Next Article in Journal
The 12th International Conference on Instrumental Analysis—Modern Trends and Applications (20–23 September 2021, Virtual Event)
Next Article in Special Issue
Bioelectrical Impedance Vector and Creatine Phosphokinase Changes Induced by a High-Intensity Training Session in Rink Hockey Players
Previous Article in Journal
The Role of Buoyancy Induced Instability in Transpirational Cooling Applications
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Relationship between Skinfold and Ultrasound Measures of Subcutaneous Fat in Untrained Healthy Males
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:

Anthropometric Profile Assessed by Bioimpedance and Anthropometry Measures of Male and Female Rugby Players Competing in the Spanish National League

Juan José Ramos-Álvarez
Juan José Montoya
Cristian Solís-Mencia
Francisco Miguel-Tobal
Paola López-Tapia
Antonio Jesús Sánchez-Oliver
Raúl Domínguez
4,5,6 and
José Miguel Martínez-Sanz
Faculty of Medicine, School of Physical Education and Sport Medicine, Complutense University, 28040 Madrid, Spain
Independent Medical Practice, Santiago, Chile
Sport Medicine Department, University of the Republic, Montevideo 11600, Uruguay
Human Motricity and Sports Performance Department, University of Seville, 41013 Seville, Spain
Neuromuscular Response Research Group (GEPREN), University of Lavras, Lavras 37200-000, Brazil
Ibero-American Network of Researchers in Applied Anthropometry, 04120 Almeria, Spain
Nursing Department, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Alicante, San Vicente del Raspeig, 03690 Alicante, Spain
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11(24), 11759;
Submission received: 3 November 2021 / Revised: 25 November 2021 / Accepted: 7 December 2021 / Published: 10 December 2021


Different rugby positions make different demands on players. It therefore follows that optimum body composition may vary according to the position played. Using anthropometry and bioimpedance analysis (BIA) to assess body composition, the present study aimed to compare the effect of sex and position on body composition variables using anthropometry and BIA methods. A total of 100 competitive rugby players (35 women and 65 men) competing in the First Spanish National League were recruited voluntarily and for convenience for this study. In the laboratory, body composition was assessed by anthropometry, following the recommendations established by the International Society for the Advancement of Kinanthropometry (ISAK), and by direct segmental multi-frequency BIA, following the guidelines established by the Spanish Group of Kinanthropometry (GREC) of the Spanish Federation of Sports Medicine (FEMEDE). We found sex-related differences in height, weight, body mass index and body fat (%) by anthropometry and in body lean mass (%) by DSM-BIA, in 4 of the 6 skinfolds assessed (p < 0.05). We also observed position-related differences in all the variables assessed (p < 0.05) except for lean body mass, as measured by both methods of determining body composition, and front thigh skinfold. Body composition and ∑6skinfolds differs according to sex and playing position, backs (16.6 ± 3.8% and 92.3 ± 33.9 mm,) vs. forwards (20.0 ± 6.7 and 115.3 ± 37.6 mm), and the muscle-adipose (meso-endomorphic somatotype) development predominated in both sexes. Thus, forwards of both sexes are taller, heavier and fatter, possibly due to the specific demands of this position. In addition, body composition measurements vary according to the method used (DSM-BIA vs. anthropometry), indicating that anthropometry is probably the best body composition assessment method.

1. Introduction

Rugby is a competitive team sport played by two teams, each composed of 15 players: 8 forwards (two props and second rows, three back rows and one hooker) and 7 backs (two centres and wingers, one scrum half, fly half and fullback). The aim is to advance the ball down the field into the opposition’s territory and score a try (touchdown) [1,2,3]. Rugby is a contact sport with matches lasting 80 min, divided into two halves of 40 min separated by a 10 min rest interval. The dynamic of the competition includes bouts of high intensity effort (i.e., sprinting and tackling) interspersed with low intensity efforts that include walking and jogging [4]. Approximately 84–95% of a match corresponds to low intensity activities [5]. Rugby requires a combination of endurance, strength, skill and speed [2]. Each position makes different physiological, technical and anthropometric demands on the player [6,7,8]; thus, the ratio of high to low intensity effort ranges from 1:6 (forwards) to 1:8 (backs) [5]. Backs spend more time in free running while forwards are frequently involved in a high number of physical collisions and tackles [9]. Consequently, speed and endurance are the most important physical attributes for backs, who must control possession of the ball once obtained by the forwards and accelerate away from opposition players to create scoring opportunities, as well as provide cover in defence [3].
The specific demand of each rugby position is reflected in differences between players. Thus, given the higher demand for speed and endurance in backs, these usually present a lower level of body fat [7,8,10] because body fat compromises acceleration, speed, tackling proficiency and thermoregulation [2,11]. In contrast, forwards need a higher body mass because this parameter is correlated strongly with scrummaging force [12] and the generation of momentum and impact forces [11]. Although rugby has traditionally been played by male teams, recent years have witnessed an increase in the number of female teams and leagues. However, female rugby players present lower physical fitness values (jump ability, speed and VO2max) compared to men and other team sport modalities as hockey and soccer) [4].
Body composition can classified at various levels, including molecular, cellular, tissue, organic and global level [13]. However, body composition measurement has traditionally included a two-component model that distinguishes between fat and fat-free body mass [14]. Dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) measures bone body mass as well as fat and lean body mass, and has been proposed as the standard method for quantifying % body fat [15]. Nevertheless, anthropometry and bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) are also validated methods for assessing body composition in athletes [16,17]. Anthropometry measures various features (height, weight, girth, bone breadth and skinfolds) and regression equations are used to estimate body composition and somatotype [18], whereas BIA estimates body fat mass and lean body mass by administering a weak alternating electrical current which flow at various speeds depending on the composition of the body. The current is easily conducted by tissues rich in water and electrolytes, such as blood and muscles, and impeded in spaces filled with fat, bone and air [19,20]. A systematic review has reported that elite rugby players are taller, heavier and present a lower body fat mass and sum of skinfolds [21]. These differences in the body composition of players at different levels are supported by studies that have reported a moderate to strong positive relationship between lean body mass and jump ability and sprint [22] and a moderate negative relationship between skinfold thickness and tackling ability [23].
However, although various studies have related physical performance to anthropometric measurements [22,23] and compared junior to senior rugby players [24,25], most have focused on the male population. Furthermore, there is a limited knowledge about possible differences according to position or sex in competitive rugby players. In addition, no studies have compared the use of anthropometry and BIA to assess body composition in competitive rugby players. Therefore, the aims of the present study were: (i) to compare the effect of sex (male vs. female) and position (forwards vs. backs) on body composition and other anthropometric properties assessed by anthropometry; (ii) to compare the effect of sex (male vs. female) and position (forwards vs. backs) on body composition and other anthropometric properties assessed by BIA.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Design

