Next Article in Journal
Classification of Artificial Gear Damage by Angle Measurement Utilizing the Gear Wheel as a Material Measure
Previous Article in Journal
ROSE-BOX: A Lightweight and Efficient Intrusion Detection Framework for Resource-Constrained IIoT Environments
Previous Article in Special Issue
Human Performance and Health in Sport and Exercise
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Applied Sciences
Volume 15
Issue 12
10.3390/app15126450
applsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Anthropometric Profile, Body Composition and Somatotype of Elite ILCA 7 Class Sailors—Differences Across General Competitive Success Levels

by
Luka Pezelj
1,*,
Jan G. Bourgois
2,3,
Mirjana Milić
4,
Josip Maleš
4 and
Israel Caraballo
5
1
Faculty of Maritime Studies, University of Split, 21000 Split, Croatia
2
Sport Science Laboratory Jacques Rogge, Department of Movement and Sports Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Ghent University, Watersportlaan 2, 9000 Ghent, Belgium
3
Centre of Sports Medicine, Ghent University Hospital, Corneel Heymanslaan 10, 9000 Ghent, Belgium
4
Faculty of Kinesiology, University of Split, 21000 Split, Croatia
5
Department of Physical Education, Faculty of Education Sciences, University of Cadiz, 11519 Puerto Real, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Appl. Sci. 2025, 15(12), 6450; https://doi.org/10.3390/app15126450
Submission received: 18 January 2025 / Revised: 21 May 2025 / Accepted: 27 May 2025 / Published: 8 June 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Human Performance and Health in Sport and Exercise)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

Setting up anthropometric profiles for elite athletes in each sport, sport discipline, or specific sport positions could be a key element of sport selection processes. The main purpose of this study was to determine the anthropometric characteristics, body composition, and somatotype profiles of elite international ILCA 7 class sailors and to determine the differences contributing to different levels of competitive success. The subject sample included 97 elite ILCA 7 class sailors. A set of 25 anthropometric variables was applied. The sailors were divided into three groups according to their level of general competitive success according to the World Sailing Rankings. Differences between elite ILCA 7 sailors, separated into Higher, Medium, and Lower groups based on their success, were found in terms of age, body mass, muscle mass, trunk muscle mass, leg muscle mass, biepicondilar humerus width, sum of skinfolds, triceps skinfold, supraspinale skinfold, medial calf skinfold, and endomorphy rating. The most successful group of sailors was, on average, 4.9 years older than the least successful group. More highly successful sailors were also found to have an average of 2.73 kg more muscle mass but an 8.81 mm lower sum of skinfolds than those in the lower success group. Considering the average values of somatotype categories, ILCA 7 sailors fit the endomorphic–mesomorph somatotype category (3.23 ± 0.99–4.81 ± 0.90–2.25 ± 0.86). This research clearly identifies the anthropometric profile of elite ILCA 7 sailors, which can significantly contribute to a more informed choice of sailing class. Given the results of this research, current ILCA 7 sailors can easily compare their own anthropometric parameters with elite ILCA 7 sailors and eventually adjust their training process to obtain a more desirable anthropometric profile.

1. Introduction

Athletes, coaches, and sports scientists are interested in the structure and function of the human body, especially in relation to athletic performance. The physical and physiological characteristics of elite athletes are very different between different sports, sports disciplines, and specific sports positions. Certain physiques are found more often in some high-performance sports (or disciplines) and specific sports positions than others. In this context, anthropometry is important and is often included as a tool to aid understanding of the relationship between body structure and performance [1].
Olympic sailing is a multifaceted sport where numerous factors, such as boat handling, technical and tactical skills, and physical and physiological characteristics, determine performance. Sailing has a long Olympic history (since 1900, except for 1904), and the importance of physical and physiological characteristics for this sport has increased due to a higher international competition level, but also as a consequence of the changes in sailing classes and racing format made by World Sailing after each Olympic cycle [2,3]. Sailing at the Paris 2024 Olympics consisted of 10 events, covering six yacht classes (single- or double-handed crew; gender) and comprising a total of 10 sailor positions/functions, each requiring specific physical and physiological characteristics. A sailor’s anthropometric profile is one of the criteria employed in selecting a sailing class, since optimal anthropometric requirements differ between yacht classes [4]. Some studies have shown that a high level of performance in Olympic sailing is generally associated with greater body mass, stature, and femur length [5,6,7]. When sailing, the sailor uses their body as a lever to control the boat and to increase an up-righting moment, as sideways wind forces acting on the sails cause a leeward tilting moment on the boat [2,7]. Sailors may perform this technical gesture for up to 94% of their total sailing time [8].
The ILCA 7 dinghy is one of the Olympic yacht classes, making its Olympic debut as a monohull in Atlanta 1996. It is considered one of the most physically and mentally demanding single-handed classes in the world. Dinghy sailors need to carefully control the balance of the boat in continuously varying wind and wave conditions. The technique involving ILCA 7 sailors sitting on the deck and leaning over the side to create an up-righting moment through a windward displacement of the ensemble center of gravity of the boat and sailor is a characteristic movement, known as hiking [9]. Based on the sailor-to-yacht weight ratio, a classification system for Olympic sailors was introduced to simplify monitoring of physical requirements [2]. ILCA 7 sailors are identified as dynamic side deck hikers because they hike in a very dynamic way due to a high sailor-to-yacht weight ratio [2]. The righting moment that is generated while hiking is a function of the sailor’s body weight and their position relative to the centerline of the boat (i.e., body height). In this context, anthropometric characteristics, body composition, and the somatotype of an ILCA 7 sailor are very important determinants of ILCA 7 sailing success. Size is only an advantage if extra weight does not add more to the resistance of the yacht than it contributes to the propulsive forces of the dinghy.
The changes that occur in the context of sports give rise to a constant evolution of ideal anthropometric characteristics. It is therefore essential that the reference databases are kept up to date. The relationship between sports performance and anthropometric characteristics, including body composition and somatotype, has been the subject of study in a number of different sports disciplines [10,11,12,13,14,15,16]. Regarding the ILCA 7 sailing class, previous studies provide only limited information about the anthropometric characteristics of elite sailors [11,17,18,19,20,21]. A detailed analysis of the anthropometric characteristics, body composition, and somatotype of a large elite cohort of ILCA 7 sailors has not yet been conducted.
Therefore, this study aims to (1) quantify the anthropometric characteristics, body composition, and somatotype of international elite ILCA 7 class sailors, and (2) determine the differences in anthropometric profiles across general competitive levels.

