Anthropometric Profile In Mexican Female College Indoor Soccer Players According To Playing Position
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Body size, shape and composition are considered contributors to success in some sports. Analysis of playing position is important because differences in the physiological and metabolic demands may suggest the presence of different anthropometric characteristics. PURPOSE: To compare the anthropometric profile depending on playing position in Mexican female college indoor soccer players. METHODS: We recruited 25 female indoor soccer players (20 ± 2 years) from a university's representative team. Anthropometric measurements were taken by certified personnel following the ISAK procedure. Then, we calculated the following variables: 1) the sum of six skinfolds (triceps, subscapular, supraspinale, abdominal, front thigh, and calf); 2) the arm relaxed, thigh and calf circumferences corrected for the triceps, frontal thigh and calf skinfolds, respectively (circumference-(skinfold in cm*π)); 3) body fat using Withers equation; 4) fat mass index and fat-free mass index from the ratio of fat mass and fat-free mass divided by the height squared (kg/m2), respectively; and 5) Somatotype employing Heath-Carter's method. The T and Mann-Whitney U tests for independent samples were used to compare variables according to playing position as Defensive (DF): goalkeeper and defender; and Offensive (OF): midfielder and forward. RESULTS: Participants' weight, height, and body mass index were (mean ± SD): 63.8 ± 10.9 and 59.2 ± 9.6 kg; 162.1 ± 3.5 and 161.8 ± 7.7 cm; 24.2 ± 3.8 and 22.6 ± 3.8 kg/m2 for DF and OF, respectively (all p > 0.05). The anthropometric profile scores are shown in the Table. No statistically significant differences were found between DF and OF on the variables studied (all p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: We found that the anthropometric profile did not differ by playing position. However, the grouping may have hidden possible differences. Results can be taken as a reference, especially for under-reported variables like body composition indexes and the sum of skinfolds. - Table. Anthropometric profile in the participants according to playing position Variablea Defensive (n = 14) Offensive (n = 11) p Sum of skinfolds (mm)bc 94.3 (83.8 - 127.9) 74.3 (66.7 - 97.1) 0.222 Corrected arm relaxed circumference (cm) 22.5 ± 2.3 21.8 ± 2.8 0.496 Corrected calf circumference (cm)b 31.3 (29.7 - 31.9) 31.8 (27.6 - 32.8) 0.826 Corrected thigh circumference (cm)b 45.1 (43.0 - 48.0) 45.8 (41.9 - 47.0) 0.702 Body fat (kg) 15.1 ± 5.0 12.4 ± 4.6 0.170 Body fat (%) 23.2 ± 4.3 20.4 ± 4.9 0.153 Fat mas index (kg/m2)b 5.1 (4.4 - 7.4) 4.5 (3.2 - 5.3) 0.228 Fat-free mass index (kg/m2) 18.4 ± 2.1 17.8 ± 2.0 0.483 Endomorphy 4.9 ± 1.5 4.3 ± 1.6 0.423 Mesomorphy 4.4 ± 1.3 3.4 ± 1.4 0.100 Ectomorphy 1.5 ± 1.2 2.1 ± 1.4 0.235 a: All data were expressed as mean ± standard deviation, and compared between groups with T-test for independent samples, unless otherwise is stated. b: Data expressed as median (25th - 75th percentile) and compared between groups with Mann- Whitney's U test. c: Triceps, subscapular, supraspinale, abdominal, front thigh, and calf.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".