This was an observational, descriptive study of the relationship between body composition, sex and playing position in competitive rugby players.

2.2. Sample

A total of 100 competitive rugby players (35 women and 65 men) competing in the First Spanish National League (Liga Iberdrola and Division de Honor A) participated voluntarily and for convenience in this study. All players had at least 5 years’ experience of playing competitive rugby. They trained 4 days a week in sessions of 1.5 to 2 h, in addition to playing a weekly match. Players were categorised as forwards or backs for analysis and comparison. Forwards consisted of 22 women and 32 men, and backs of 13 women and 33 men. Volunteers attended an information session at which the research team explained the study aims and characteristics to them and they signed an informed consent form. This study was conducted in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration [26] and the project protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Hospital Clínico San Carlos in Madrid (ref.: 19/518-E_TFM).

2.3. Anthropometric Assessment

Anthropometric assessment was performed in accordance with the recommendations of the International Society for the Advancement of Kinanthropometry (ISAK) [27] by a level II ISAK-accredited practitioner, accompanied by a level I ISAK-accredited practitioner recording the measurements. An intra-observer technical error of the measurement (TEM) of 5% for skinfolds and 1% for breadths and girths was considered for each measurement. The instruments used for anthropometric measurements consisted of a Holtain® wall stadiometer (precision ± 1 mm), a Seca® weight scale (precision ± 0.1 kg), a Holtain® bone breadth caliper (range from 50 to 570 mm), a Holtain® skinfold caliper (constant precision ± 10 gr·mm−2, interpolation precision ± 0.2 mm), a Holtain® anthropometric tape (precision ± 1 mm) and complementary materials (e.g., a dermograph pencil to mark the subject). Measurements were taken in a room maintained a constant temperature of 24 °C, with participants wearing shorts. Two measurements were taken for height, body mass and girths (relaxed arm, flexed and contracted arm, mid-thigh and calf girths) and bone breadths (biepicondylar humerus, bistyloid and biepicondylar femur), and three for skinfolds (triceps, subscapular, iliac crest, abdominal, front thigh and medial calf). All measurements were taken in the morning (after at 8:30 am) and on the right side of the body, regardless of which side dominant [27]. For the present study we selected height, weight, body mass index (BMI), all the skinfolds assessed and the sum of 6 skinfolds. In addition, we estimated % body fat using Carter’s equation [28] and muscular mass using Lee’s equation [29]. To calculate the somatotype, we used the three-component system (mesomorphy, endomorphy and ectomorphy) proposed by Heath-Carter [30], thereby establishing the mean somatotype and position in the somatochart for male and female athletes.

2.4. Bioimpedance Assessment

Data were collected in accordance with the protocol and standards established in the Declaration of the Spanish Kinanthropometry Group (GREC) of the Spanish Federation of Sports Medicine (FEMEDE) [31] and the recommendations of Sergi et al. [32]. Direct segmental multi-frequency BIA was performed using the InBody 720 body composition analyzer (InBody Co. Ltd., Seoul, Korea). This machine makes a direct non-empirical estimation and uses an eight-point tetrapolar tactile electrode system (two for each hand and each foot) to take separate measurements of impedance in the subject’s trunk, arms and legs at six different frequencies (1 kHz, 5 kHz, 50 kHz, 250 kHz, 500 kHz and 1000 kHz) for each of the body segments (left leg, right leg, left arm, right arm and trunk), and provides immediate and extensive quantitative values for various body composition parameters. The test was carried out by qualified personnel (J.J.R.-A.). Subjects wore normal undergarments and were advised to stand barefoot in an upright position with their feet on the foot electrodes on the machine platform and their arms abducted with their hands gripping the hand electrodes on the handles. In accordance with the manufacturer’s guidelines, the participants wiped the soles of their feet with a proprietary electrolyte tissue before standing on the electrodes embedded in the scale platform.