2. Methods

2.1. Sample and Study Design

The anthropometric characteristics, body composition, and somatotype of 97 elite ILCA 7 class sailors (mean chronological age: 22.95 ± 3.40 years, varying from 17.15 to 32.55 years) were measured before the start of the ILCA 7 World Championship (IWC), 2017, in Split, Croatia. The competition included 147 sailors. The 97 sailors who participated in the study represented 66% of the total number of participants in the competition. The IWC was the most important competition for ILCA 7 sailors in 2017, including the best-ranked sailors in the world, among whom were the Olympic, world, and continental medal winners. Therefore, based on training and performance, participants in this study can be categorized as World Class and International Elite level (Trier 5 & 4), according to the Participation Classification Framework of McKay et al. (2022) [22].
All sailors participated in the study voluntarily. Participants were provided with detailed information about all experimental procedures, and written informed consent was obtained prior to their participation. The study was approved by the Scientific Committee of the Faculty of Kinesiology in Split and conducted with the support of the Executive Committee of the ILCA Association. The study met the requirements of the Declaration of Helsinki (1964) and the ethical standards of sports and exercise research.
All measurements were performed by a well-trained expert anthropometrist, assisted by a recorder who was also familiar with the anthropometric techniques, in the morning hours before the first training session in the week before the competition. For all measurements, the subjects wore dry underwear and were barefoot. All measurements were conducted within 30 min for each sailor.
The sailors were divided into three groups according to their level of general competitive success: more successful (1), medium successful (2), and less successful (3) groups. We determined this competitive success criterion from the ranking in the World Sailing Rankings (WSR). The WSR is formed by collecting the points from the six most successful competitions for each sailor in the 12 months from the publication of the table. For this study, we used the WSR table for the ILCA 7 class published on 04 September 2017, the last one before the IWC started. The group of sailors with a higher level of general success (1) included the subjects ranked among the first 30 sailors according to the WSR (N = 15), the group of sailors with a medium level of general success (2) included the subjects ranked from the 31st to the 60th place of the WSR (N = 20), and the group of sailors with a lower level of general success (3) included the subjects ranked lower than the 61st place of the WSR (N = 62). The threshold values for the groups were determined in collaboration with coaching experts and elite sailors.

2.2. Anthropometric Measures, Body Composition, and Somatotype

The measuring techniques were mainly based on the procedures and batteries of measurements used and described in previous studies by Pezelj et al. (2016; 2024) [17,18].
All anthropometric measurements were conducted following the International Society for the Advancement of Kinanthropometry (ISAK) protocol [23] on the dominant side of the body, as suggested in the original instructions for using the Heath–Carter method for somatotype calculation [24]. The following anthropometric dimensions were measured: (1) Length development: stature and sitting height; (2) Breadth development: biepicondylar humerus width and biepicondylar femur width; (3) Muscle development: upper arm girth flexed and tensed and calf girth; (4) Fat development: triceps skinfold, subscapular skinfold, supraspinale skinfold and medial calf skinfold.
Bioelectric impedance analysis (BIA) is a rapid and non-invasive method for evaluating body composition. Bioimpedance measurements were performed using a Tanita BC-418 (Tanita Corp., Tokyo, Japan) device, which uses a constant current source with a high-frequency current (50 kHz, 90 µA), following the recommendations given by Kyle et al. [25]. BIA was used to determine the following body composition measures: body mass, fat range, muscle mass, trunk muscle mass, arms muscle mass, legs muscle mass, fat mass, trunk fat mass, arms fat mass, and legs fat mass. The BIA measurement was taken when subjects were barefoot and only wearing dry underwear. All jewelry, watches, or any other pieces of clothing were removed. The GMON software was used to conduct measurements where the “body type” value was set for all subjects to “sports mode,” and the “clothing weight” value was set to 0.0 kg.
Based on the anthropometric measurements and BIA measures, body mass index and sum of skinfolds were calculated, and somatotype (endomorphy, mesomorphy, and ectomorphy) was determined in accordance with the Heat–Carter method [24]. Cut-off values for the endomorphy rating were set from 0.5 to 16, for the mesomorphy rating from 0.5 to 12, and for the ectomorphy rating from 0.5 to 9 [26].

2.3. Statistical Analysis

Data analysis included the calculation of basic statistical indicators: mean, standard deviation, median, minimum value, maximum value, and determination of measures of sensitivity of result distribution: skewness, kurtosis, and maximum distance between relative cumulative theoretical frequency (normal) and relative cumulative empirical frequency (obtained by measuring). The results of the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test of the observed variables indicated that neither of the variables exceeds the cut-off value of this test, which is 0.14 for the observed sample. These findings indicated that the variables did not deviate significantly from a normal distribution and that all variables were suitable for further parametric statistical analysis. The differences between groups of sailors were determined using a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). Further, post hoc analyses of differences between the three groups of ILCA 7 sailors were made using Fisher’s LSD test. To determine the effect sizes of the differences found, squared eta (η2) coefficients were calculated and interpreted according to the criterion of Gamst et al. (2008) [27]. Data were analyzed using the STATISTICA software package (ver. 14.00).

