Result

The age-wise distribution of mean somatotype componentsin boys (Table 1) shows that, endomorphy component showed afluctuating pattern with no regular trend from 8 till 18 years of age,and very little differences between each age groups, with an overallincrease of 0.26 units. Mesomorphy component, on the other hand,showed a decreasing trend with a slight fluctuation,with very littlemean differences between each age group, and an overall decreaseof 0.24 units. Ectomorphy showed an increasing trend from 8 till 13years, and a decreasing trend thereafter, with an overall increase of0.41 units. On the whole, the somatotype component rating of the Aoboys was found to be 1.88-3.90-3.67, where, mesomorphy showed thehighest value, and endomorphy the lowest.

Table 1: Age-wise distribution of mean somatotype components.

The age-wise distribution of mean somatotype components ingirls (Table 1) shows that, endomorphy showed lower values duringthe younger age groups from 8 till 12 years, and became higher withthe advancement of age in a fluctuating pattern. An overall increaseof 1.66 units from 8 to 18 years was noticed. On the other hand,mesomorphy did not show much change with age, with an overallincrease of 0.13 units. Ectomorphy was noticed to be higher duringthe younger age groups from 8 till 12 years, and lower during 13 till18 years, and the trend showed a fluctuating pattern. There was anoverall decrease of 1.01 units from 8 to 18 years. On the whole, thesomatotype component rating of the Ao girls was found to be 3.11-3.50-3.09, where, mesomorphy and ectomorphy components werefound to have the highest and lowest values respectively.

Figures 1 and 2 presents the age-wise somatotype componentvariation in boys and girls respectively. As seen in Figure 1,endomorphy showed minor values compared to mesomorphy andectomorphy at all the age groups in boys. Mesomorphy showedhigher values than ectomorphy at 8, 9, 10, and 18 years of age, andsimilar values during 11 to 17 years of age. Among girls (Figure 2),endomorphy showed lower values from 8 till 13 years, and highervalues from 14 till 18 years. On the other hand, mesomorphy andectomorphy components showed similar values from 8 till 13 years,and mesomorphy showed higher values thereafter.

Figure 1: Age-wise mean somatotype component variation in boys.

Figure 2: Age-wise mean somatotype component variation in girls.

Table 2 presents the age-wise comparison of the mean somatotype components in boys and girls. As seen from the table, no statistically significant difference was noticed in mean somatotypes between any of the age groups compared in boys. The age change in meansomatotype component ratings at 8 and 18 years in boys (Figure 3)also showed that, the somatotype components had similar values withno significant differences.

Table 2: Age-wise comparison of the mean somatotype components in boys and girls.

Figure 3: Age changes (8&18 years) in mean somatotype component ratings in boys.

Further, girls showed statistically significant differences inboth endomorphy and ectomorphy components according to age.The differences were noticed between the age groups of 12 and13 years (t=2.44, p< 0.05) and 13 and 14 years (t=4.10, p< 0.05) forendomorphy component, and between 13 and 14 years (t=2.14,p< 0.05) for ectomorphy component (Table 2). The age change in mean somatotype component ratings at 8 and 18 years in girls (Figure 4) showed that, endomorphy and ectomorphy components weresignificantly higher at 18 and 8 years respectively, and mesomorphycomponent showed similar values at both the age groups.

Figure 4: Age changes (8&18 years) in mean somatotype component ratings in girls.

Thus, from the above finding, it can be noted that, bothendomorphy and ectomorphy components were the main source ofsomatotype variations with regard to age in girls. Among boys, therewas no statistically significant difference noticed in the somatotypecomponents with regard to age.

Table 3 shows the age-wise comparison between boys and girls somatotype components. Remarkable differences were noticed in the somatotype components between boys and girls, more so within theendomorphy component. The endomorphy values were significantlyhigher among girls at all the age groups except during 9 years ofage. The values of the mesomorphy component were closer betweenboth sexes, although, at all ages, boys presented higher values inmesomorphy, and the statistically significant differences were noticedat 8, 9, 10, and 14 years. As for ectomorphy component, girls showedhigher values from 8 till 10 years, with a significant difference during8 years, and boys had higher values thereafter, with a significantdifference during 13 till 18 years of age. The overall perusal of table3 reveals that, the statistically significant differences in somatotypecomponents between boys and girls were seen to be highest inendomorphy component, followed by ectomorphy component mostly among the older age groups, and finally the mesomorphy component among the younger age groups.

