Taboada-Iglesias Y. et al.: SOMATOTYPE ANALYSIS BY AGE CATEGORIES IN SPANISH …   Vol. 13 Issue 1: 71 - 84 
 
Science of Gymnastics Journal                                71                           Science of Gymnastics Journal 
 
 
SOMATOTYPE ANALYSIS BY AGE CATEGORIES IN 
SPANISH FEMALE ACROBATIC GYMNASTS 
 
 
Yaiza Taboada-Iglesias
1,3
, Águeda Gutiérrez-Sánchez
2,3
, Diego Alonso-
Fernández
2,3
, Mercedes Vernetta-Santana
4
 
 
1
Department of Functional Biology and Health Sciences, Faculty of Physiotherapy. University 
of Vigo, Spain 
2
Department of Special Didactics, Faculty of Science Education and Sport. University of 
Vigo, Spain 
3
Education, Physical Activity and Health Research Group (Gies10-DE3), Galicia Sur Health 
Research Institute (IIS), University of Vigo, Spain 
4
Department of Physical Education and Sport, Faculty of Sport Science. University of 
Granada, Spain 
 
Original article 
Abstract 
Somatotype is one of the variables seen as the key to success in sports and talent detection at 
different ages. This is confirmed by evidence in some gymnastic disciplines in different age 
categories, but no study has been conducted for Acrobatic Gymnastics. The objective is to 
establish the characteristic somatotype profile in Acrobatic Gymnastics for each age group, 
determining whether there are differences among them and between the roles in each one. 
The sample was made up of 54 female tops (X= 11.23 years; 29.62 Kg) and 75 female bases 
(X= 14.46 years; 50.48 Kg). The somatotype was calculated using the Heath-Carter method 
to determine the mesomorphy, endomorphy, and ectomorphy of each group. The statistical 
analysis carried out consisted of a descriptive and comparative analysis based on the 
component in particular and the mean somatotype dispersion in general. The results showed 
that mesomorphy was the most important component in all categories and roles. They 
indicated different somatotype classifications in each group, but the importance of 
ectomorphy in tops and endomorphy in bases should also be pointed out. Significant 
differences were obtained in mesomorphy (tops: p = .012; bases p = .026) and ectomorphy in 
both roles (tops p = .036; bases p = .001). Despite finding significant differences among 
certain categories, this did not follow a linear, chronological development. Therefore, one 
cannot conclude that the somatotype evolved with age, since this may be due to sports 
specialization. However, it was confirmed that mesomorphy, as in other gymnastics 
disciplines, is the predominant component in all categories and roles. 
 
Keywords: anthropometry; somatotypes; growth and development; age groups.
 
 
INTRODUCTION 
 
The somatotype has been recognized 
as one of the determining morphological 
variables in sport performance (Carter & 
Heath, 1990; Kutseryb, Vovkanych,  
 
 
 
 
Hrynkiv, Majevska, & Muzyka, 2017). It is 
not exceptional in different gymnastics 
disciplines, since athletes in each may have 
different body shapes. It could provide 

Taboada-Iglesias Y. et al.: SOMATOTYPE ANALYSIS BY AGE CATEGORIES IN SPANISH …   Vol. 13 Issue 1: 71 - 84 
 
Science of Gymnastics Journal                                72                           Science of Gymnastics Journal 
 
assistance in talent detection throughout 
the growth stage due to the stability of the 
somatotype in gymnasts during this period 
(Corbella & Barany, 1991; Irurtia et al., 
2009b). 
The International Gymnastics 
Federation (FIG) currently encompasses 
eight different gymnastics disciplines, 
ranging from the latest entry of Parkour to 
Gymnastics for All, Aerobic Gymnastics 
(AER), Acrobatic Gymnastics (AG), 
Trampoline, and to the more traditional 
Men’s Artistic Gymnastics (MAG), 
Women’s Artistic Gymnastics (WAG) and 
Rhythmic Gymnastics (RG). 
Anthropometric studies have been 
conducted on them all and many focused 
specifically on the somatotype. However, 
M A G , W A G a n d R G h a v e b e e n t h e 
preferred disciplines of study. 
The studies carried out on MAG 
a t h l e t e s n o t e d a s o m a t o t y p e w i t h a 
predominant mesomorphic component. 
The classification most commonly 
obtained in top-level gymnasts is the 
balanced mesomorph (Bies & De la Rosa, 
2006; Claessens et al., 1991; João & Filho 
2015). However, other studies pointed 
towards an ecto-mesomorphic 
classification (Irurtia, Busquets, Marina, & 
Galilea, 2009a), in which the ectomorphic 
component, related to longilinearity, was 
stronger than the endomorphic one. 
I t h a s a l s o b e e n n o t e d t h a t f e m a l e 
artistic gymnasts have a predominantly 
mesomorphic somatotype. They have been 
mostly classified as ecto-mesomorph, with 
the ectomorphic component being the 
second most important (Claessens et al., 
1991; Irurtia, Busquets, Marina, Pons, & 
Carrasco, 2008; João & Filho, 2015; 
Massidda, Toselli, Brasili, & Caló, 2013). 
The somatotype is different in RG. 
There is evidence that allows for the 
classification of national- or higher-level 
gymnasts as balanced ectomorphs as the 
predominant somatotype (Menezes & 
Filho, 2006; Purenović-Ivanović & 
Popović, 2014). Other studies, despite 
providing different classifications for the 
distribution of the mesomorphic and 
endomorphic component, also agreed that 
the ectomorphic component was the most 
important in RG (Irurtia et al., 2009b; 
Purenović-Ivanović & Popović, 2014). 
Research in trampoline gymnastics is 
more limited. Gómez-Landero, Vernetta 
and López Bedoya (2009) established the 
profile of top-level Spanish gymnasts. The 
authors defined the somatotype of the 
absolute category gymnasts (15+ years) as 
endomorphic mesomorph, while the U-15s 
were characterized as a central somatotype. 
On the other hand, in male trampoline the 
endomorphic component is much more 
important, defined as balanced mesomorph 
(Gómez-Landero, Vernetta, & López 
Bedoya, 2010). 
Finally, there is not much evidence 
about AG either. The few studies carried 
out showed a predominance of 
mesomorphy in different competitive 
events (Taboada-Iglesias, Vernetta, & 
Gutiérrez-Sánchez, 2017) as well as in 
different performance roles, with greater 
predominance of the ectomorphic 
component in tops and of the mesomorphic 
component in bases (Taboada-Iglesias, 
Gutiérrez-Sánchez, & Vernetta, 2016). 
In addition to the differentiated and 
characteristic profile of each sport that 
requires specific features for the execution 
of its motor patterns and conditions, the 
research focuses on the fact that different 
somatotype distributions can be 
conditioned by the development typical for 
specific age, as it happens with the non-
sporting population (Corbella & Barany, 
1991). The somatotype can be influenced 
by maturation development or diet; 
however, sports specialization may be of 
greater importance, hence these 
characteristics will not be analysed. 
Research on the gymnastic disciplines 
provided answers by showing the profiles 
of each age category in MAG (Fontana, 
Soares, Santos, Molina, & Riehl, 2014), 
WAG (Bacciotti, Baxter-Jones, Gaya, & 
Maia, 2018; Massidda et al., 2013) and RG 
(Corbella & Barany, 1991; Oliveira et al., 

