Scaling physiological measurements for individuals of different body size

  • Alan M. Nevill
  • Roger Ramsbottom
  • Clyde Williams


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.

Key words

Ratio standards Physiological capacity Performance capacity Experimental design effects Log-linear models 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Astrand P-O, Rodahl K (1986) Textbook of work physiology, 3rd edn. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. Baker RJ, Nelder JA (1978) Generalized linear interactive modelling, release 3. Numerical Algorithms Group, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  3. Holmyard DJ, Chia YHM, Lakomy HKA, Nevill ME (1991) Effects of training on treadmill sprinting and recovery. J Sports Sci 9: 417–418Google Scholar
  4. Katch VL (1972) Correlation v ratio adjustment of body weight in exercise-oxygen studies. Ergonomics 15: 671–680Google Scholar
  5. Katch VL (1973) Use of the oxygen/body weight ratio in correlational analyses: spurious correlations and statistical considerations. Med Sci Sports Exerc 5: 253–257Google Scholar
  6. Katch VL, Katch FI (1974) Use of weight-adjusted oxygen uptake scores that avoid spurious correlations. Res Q 4: 447–451Google Scholar
  7. Kleiber M (1950) Physiological meaning of regression equations. J Appl Physiol 2: 417–423Google Scholar
  8. McMahon TA (1984) Muscles, reflexes and locomotion. Princeton University Press, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  9. Minitab Reference Manual (1989) Minitab Inc. 3081, Enterprise Drive, State Collage, PA 16801, USAGoogle Scholar
  10. Nevill AM, Ramsbottom R, Williams C (1990) The relationship between athletic performance and maximal oxygen uptake. J Sports Sci 8: 290–292Google Scholar
  11. Nevill AM, Ramsbottom R, Williams C, Winter EM (1991) Scaling physiological performance measurements for individuals of different body size. J Sports Sci 9: 427–428Google Scholar
  12. Ribisl PM, Kachadorian WA (1969) Maximal oxygen intake prediction in young and middle aged males. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 9: 17–22Google Scholar
  13. Schmidt-Nielsen K (1984) Scaling: why is animal size so important? Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  14. Secher N (1990) Rowing. In: Reilly T, Sencher N, Snell P, Williams CE, Spoon FN (eds) Physiology of sports. Chapman and Hall, London, pp 259–286Google Scholar
  15. Secher N, Vaage O, Jensen K, Jackson RC (1983) Maximal aerobic power in oarsmen. Eur J Appl Physiol 51: 155–162Google Scholar
  16. Tanner JM (1949) Fallacy of per-weight and per-surface area standards and their relation to spurious correlations. J Appl Physiol 2: l-15Google Scholar
  17. Taylor HL, Buskirk E, Henschel A (1955) Maximum oxygen intake as an objective measure of cardiorespiratory performance. J Appl Physiol 8: 73–80Google Scholar
  18. Williams C, Nute MLG (1983) Some physiological demands of a half-marathon race on recreational runners. Br J Sports Med 17: 152–161Google Scholar
  19. Winer BJ (1971) Statistical principles in experimental design. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. Winter EM, Brookes FBC, Hamley EJ (1991) Maximal exercise performance and lean leg volume in men and women. J Sports Sci 9: 3–13Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alan M. Nevill
    • 1
  • Roger Ramsbottom
    • 2
  • Clyde Williams
    • 3
  1. 1.School of Sport and Exercise SciencesUniversity of BirminghamBirminghamEngland
  2. 2.Department of Sports StudiesRoehampton InstituteLondonEngland
  3. 3.Department of Physical Education and Sports ScienceUniversity of TechnologyLoughboroughEngland

Personalised recommendations