Table 3: Age-wise sex comparison in somatotype components.

The total frequency and percentage of boys and girls in varioussomatotype categories at all age groups combined (Table 4) shows that, the distribution of somatotype categories was more in girls than in boys. The maximum and minimum number of boys fell inmesomorph-ectomorph (34.41%) and mesomorphic endomorph(0.25%) categories respectively. As for girls, maximum number ofthem fell in mesomorph-endomorph category (18.91%) althoughthe margin was close to central type (18.39%), and minimumnumber of them fell in endomorphic ectomorph category (1.04%).A statistically significant difference (χ2 =232.06, p< 0.05) was noticed in the distribution of somatotype categories between boys and girls.

Table 4: Total frequency and percentage of boys and girls in various somatotype categories.

Discussion

The present study showed a clear age-related change of meansomatotype components among Ao girls, and only minor changeswere evident among the boys. This finding was in consonance with various other studies conducted in different parts of the country[13,14]. Endomorphy and ectomorphy components contributedin girls, more so through endomorphy component in the presentstudy, where, endomorphy was found to be higher among the olderage groups and increased as the age advanced in a slight fluctuation.Ectomorphy component, on the other hand, tended to decreaseamong the older children. The decrease of the third component(ectomorphy) in late adolescence may be related not only to thedevelopment and widening of the skeleton, but also to the increase infat that takes place at these ages [15]. Furthermore, in the present study,there was a gradual decrease in the mesomorphic component with theadvancement of age, and the younger boys had higher mesomorphiccomponent than the older boys. The higher mesomorphy componentamong the younger age groups did not mean that the younger oneswere more muscular than the older ones, but partly because of the factthat mesomorphy was adjusted for height [13].

The remarkable sexual dimorphism revealed in the presentstudy with regard to somatotype components was in consonancewith several other studies [16-18]. The Ao boys presented a higher value in mesomorphy component than girls, which showed a greater musculo-skeletal development of boys. According to Carter and Heath, girls were more endomorphic and less mesomorphic than boys, because of the hormonal changes that brought about an increase of subcutaneous fat in girls. And though there may also bean increase in fatness among boys, secretion of androgens stimulates musculoskeletal development and, consequently, the mesomorphyincreases [1990]. The significantly higher mean ectomorphy in Aoboys during the older age groups delineates that boys had more linearphysique than girls during the older age groups. Succinctly, the Aoboys had lower mean endomorphy, and higher mean mesomorphyand ectomorphy than their female counterparts.

The distribution of somatotype categories revealed a dominantmuscular component with only marginally lower linear componentamong the Ao boys. The girls, on the other hand, had all the threecomponents well distributed with slight muscular componentdominant. The slightly higher mesomorphic ratings among theAo children could be attributed to physical activity includinghouseholdchores, which was found to be very common among thispopulation. Various other studies confirm the present study, where,apositive association was noticed between mesomorphic componentand physical activity [19,20].

BMI, which was used to assess the nutritional status of the childrenin the present study revealed that both underweight and overweightcoexisted, although the prevalence of underweight was significantlyhigher. Under nutrition among children and adolescents is a seriouspublic health problem internationally, especially in developingcountries [21]. The high prevalence of underweight among children inthe present study could be due to the imbalance between diet neededfor proper growth and regular energy expenditure through physicalactivity. Other studies also showed that low-fat diets and regularphysical activity contributed to weight loss and weight maintenance[22]. Also, the high prevalence of underweight among Ao childrencould be attributed to family income group, where, most of thechildren belonged to low income group (51.73% in boys and 59.07%in girls), without proper nutrients required for a proper body growth.Poor environmental conditions such as poor housing and hygienicconditions, unsafe drinking water, heavy workloads, lack of preventiveand control measures of locally endemic diseases and infections,have been found to be the causes of under nutrition in various otherstudies, which were the common characteristics of population groupsbelonging to low socio-economic strata of the society especially indeveloping countries [23,24]. On the other hand, the prevalence ofoverweight among children in the present study could be attributedto the reduction in energy expenditure accompanied by an increasein energy intake, which was in agreement with several other studies[25,26].

The significantly higher prevalence of overweight among Aochildren with higher endomorphy and mesomorphy componentsdepicts that, increase in endomorphy and mesomorphy componentswere a risk factor having predisposition toward certain diseases.Thesignificant positive association between somatotype components andBMI was also found in various other studies [27,28].