Taboada-Iglesias Y. et al.: SOMATOTYPE ANALYSIS BY AGE CATEGORIES IN SPANISH …   Vol. 13 Issue 1: 71 - 84 
 
Science of Gymnastics Journal                                73                           Science of Gymnastics Journal 
 
2017; Purenović-Ivanović & Popović, 
2014; Quintero, Martín, & Henríquez, 
2011). However, there are no references to 
somatotype distribution in the different age 
categories of AG competitions. 
In this gymnastic discipline, the Code 
of Points established different age range 
categories. The existence of age ranges 
derives from the fact that it is a motor and 
social sport, in which one competes in a 
group or in a pair, performing technical 
elements such as figures and throws 
(Vernetta, López Bedoya, & Gutiérrez-
Sánchez, 2008), i.e., in which one gymnast 
plays the role of the top and the other the 
role of the base (FIG 2017). 
In view of the lack of evidence in AG, 
the goal of this study is to establish the 
characteristic somatotype profile for each 
age group, determining whether there are 
differences among them and between the 
roles played in each one. 
 
METHODS 
 
All the procedures followed in this 
study were approved by the Autonomous 
Ethics Committee of Research of Xunta de 
Galicia (Spain) (Reference Number 
2015/672). Participants volunteered their 
cooperation, and their participation was in 
the case of minors authorised by their 
parents or legal guardians.  
The precepts of the Helsinki 
Declaration were followed. The procedures 
were explained, indicating that they were 
harmless, painless, and that the subjects 
could leave the study at any time. 
There was a total of 129 female 
gymnasts in this study, 54 of them playing 
the role of the top and 75 the role of the 
base. Table 1 shows the classification by 
age categories according to the rules of 
participation in the Spanish 
championships.
Table 1 
Distribution of the sample and ages of the different age categories of national Tops and Bases 
competition. 
 Tops Bases 
Group N 
Age 
N 
Age 
XS D X S D 
Age Group 1 (6-13 years old) 5 7.28 0.83 4 11.08 1.37 
Age Group 2 (7-14 years old) 7 9.94 1.70 9 13.53 0.93 
Age Group 3 (8-15 years old) 12 10.79 3.04 14 13.26 1.78 
Age Group 4 (9-16 years old) 18 11.39 1.95 29 14.83 1.46 
Junior (10-19 years old)  9 14.14 3.99 17 15.94 2.32 
Senior (+ de 12 years old) 3 12.93 0.38 2 15.98 1.90 
Total 54 11.23 3.04 75 14.46 2.08 
 
 
In order to calculate the components 
of the somatotype, certain variables were 
previously measured. These measurements 
were taken by a researcher who is an 
accredited expert level 2 in the field, 
following the recommendations of the 
International Society for the Advancement 
of Kinanthropometry (ISAK) (Marfell-
Jones, Olds, Stewart, & Carter, 2006). 
The kineantropometry variables were: 
height, weight, 4 skin folds (triceps, 
subscapular, supraspinal and medial calf), 
2 diameters (humerus condylar-trochlear 
and femur bicondylar) and 2 
circumferences (contracted arm and 
maximum leg). The height was taken with 
a portable stadiometer Seca 213 (GmbH & 
Co. KG, Germany) to 1 mm precision, the 
weight with a Tanita digital scale UM-040 
(Tanita corporation, Japan) with precision 
of 100 g, the folds with a Holtain skinfold 
calliper (British Indicators, England) with 
0.2 cm precision, and the circumferences 
with a Cercorf antropometric 
(Equipamentos Cercorf, Brasil) with 1 mm 
precision. 