3. Results

Table 1 presents descriptive indicators of all the measured variables: arithmetic mean, standard deviation, median, and minimum and maximum results. The sensitivity analysis was based on coefficients of asymmetry and peakedness of distributions, whereas the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test was used to test the normality of distributions.
Coefficients of asymmetry for variables subscapular skinfold and supraspinale skinfold indicate a slightly positive asymmetry. Coefficients of peakedness indicate a somewhat lower sensitivity of the legs fat mass and subscapular skinfold variables. Although the kurtosis and skewness values indicate a weak sensitivity of the aforementioned variables used, the KS test found that there is no significant deviation from the normal distribution.
Table 2 presents the descriptive parameters (arithmetic means and standard deviations), results of univariate analysis of differences (ANOVA; coefficient of analysis of variance and significance of differences), and results of the post-hoc analysis of differences carried out using Fisher’s LSD test (significance of differences).
Significant differences in arithmetic means between the three groups of elite sailors according to the general competitive success criterion were found for age, body mass, muscle mass, trunk muscle mass, leg muscle mass, biepicondilar humerus width, sum of skinfolds, triceps skinfold, supraspinale skinfold, medial calf skinfold and endomorphy rating between the groups of elite sailors according to the general competitive success criterion.
Post-hoc analysis revealed significant differences between groups of sailors at different levels of general competitive success in the variables age (higher vs. medium and higher vs. lower), body mass (higher vs. lower and medium vs. lower), muscle mass (higher vs. lower and medium vs. lower), trunk muscle mass (higher vs. lower and medium vs. lower), arm muscle mass (medium vs. lower), legs muscle mass (higher vs. lower and medium vs. lower), biepicondilar humerus width (higher vs. lower), sum of skinfolds (higher vs. lower and medium vs. lower), triceps skinfold (higher vs. lower and medium vs. lower), supraspinale skinfold (medium vs. lower), medial calf skinfold (higher vs. lower), and endomorphy rating (higher vs. lower and medium vs. lower).
The effect size of these differences was high for the variable age, moderate for the variables muscle mass, trunk muscle mass, legs muscle mass, sum of skinfolds and triceps skinfold, and low for body mass, biepicondilar femur width, supraspinale skinfold, medial calf skinfold, and endomorphy rating.
Table 3 presents the classification of the ILCA 7 sailors according to the somatotype category. The frequency and percentage of each somatotype category were calculated for the total sample.
Out of the 13 possible somatotype categories, elite ILCA 7 sailors fit eight. Just over 75% of the total sample of elite sailors fit the somatotype categories with the dominant mesomorphic component, 41.24% of which fit the endomorphic mesomorph category.
Figure 1 depicts a graphic representation of the somatotype ratings of ILCA 7 class sailors divided into three groups according to their level of general competitive success: higher level (square), medium level (rhomb), and lower level (triangle).

4. Discussion

Olympic sailing is a multifaceted sport for which body size and mass are criteria for selecting an Olympic sailing class and are undoubtedly performance-related factors. However, scientific literature on anthropometrical data, body composition, and the somatotype of elite sailors is scarce. In this context, this study of World Class and International Elite level (Trier 5 & 4) ILCA 7 sailors produced two major findings: (a) for the first time, the anthropometric profile, body composition, and somatotype of 97 elite ILCA 7 class sailors have been determined, and (b) significant differences between more, medium, and less-successful elite ILCA 7 sailors have been found in terms of their anthropometric parameters, body composition, and somatotype.

4.1. ILCA 7 Sailors Anthropometric Parameters and Body Composition Comparison to Previous ILCA 7 Findings

Many studies have reported at least some of the anthropometric parameters of ILCA 7 sailors [19,20,28,29,30,31,32,33]. The mean values for the stature of ILCA 7 sailors are within ±1 cm of the measurements for our international elite sample. This is particularly interesting because the previous studies are not homogeneous in terms of the age and level of sailing performance of ILCA 7 sailors. Almost all identical mean values for body mass (81.18–81.88 kg) were found in scientific literature that analyzed sailors who participated in the Olympic Games [28,29,31,32]. On the other hand, a range of 76.26–78.60 kg in body mass values was found in studies that analyzed national elite-level sailors [19,20,28,30]. Similar values for body mass index, like those in this research, are reported in the literature [29,31], but also somewhat lower values in the range of body mass index 23.01–23.70 kg/m2 have been reported [20,21,28].
As far as the authors are aware, only two scientific papers have analyzed the anthropometric profile of ILCA 7 sailors more extensively, but on a relatively small sample of national-level sailors (N = 7 and 9) [19,20]. Croatian ILCA 7 sailors had similar values for stature; smaller values for body mass, sitting height, body mass index, upper arm girth flexed, and tensed, and calf girth; but higher values for biepicondilar humerus width and biepicondilar femur width [20]. Spanish ILCA 7 sailors showed similar values for body mass and upper arm girth flexed and tensed, smaller values for calf girth, and higher values for stature, biepicondilar humerus width, and biepicondilar femur width.
Although body composition results obtained using different methods are difficult to compare, they will be presented in this paper informatively. Our study determined a fat range of 10.99 ± 3.57% and a muscle mass of 68.43 ± 3.57 kg (BIA). Manzanares et al. (2023) reported for six elite sailors an average muscle mass of 68.07 kg and a fat range of 14% [29]. In Croatian ILCA 7 sailors, fat ranges of 10.19% (Heath–Carter method) and 15.16% (Durnin–Wormesley method) were reported, depending on the method used [20], and Spanish ILCA 7 sailors showed a fat range of 13.9% (Heath–Carter method) [19].