2.5. Statistical Analysis

All variables are presented as mean (M) ± standard deviation (SD), after testing for normal distribution using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test and for homogeneity the Levene’s test. To detect possible differences in the variables assessed according to sex and position of the competitive rugby players, we performed a two-way ANOVA with the factors sex (male vs. female) and position (backs vs. forwards). When statistically significant differences were observed, a pairwise comparison was performed using a Bonferroni post hoc test.
The concordance between both methods (anthropometry and BIA) for the percentage of fat mass and muscle mass was evaluated using the Bland–Altman diagram. Heteroscedasticity was examined using the White test and the Breusch–Pagan test, checking the effect size. Finally, the Pearson correlation coefficient was obtained between all the variables.
Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05. All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS (version 18.0, SPSSTM Inc., Chicago, IL, USA).

3. Results

The mean age of male players was 20.6 ± 2.1 years for backs and 22.4 ± 4.5 years for forwards, whereas for female rugby players it was 21.9 ± 4.0 years for backs and 22.1 ± 4.4 years for forwards. No differences were observed by sex (p = 0.661), position (p = 0.360) or sex·position (p = 0.442). However, we did detect sex-related differences for height, whereby male players were taller (1.80 ± 0.01 vs. 1.64 ± 0.01 m, p = 0.030), and position, whereby forwards were taller (1.76 ± 0.10 vs. m, 1.71 ± 0.10 p = 0.030). For weight, we found a statistically significant effect of sex whereby males were heavier than females (90.1 ± 1.8 vs. 65.5 ± 2.0 kg, p < 0.001), and this effect was observed in forwards and backs alike (p < 0.001) (see Table 1). We also observed an effect of position on weight, whereby forwards obtained a higher value than backs (90.0 ± 17.0 vs. 69.8 ± 13.7 kg, p < 0.001) in male and female players alike (p < 0.001). Regarding BMI, we found statistically significant differences according to sex (p < 0.001) and position (p < 0.001), whereby males had a higher BMI than female rugby players (27.8 ± 0.6 vs. 24.2 ± 0.7 kg·m−2), an effect observed in forwards (p = 0.025) and backs (p = 0.002) alike, and forwards had a higher BMI than backs (28.9 ± 4.3 vs. 23.7 ± 3.2 kg·m−2, p < 0.001) in both male (p = 0.001) and female rugby players (p < 0.001).
Body fat (%) was higher in forwards than in backs, as assessed by anthropometry (20.0 ± 6.7 vs. 16.6 ± 3.8%, p = 0.009) and BIA (22.6 ± 9.7 vs. 17.3 ± 7.3%, p = 0.019). However, anthropometry detected statistically significant differences according to position in females (p = 0.030), differences that were not identified by BIA in either male (p = 0.063) or female rugby players (p = 0.141) (see Table 2). By sex, no differences in body fat were identified by BIA (p = 0.203), but anthropometry detected higher values for female rugby players (21.1 ± 1.1 vs. 16.3 ± 0.9%, p = 0.001) in backs (p = 0.001) but not forwards (p = 0.098). Regarding lean body mass (%), no differences were observed when comparing forwards and backs by either anthropometry (p = 0.748) or BIA (p = 0.145). Anthropometry did not identify differences in lean body mass in either sex (p = 0.059), whereas BIA detected higher lean body mass in male players (46.8 ± 1.7 vs. 37.3 ± 1.9%, p < 0.001) in both forwards (p = 0.046) and backs (p = 0.001).
Table 3 shows the results for skinfolds. In a comparison of players according to sex, we observed differences in triceps, abdominal, front thigh and medial calf skinfolds. Abdominal skinfold values were higher in male than female rugby players (p = 0.002), in forwards (p = 0.032) and backs (p = 0.023) alike. Females obtained higher tricipital skinfold values than male rugby players (18.4 ± 1.3 vs. 14.6 ± 1.1 mm, p = 0.029), with statistically significant differences in forwards (p = 0.044). In addition, females presented a thicker front thigh skinfold (26.1 ± 1.6 vs. 18.0 ± 1.4 mm, p < 0.001) and medial calf skinfold (16.0 ± 1.1 vs. 10.6 ± 1.0 mm, p = 0.001), with differences in backs for this skinfold (p < 0.001). As regards the sum of six skinfolds, no differences were observed by sex (p = 0.605). In a comparison according to position, we found statistically significant differences for all the skinfolds except the front thigh skinfold (p = 0.057), with forwards presenting higher values than backs. However, in a comparison of position in each sex, statistically significant differences were only observed for the tricipital (p = 0.044) and iliac crest skinfolds in male backs (p = 0.023) compared to forwards. Subscapular skinfold values were higher in forwards than backs (16.7 ± 8.5 vs. 10.9 ± 4.0 mm, p = 0.005), in male (p = 0.037) and female rugby players (p = 0.45) alike. Forwards also presented higher medial calf skinfold values (14.0 ± 6.7 vs. 11.6 ± 5.5 mm, p = 0.045), but this statistically significant difference was only observed in female rugby players (p = 0.045). In relation to the sum of six skinfolds, we found differences in favour of forwards (115.3 ± 37.6 vs. 92.3 ± 33.9 mm, p = 0.028), but statistical significance was only reached in male rugby players (p = 0.032).
Regarding somatotype (see Figure 1), no statistically significant differences by sex were detected for any component (endomorph, p = 0.543; mesomorph, p = 0.146; ectomorph, p = 0.737). However, a comparison by position revealed a higher endomorph component in forwards compared to backs (p = 0.018), which only reached statistical significance in male rugby players (p = 0.013). The higher endomorph component paralleled a trend towards having a lower ectomorph component in forwards with respect to backs (p = 0.052), with no differences in the mesomorph component (p = 0.141). In general, muscle-adipose development predominated in both sexes.
There is a concordance between the anthropometry and BIA in the fat mass percentage (ICC, Intraclass Correlation Coefficient, of 0.743 in women and 0.786 in men) and in the muscle mass percentage (0.663 in women and 0.748 in men). In the Bland–Altman graphs, an undervaluation of the BIA is observed when the value of the fat mass percentage is less than 15%, and an overvaluation when it is greater than 25%. This pattern is not seen in muscle mass percentage (Figure 2, Figure 3, Figure 4 and Figure 5).
Heteroscedasticity was not significant (White test, p = 0.752 and Breusch–Pagan Test, p = 0.747 for the fat mass percentage; and White Test p = 0.745 and Breusch–Pagan Test p = 0.734 for the muscle mass percentage). Differences were found between the two methods and gender for the muscle mass percentage (p < 0.001) with a high effect size (0.265). While for the fat mass percentage, no significant differences were observed (p = 0.121) with a reduced effect size (0.036). An underestimation of the BIA has been observed in women with respect to anthropometry in the muscle mass percentage (1.5074% below the mean), while in men there is an overvaluation by the same method (2.0982% above the mean).
Finally, the Pearson correlation index was performed between all the variables, where significant positive correlations were found between all the skinfolds and the fat mass percentage in both methods (p < 0.05). The muscle mass percentage showed a significant negative correlation with the skin folds in both methods.