Taboada-Iglesias Y. et al.: SOMATOTYPE ANALYSIS BY AGE CATEGORIES IN SPANISH …   Vol. 13 Issue 1: 71 - 84 
 
Science of Gymnastics Journal                                74                           Science of Gymnastics Journal 
 
The calculation of the three 
components of the somatotype was 
performed using the Heath-Carter method 
(Carter & Heath, 1990) and the following 
formulas: 
1. ENDOMORPHY = -0.7182 +   
 0.1451Sc- 0.00068Sc
2
 + 0.0000014Sc
3
  
S=Σ Triceps, subscapular, supraspinal folds 
(mm) 
Sc= S x (170.18 / height (cm)) 
 
2. MESOMORPHY = [0.858HumD + 
 0.601FemD + 0.188CAc + 0.161MLc]  
 - [height (cm) x 0.131] + 4.5 
Humerus condylar-trochlear diameter 
(HumD) in cm; femur bicondylar diameter 
(FemD) in cm; contracted arm 
circumference (CAc) in cm; maximum leg 
circumference (MLc) in cm. 
CAc= Contracted Arm circumference (cm) 
– Triceps fold (cm) 
MLc= Maximum leg circumference (cm) – 
medial calf fold (cm) 
 
3. ECTOMORPHY 
a. If the weight index (WI)< 40.75:  
 Ectomorphy = (0.732WI) – 28.58.  
b. If WI< 40.75 and > 38.25: Ectomorphy  
 = (0.463WI) – 17.63.  
c. If WI≤ 38.25: Ectomorphy = 0.1 
 Weight index (WI)  
 (WI= height(cm)/
3
√weight (kg)) 
The somatotype was represented using 
a somatocard, and its dispersion and 
homogeneity were analysed by different 
specific indices. The somatotype 
dispersion index (SDI) was calculated to 
assess the homogeneity of each group, 
establishing heterogeneity with SDI>2. 
Likewise, for the comparison of the 
somatotype among groups, the mean 
somatotype dispersion distance (SDDSM) 
was used, reflecting significant differences 
with SDDSM>2. Differences among age 
categories and between roles were 
compared in each of them. 
The statistical treatment of the data 
was performed using SPSS 22.0 0 
(Statistical Package for the Social 
Sciences), and a significance level of p < 
0.05 was applied in all performed tests. 
First, a descriptive analysis of each 
somatotype variable expressed by the 
mean (X) and the standard deviation (SD) 
was performed. The normality of each 
group was analysed using the Shapiro-
Wilk test, and Levene’s test was employed 
to check the variance homogeneity. 
Second, since not all variables behaved 
normally and homogeneously, different 
parametric and non-parametric tests were 
necessary for the comparative study. For 
normally distributed variables, we applied 
t h e o n e - w a y A N O V A t e s t ( F t e s t s o n 
homogeneous variables and Brown-
Forsythe [B-F] on non-homogeneous 
variables), using Tukey’s test for the 
multiple analysis of homogeneous 
variables, and the Games-Howell test for 
those that did not present homogeneity. 
Moreover, for the variables that did not 
follow a normal distribution, the Kruskal-
Wallis H nonparametric test (K-W) was 
applied, along with the Mann-Whitney U 
test for multiple analysis. A comparative 
analysis between roles in the same 
category was also carried out with the 
Mann-Whitney U test. 
 
RESULTS 
 
Tops. Mesomorphy and ectomorphy 
followed a normal distribution (p > 0.05) 
and presented homogeneity of variance (p 
< 0.05). However, endomorphy did not 
follow a normal distribution, thus non-
parametric tests were applied. 
Table 2 shows the values of the 
different somatotype components. 
Analysing the means of each component, 
the highest endomorphic values were 
obtained by the tops in age group 2 and the 
lowest values corresponded to the junior 
category. However, no significant 
differences were found among groups (K-
W = 8.14; p = 0.148). Since no differences 
were obtained, the multiple analysis was 
not relevant. 
Ectomorphy was higher in juniors and 
lower in age group 1, finding significant 

Taboada-Iglesias Y. et al.: SOMATOTYPE ANALYSIS BY AGE CATEGORIES IN SPANISH …   Vol. 13 Issue 1: 71 - 84 
 
Science of Gymnastics Journal                                75                           Science of Gymnastics Journal 
 