4.2. ILCA 7 Sailors Anthropometric Parameters and Body Composition Comparison to Other Sailing Class Sailors’ Parameters

As is the case for the ILCA 7 class, detailed anthropometric studies on sailors in any Olympic or other sailing classes are lacking.
The ILCA 6 dinghy is an Olympic class only for women, but also a developmental class for younger male sailors. The ILCA 6 dinghy uses the same hull but a more flexible and slightly shorter lower mast, with a sail area 18% smaller than that of the ILCA 7. Fifteen ILCA 6 male sailors (18.01 yrs) showed smaller values for stature, sitting height, body mass, body mass index, upper arm girth flexed and tensed, and calf girth [20] compared to our ILCA 7 male sailors. The same differences were found in ILCA 6 female sailors, with smaller values for stature, body mass, and body mass index in elite- [19,29,31] or national-level [21,28] ILCA 6 female sailors.
The 470 is a double-handed Olympic class where the helmsman is classified as a side-deck hiker—just like an ILCA 7 sailor—and the crew are characterized as trapeze sailors [2]. 470 sailors (helmsman and crew) have smaller body mass and body mass index values. Smaller values for stature were found in helmsmen, while similar stature values were determined in the crew [21,28,31,34]. The 49er is also a double-handed Olympic class, but none of the crew is categorized as a side-deck hiker. Anthropometric values for a 49er helmsman are lower for stature, body mass, and body mass index in all analyzed research, but results are not homogeneous for crew members. The anthropometric values of a 49er crew vary from 178 to 190.6 cm in stature and 76.3 to 85.3 kg in body mass, while body mass index is similar to that of ILCA 7 sailors [19,28,31]. Nacra 17 is a double-handed Olympic class that has to be sailed as a man and woman pair, where both helmsman and crew are trapeze sailors. Smaller values of stature, body mass, and body mass index have been determined in Nacra 17 helmsmen, and smaller values of body mass and body mass index and higher values of stature have been determined in Nacra 17 crew [31].
More detailed anthropometric research was conducted on Finn class sailors [17,18,35]. The Finn class is the former Olympic heavyweight single-handed dinghy (i.e., an Olympic Class until 2021) and—similar to the ILCA 7 class—is a “classic” dinghy where the helmsman can be classified as a side deck hiker [2]. The main difference between the ILCA 7 and the Finn class is the weight of the hull and the almost 30% bigger sail area of the Finn class dinghy. Compared to ILCA 7 sailors, who are dynamic side deck hikers due to the high sailor-to-yacht weight ratio, Finn sailors are classified as static side deck hikers due to a low sailor-to-yacht weight ratio [2]. Given the above context, it is not surprising that Finn sailor have greater values for all anthropometric and body composition values (stature, body mass, body mass index, fat range, muscle mass, trunk muscle mass, arms muscle mass, legs muscle mass, fat mass, trunk fat mass, arms fat mass, legs fat mass, biepicondilar humerus width, biepicondilar femur width, upper arm girth flexed and tensed, calf girth, sum of skinfolds, triceps skinfold, subscapular skinfold, supraspinale skinfold and medial calf skinfold) compared to ILCA 7 sailors [17,18,35].

4.3. ILCA 7 Sailors Somatotype

The lack of scientific research on the body structure of ILCA 7 sailors is also evident with respect to somatotype. Both studies that determined somatotype and this study found that the mesomorphic component is a dominant feature in ILCA 7 sailors [19,20]. The somatotype category “endomorphic mesomorph” was found across Spanish ILCA 7 sailors [19], while Croatian ILCA 7 sailors were classified as “balanced mesomorph” [20].
In our study, more than 75% of elite ILCA 7 sailors have a dominant mesomorphic somatotype component and can be categorized as “endomorphic mesomorph” somatotypes. Similar distributions were also observed in elite Finn class sailors [18]. Generally, the mesomorphic component is dominant for sailors in all sailing classes where somatotype was calculated: Finn [18,19], ILCA 6 [20], Formula [11], Optimist [36], RSX [19], and Olympic classes 470 & 49er [19]. The endomorphic mesomorph somatotype is common to ILCA 7 and Finn class sailors [18], while the balanced mesomorph somatotype is more common in ILCA 6, Formula, and 49er classes [11,19,20], and the ectomorphic mesomorph somatotype in RSX and 470 classes [19]. The dominant mesomorphic somatotype component of ILCA 7 sailors could be explained by the theory that size only confers an advantage if extra weight does not add more to the resistance of the yacht than it contributes to the propulsive forces of the dinghy; therefore, optimal leverage (stature) and ballast mass (body mass) are needed to be an efficient ILCA 7 sailor.
A mesomorphic somatotype component is dominant in various high-performance athletes in sports such as soccer [37], rowing [38], table tennis [39], track cyclist [40], canoe and kayak paddlers [15], 100 m sprinters [10,41] track and field [41], swimming [41], and basketball [12]. However, ILCA 7 sailors share the same endomorphic mesomorph somatotype category with sprint-track cyclists [40], rowers [42], kayakers [12], and water polo players [43].

4.4. Differences of ILCA 7 Sailors According to Level of Success

In our study, significant differences were found between the ILCA 7 sailors’ higher, medium, and lower successful groups in terms of age, body mass, muscle mass, trunk muscle mass, legs muscle mass, biepicondilar humerus width, sum of skinfolds, triceps skinfold, supraspinale skinfold, medial calf skinfold and endomorphy rating. However, age was the only variable that differentiated the higher and medium successful groups, while for all other measured variables, the two groups (higher and medium successful) were quite homogeneous. Experience can be a key element of sport excellence, especially in an individual sport such as sailing, where tactics and race anticipation play a decisive role. The fact that in this research, WSR was used as a criterion to classify ILCA 7 sailors can be favorable for the more experienced sailors. WSR takes into account the six best regatta ratings within the last twelve months. It can be assumed that more experienced athletes are able to keep a higher level of performance over a longer period under potentially different environmental race conditions. So, the difference in age between the higher and lower successful groups can be justified by the years of sailing experience. Physical maturity may have also influenced the results, as some sailors included in the study were younger than the typical age at which full physical development is attained. Although the difference in age between the medium and lower successful groups is not significant, it is also very indicative.
The lower successful group of ILCA 7 sailors has smaller values for body mass, muscle mass, trunk muscle mass, and leg muscle mass, and higher values of sum of skinfolds, triceps skinfold, and endomorphy rating compared to the higher and medium successful groups. Similar results have been determined in Finn class sailors [18], and therefore, the same conclusion of the findings could be repeated in the ILCA 7 class. The homogeneity of ILCA 7 sailors in the parameters of longitudinal and transverse skeletal dimensions might reflect the selection process for the sailing class, whereas the determined impact and analyses of differences in the dimensions of soft tissue might reflect an adaptive process [18]. As previously noted, optimal stature appears to be a well-established factor in maximizing leverage efficiency in the ILCA 7 sailing class. Sailors of shorter stature may experience a mechanical disadvantage due to reduced leverage, while taller sailors may benefit from improved leverage but potentially at the cost of increased energy expenditure and a lower muscle mass to body mass ratio. While bone length and width dimensions are not changeable, muscle and fat mass and their distribution are likely to be affected by a long-term build-up training program. It appears to take some time to adapt the body to the more successful ILCA 7 sailor model, which has more muscle mass and a lower endomorphy rating. Additionally, the “adaptation process” may be significantly influenced by nutritional factors and shaped by individual genetic predispositions. Higher values of muscle mass and lower endomorphy ratings have been reported at professional levels compared to the amateur level Formula class sailors [11].