4. Discussion

The results of this study revealed statistically significant differences in anthropometric measurements according to the position played and sex of competitive rugby players. Thus, forwards were taller, heavier and fatter than backs. In addition, forwards presented higher values for tricipital, subscapular, iliac crest, abdominal, front thigh and medial calf skinfolds and sum of six skinfolds. By sex, our results indicated lower values for height and weight in female competitive rugby players. As regards body composition assessed by anthropometry, we observed higher values for body fat and all skinfolds (except subscapular), whereas no differences in body composition were detected by BIA.
Our results are in accordance with other studies that have reported a greater height and body weight in forwards compared to backs in competitive rugby players from New Zealand [33,34], Australia [8] and Portugal [35], and in participants in the World Cup [36]. Having a higher weight correlates strongly with scrummaging force [12], a specific quality for forwards [37,38]. Nevertheless, a higher body weight could also diminish sprint ability and endurance performance if there is increased body fat mass. In this study, we found that increased weight in male and female forwards was accompanied by increased body fat and skinfold thickness, confirming the results of previous studies on male competitive rugby players [8,34,39], and now confirming the same relationship in female competitive rugby players. This characteristic body composition (heavier and fatter) in forwards could enhance scrummaging force [12] and endow advantages when competing for the ball in scrums, rucks and mauls by attenuating the transfer of forces and reducing risk of injury [6,10]. Nevertheless, the % body fat of male rugby players in this study was higher than that reported in competitive rugby players from countries that have obtained better results than Spain in international championships, such as New Zealand [33] and Australia [8]. Thus, this higher body mass that includes a higher fat mass in the Spanish players who participated in this study does not seem to provide additional benefits for specific abilities in rugby and could diminish tackling [23], acceleration and sprint [2] abilities. In contrast, the female rugby players in this study had less fat than South African competitive rugby players [40]. This lower body fat level might imply faster, higher acceleration in backs in Spanish competitive rugby, but could also result in a worse specific action that may contribute to Spain’s moderate level of achievement in rugby. Regarding the sum of six skinfolds in Spanish elite rugby players, the mean in men was 75 mm in backs and 110 mm in forwards. In women, the mean was 60 mm in backs and 90 mm in forwards [41], and the average sum of six skinfolds was different in each sex. This finding has also been reported in other studies [33,42].
The lower level of body fat and higher lean body mass in male backs compared with forwards reported in this study are consistent with results previously reported for Australian [8], Argentinian [7], Italian [10] and Spanish [41] competitive rugby players. This body composition endows backs with the potential to improve tackling ability [23], acceleration and speed, and enhances thermoregulation [2,11], enabling them to cover a greater distance [5], increase acceleration during dynamic phases of the match and improve their role on the field [6,40,43]. One of the novelties of this study has been to confirm that these differences between positions observed previously in competitive male rugby players [7,8,10] and in the male participants in this study are also evidenced in female competitive rugby players.
Regarding the study participants’ somatotype, this was similar to that reported previously, with a predominance of the mesomorph component [7,40,44,45,46], whereas the higher endomorph component of forwards could be advantageous for the continuous exposure to tackling and collisions [47].
Several studies have reported that different methods to assess body composition obtain different results [15,48,49,50,51]. One study of collegiate male rugby players reported differences in body fat as measured by BIA versus DXA [50], while in a sample of male competitive rugby players in another study of differences with BIA, anthropometry was consistent with DXA when detecting changes in body composition in competitive male rugby players [52]. Despite observing these differences, the use of different methods to estimate and analyse body composition can make it difficult to compare our results with other studies.
DXA appears to be the best assessment tool of body composition that should be chosen. However, given the simplicity, the speed and the frequency of which it can be used of the anthropometric method (skinfold technique) and in line with our results, the anthropometric measurements may provide a good method to body composition assessment [42].
It is important to note that BIA presents limitations in the assessment of body composition, as it underestimates fat mass and overestimates fat-free mass, hindering comparison [42,53]. However, if the evaluators have not been trained in anthropometric measurement procedures, the use of BIA is recommended as an alternative [42,53].
Some limitations must be considered when interpreting the results of this study. One of these is that there is little scientific literature on the topic, restricting comparisons and discussion of our results. Moreover, the methods used and analyses conducted of body composition have also differed between studies and these have been carried out mainly in male athletes, which also affects the above limitation. Nevertheless, this study is the first to have assessed body composition using BIA and anthropometry in male and female competitive rugby players, and we found that BIA is less sensitive than anthropometry for detecting differences in body fat. In addition, skinfolds have been confirmed as sensitive variables for detecting differences according to sex and position. Thus, this study contributes to the limited body of scientific knowledge related to rugby players, and its results suggest that anthropometry is a more accurate method for assessing body composition in competitive rugby players. In addition and given the competitive level of the athletes evaluated, our results on body composition and somatotype can be a reference for health and sports professionals and to establish a descriptive basis for this sport for future research.