differences in the overall analysis (F = 
2.62; p = 0.036). Significant differences 
were established only between junior and 
age group 1 categories (p = 0.023) in the 
multiple analysis. 
Significant differences among groups 
were also found in mesomorphy (F = 3.33; 
p =  0.012). The mesomorphic component 
had the highest mean value in age group 1 
and the lowest in the junior category. The 
differences established in the multiple 
analysis were between junior and age 
group 1 (p = 0.037), and junior and age 
group 3 (p = 0.016). 
If we analyse the classification of the 
tops’ somatotype as a whole, mesomorphy 
is the predominant component in all 
categories, except in the junior category, 
where the ectomorphic component 
predominates. The most common 
somatotype was the balanced mesomorph, 
characteristic of age group 2, age group 3 
and senior girls. Although in age group 1 
mesomorphy is still the highest 
component, endomorphy is more important 
than ectomorphy and is therefore defined 
as endo-mesomorphy. However, when it 
comes to age group 4, the contrary is the 
case and can be classified as ecto-
mesomorphic. In the junior category, 
ectomorphy comes first, followed by 
mesomorphy differing by more than one 
unit from endomorphy, thus these 
gymnasts are defined as ectomorphic 
mesomorph.  
Figure 1 shows the somatocharts of 
each group of tops, including all the 
particular cases, as well as the mean. The 
SDI of the different age groups established 
that all of them presented a heterogeneous 
somatotype. On the other hand, SDDSM 
only established significant differences 
between the somatotype of the age group 1 
and age group 4 categories (SDDSM = 
3.54), the junior (SDDSM = 2.77) and 
senior categories (SDDSM = 2.06), and the 
age group 4 and junior categories (SDDSM 
= 2.45). 
Bases. Mesomorphy and ectomorphy 
followed a normal distribution (p > 0.05), 
which was not the case for endomorphy. 
Mesomorphy presented homogeneity of 
variance (p < 0.05), unlike ectomorphy. 
Table 3 shows the values of the 
different somatotype components of the 
bases. When analysing the means of the 
components, ectomorphy obtained the 
highest values in age group 3 and the 
lowest in the senior category, finding 
significant differences between groups (B-
F =  5.26; p = 0.001). The analysis of 
multiple comparisons found differences 
only between age group 2 and senior 
categories (p = 0.006), age group 3 and 
junior categories (p = 0.023), age group 3 
and senior categories (p = 0.000), age 
group 4 and senior categories (p = 0.000), 
and the junior and senior categories (p = 
0.001). 
Regarding mesomorphy, the highest 
values were posted by seniors and the 
lowest by age group 4. This difference 
proved to be significant in the overall 
analysis (F = 2.744; p = 0.026). The only 
differences found in the multiple analysis 
were between age group 4 and senior 
categories (p = 0.048). 
Despite the differences in the two 
components above, no significant 
difference was found in endomorphy (K-W 
= 10.66; p = 0.059). However, the highest 
results were recorded by the senior girls 
and the lowest by age group 1 and age 
group 4. 
In the joint analysis of the somatotype 
of the bases, mesomorphy remains the 
predominant component in all categories. 
The balanced mesomorphic somatotype 
was characteristic of age group 1. The 
endomorphic component was the second 
most important in the age group 2, junior 
and senior categories, classified as endo-
mesomorphic in the first two, and 
endomorphic mesomorphic in the seniors. 
Finally, age group 3 and age group 4 
categories obtained a central somatotype, 
in which none of the components differed 
in more than one unit. 

Taboada-Iglesias Y. et al.: SOMATOTYPE ANALYSIS BY AGE CATEGORIES IN SPANISH …   Vol. 13 Issue 1: 71 - 84 
 
Science of Gymnastics Journal                                76                           Science of Gymnastics Journal 
 
 
 
 
Table 2 
Tops somatotype of the different categories (mean, SD). 
 
 Age Group 
1 (n=5)
Age Group 
2 (n=7)
Age Group 
3 (n=12)
Age Group 
4 (n=18)
Junior  
(n=9)
Senior 
(n=3)
Sig. 
 
X (SD) X (SD) X (SD) X (SD) X (SD) X (SD) p 
Heigth 120.70 5.55 128.73 6.87 129.30 5.22 135.96 5.73 143.74 7.79 147.03 3.80 - 
Weigh 23.80 1.73 26.74 1.86 27.01 3.64 30.08 3.69 34.27 6.73 39.73 1.47 - 
Trochlear condyle of the humerus breath 
D Femur 
4.74 .25 5.24 .26 5.23 .26 5.33 .26 5.48 .20 5.87 .15 - 
Bicondyle of the femur breadth 4.16 .17 4.47 .14 4.42 .21 4.56 .23 4.56 .25 5.07 .31 - 
Corrected arm girth  19.09 0.89 19.54 1.07 19.96 1.44 20.54 1.50 21.40 2.22 24.15 0.98 - 
Corrected calf girth 24.82 1.11 25.80 1.03 25.57 1.63 26.45 1.56 27.24 2.19 28.54 0.70 - 
Σ triceps, subescapular, supraspinal skinfolds 19.90 3.26 21.76 5.92 18.19 2.57 17.93 3.23 21.08 9.20 25.53 9.44 - 
Endomorphy 2.86 .58 2.91 .92 2.38 .37 2.21 .48 2.44 1.12 2.9 1.25 .148 
Mesomorphy 4.67 .18 4.48 .91 4.52 .53 4.06 .72 3.50 .71 4.3 .70 .012* 
Ectomorphy 2.14 .84 2.99 1.46 3.03 .66 3.48 1.00 3.97 1.07 2.97 .84 .036* 
*p<0.05 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Taboada-Iglesias Y. et al.: SOMATOTYPE ANALYSIS BY AGE CATEGORIES IN SPANISH …   Vol. 13 Issue 1: 71 - 84 
 
Science of Gymnastics Journal                                77                           Science of Gymnastics Journal 
 
 
 
Figure 1. Somatocharts of different categories of tops and homogeneity (SDI). 

Taboada-Iglesias Y. et al.: SOMATOTYPE ANALYSIS BY AGE CATEGORIES IN SPANISH …   Vol. 13 Issue 1: 71 - 84 
 
Science of Gymnastics Journal                                78                           Science of Gymnastics Journal 
 
  
Table 3  
Bases somatotype of the different categories (mean, SD). 
 