4.5. Limitations of the Study

In this study, only the BIA method was used to analyze body composition. It is well known that hydration levels can significantly influence impedance readings. Dehydration or overhydration can lead to incorrect estimates of fat mass or lean mass. Although the measurement protocol was the same for all sailors, the hydration status was not controlled for by any method. Among the other body composition methods, e.g., Heath–Charter or Durnin–Womersley, BIA was chosen as it is the fastest method for estimating body composition. Given the advancing understanding of body composition, future research should consider integrating a broader set of anthropometric parameters to enhance the accuracy and applicability of various body composition assessment methods.
The group sizes of the sailors, categorized based on overall success in this study, were unequal, which may have influenced the statistical power of the analysis. Although squared eta (η2) coefficients were calculated, alternative methods such as Welch’s ANOVA, which accounts for unequal variances, could also be employed. Where feasible, future research should aim to balance group sizes to improve the robustness of statistical comparisons.
Only anthropometric parameters were assessed, limiting the ability to directly analyze the influence of functional and motor abilities on competitive performance. While morphological variables may offer indirect insights into these influences, a more comprehensive evaluation of performance in sailing requires the inclusion of assessments targeting functional and motor capacities. Although the implementation of such tests prior to major competitions may present challenges, as coaches and athletes may be reluctant to engage in potentially strenuous assessments during critical preparation periods, collaboration among researchers, coaches, athletes, and class officials is essential to explore viable approaches. Incorporating both morphological and functional data could yield valuable insights, with substantial implications for the development of specific sailing classes and the enhancement of performance within the sport more broadly.
Age and training history may confound the analysis; therefore, it is advisable to include additional demographic data, such as sailing history (e.g., previously sailed classes, years spent in the specific sailing class, etc.), as well as non-sailing fitness information, including types of cross-training activities and other relevant pursuits that could influence anthropometric parameters.
The World Sailing Ranking (WSR) serves as a general indicator of sailing performance, representing a composite measure of performance over a two-year period in the ILCA 7 class. Unlike the outcome of a single regatta, the WSR is less susceptible to situational variables such as wind speed, water conditions, and other environmental factors that may dominate during a specific competition week. Nevertheless, it remains important to examine potential differences in morphological characteristics across varying levels of situational competitive success. Any study focused on a single regatta would inherently be influenced by the aforementioned environmental variables, and its findings should be interpreted in the context of prevailing wind conditions and other relevant race parameters.

5. Conclusions

The anthropometric profile, body composition, and somatotype of world-class and elite international ILCA 7 sailors have been defined, and differences between sailors of different levels of success were determined. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study included the largest cohort of international elite ILCA 7 sailors or sailors of any other Olympic sailing class.
Although anthropometric measures, body composition, and somatotype provide valuable information about the optimal profile of elite ILCA 7 sailors, body structure profiling is not complete without the determination of functional and motor abilities. Thus, future studies on elite ILCA 7 sailors should focus on the relationship between body structure and function.
The WSR can be seen as a measure of general sailing success. Its strength is that it is less dependent on situational “on water” conditions, such as wind speed, sea state, and other environmental conditions that were dominant during a specific competition. However, it is advisable that similar research could be replicated, considering results from a single competition, and hopefully analyzing and considering sailing performance under different wind conditions.
The present study can help coaches and young sailors in the process of choosing the ideal sailing class. In the sport of sailing, there are many sailing classes, and six of them are in the Olympic program. Choosing the ideal sailing class that best fits the athlete’s anthropometric profile could be a crucial first step in a sailor’s career. This research clearly determines the anthropometric profile, body composition, and somatotype of elite ILCA 7 sailors, which can significantly contribute to a more informed choice of sailing class. Given the results of this research, current ILCA 7 sailors can easily compare their own anthropometric parameters with elite ILCA 7 sailors and eventually adjust the training process to obtain a more desirable anthropometric profile.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, L.P., J.G.B. and M.M.; methodology, L.P., J.G.B. and M.M.; field research, L.P., M.M. and J.M.; writing—original draft preparation, L.P., J.G.B., M.M., J.M. and I.C.; visualization, L.P. and J.G.B.; writing—review and editing, L.P., J.G.B., M.M., J.M. and I.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study was conducted in accordance with the general ethical principles of conducting research with human participants and approved by the Scientific Committee and by the Dean of the Faculty of Kinesiology, University of Split (4 September 2017). 2181-205-01-1-17-054.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding authors.

