Skip to main content
Log in

Scaling physiological measurements for individuals of different body size

  • Published:
European Journal of Applied Physiology and Occupational Physiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Summary

This paper examines how selected physiological performance variables, such as maximal oxygen uptake, strength and power, might best be scaled for subject differences in body size. The apparent dilemma between using either ratio standards or a linear adjustment method to scale was investigated by considering how maximal oxygen uptake (1·min−1), peak and mean power output (W) might best be adjusted for differences in body mass (kg). A curvilinear power function model was shown to be theoretically, physiologically and empirically superior to the linear models. Based on the fitted power functions, the best method of scaling maximum oxygen uptake, peak and mean power output, required these variables to be divided by body mass, recorded in the units kg2/3. Hence, the power function ratio standards (ml·kg−2/3·min−1) and (W·kg−2/3) were best able to describe a wide range of subjects in terms of their physiological capacity, i.e. their ability to utilise oxygen or record power maximally, independent of body size. The simple ratio standards (ml·kg−1·min−1) and (W·kg−1) were found to best describe the same subjects according to their performance capacities or ability to run which are highly dependent on body size. The appropriate model to explain the experimental design effects on such ratio standards was shown to be log-normal rather than normal. Simply by taking logarithms of the power function ratio standard, identical solutions for the design effects are obtained using either ANOVA or, by taking the unscaled physiological variable as the dependent variable and the body size variable as the covariate, ANCOVA methods.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Astrand P-O, Rodahl K (1986) Textbook of work physiology, 3rd edn. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker RJ, Nelder JA (1978) Generalized linear interactive modelling, release 3. Numerical Algorithms Group, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Holmyard DJ, Chia YHM, Lakomy HKA, Nevill ME (1991) Effects of training on treadmill sprinting and recovery. J Sports Sci 9: 417–418

    Google Scholar 

  • Katch VL (1972) Correlation v ratio adjustment of body weight in exercise-oxygen studies. Ergonomics 15: 671–680

    Google Scholar 

  • Katch VL (1973) Use of the oxygen/body weight ratio in correlational analyses: spurious correlations and statistical considerations. Med Sci Sports Exerc 5: 253–257

    Google Scholar 

  • Katch VL, Katch FI (1974) Use of weight-adjusted oxygen uptake scores that avoid spurious correlations. Res Q 4: 447–451

    Google Scholar 

  • Kleiber M (1950) Physiological meaning of regression equations. J Appl Physiol 2: 417–423

    Google Scholar 

  • McMahon TA (1984) Muscles, reflexes and locomotion. Princeton University Press, New Jersey

    Google Scholar 

  • Minitab Reference Manual (1989) Minitab Inc. 3081, Enterprise Drive, State Collage, PA 16801, USA

    Google Scholar 

  • Nevill AM, Ramsbottom R, Williams C (1990) The relationship between athletic performance and maximal oxygen uptake. J Sports Sci 8: 290–292

    Google Scholar 

  • Nevill AM, Ramsbottom R, Williams C, Winter EM (1991) Scaling physiological performance measurements for individuals of different body size. J Sports Sci 9: 427–428

    Google Scholar 

  • Ribisl PM, Kachadorian WA (1969) Maximal oxygen intake prediction in young and middle aged males. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 9: 17–22

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt-Nielsen K (1984) Scaling: why is animal size so important? Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Secher N (1990) Rowing. In: Reilly T, Sencher N, Snell P, Williams CE, Spoon FN (eds) Physiology of sports. Chapman and Hall, London, pp 259–286

    Google Scholar 

  • Secher N, Vaage O, Jensen K, Jackson RC (1983) Maximal aerobic power in oarsmen. Eur J Appl Physiol 51: 155–162

    Google Scholar 

  • Tanner JM (1949) Fallacy of per-weight and per-surface area standards and their relation to spurious correlations. J Appl Physiol 2: l-15

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor HL, Buskirk E, Henschel A (1955) Maximum oxygen intake as an objective measure of cardiorespiratory performance. J Appl Physiol 8: 73–80

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams C, Nute MLG (1983) Some physiological demands of a half-marathon race on recreational runners. Br J Sports Med 17: 152–161

    Google Scholar 

  • Winer BJ (1971) Statistical principles in experimental design. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Winter EM, Brookes FBC, Hamley EJ (1991) Maximal exercise performance and lean leg volume in men and women. J Sports Sci 9: 3–13

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Nevill, A.M., Ramsbottom, R. & Williams, C. Scaling physiological measurements for individuals of different body size. Europ. J. Appl. Physiol. 65, 110–117 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00705066

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00705066

Key words

Navigation