 Age Group 1 
(n=4) 
Age Group 
2 
(n=9)
Age Group 
3 
(n=14) 
Age Group 
4 
(n=29)
Junior  
(n=17) 
Senior 
 (n=2) 
Sig. 
 X (SD) X (SD) X (SD) X (SD) X (SD) X (SD) 
p 
Heigth 145.88 7.71 156.06 7.79 154.51 4.91 160.09 5.44 162.29 4.91 152.85 4.31 - 
Weigh 39.33 8.41 48.90 6.20 44.34 4.57 50.73 6.96 57.98 7.62 55.55 4.17 - 
Trochlear condyle of the humerus breath 
D_Femur 
5.65 .26 5.90 .25 5.72 .24 5.88 .32 6.06 .37 5.85 .49 - 
Bicondyle of the femur breadth 8.25 .25 8.51 .40 8.38 .32 8.34 .39 8.88 .57 8.95 .21 - 
Corrected arm girth  23.11 1.76 24.83 1.81 24.08 1.56 25.82 2.10 26.99 2.03 27.90 1.79 - 
Corrected calf girth 29.09 2.46 31.17 1.49 30.16 1.76 31.74 2.42 33.13 1.92 33.75 1.06 - 
Σ triceps, subscapular, supraspinal skinfolds 26.25 12.93 31.19 7.78 27.59 6.26 28.17 8.65 34.81 11.68 47.45 7.28 - 
Endomorphy 3.02 1.42 3.46 .90 3.08 .78 3.02 .93 3.66 1.09 5.25 .82 .059 
Mesomorphy 4.22 .38 3.92 1.00 3.58 .81 3.55 .98 4.18 .90 5.55 1.62 .026* 
Ectomorphy 2.97 .87 2.72 1.01 3.43 .99 3.18 1.30 2.22 .97 .92 .06 .001** 
 *p<0.05, **p<0.001.  
(X: mean; SD: Standard Deviation) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Taboada-Iglesias Y. et al.: SOMATOTYPE ANALYSIS BY AGE CATEGORIES IN SPANISH …   Vol. 13 Issue 1: 71 - 84 
 
Science of Gymnastics Journal                                79                           Science of Gymnastics Journal 
 
 
Figure 2. Somatocharts of different categories of bases and homogeneity (SDI).

Taboada-Iglesias Y. et al.: SOMATOTYPE ANALYSIS BY AGE CATEGORIES IN SPANISH …   Vol. 13 Issue 1: 71 - 84 
 
Science of Gymnastics Journal                                80                           Science of Gymnastics Journal 
 
Table 4  
Comparison between roles in each of the age categories. 
 
 Endomorphy Mesomorphy  Ectomorphy 
 U Sig. Exact 
(bilateral) 
U Sig. Exact 
(bilateral) 
U Sig. Exact 
(bilateral) 
Age Group 1 7.50 0.556 2.00 0.063 17.00 0.111 
Age Group2 44.50 0.174 24.00 0.470 27.00 0.681 
Age Group 3 130.50 0.015* 26.00 0.002* 100.00 0.432 
Age Group 4 406.50 0.001* 182.00 0.084 219.00 0.358 
Junior 123.00 0.011* 110.00 0.075 21.00 0.002* 
Senior 6.00 0.200 4.00 1.000 0.00 0.200 
(U= U value of Mann-Whitney) *p<0.05 
 
 
Figure 2 shows somatocharts for each 
group of bases, describing the individual 
cases and the group mean. The SDI of the 
bases also proved that all age groups had a 
heterogeneous somatotype. On the other 
hand, the SDDSM showed significant 
differences between senior bases and the 
following age categories: age group 1 
(SDDSM = 2.79), age group 3 (SDDSM =  
2.34), age group 4 (SDDSM = 2.03) and 
junior (SDDSM = 2.05). 
Role differences. The SDDSM 
between roles for each category 
established significant differences in age 
group 1 (SDDSM = 2.24), age group 3 
(SDDSM = 2.04), age group 4 (SDDSM = 
2.41) and seniors (SDDSM = 3.07). 
However, no significant differences were 
found in either the age group 2 category 
(SDDSM = 1.98) or the junior category 
(SDDSM = 0.49). On the other hand, the 
differences of each component individually 
only indicated a significant superiority of 
endomorphy of the bases in the age group 
3, age group 4 and junior categories. This 
means a significantly superior 
mesomorphy of tops in the age group 3 
category, and a clear superiority of 
ectomorphy among junior tops (Table 4). 
 
DISCUSSION  
 
Sports like gymnastic disciplines 
where early specialisation is required need 
an approach to these anthropometric 
variables in each age group in order to 
understand what the physical evolution of 
gymnasts is like in terms of talent 
detection. This research provides data 
regarding one of the least studied 
disciplines, acrobatic gymnastics, and 
innovates in the determination of these 
values in each age category. The need to 
carry out a proper evaluation in AG arises 
from the fact that each gymnastic 
discipline presents a different physique. 
However, many of them stand out for their 
high levels of mesomorphy, reflecting 
common aspects. Previous evidence in AG 
research (Taboada-Iglesias et al., 2017) 
have shown that mesomorphy was the 
predominant component of both tops and 
bases in all categories of competition or 
female modality (women’s pair, women’s 
group or tops in a mixed pair).  
This clear superiority of mesomorphy 
is even more important in MAG, where it 
is the predominant component (Bies & De 
la Rosa, 2006; Fontana et al., 2014; Irurtia 
et al., 2009a). The same trend is observed 
in WAG, with mesomorphy being the most 
important somatotype component, defined 
as ecto-mesomorph (Bacciotti, Baxter-
Jones, Gaya, & Maia, 2017; Irurtia et al., 
2008; Massida et al., 2013) as well as tops 
in the age group 4 category, pointing out 
the possible relationship between 
mesomorphy and sport performance. In 

