. Low first
components ratings indicate physiques with little non-essential fat, while high
ratings indicate high degrees of non-essential fat. Low second components ratings
indicate high skeletal frames with little muscle relief and high ratings indicate
significant musculo-skeletal development. Finally, low third component ratings
singly great mass for a give height and low height-weight ratios, while high
ratings indicate linearity of body segments and of the body as a whole together
with high height-weight ratios (Carter & Heath 1971).

The Heath-Carter somatotyping procedure provides three methods of obtaining

somatotype ratings:

A. Anthropometric somatotype
The anthropometric somatotype can be calculated from a set of ten
measurements: height, weight, four skinfolds(triceps, subscapular,
supraspinal and medial calf), two biepicondylar breadths(humerus &
femur) and two girths(upper arm flexed & tensed & calf).
B. The photoscopic somatotype can only be rated objectively by persons who
have trained to attain the necessary skill and whose rating validity and
reliability is established against the evaluations of an experienced ratter.
C. Anthropometric plus photoscopic method
It is the anthropometric plus photoscopic method, which combines
anthropometry and ratings from a photograph- it is the criterion method.
Because most people do not get the opportunity to become criterion ratters
using photographs, the anthropometric method has proven to be the most
useful for a wide variety of application. In this study the anthropometric
method, which necessitates the taking of ten anthropometric observation
was utilized. The feasibility and validity of applying anthropometric
observation for the estimate of a somatotype has been demonstrated by a
number of authors. Furthermore, Carter(1975) feels that the utilization of

4
 anthropometry in obtaining a somatotype rating has certain inherent
advantages, namely: it is objective and can be obtained quickly and
accurately; the subject does not have to undress completely or be
photographed either in the nude or partially nude; the anthropometric
observations can be utilized for other types of analysis and evaluation of
body structure and finally anthropometric observations provide a more
precise measure of change in the somatotype components than a subjective
rating does. Once the anthropometric observations have been taken and the
somatotype determined, it is necessary to present the data and consider
further methods of analysis.

SOMATOTYPE AND PERFORMANCE

The observation that people with relatively similar body type tend to participate
in selected sports is substantiated by numerous somatotype studies. It is important
to remember, as Sills (1960) points out, that in most studies outstanding
performers are somatotyped, and it is then reported that certain somatotypes are
associated with a particular sport. It does not follow that no other body types may
be associated with success in the sport under consideration. Since Kohlrausch
(1929) undertook anthropometric observations on more than 300 Olympic
athletes numerous studies have shown the relationship between sporting
performance and body type. Cureton (1951) undertook extensive studies on the
body builds of Olympic men and women. He concluded that heavy athletes are
generally mesomorphic; track athletes are considerably higher in ectomorphy but
with well-developed musculature; swimmers are more frequently meso-
endomorphic; weightlifters and weight throwers are frequently meso-
endomorphic, and gymnasts and tumblers are often meso-ectomorphic.

His results showed that very seldom do men and women low in mesomorphy,
succeed in athletics. Parnell (1958) substantiated his findings when he showed

5
that sprinters tended to be endo or ectomesomorphic, while, distance runners,
long and high jumpers are predominantly ecto-mesomorphic. Field athletes were
again found to be endomorphic mesomorphs. These studies indicate that the
successful athletic type possess an above average component of muscularity.
Swimmers tend to lean towards endomorphy. Pugh and co-workers (1968) have
found channel swimmers to have high endomorphic ratings. Carter (1970) found
somatotype and size differences between playing positions in college football.
The dominant physique was endo-mesomorphic, and backfield players were
lower in endomorphy and higher in ectomorphy than linemen. Falls and
Humphrey (1978), in a study on women gymnasts, concluded that certain body
types may be requisite for championship performance. These body types were
those with high mesomorphy and low endomorphy. They felt that the lower
endomorphic component contributed to greater grace and economy of movement,
and that higher mesomorphy was positively correlated with greater dynamic
strength.

These and other studies suggest that successful performance is generally

characterized by high mesomorphy and low endomorphy. Sills (1960)
summarizes with: the endomorph is characterized by an excessive amount of
weight which is a limiting factor in the performance of most skills; the ectomorph
is muscularly weak and subject to injury, so that the types of contests and sports
in which he can participate at a highly competitive level are limited by his body
type; and finally the mesomorph is characterized by physical ruggedness and
strength, that is without question, conducive to excellent physical performance.
It would appear that sport, at a high level of performance, has definite physique
requirements. On the basis of this idea, present research project was planned.

6
1.2 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
The present study was designed to study, analyse, and interpret Somatotype
profile of university level badminton players. Accordingly, the problem has been
stated as “SOMATOTYPE PROFILE OF UNIVERSITY LEVEL
BADMINTON PLAYERS”.