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge the support and help of the International Laser Class Association and the Sailing Club Mornar, Split.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Bourgois, J.; Claessens, A.L.; Vrijens, J.; Philippaerts, R.; Van Renterghem, B.; Thomis, M.; Janssens, M.; Loos, R.; Lefevre, J. Anthropometric characteristics of elite male junior rowers. Br. J. Sports Med. 2000, 34, 213–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Bojsen-Møller, J.; Larsson, B.; Magnusson, S.P.; Aagaard, P. Yacht type and crew-specific differences in anthropometric, aerobic capacity, and muscle strength parameters among international Olympic class sailors. J. Sports Sci. 2007, 25, 1117–1128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Tan, B.; Aziz, A.R.; Spurway, N.C.; Toh, C.; Mackie, H.; Xie, W.; Wong, J.; Fuss, F.K.; Teh, K.C. Indicators of maximal hiking performance in Laser sailors. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 2006, 98, 169–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Plyely, M.J.; Davis, G.M.; Shepard, R.J. Body Profile of Olympic Class Sailors. Phy. Sport. 1985, 13, 152–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. De Vito, G.; Di Filippo, L.; Felici, F.; Marchetti, M. Hiking Mechanics in Laser Athletes. Med. Sci. Res. 1993, 21, 859–860. [Google Scholar]
  6. Allen, J.B.; De Jong, M.R. Sailing and sports medicine: A literature review. Br. J. Sports Med. 2006, 40, 587–593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Caraballo, I.; González-Montesinos, J.L.; Alías, A. Performance factors in dinghy sailing: Laser class. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Heal. 2019, 16, 4920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Legg, S.J.; Miller, A.B.; Slyfield, D.; Smith, P.; Gilberd, C.; Wilcox, H.; Tate, C. Physical Performance of Elite New Zeland Olympic Class Sailors. J. Sports Med. Phys. Fit. 1997, 37, 41–49. [Google Scholar]
  9. Bourgois, J.G.; Dumortier, J.; Callewaert, M.; Celie, B.; Capelli, C.; Sjøgaard, G.; De Clercq, D.; Boone, J. Tribute to Dr Jacques Rogge: Muscle activity and fatigue during hiking in Olympic dinghy sailing. Eur. J. Sport Sci. 2017, 17, 611–620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Barbieri, D.; Zaccagni, L.; Babić, V.; Rakovac, M.; Mišigoj-Duraković, M.; Gualdi-Russo, E. Body composition and size in sprint athletes. J. Sports Med. Phys. Fit. 2017, 57, 1142–1146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Cortell-Tormo, J.; Pérez-Turpin, J.; Cejuela-Anta, R.; Chinchilla-Mira, J.; Marfell-Jones, M. Anthropometric profile of male amateur vs professional formula windsurfs competing at the 2007 European championship. J. Hum. Kinet. 2010, 23, 97–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Gutnik, B.; Zuoza, A.; Zuozienė, I.; Alekrinskis, A.; Nash, D.; Scherbina, S. Body physique and dominant somatotype in elite and low-profile athletes with different specializations. Medicina 2015, 51, 247–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Hébert-Losier, K.; Zinner, C.; Platt, S.; Stöggl, T.; Holmberg, H.-C. Factors that Influence the Performance of Elite Sprint Cross-Country Skiers. Sports Med. 2016, 47, 319–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Sanchez-Munoz, C.; Muros, J.J.; Zabala, M. World and Olympic mountain bike champions anthropometry, body composition, and somatotype. J. Sports Med. Phys. Fit. 2018, 58, 843–851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Coufalová, K.; Busta, J.; Cochrane, D.J.; Bíly, M. Morphological Characteristics of European Slalom Canoe and Kayak Paddlers. Int. J. Morphol. 2021, 39, 896–901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Ginszt, A.; Zieliński, G.; Dolina, A.; Stachyra, E.; Zaborek-Łyczba, M.; Łyczba, J.; Gawda, P.; Ginszt, M. Anthropometric Parameters and Body Composition in Elite Lead Climbers and Boulderers—A Retrospective Study. Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 5603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Pezelj, L.; Marinović, M.; Milavić, B. Morphological Characteristics of Elite U23 Sailors—Finn European Championship, Split 2015. Sport Sci. 2016, 9, 116–120. [Google Scholar]
  18. Pezelj, L.; Milavić, B.; Milić, M. Anthropometric and Somatotype Profile of Elite Finn Class Sailors. J. Funct. Morphol. Kinesiol. 2024, 9, 121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Sanchez, L.R.; Banos, V.M. Anthropometric profile and somatotype of sailors of the spanish pre-olympic sailing team. SPORT TK Rev. Euroam. De Cienc. Del Deporte 2018, 7, 117–122. [Google Scholar]
  20. Marinović, M. Morphological Characteristics of the Seaman in Class Laser and Laser Radial. Hrvat. Športskomed. Vjesn. 2001, 16, 16–20. [Google Scholar]
  21. Pan, D.; Zhong, B.; Guo, W.; Xu, Y. Physical fitness characteristics and performance in single-handed dinghy and 470 classes sailors. J. Exerc. Sci. Fit. 2022, 20, 9–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. McKay, A.K.A.; Stellingwerff, T.; Smith, E.S.; Martin, D.T.; Mujika, I.; Goosey-Tolfrey, V.L.; Sheppard, J.; Burke, L.M. Defining Training and Performance Caliber: A Participant Classification Framework. Int. J. Sports Physiol. Perform. 2022, 17, 317–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Stewart, D.; Marfell-Jones, M.J.; Olds, T.; De Ridder, J.H. International Standards for Anthropometric Assessment; Society for the Advancement of Kinanthropometry (ISAK): Lower Hutt, New Zealand, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  24. Carter, J.E.L. The Heath-Carter Anthropometric Somatotype—Instruction Manual; San Diego State University, Department of Exercise and Nutritional Science: San Diego, CA, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  25. Kyle, U.G.; Bosaeus, I.; De Lorenzo, A.D.; Deurenberg, P.; Elia, M.; Gómez, J.M.; Heitmann, B.L.; Kent-Smith, L.; Melchior, J.-C.; Pirlich, M.; et al. Bioelectrical impedance analysis—Part II: Utilization in clinical practice. Clin. Nutr. 2004, 23, 1430–1453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Carter, J.E.L.; Heath, B. Somatotyping—Development and Applications; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1990. [Google Scholar]