Taboada-Iglesias Y. et al.: SOMATOTYPE ANALYSIS BY AGE CATEGORIES IN SPANISH …   Vol. 13 Issue 1: 71 - 84 
 
Science of Gymnastics Journal                                81                           Science of Gymnastics Journal 
 
general, all categories of AG tops and 
bases in the present study obtained the 
highest values in mesomorphy, confirming 
previous studies and providing evidence of 
their similarities with MAG and WAG 
disciplines.  
However, in RG, mesomorphy is 
surpassed by ectomorphy, the latter being 
the predominant component throughout the 
history of this gymnastic specialty (Canda, 
Rabadán, Sainz, & Agorreta, 2019). This 
specialty shows a somatotype that differs 
from the rest. Similar results were found 
for the Portuguese national team; it has 
been defined as a balanced ectomorph. 
However, in Brazil, even though the 
ectomorphic component is predominant, 
endomorphy is the second most important 
(Batista, Garganta, & Ávila-Carvalho, 
2019). Although mesomorphy is 
predominant in AG, Taboada-Iglesias et al. 
(2016) indicated that there was a clear 
difference between the acting roles except 
in mesomorphy. Endomorphy and 
ectomorphy presented significant 
differences between the roles, with 
ectomorphy being the second most 
important component in tops and 
endomorphy in bases. Thus, the 
somatotype of the tops is closer to that of 
the RG gymnasts than to that of the bases. 
This study follows this trend, given that 
ectomorphy in female tops is the second 
most important component in all 
categories, except for age group 1 and 
seniors, with significant differences in the 
junior category. In bases, however, the 
second most important component is 
endomorphy except for age group 3 and 
age group 4, where ectomorphy ranks 
second. In spite of high ectomorphy values 
obtained by bases in age group 3 and age 
group 4, in both categories along with 
juniors endomorphy is significantly higher 
in bases than in tops. The significant 
differences between the roles are 
confirmed through the SDDSM in all 
categories except for age group 2 and 
juniors. 
Studies suggest that across age 
categories gymnasts obtain different results 
that affect the distribution of components. 
In MAG it was observed that despite the 
higher mesomorphic component at 
younger ages, ectomorphy was the second 
most important component, above 
endomorphy, but that in older groups both 
components tended to be equal (Fontana et 
al., 2014). 
Studies on WAG gymnasts show that 
the mesomorphic component is the most 
important in all age categories (Bacciotti et 
al., 2018; Massidda et al., 2013). Despite 
this, the authors observed a greater 
importance of ectomorphy in younger 
gymnasts, and an increase in endomorphy, 
even surpassing ectomorphy, in gymnasts 
over 16 (Bacciotti et al., 2018). This 
increase in the endomorphic component 
cannot be confirmed for AG, as no 
significant differences were found between 
categories in either tops or bases.  
The results indicated that tops in age 
group 1 had a SDDSM w i t h s i g n i f i c a n t 
differences from the older categories, and 
there may be a certain tendency associated 
with age. However, the endomorphic 
component did not present any significant 
differences between any categories. Hence, 
this increase in endomorphy with age was 
not observed as noted by Bacciotti et al. 
(2018) in gymnasts in WAG. It can only be 
stated that the junior category presented 
significantly greater differences in 
ectomorphy with respect to age group 1, 
and in mesomorphy with respect to age 
group 1 and age group 3. 
This evolution towards an increase in 
bases’ endomorphy is not observed, since 
no significant differences can be found 
among any categories. It should be noted 
that, except for age group 3, the 
endomorphic component is higher than the 
ectomorphic one. In contrast to the tops, 
the SDDSM in bases indicated only 
significant differences between seniors and 
age group 1, age group 3, age group 4 and 
juniors, thus one cannot conclude that the 

Taboada-Iglesias Y. et al.: SOMATOTYPE ANALYSIS BY AGE CATEGORIES IN SPANISH …   Vol. 13 Issue 1: 71 - 84 
 
Science of Gymnastics Journal                                82                           Science of Gymnastics Journal 
 