5. Conclusions

Competitive rugby players present differences according to sex and position. Thus, forwards present greater height, weight and body fat, and thicker skinfolds, compared to backs, and these differences may reflect the specific actions of each position. However, BIA did not detect differences between male and female competitive rugby players. These results suggest that anthropometry is a more accurate method than BIA for assessing body composition in male and female competitive rugby players. The BIA underestimates in women and overvalues in men the fat mass percentage. In addition, it is necessary to establish two somatotype models based on position, with a higher body fat and endomorph component in forwards and a higher % lean body mass and lower body fat levels in backs.

Author Contributions

J.J.R.-Á., J.J.M., C.S.-M., F.M.-T., R.D. and J.M.M.-S. contributed to the conception or design of the work. J.J.R.-Á., J.J.M., C.S.-M., F.M.-T., P.L.-T. and R.D., contributed to the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work. J.J.R.-Á., J.J.M., A.J.S.-O., J.M.M.-S. and R.D. drafted the manuscript. J.J.M., A.J.S.-O., R.D. and J.M.M.-S., critical review of the manuscript. All gave final approval and agree to be accountable for all aspects of work ensuring integrity and accuracy. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.


This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Hospital Clínico San Carlos in Madrid (ref.: 19/518-E_TFM).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study to conduct and publish the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available in the tables of this article. The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.