1.3 DEFINATION OF TERMS

In order to understand the nature and concept of present investigation the
following terms should be understood specifically as follows:

A. Somatotype profile: A profile is an outline or graphical representation of

different components. In the present study somatotype profile has been
understood as the graphical representation of components based on a set of
10 measurements: height, weight, four skinfolds (triceps, subscapular,
supraspinal and medial calf), two biepicondylar breadths (humerus &
femur) and two girths(upper arm flexed & tensed & calf).
B. University level badminton players: In the present study the university
level badminton players were the members of Jashore University of
Science & Technology badminton team.

1.4 DELIMITATION
The present investigation was delimited the following conditions:

a) A total of 10 subjects were selected.

b) The subjects were the members of Jashore University of Science &
Technology badminton team.
c) The study was delimited to somatotype profile.

7
1.5 LIMITATION
Present study was conducted under the following limiting conditions:

a) Motivation & willingness of the subjects to perform during the test were the
genuine limitation for the present study.

b) The instruments used for measurement were not of very high standard.

c) Time & finance were also the limiting factors for the present study.

1.6 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

It was believed that the results of the present study would be of great help for the
field of physical education & sports science in the following ways:

a) The results would help to understand the body type of university level
badminton players.
b) The results would help for selection of badminton players.
c) The results would provide valuable information for the future research in
the relevant area.

8
 CHAPTER- II
METHODOOLOGY
In this chapter the procedure followed for conducting the study has been
elaborately presented. This includes selection of the subjects, measuring
criteria, selection of instruments and tools, procedure for conducting test and
collecting data as well as procedure for analysis of data.

2.1 THE SUBJECT

A total of ten (10) university level badminton players were selected as subjects
for the present study. The subjects were from Jashore University of Science &
technology badminton team. They used to practice under the supervision of
qualified coaches and had experience of 2-5 years practice age at the time of
collection of data.

2.2 MEASURING CRITERIA

In the present study assessment of somatotype profile was the main criterion
for measurement. Somatotype was accessed by a set of ten measurements:
height, weight, four skinfolds (triceps, subscapular, supraspinal and medial
calf), two biepicondylar breadths (humerus & femur) and two girths (upper
arm flexed & tensed & calf).

2.3 INSTRUMENTS & TOOLS USED

Following instruments & tools were used for collecting data in the present
study:

2.3.1 Instruments used.

a) Stadiometer were used for measuring height.
b) Digital weighing machine used for measuring body weight.
c) Skinfold calliper used for measuring skinfold thickness.
d) Anthropometric tape used for measuring circumference.
e) Slide calliper used for measuring breadths.
9
2.3.2 Tools used.
Following tool was used for the present study:

a) Heath-carter somatotype rating form.

b) A sample of Heath-Carter rating form has been provided in figure B.

2.4 PROCEDURE FOR COLLECTING DATA

Ten different anthropometric parameters were measured by the following
procedure:

2.4.1 BODY WEIGHT

It was measured by a digital weighing machine. The subject, in minimal clothing,
stands in the centre of the scale platform. Body mass was recorded in Kilogram.

Figure-1: Measurement of Weight

2.4.2Standing Height
The standing height was measured by stadiometer. The subject was directed to
stand erect on the wooden platform against the measuring post without wearing
shoes. At the top of the post a sliding pointer was attached for actual
measurements. The subject stood in such a way that the heels of the subject

10
touched each other. The sliding pointer was placed in such a way that it touched
the midpoint of the head and made a right angle with the post. The vertical
distance from the midpoint of the head to the surface of the wooden platform was
then measured in centimetre.

Figure-2: Measurement of Height

2.4.3 Skinfolds
A fold of skin and subcutaneous tissue were raised firmly between the thumb and
forefinger of the left hand and away from the underlying muscle at the marked
site.Then the edge of the plates was applied below the fingers of the left hand and
full pressure was exerted before reading at 2 seconds the thickness of the fold.All
the skinfold measurements were taken on the right side of the body. The subjects
were asked to stand relaxed, except for the calf skinfold, which was taken with
the subject seated. The skinfold readings were taken to the nearest 0.1mm
(Harpenden calliper)

11
i) Triceps skinfold

The subject stands relaxed, with the arm hanging loosely. The triceps skinfold
was raised at the midline on the back of the arm at a level halfway between the
acromion and the olecranon processes. The measurement was taken in millimetre.

Figure-3: Measurement of Triceps Skinfold

ii) Subscapular skinfold

The subject stands relaxed. The subscapular skinfold raised adjacent to the
inferior angle of the scapula in a direction which is obliquely downwards and
outwards at 45 degrees. The measurement was taken in millimetre.