somatotype has a linear relationship with 
age. 
The absence of a linear relationship of 
the somatotype in AG gymnasts was also 
observed in the fact that, although there 
were no age differences between junior 
and senior bases, there were somatotypical 
differences. We should note that in senior 
bases, endomorphy and mesomorphy are 
practically equal, whereas the ectomorphic 
component is very low. However, in the 
junior category, the ectomorphic 
component is the most important. In fact, 
significant differences were obtained in the 
ectomorphy of both categories in the 
multiple comparison, which may be due to 
sports performance factors rather than age 
development. However, the results of this 
study are similar to those found by Irurtia 
et al. (2008), Irurtia et al. (2009a) and 
Corbella and Barany (1991) in WAG, 
MAG and RG respectively, in which 
authors found no significant differences in 
somatotype over age. 
However, unlike the AG results in this 
study, for RG, WAG and MAG, there are 
also studies that point to a somatotype 
variation in relation to age. Research 
showed that ectomorphy is the most 
important component in the younger age 
categories, but mesomorphy and, to a 
greater extent, endomorphy increase over 
the years, possibly due to biological 
maturation, with endomorphy becoming 
the most important component in the 
senior category (Oliveira et al., 2017; 
Purenović-Ivanović & Popović, 2014). On 
this research line, Poliszczuk, Broda and 
Poliszczuk (2012) observed in a sample of 
RG gymnasts with an initial mean age of 
9.79 years that over a two-year period they 
increased the proportion of the 
endomorphic and mesomorphic 
component. However, Quintero et al. 
(2011) indicated that ectomorphy was only 
dominant in the age group 1 and age group 
2 categories, but with very similar 
endomorphy values, this being the highest 
component even in the junior and age 
group 4 categories. The difference from 
other studies may be due to the fact that it 
is an autonomous sample, as opposed to 
the high dependency level of the previous 
ones. Similarly, to interpret the results, we 
must note that in our sample we had to add 
up all the modalities (trios and pairs) and 
that the age categories of competition have 
such wide ranges that the average age is 
not always higher in higher categories. 
Likewise, another limitation derives from 
the characteristics of the modality that 
mixes athletes of very different ages with 
very varied numbers of years of sport 
experience. This trend of evolutionarily 
increasing endomorphy across age 
categories was not seen in either the tops 
or the bases in this research. In fact, the 
ectomorphic component that characterizes 
RG gymnasts, and which is more specific 
to the role of the tops, is more present in 
the age group 4 and junior categories, 
pointing out that the tops in age group 4 
are older than seniors. This situation may 
be due to the creation of competition 
groups for a greater projection of the sport, 
as the Code of Points allows for age 
ranges, and it is not clear whether senior 
groups or pairs have the highest 
performance level.  
 
CONCLUSIONS 
 
Given the results obtained, despite 
finding certain differences, one cannot 
conclude that there is a clear evolution of 
the somatotype associated with maturation. 
This lack of differences may be due to the 
highly specialized roles of gymnasts from 
a very early age, as some studies in MAG, 
WAG and RG pointed out. Similarly, the 
heterogeneity of the sample level may have 
been the factor that established these small 
variations found in the study. However, we 
can state that mesomorphy, as in other 
gymnastics disciplines, is the predominant 
component in all categories and roles. 
 
 
 
 

Taboada-Iglesias Y. et al.: SOMATOTYPE ANALYSIS BY AGE CATEGORIES IN SPANISH …   Vol. 13 Issue 1: 71 - 84 
 
Science of Gymnastics Journal                                83                           Science of Gymnastics Journal 
 
REFERENCES 
 
Bacciotti, S., Baxter-Jones, A., Gaya, 
A., & Maia, J. (2017). The Physique of 
Elite Female Artistic Gymnasts: A 
Systematic Review. Journal of Human 
Kinetics, 58, 247-259. doi:10.1515/hukin-
2017-0075  
Bacciotti, S., Baxter-Jones, A., Gaya, 
A., & Maia, J. (2018). Body physique and 
proportionality of Brazilian female artistic 
gymnasts. Journal of Sports Sciences, 
36(7), 749-756. doi: 
0.1080/02640414.2017.1340655  
Batista, A., Garganta, R., & Ávila-
Carvalho, L. (2019). Morphological 
Characteristics and Biological Maturation 
of Brazilian and Portuguese Gymnasts. 
International Journal Morphology, 37(2), 
561-567. doi:10.4067/S0717-
95022019000200561 
Bies, E. R., & De la Rosa, F. J. B. 
(2006). Estudio Morfológico en Gimnastas 
Argentinos de Alto Rendimiento. Revista 
Brasileira de Cineantropometria & 
Desempenho Humano, 8(4), 16-24. 
Canda, A., Rabadán, M., Sainz, L., & 
Agorreta, L. (2019). Evolución del perfil 
antropométrico y fisiológico de las 
gimnastas de rítmica españolas de 
ejercicios de conjuntos en los Juegos 
Olímpicos de 1996 y 2016. Revista 
Andaluza de Medicina del Deporte, 12(3), 
258-262. doi:10.33155/j.ramd.2017.04.001 
Carter, J. E. L., & Heath, H. B. 
(1990). Somatotyping-development and 
applications. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge 
University Press. 
Claessens, A. L., Veer. F. M., 
Lefevre, J., Maes, H., Steens, G., & 
Beunen, G. (1991). Anthropometric 
characteristics of outstanding male and 
female gymnasts. Journal of Sports 
Sciences, 9(1), 53-74. 
Corbella, M., & Barbany, J. R. (1991). 
Relación de medidas antropométricas, 
composicion corporal y edad menarquica 
entre gimnastas de rítmica y niñas no 
deportistas. Apunts: Educacion Fisica y 
Deportes, 26, 6-12. 
Fédération Internationale de 
Gymnastique. (2017). Código de 
Puntuación para Gimnasia Acrobática 
2017-2020. Lausane: FIG. 
Fontana, K. E., Soares, E. K., Santos, 
J. O., Molina, G. E., & Riehl, O. (2014). 
Antropometria e aptidão física de ginastas 
brasileiros de alto rendimento.  Fitness & 
Performance Journal, 10(1), 19-25. 
Gómez-Landero, L. A., Vernetta, M., 
& López Bedoya, J. (2009). Somatotipo y 
composición corporal en trampolinistas 
españolas de alto nivel. Archivos de 
Medicina del Deporte, 26(130), 105-117. 
Gómez-Landero, L. A., Vernetta, M., 
& López Bedoya, J. (2010). Somatotipo y 
composición corporal en gimnastas de 
trampolín masculino español de alto nivel. 
Revista Internacional de Ciencias del 
Deporte, 6(19), 141-153. 
doi:10.5332/ricyde2010.01904 
Irurtia, A., Busquets, A., Marina, M., 
Galilea, P. A., & Carrasco, M. (2009a) 
Talla, peso, somatotipo y composición 
corporal en gimnastas de elite españoles 
desde la infancia hasta la edad adulta. 
Apunts Medicina de l'Esport, 161, 18-28. 
Irurtia, A., Busquets, A., Marina, M., 
Pons, V., & Carrasco, M. (2008). Talla, 
peso, somatotipo y composición corporal 
en gimnastas femeninas de élite a lo largo 
de la edad. Archivos de Medicina del 
Deporte; 25(126), 259-269. 
Irurtia, A., Pons, V., Busquets, A., 
Marina, M., Carrasco, M., & Rodríguez, L. 
(2009b). Talla, peso, somatotipo y 
composición corporal en gimnastas de élite 
españolas (gimnasia rítmica) desde la 
infancia hasta la edad adulta. Apunts 
Educación Física y Deporte, 95, 64-74. 
João, A. F., & Filho, J. F. (2015). 
Somatotype and body composition of elite 
brazilian gymnasts. Science of Gymnastics 
Journal, 7(2), 45-54. 
Kutseryb, T., Vovkanych, L., 
Hrynkiv, M., Majevska, S., & Muzyka, F. 
(2017). Peculiarities of the somatotype of 
athletes with different directions of the 
training process. Journal of Physical 