  27. Gamst, G.; Meyers, L.S.; Guarino, A.J. Analysis of Variance Designs: A Conceptual and Computational Approach with SPSS and SAS; Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  28. Pan, D.; Sun, K.; Liu, X. Anthropometric and physiological profiles of highly trained sailors in various positions and level. Sci. Rep. 2024, 14, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Manzanares, A.; Encarnación-Martínez, A.; Chicoy-García, I.; Segado, F. Performance profile of elite ILCA class sailors. Differences between men and women. Arch. de Med. del Deport. 2023, 40, 194–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Cunningham, P.; Hale, T. Physiological responses of elite Laser sailors to 30 minutes of simulated upwind sailing. J. Sports Sci. J. Sports Sci. 2007, 25, 1109–1116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Skrypchenko, S.; Hamad, H.; Joksimović, M.; Singh, R.M.; Yarymbash, K.; Lastovkin, V. Significance of anthropometric characteristics of Olympic sailors and their functional position in boat for relation to racing success. Rev. De Educ. Fisica 2022, 11, 83–102. [Google Scholar]
  32. Zubac, D.; Valić, Z.; Ivančev, V. Setting sail for Paris 2024: Retrospective analysis of world-class ILCA 7 Olympic sailors’ cardiorespiratory fitness (2015–2020). Exp. Physiol. 2024, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Winchcombe, C.; Goods, P.; Binnie, M.; Doyle, M.; Fahey-Gilmour, J.; Peeling, P. Workload demands of laser class sailing regattas. Int. J. Perform. Anal. Sport 2021, 21, 663–678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Sánchez-Oliver, A.J.; Caraballo, I.; Pérez-Bey, A.; Sánchez-Gómez, Á.; Domínguez, R. Anthropometric characteristics of young elite sailors based on performance level. J. Exerc. Sci. Fit. 2022, 21, 125–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Pezelj, L.; Milavic, B.; Erceg, M. Respiratory parameters in elite finn-class sailors. Montenegrin J. Sports Sci. Med. 2019, 8, 5–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Palomino-Martín, A.; Quintana-Santana, D.; Quiroga-Escudero, M.E.; González-Muñoz, A. Incidence of anthropometric variables on the performance of top optimist sailors. J. Hum. Sport Exerc. 2017, 12, 41–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Petri, C.; Campa, F.; Holway, F.; Pengue, L.; Arrones, L.S. ISAK-Based Anthropometric Standards for Elite Male and Female Soccer Players. Sports 2024, 12, 69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Busta, J.; Hellebrand, J.; Kinkorová, I.; Macas, T. Morphological and hand grip strength characteristics and differences between participants of the 2022 world rowing championship. Front. Sports Act. Living 2023, 5, 1115336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Pradas, F.; De La Torre, A.; Carrasco, L.; Muñoz, D.; Courel-Ibáñez, J.; González-Jurado, J.A. Anthropometric Profiles in Table Tennis Players: Analysis of Sex, Age, and Ranking. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Muros-Molina, J.J.; Mateo-March, M.; Zabala, M.; Sánchez-Muñoz, C. Anthropometric differences between world-class professional track cyclists according to speciality (endurance vs. sprint). J. Sports Med. Phys. Fit. 2022, 61, 1481–1488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Stanković, D.; Pavlović, R.; Petković, E.; Raković, A.; Puletić, M. The Somatotypes and Body Composition of Elite Track and Field Athletes and Swimmers. Artic. Int. J. Sports Sci. 2018, 8, 67–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Mikulić, P.; Vučetić, V.; Matković, B.; Oreb, G. Morphological Characterstics and Somatotype of Elite Croatian Rowers. Hrvat. Športskomed. Vjesn. 2005, 20, 15–19. [Google Scholar]
  43. Suárez, M.H.V.; Fiol, C.F.; Suárez, N.R.; Iturriaga, F.M.A.; Valeiras, J.A.A. Características antropométricas, composición corporal y somatotipo en jugadores de élite de waterpolo. Rev. Bras. De Ciências Do Esporte 2010, 32, 184–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Applsci 15 06450 g001
Figure 1. Somatochart.
Figure 1. Somatochart.
Applsci 15 06450 g001
Table 1. Descriptive statistics of anthropometric and somatotype variables of ILCA 7 sailors (N = 97).
Table 1. Descriptive statistics of anthropometric and somatotype variables of ILCA 7 sailors (N = 97).
VariablesMean ± SDMMinMaxSkewKurtMaxD
Age (yrs)22.95 ± 3.4022.2917.1532.550.70−0.120.136
Stature (cm)181.76 ± 5.28182.40167.90194.40−0.22−0.250.08
Sitting height (cm)96.65 ± 3.2796.7088.00105.000.070.050.04
Body mass (kg)80.68 ± 3.8781.4067.1091.40−0.651.990.12
Body mass index (kg/m2)24.40 ± 1.6024.5020.3028.20−0.100.190.07
Fat range (%)10.99 ± 3.5711.202.0018.80−0.06−0.200.04
Muscle mass (kg)68.43 ± 3.7868.4057.0077.10−0.300.350.04
Trunk muscle mass (kg)36.81 ± 2.3336.8030.7042.200.14−0.070.07
Arms muscle mass (kg)8.62 ± 0.658.606.7010.20−0.050.120.06
Legs muscle mass (kg)23.01 ± 1.1723.1019.4025.80−0.431.020.09
Fat mass (kg)8.89 ± 3.028.901.6016.300.07−0.170.05
Trunk fat mass (kg)4.79 ± 2.054.801.3010.300.22−0.440.06
Arms fat mass (kg)0.99 ± 0.281.000.401.800.17−0.140.12