12
 Figure-4: Measurement of Subscapular Skinfold

iii) Supraspinal skinfold

The subject stands relaxed. The fold was raised 5–7 cm above the anterior
superior iliac spine on a line to the anterior axillary border and in a direction
downwards and inwards at 45 degrees. The measurement was taken in millimetre.

Figure-5: Measurement of Supraspinal Skinfold

13
iv) Medial calf skinfold

The subject is seated, with the legs slightly spread. The leg that was not being
measured can be bent backwards to facilitate the measurement. Alternatively, the
foot may be placed on a box with the knee flexed. Raise a vertical skinfold on the
medial side (aspect) of the leg at the level of the maximum girth of the calf. The
measurement was taken in millimetre.

Figure-6: Measurement of CALF skinfold

2.4.4 BREADTH
i) Epicondylar humerus breadth

The subject holds the shoulder and elbow flexed to 90 degrees. The width
between the medial and lateral epicondyles of the humerus measured. In this

14
position, the medial epicondyle is always somewhat lower than the lateral. The
calliper was applied at an angle approximately bisecting the angle of the elbow.
Firm pressure was placed on the cross branches of the calliper in order to
compress the subcutaneous tissue. The measurement was taken centimetre.

Figure-7: Measurement of Humerus Breadth

ii) Bicepicondylar femur breadth

To measure the epicondyler femur breadth ,first have a sit down the subject with
their knees bent at 90 degrees and palpate and find the medial and lateral
epicondyles of femur. The calliper was applied to take the measurement. The
measurement was taken centimetre.

15
 Figure-8: Measurement of Epicondylar Femur Breadth

2.4.5 Girths
i) Upper arm girth, flexed and tensed

The subject holds the upper arm horizontally and flexes the elbow 45 degrees,
clenches the hand and maximally contracts the elbow flexors and extensors. The
measurement at the greatest girth of the arm was taken by an anthropometric tape.
The measurement was taken in centimetre.

16
 Figure-9:Measurement of Upper arm girth

ii) Calf girth

The subject take a sitting position on a chair. The tape was placed horizontally
around the calf and the maximum circumference was measured by an
anthropometric tape. The measurement was taken in centimetre.

Figure-10: Measurement of calf girth

17
All the collected data were analyzed using the Heath-Carter ratting form to find
out the score of different somatotype components.

2.5 ANALYTICAL PROCEDURE

All the collected data were analyzed using the Heath-Carter ratting form to find
out the score of different somatotype components.

Mean was calculated as a measure of central tendency by using the formula.

∑𝑥
𝑥=
𝑛

The standard deviation (SD) was calculated as the measure of variability by

using the formula-

(𝑥−𝑦)2
𝜎=√
(𝑛−1)

18
 CHAPTER-III
PRESENTATION OF DATA & RESULT
In this chapter all collected of data have been presented. Results obtained from
statistical analysis of data and interpretation of results on the basis of experience
and existing knowledge of the field have also been presented in this chapter.

3.1 THE DATA

Present study was involved with analysis of somatotype profile of university level
Badminton players. In the present study anthropometric somatotype was assessed
from a set of ten measurements: height, weight, four skinfolds (triceps,
subscapular, supraspinal and medial calf), two biepicondylar breadths (humerus
& femur) and two girths (upper arm flexed & tensed & calf). The scores of these
measurements were the raw data for the present study.

3.2 PRESENTATION OF DATA

The raw data were analysed following standard statistical technique. The central
tendency of the different parameters was found out by calculating mean and their
variability was expressed by standard deviation. For better understanding the data
have been presented in the following sections.
The mean and standard deviation values of different somatotype components for
university level badminton players have been presented in Table-1.

19
 Table-1

Mean and standard deviation of different somatotype components for

university level badminton players

GROUP Mean and SD values for

Endomorph Mesomorph Ectomorph

University level 3.95 3.98 2.55

badminton players ±1.14 ±0.54 ±1.28

Table-1 shows that the mean values of endomorphy, mesomorphy and

ectomorphy for university level badminton players were 3.95 ± 1.14, 3.98 ±.54
and 2.55 ±1.28, respectively. So, the somatotype of university level cricket
players was (3.95 - 3.98 - 2.55), which indicates that they were endomorphic
mesomorph in nature.

The mean values of different somatotype components of university level

badminton players have been presented in Fig. 11

Somatotype profile of university level badminton

players
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5 Endomorph

2 Mesomorph

1.5 Ectomorph

1
0.5
0
Endomorph Mesomorph Ectomorph

Fig-11: Mean values of different components of somatotype for university

level badminton players

20
The above figure also confirms that the university level cricket players were to
be considered as endomorphic mesomorph.

