Body Composition in Division I Football Players
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study assessed body composition of Division I football players (n = 69) and compared the findings with previously reported data to ascertain whether the increase in player total body mass that has been observed over the past 10 years has been accompanied by an increase in body fat. Body composition was determined by hydrostatic weighing and the measurement of skinfold thicknesses. Total body mass, skin-fold thicknesses, and body fat were greater in the current players than in players in studies conducted in the early 1980s and early 1990s. Body fat varied significantly across playing position, with the defensive backs, offensive backs, and receivers being the leanest and the offensive linemen and tight ends the most fat. There was no significant relationship between body composition and playing year or scholarship status, nor were any differences observed between ethnic groups. Of important clinical relevance was the finding that the linemen (offensive, defensive) and tight ends were on average greater than 25% body fat, the borderline for obesity in this age group. Much of this fat was deposited in the abdominal region, a significant finding when one considers the high correlation between abdominal obesity and ischemic heart disease and stroke. The current findings suggest that more attention needs to be given to the nature of the increase in body mass being achieved by today's football player to minimize long-term negative health consequences, and the findings reemphasize the need identified in earlier studies of the importance of detraining programs for these athletes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".