  1. Crewther, B.T.; Potts, N.; Kilduff, L.P.; Drawer, S.; Cook, C.J. Performance indicators during international rugby union matches are influenced by a combination of physiological and contextual variables. J. Sci. Med. Sport 2020, 23, 396–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  2. Duthie, G.; Pyne, D.; Hooper, S. Applied physiology and game analysis of rugby union. Sports Med. 2003, 33, 973–991. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Lindsay, A.; Draper, N.; Lewis, J.; Gieseg, S.P.; Gill, N. Positional demands of professional rugby. Eur. J. Sport Sci. 2015, 15, 480–487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Gabbett, T.; King, T.; Jenkins, D. Applied physiology of rugby league. Sports Med. 2008, 38, 119–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Meir, R.A. Seasonal changes in estimates of body composition in professional rugby league players. Sport Health 1993, 11, 27–31. [Google Scholar]
  6. Brazier, J.; Antrobus, M.; Stebbings, G.K.; Day, S.H.; Callus, P.; Erskine, R.M.; Bennett, M.A.; Kilduff, L.P.; Williams, A.G. Anthropometric and Physiological Characteristics of Elite Male Rugby Athletes. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2020, 34, 1790–1801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Holway, F.E.; Garavaglia, R. Kinanthropometry of Group I rugby players in Buenos Aires, Argentina. J. Sports Sci. 2009, 27, 1211–1220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Zemski, A.J.; Slater, G.J.; Broad, E.M. Body composition characteristics of elite Australian rugby union athletes according to playing position and ethnicity. J. Sports Sci. 2015, 33, 970–978. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Gabbett, T.J.; Jenkins, D.G.; Abernethy, B. Physical collisions and injury in professional rugby league match-play. J. Sci. Med. Sport 2011, 14, 210–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Fontana, F.Y.; Colosio, A.; De Roia, G.F.; Da Lozzo, G.; Pogliaghi, S. Anthropometrics of Italian Senior Male Rugby Union Players: From Elite to Second Division. Int. J. Sports Physiol. Perform. 2015, 10, 674–680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Cheng, H.L.; O’Connor, H.; Kay, S.; Cook, R.; Parker, H.; Orr, R. Anthropometric characteristics of Australian junior representative rugby league players. J. Sci. Med. Sport 2014, 17, 546–551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Quarrie, K.L.; Wilson, B.D. Force production in the rugby union scrum. J. Sports Sci. 2000, 18, 237–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Wang, Z.M.; Pierson, R.N., Jr.; Heymsfield, S.B. The five-level model: A new approach to organizing body-composition research. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 1992, 56, 19–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Siri, W.E. Body composition from fluid spaces and density: Analyses of methods. In Techniques for Measuring Body Composition; Brozek, J., Henschel, A., Eds.; National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council: Washington, DC, USA, 1961; pp. 223–244. [Google Scholar]
  15. Silva, A.M.; Fields, D.A.; Sardinha, L.B. A PRISMA-driven systematic review of predictive equations for assessing fat and fat-free mass in healthy children and adolescents using multicomponent molecular models as the reference method. J. Obes. 2013, 2013, 148696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Portal, S.; Rabinowitz, J.; Adler-Portal, D.; Burstein, R.P.; Lahav, Y.; Meckel, Y.; Nemet, D.; Eliakim, A. Body fat measurements in elite adolescent volleyball players: Correlation between skinfold thickness, bioelectrical impedance analysis, air-displacement plethysmography, and body mass index percentiles. J. Pediatr. Endocrinol. Metab. 2010, 23, 395–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Yamada, Y.; Masuo, Y.; Nakamura, E.; Oda, S. Inter-sport variability of muscle volume distribution identified by segmental bioelectrical impedance analysis in four ball sports. Open Access J. Sports Med. 2013, 4, 97–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Stewart, A.; Marfell-Jones, M.; International Society for Advancement of Kinanthropometry. International Standards for Anthropo-Metric Assessment; International Society for the Advancement of Kinanthropometry: Lower Hutt, New Zealand, 2011; p. 137. [Google Scholar]
  19. Lee, S.Y.; Gallagher, D. Assessment methods in human body composition. Curr. Opin. Clin. Nutr. Metab. Care 2008, 11, 566–572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Mulasi, U.; Kuchnia, A.J.; Cole, A.J.; Earthman, C.P. Bioimpedance at the bedside: Current applications, limitations, and opportunities. Nutr. Clin. Pract. 2015, 30, 180–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  21. Sella, F.S.; McMaster, D.T.; Beaven, C.M.; Gill, N.D.; Hebert-Losier, K. Match Demands, Anthropometric Characteristics, and Physical Qualities of Female Rugby Sevens Athletes: A Systematic Review. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2019, 33, 3463–3474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Waldron, M.; Worsfold, P.; Twist, C.; Lamb, K. Changes in anthropometry and performance, and their interrelationships, across three seasons in elite youth rugby league players. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2014, 28, 3128–3136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  23. Gabbett, T.J.; Jenkins, D.G.; Abernethy, B. Correlates of tackling ability in high-performance rugby league players. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2011, 25, 72–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Till, K.; Cobley, S.; O’Hara, J.; Morley, D.; Chapman, C.; Cooke, C. Retrospective analysis of anthropometric and fitness characteristics associated with long-term career progression in Rugby League. J. Sci. Med. Sport 2015, 18, 310–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Till, K.; Jones, B.; Darrall-Jones, J.; Emmonds, S.; Cooke, C. Longitudinal development of anthropometric and physical characteristics within academy rugby league players. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2015, 29, 1713–1722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. WMA. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki. Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA 2013, 310, 2191–2194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Esparza-Ros, F.; Vaquero-Cristóbal, R.; Marfell-Jones, M. Protocolo Internacional para la Valoración Antropométrica. Sociedad Internacional para el Avance de la Cineantropometría; Universidad Católica de Murcia: Murcia, Spain, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  28. Carter, J.E.L. Body Composition of Montreal Olympic Athletes. In Physical Structure of Olympic Athletes Part I The Montreal Olympic Games Anthropological Project; Carter, J.E.L., Ed.; Karger: Basel, Switzerland, 1982; Volume 16, pp. 107–116. [Google Scholar]