3.3 THE RESULTS

On the basis of the analysis of data the following results were obtained:

a) The somatotype profile of university level badminton players was (3.95-

3.98-2.55).
b) The university level cricket players appear to be endomorphic mesomorph.

21
 CHAPTER-IV
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

In this chapter the summary of all the previous chapter, background of the study,
methodology used and analysis of data including results obtained have been
presented. In addition to that the conclusions of the study have also been included
in this chapter.

4.1 THE SUMMARY

The evaluation of a somatotype is of great benefit and offers a guideline with the
selection of sporting activities; it subsequently helps assign athletes into a
suitable position where they will be able to best develop their talents in view of
their bodily construction.

This Heath-Carter somatotype method, which is widely used today, is expressed

by a three-numeral rating of the three primary components of physique, which
describes individual variations in human morphology and composition. Their
somatotype is defined as a “present morphological conformation”.

The first component, endomorphy, refers to relative fatness and leanness;

describes the relative degree of adiposity of the body, regardless of where or how
it is distributed. It also describes corresponding physical aspects such as
roundness of body, the softness of the contours, the relative volume of the
abdominal trunk and distally tapering of the limbs.

The second component, mesomorphy, refers to relative musculoskeletal

development per unit of height. This component can be thought of as lean body
mass relative to height. It also describes corresponding physical aspects such as
the apparent robustness of body in terms of muscular or bone, the relative valume
of the thoracic trunk and the possible hidden muscle bulk. The definitions of
endomorphy and mesomorphy reflect the anatomical model of body composition.

22
The third component, ectomorphy, refers to relative linearity of individual
physiques and its rating s are based largely,but not entirely,on the height-weight
ratio which evaluate the form and degree of longitudinal distribution of the first
and second components.

Performance in badminton depends on many factors such as physical

characteristics, psychological make-up, technical efficiency, tactical knowledge,
specific motor fitness and socio-economic condition of the cricket players and
such others. For this, analysis and understanding of performance factors through
scientific investigation are required. A good number of scientific research studies
have been attempted to explore the relationship of different group of factors with
performance. Present study is a similar effort. The basic purpose was to
understand and develop the somatotype profile of university level badminton
players.

A total of ten male (10) university level badminton players were selected as
subjects for the present study. The subjects were from Jashore University of
Science & technology badminton team. The somatotype information was
assessed by a set of ten (10) measurements: height, weight, four skinfolds (triceps,
subscapular, supraspinal, medial calf), two (2) epicondylar breadth (humerus,
femur), and two (2) girth (upper arm flexed and tensed, calf). All the collected
data were analyzed using the Heath-Carter ratting form to find out the score of
different somatotype components.

The collected data were analysed by using standard statistical techniques. Mean
was calculated as a measure of central tendency and Standard Deviation (S. D)
was calculated as measure of variability.

23
4.2 CONCLUSIONS
On the basis of the results obtained, following conclusions are drawn:

a) The somatotype profile of university level cricket players is 3.95-3.98-2.55.

b) The somatotype profile of university level badminton players manifests that
they are relatively high in fatness and muscularity as well as relatively low in
leanness.
c) The low relative leanness confirms that the university level badminton players
have relatively bulky limbs.
d) The university level badminton players are endomorphic mesomorph.

24
 BIBLOGRAPHY
1. Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief Attitude, Intention and
Behaviour: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Addison Wesley
Publishing Company, p.6.

2. Carlisle, R. (1969). The Concept of Physical Education, in the

Philosophy of Education Society of Great Britain: Proceedings of the
Annual Conference. January 1969, Vol. III, pp. 5-22.

3. Kelekian, L. and Goldman, M. (1976). Physical Education: A Modern

Concept of Education through the Physical. Introduction to Physical
Education: A Humanistic Perspective. Allyn and Bacon, Inc.: London, p.1.

4. Rowntree, D. (1981). A Dictionary of Education. London: Harper and

Row, Publishers, pp. 215-216

5. Ministry of Education. The Physical Education Curriculum

6. Safrit, M. J. (1990). Introduction to Measurement in Physical

Education and Exercise Science (2nd Ed.). St. Louis: Mosby.

7. Figley, G. E. (1985). Determinants of attitudes towards physical

education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, Vol. 4, pp. 229-
240.

25
 APPENDICES
APPENDIX – A: LIST OF THE NAME OF BADMINTON PLAYERS

SERIAL NO. NAME

01 SHAKIL
02 HUMAYAN AHMED POUL
03 JISHN AHMED SOHAG
04 REDWAN AHMED JISAN
05 MD ARAFAT HOSSEN SUJON
06 MD DELOWAR HOSSEN
07 MD SHARID HASANN
08 MD RONI AHAMED
09 MD RIPON HOSSEN
10 MD ALAMIN

APPENDIX – B: Heath-Carter Somatotype Rating From

26