Legs fat mass (kg)3.21 ± 0.843.301.107.100.823.850.10
Biepicondilar humerus width (cm)6.97 ± 0.396.956.007.700.05−0.600.08
Biepicondilar femur width (cm)9.33 ± 0.509.357.9510.65−0.310.450.08
Upper arm girth flexed and tensed (cm)35.69 ± 1.8035.6530.6541.300.130.800.08
Calf girth (cm)38.37 ± 1.5938.2034.0042.65−0.090.140.06
Sum of skinfolds (mm)45.13 ± 12.6444.1021.3085.130.940.960.10
Triceps skinfold (mm)9.31 ± 2.658.904.9018.700.961.110.09
Subscapular skinfold (mm)11.32 ± 3.7010.406.1028.201.955.680.13
Supraspinale skinfold (mm)13.48 ± 5.6512.105.0034.701.151.570.11
Medial calf skinfold (mm)11.02 ± 3.8310.674.2021.900.680.110.07
Endomorphy rating3.23 ± 0.993.031.356.310.780.500.08
Mesomorphy rating4.81 ± 0.904.702.747.560.430.350.08
Ectomorphy rating2.25 ± 0.862.250.564.460.17−0.460.05
Notes: SD—standard deviation, M—median, Min—minimum value, Max—maximum value, Skew—Skewness, Kurt—kurtosis, MaxD—maximum distance between relative cumulative theoretical frequency (normal) and relative cumulative empirical frequency obtained by measuring, and limit value of KS test for N = 97 is 0.14.
Table 2. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) and post-hoc analysis between groups of ILCA 7 sailors’ different levels of general success.
Table 2. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) and post-hoc analysis between groups of ILCA 7 sailors’ different levels of general success.
VariablesLEVEL OF SUCCESSANOVAPost-Hoc LSD Test
(Between Groups)
Higher
(N = 15)		Medium
(N = 20)		Lower
(N = 62)		Fp=p= *
Mean ± SDMean ± SDMean ± SD1–21–32–3
Age (yrs)26.79 ± 2.8923.35 ± 2.8621.89 ± 2.9816.960.0000.0010.0010.06
Stature (cm)182.97 ± 2.89183.09 ± 4.78181.04 ± 5.781.630.200.950.210.13
Sitting height (cm)97.65 ± 3.5696.80 ± 2.8996.36 ± 3.290.970.380.450.170.60
Body mass (kg)82.17 ± 1.6282.14 ± 2.8079.85 ± 4.314.250.020.980.030.02
Body mass index (kg/m2)24.53 ± 0.5524.44 ± 1.1124.35 ± 1.890.080.920.880.700.83
Fat range (%)10.39 ± 3.3410.53 ± 2.8011.29 ± 3.850.590.560.910.390.41
Muscle mass (kg)70.21 ± 3.3770.07 ± 3.1967.48 ± 3.766.080.0030.910.0100.006
Trunk muscle mass (kg)38.03 ± 2.4237.72 ± 2.0736.22 ± 2.206.190.0030.690.0050.010
Arms muscle mass (kg)8.71 ± 0.508.86 ± 0.428.52 ± 0.722.280.110.520.290.047
Legs muscle mass (kg)23.47 ± 0.7523.49 ± 1.1022.74 ± 1.204.810.0100.950.030.011
Fat mass (kg)8.50 ± 2.648.67 ± 2.349.06 ± 3.300.280.760.870.520.62
Trunk fat mass (kg)4.44 ± 2.124.58 ± 1.674.94 ± 2.160.480.620.840.400.50
Arms fat mass (kg)1.05 ± 0.201.02 ± 0.240.98 ± 0.310.450.640.740.380.59
Legs fat mass (kg)3.11 ± 0.493.18 ± 0.623.25 ± 0.970.200.820.810.550.73
Biepicondilar humerus width (cm)7.16 ± 0.337.05 ± 0.436.89 ± 0.373.650.030.360.0140.12
Biepicondilar femur width (cm)9.30 ± 0.519.47 ± 0.439.29 ± 0.511.050.350.330.910.15
Upper arm girth flexed and tensed (cm)35.47 ± 1.4036.00 ± 1.1635.65 ± 2.040.430.650.390.730.45
Calf girth (cm)38.42 ± 1.6538.79 ± 1.7338.23 ± 1.530.960.390.490.670.17
Sum of skinfolds (mm)39.18 ± 10.9040.75 ± 8.8947.99 ± 13.284.790.0100.710.0140.02
Triceps skinfold (mm)8.10 ± 1.988.39 ± 1.929.90 ± 2.834.630.0120.750.020.02
Subscapular skinfold (mm)10.31 ± 2.5410.73 ± 3.6811.76 ± 3.911.250.290.740.180.28
Supraspinale skinfold (mm)11.67 ± 4.5511.39 ± 3.8714.59 ± 6.113.520.030.890.070.03
Medial calf skinfold (mm)9.11 ± 3.9810.24 ± 2.6611.74 ± 3.953.560.030.380.020.12
Endomorphy rating2.81 ± 0.852.86 ± 0.753.45 ± 1.044.470.0140.870.020.02
Mesomorphy rating4.82 ± 0.684.98 ± 0.824.76 ± 0.930.440.650.620.810.35
Ectomorphy rating2.23 ± 0.372.26 ± 0.702.25 ± 0.990.010.990.920.940.95
Notes: SD—standard deviation, F—Analysis of variance coefficient, p=—level of statistical significance, p= *—level of statistical significance of Fisher LSD post-hoc test between groups of ILCA 7 sailors with different levels of general success (1-higher, 2-medium, 3-lower), bolded values p < 0.05.
Table 3. Frequency and ratio of somatotype categories of ILCA 7 sailors (N = 97).
Table 3. Frequency and ratio of somatotype categories of ILCA 7 sailors (N = 97).
Somatotype CategoriesFrequencyRatio (%)
Central77.22
Mesomorphic endomorph33.09
Mesomorph-endomorph1010.31
Endomorphic mesomorph4041.24
Balanced mesomorph2323.71
Ectomorphic mesomorph1010.31
Mesomorph-ectomorph33.09
Ectomorphic endomorph11.03
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Pezelj, L.; Bourgois, J.G.; Milić, M.; Maleš, J.; Caraballo, I. Anthropometric Profile, Body Composition and Somatotype of Elite ILCA 7 Class Sailors—Differences Across General Competitive Success Levels. Appl. Sci. 2025, 15, 6450. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15126450

AMA Style

Pezelj L, Bourgois JG, Milić M, Maleš J, Caraballo I. Anthropometric Profile, Body Composition and Somatotype of Elite ILCA 7 Class Sailors—Differences Across General Competitive Success Levels. Applied Sciences. 2025; 15(12):6450. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15126450

Chicago/Turabian Style

Pezelj, Luka, Jan G. Bourgois, Mirjana Milić, Josip Maleš, and Israel Caraballo. 2025. "Anthropometric Profile, Body Composition and Somatotype of Elite ILCA 7 Class Sailors—Differences Across General Competitive Success Levels" Applied Sciences 15, no. 12: 6450. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15126450

APA Style

Pezelj, L., Bourgois, J. G., Milić, M., Maleš, J., & Caraballo, I. (2025). Anthropometric Profile, Body Composition and Somatotype of Elite ILCA 7 Class Sailors—Differences Across General Competitive Success Levels. Applied Sciences, 15(12), 6450. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15126450

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