Taboada-Iglesias Y. et al.: SOMATOTYPE ANALYSIS BY AGE CATEGORIES IN SPANISH …   Vol. 13 Issue 1: 71 - 84 
 
Science of Gymnastics Journal                                84                           Science of Gymnastics Journal 
 
Education and Sport, 17(1), 431-435. 
doi:10.7752/jpes.2017.01064 
Marfell-Jones, M., Olds, T., Stewart, 
A., & Carter, L. (2006). International 
standards for anthropometric assessment. 
ISAK: Potchefstroom, South Africa.  
Massidda, M., Toselli, S., Brasili, P., 
& Caló, C. M. (2013). Somatotype of Elite 
Italian Gymnasts. Collegium 
Antropologicum, 37(3), 853–857. 
Menezes, L. S., & Filho, J. F. (2006). 
Identification and comparison of 
dermatoglyfics, somatotype and basic 
physical aptitude characterístics of 
rhythmic gymnasts of different 
qualification levels. Fitness & 
Performance Journal, 5(6), 393-400. 
doi:10.3900/FPJ.5.6.393.E 
Oliveira, G. L., Gonçalves, P. S. P., 
Oliveira, T. A. P., Silva, J. R. V., 
Fernandes, P. R., & Fernandes Filho, J. 
(2017). Assessment of Body Composition, 
Somatotype and Eating Disorders in 
Rhythmic Gymnasts. Journal of Exercise 
Physiology online, 20(1), 125-139. 
Poliszczuk, T., Broda, D., & 
Poliszczuk, D. (2012). Changes in somatic 
parameters and dynamic balance in female 
rhythmic gymnasts over a space of two 
years. Polish Journal of Sport and 
Tourism, 19(4), 240-252. 
doi:10.2478/v10197-012-0023-0 
Purenović-Ivanović, T., & Popović, R. 
(2014). Somatotype of Top-Level Serbian 
Rhythmic Gymnasts. Journal of Human 
Kinetics, 40, 181-187. doi:10.2478/hukin-
2014-0020. 
Quintero, B. R., Martín, A. P., & 
Henríquez, J. J. G. (2011). El perfil 
antropométrico de la gimnasia rítmica. 
Apunts. Educación Física y Deportes; 
103(1), 48-55. 
Taboada-Iglesias, Y., Vernetta, M., & 
Gutiérrez-Sánchez, Á. (2017). 
Anthropometric Profile in Different Event 
Categories of Acrobatic Gymnastics. 
Journal of Human Kinetics, 57, 169-179. 
doi:10.1515/hukin-2017-0058. 
Taboada-Iglesias, Y., Gutiérrez-
Sánchez, Á., & Vernetta, M. (2016). 
Anthropometric profile of elite acrobatic 
gymnasts and prediction of role 
performance. The Journal of Sports 
Medicine and Physical Fitness, 56(4), 433-
42.  
Vernetta, M., López Bedoya, J., & 
Gutiérrez-Sánchez, A. (2008) La 
creatividad en la Gimnasia Acrobática. In 
Martínez, M., & Pereira, M. P. (Ed), 
Creatividad y deporte: Consideraciones 
teóricas e investigaciones breves (pp. 133-
156). Wanceulen Editorial Deportiva: 
Sevilla, España. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Corresponding author: 
 
Águeda Gutiérrez-Sánchez 
University of Vigo. Faculty of Science 
Education and Sport 
Campus A Xunqueira, s/n. 36005 
Spain 
Tel: +34 986801744 
Email: agyra@uvigo.es 
 
Article received: 18.6.2020 
Article accepted: 26.10.2020