  29. Lee, R.C.; Wang, Z.; Heo, M.; Ross, R.; Janssen, I.; Heymsfield, S.B. Total-body skeletal muscle mass: Development and cross-validation of anthropometric prediction models. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2000, 72, 796–803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Carter, J. Part 1: The Heath-Carter Anthropometric Somatotype-Instruction Manual; TeP and ROSSCRAFT: Surrey, BC, Canada, 2002; 26p. [Google Scholar]
  31. Alvero, J.R.; Cabañas, M.D.; Herrero De Lucas, A.; Riaza, L.M.; Moreno, C.; Jordi, P.; Manzañido, P.; Sillero, M.; Sirvent, J.E. Body composition assessment in sports medicine. Statement of spanish group of kinanthropometry of spanish federation of sports medicine. Arch. Med. Deporte 2009, 131, 166–179. [Google Scholar]
  32. Sergi, G.; De Rui, M.; Stubbs, B.; Veronese, N.; Manzato, E. Measurement of lean body mass using bioelectrical impedance analysis: A consideration of the pros and cons. Aging Clin. Exp. Res. 2017, 29, 591–597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Posthumus, L.; Macgregor, C.; Winwood, P.; Darry, K.; Driller, M.; Gill, N. Physical and Fitness Characteristics of Elite Professional Rugby Union Players. Sports 2020, 8, 85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Quarrie, K.L.; Handcock, P.; Waller, A.E.; Chalmers, D.J.; Toomey, M.J.; Wilson, B.D. The New Zealand rugby injury and performance project. III. Anthropometric and physical performance characteristics of players. Br. J. Sports Med. 1995, 29, 263–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  35. Vaz, L.; Morais, T.; Rocha, H.; James, N. Fitness profiles of elite portuguese rugby union players. J. Hum. Kinet. 2014, 41, 235–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Schick, D.M.; Molloy, M.G.; Wiley, J.P. Injuries during the 2006 Women’s Rugby World Cup. Br. J. Sports Med. 2008, 42, 447–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Cahill, N.; Lamb, K.; Worsfold, P.; Headey, R.; Murray, S. The movement characteristics of English Premiership rugby union players. J. Sports Sci. 2013, 31, 229–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Jones, M.R.; West, D.J.; Crewther, B.T.; Cook, C.J.; Kilduff, L.P. Quantifying positional and temporal movement patterns in professional rugby union using global positioning system. Eur. J. Sport Sci. 2015, 15, 488–496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Canda, A.S.; Cabanero, M.; Mullán, M.J.; Rubio, S. Anthropometric profile of Spanish National Rugby Team: Comparisions between field positions. Med. Sport 1998, 51, 29–39. [Google Scholar]
  40. Hene, N.M. Physical Fitness of Elite Women’s Rugby Union Players over a Competition Season; University of the Western Cape: Cape Town, South Africa, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  41. Canda, A.S. Variables Antropométricas de la Población Deportiva Española; Consejo Superior de Deportes, Subdirección General de Deporte y Salud: Madrid, Spain, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  42. Kasper, A.M.; Langan-Evans, C.; Hudson, J.F.; Brownlee, T.E.; Harper, L.D.; Naughton, R.J.; Morton, J.P.; Close, G.L. Come Back Skinfolds, All Is Forgiven: A Narrative Review of the Efficacy of Common Body Composition Methods in Applied Sports Practice. Nutrients 2021, 13, 1075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Zemski, A.J.; Keating, S.E.; Broad, E.M.; Marsh, D.J.; Hind, K.; Slater, G.J. Preseason Body Composition Adaptations in Elite White and Polynesian Rugby Union Athletes. Int. J. Sport Nutr. Exerc. Metab. 2018, 29, 9–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Fuller, C.W.; Taylor, A.E.; Brooks, J.H.; Kemp, S.P. Changes in the stature, body mass and age of English professional rugby players: A 10-year review. J. Sports Sci. 2013, 31, 795–802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Olds, T. The evolution of physique in male rugby union players in the twentieth century. J. Sports Sci. 2001, 19, 253–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Till, K.; Scantlebury, S.; Jones, B. Anthropometric and Physical Qualities of Elite Male Youth Rugby League Players. Sports Med. 2017, 47, 2171–2186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Speranza, M.J.; Gabbett, T.J.; Johnston, R.D.; Sheppard, J.M. Muscular Strength and Power Correlates of Tackling Ability in Semiprofessional Rugby League Players. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2015, 29, 2071–2078. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Lazzer, S.; Bedogni, G.; Agosti, F.; De Col, A.; Mornati, D.; Sartorio, A. Comparison of dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry, air displacement plethysmography and bioelectrical impedance analysis for the assessment of body composition in severely obese Caucasian children and adolescents. Br. J. Nutr. 2008, 100, 918–924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  49. Lozano Berges, G.; Matute Llorente, A.; Gomez Bruton, A.; Gonzalez Aguero, A.; Vicente Rodriguez, G.; Casajus, J.A. Body fat percentage comparisons between four methods in young football players: Are they comparable? Nutr. Hosp. 2017, 34, 1119–1124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  50. Raymond, C.J.; Dengel, D.R.; Bosch, T.A. Total and Segmental Body Composition Examination in Collegiate Football Players Using Multifrequency Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis and Dual X-ray Absorptiometry. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2018, 32, 772–782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Vicente-Rodriguez, G.; Rey-Lopez, J.P.; Mesana, M.I.; Poortvliet, E.; Ortega, F.B.; Polito, A.; Nagy, E.; Widhalm, K.; Sjostrom, M.; Moreno, L.A.; et al. Reliability and intermethod agreement for body fat assessment among two field and two laboratory methods in adolescents. Obesity 2012, 20, 221–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Delaney, J.A.; Thornton, H.R.; Scott, T.J.; Ballard, D.A.; Duthie, G.M.; Wood, L.G.; Dascombe, B.J. Validity of Skinfold-Based Measures for Tracking Changes in Body Composition in Professional Rugby League Players. Int. J. Sports Physiol. Perform. 2016, 11, 261–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Alvero-Cruza, J.R.; Correas Gómez, L.; Ronconia, M.; Fernández-Vázqueza, R.; Porta i Manzañido, J. La bioimpedancia eléctrica como método de estimación de la composición corporal, normas prácticas de utilización. Rev. Andal. Med. Deporte 2011, 4, 167–174. [Google Scholar]
Figure 1. Somatochart of rugby players including both sexes and positions.
Figure 1. Somatochart of rugby players including both sexes and positions.
Applsci 11 11759 g001
Figure 2. Bland-Altman graph of the fat mass percentage in women.
Figure 2. Bland-Altman graph of the fat mass percentage in women.
Applsci 11 11759 g002
Figure 3. Bland-Altman graph of the fat mass percentage in men.
Figure 3. Bland-Altman graph of the fat mass percentage in men.
Applsci 11 11759 g003
Figure 4. Bland-Altman graph of the muscle mass percentage in women.
Figure 4. Bland-Altman graph of the muscle mass percentage in women.
Applsci 11 11759 g004
Figure 5. Bland-Altman graph of the muscle mass percentage in men.
Figure 5. Bland-Altman graph of the muscle mass percentage in men.
Applsci 11 11759 g005
Table 1. Height, weight and body mass index in rugby players of both sexes according to position.
Table 1. Height, weight and body mass index in rugby players of both sexes according to position.
VariableSexPositionp-Value Sexp-Value Positionp-Value Sex·Position
Backs (n: 46)Forwards (n: 54)
Height (m)Male1.78 ± 0.07 *1.82 ± 0.05 *<0.0010.0300.980
Female1.62 ± 0.05 *1.66 ± 0.08 *
Weight (kg)Male80.1 ± 8.7 *100.1 ± 11.2 *<0.001<0.0010.452
Female57.5 ± 6.2 *73.5 ± 10.7 *
Body mass index (kg·m−2)Male25.6 ± 3.1 *30.3 ± 3.9 *<0.001<0.0010.955
Female21.7 ± 2.0 *26.7 ± 4.0 *
Data presented as M ± SD * Statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) according to sex for the same position; λ Statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) according to position within the same sex.
Table 2. Body composition in rugby players of both sexes according to position.
Table 2. Body composition in rugby players of both sexes according to position.
VariableSexPositionp-Value Sexp-Value Positionp-Value Sex·Position
Backs (n: 46)Forwards (n: 54)
% Body fat anthropometry Male14.9 ± 4.1 *17.8 ± 6.8 *0.0010.0090.518
Female18.7 ± 1.9 *23.5 ± 4.8 *
% Body fat BIAMale16.4 ± 7.4 λ21.0 ± 7.7 λ0.2030.0190.652
Female18.4 ± 7.5 λ25.2 ± 12.2 λ
Fat mass anthropometry (Kg)Male12.4 ± 3.8 λ18.0 ± 7.5 λ0.275<0.0010.780
Female11.4 ± 2.1 λ16.2 ± 6.1 λ
Fat mass BIA(Kg)Male12.4 ± 5.7 λ21.1 ± 8.7 λ0.959<0.0010.844
Female12.6 ± 3.1 λ20.6 ± 9.0 λ
Muscle mass anthropometry (Kg)Male37.6 ± 3.4 *42.4 ± 4.5 *<0.001<0.0010.219
Female27.1 ± 2.5 *29.8 ± 3.7 *
Muscle mass BIA(Kg)Male39.5 ± 4.5 *44.5 ± 4.2 *<0.001 in Forwards
<0.001 in Backs
0.183 in Female
<0.001 in Male
Female26.6 ± 1.5 *28.5 ± 4.4 *
% Body lean mass anthropometry Male45.8 ± 3.241.6 ± 9.40.0590.7480.644
Female44.4 ± 1.241.8 ± 3.9
% Body lean mass BIAMale48.1 ± 4.5 *45.4 ± 4.4 *<0.001 0.1450.671
Female39.7 ± 14.1 *34.8 ± 14.2 *
Body lean mass anthropometry (Kg)Male69.6 ± 5.7 *79.8 ± 7.2 *<0.001<0.0010.059
Female49.4 ± 3.7 *54.3 ± 7.1 *
Body lean mass BIA(Kg)Male57.0 ± 26.0 *73.1 ± 19.8 *<0.0010.0240.279
Female35.2 ± 22.1 *40.9 ± 22.0 *
Data presented as M ± SD * Statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) according to sex for the same position; λ Statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) according to position within the same sex.
Table 3. Skinfolds in rugby players of both sexes according to position.
Table 3. Skinfolds in rugby players of both sexes according to position.
VariableSexPositionp-Value Sexp-Value Positionp-Value Sex·Position
Backs (n:46)Forwards (n:54)
Triceps skinfold (mm)Male12.2 ± 5.0 *16.9 ± 7.4 λ0.0290.0150.853
Female16.4 ± 4.7 *20.4 ± 6.6
Subscapular skinfold (mm)Male12.1 ± 4.9 λ17.5 ± 9.8 λ0.2310.0050.880
Female9.5 ± 1.9 λ15.5 ± 5.8 λ
Iliac crest skinfold (mm)Male13.5 ± 8.2 λ20.8 ± 10.7 λ0.2680.0200.509
Female12.4 ± 6.216.5 ± 7.5
Abdominal skinfold (mm)Male21.4 ± 10.9 *28.3 ± 10.6 *0.0020.0010.746
Female12.6 ± 3.8 *21.0 ± 6.1 *
Front thigh skinfold (mm)Male16.1 ± 6.720.0 ± 8.7<0.0010.0570.943
Female24.0 ± 7.128.2 ± 7.3
calf skinfold (mm)
Male9.9 ± 6.511.4 ± 5.4 *0.0010.0450.300
Female13.7 ± 3.2 λ18.3 ± 6.4 *
Sum of 6 skinfolds (mm)Male86.5 ± 39.1 λ115.9 ± 41.1 λ0.6050.0280.504
Female98.5 ± 27.9114.3 ± 32.1
Data presented as M ± SD * Statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) according to sex for the same position; λ Statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) according to position within the same sex.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Ramos-Álvarez, J.J.; Montoya, J.J.; Solís-Mencia, C.; Miguel-Tobal, F.; López-Tapia, P.; Sánchez-Oliver, A.J.; Domínguez, R.; Martínez-Sanz, J.M. Anthropometric Profile Assessed by Bioimpedance and Anthropometry Measures of Male and Female Rugby Players Competing in the Spanish National League. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 11759.

AMA Style

Ramos-Álvarez JJ, Montoya JJ, Solís-Mencia C, Miguel-Tobal F, López-Tapia P, Sánchez-Oliver AJ, Domínguez R, Martínez-Sanz JM. Anthropometric Profile Assessed by Bioimpedance and Anthropometry Measures of Male and Female Rugby Players Competing in the Spanish National League. Applied Sciences. 2021; 11(24):11759.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ramos-Álvarez, Juan José, Juan José Montoya, Cristian Solís-Mencia, Francisco Miguel-Tobal, Paola López-Tapia, Antonio Jesús Sánchez-Oliver, Raúl Domínguez, and José Miguel Martínez-Sanz. 2021. "Anthropometric Profile Assessed by Bioimpedance and Anthropometry Measures of Male and Female Rugby Players Competing in the Spanish National League" Applied Sciences 11, no. 24: 11759.

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop