Postgraduate student I.D. Kharisov¹
Dr.Biol., Associate Professor A.V. Nenasheva¹
PhD, Associate Professor A.S. Aminov¹
S.V. Korneeva^1
1South Ural State University (SRU), Chelyabinsk

Keywords: students, body-building, powerlifting, workout, comparative analysis, physical development, body composition, anthropometric measurements, sport qualifications, body proportions.

Introduction. Lately, there has been an increasing interest among the rising generation in building an athletic and beautiful body. The most simple and affordable way to improve health, develop strength and stability, as well as develop an athletic physique and keep fit is to do body-building [7]. Therefore, its various types, such as body-building, powerlifting and the recently appeared street workout, are getting more and more popular [2, 5, 7].

Any physical exercise is known to develop both physical qualities and skills. Thus, powerlifting for the most part develops physical qualities (strength, speed), while workout is mainly oriented to improve skills (resistance, balance, motor coordination) since it involves more technically complex exercises [3, 4, 8].

Objective of the study was to conduct a comparative analysis of the physical development specifics in young students specializing in street workout and powerlifting sports.

Methods and structure of the study. Subject to the study were 18-22 year-old qualified student-athletes (n=20) of different skill levels specializing in workout and powerlifting sports. Class II-III athletes formed the low-skilled (LS) group, Class I athletes, Candidate Masters and Masters of Sport of Russia formed the group of highly-skilled (HS) athletes. The survey was conducted at the premises of the Research Center of Sports Science, South Ural State University. The study data were obtained by the bodily anthropometric measurements and body composition assessment by Tanita Test system. The level of harmonic muscular development was evaluated based on the ideal proportion chart by Joe Weider [1].

Results and discussion. The young males’ body composition analysis results are presented in Table 1. Analysis of the data obtained showed that the HS athletes specializing in workout and powerlifting slightly differ from the LS athletes in most of indicators. However, unlike the LS workouters, the HS subjects had significantly lower body fat percentage (%) and mass (kg) in right arm (p<0.05), while the HS powerlifters had significantly lower trunk fat mass (kg) (p<0.05), unlike the LS powerlifters. In general, with the growth of sports skills, body weight (kg), body mass index (BMI) (kg/m²), basal metabolism rate (BMR) (kcal) and total body water (kg) increased in both the powerlifting and workout groups. The increasing body weight (kg) and body mass index (kg/m²) can be explained by the sport-skills-growth-related increase of muscle mass (kg) and total body water (kg), which affects the athletes’ total weight. The increasing basal metabolism (kcal) and total body water (kg) rates are associated with the increasing training load and nutritional habit. When analyzing the data obtained, it is conspicuous that, with the growth of sport skills, the body fat percentage in the workout group decreases versus an increase in the powerlifting group mainly due to an increase in the body fat percentage in the legs. The LS powerlifters, in contrast to the LS and HS workouters, have statistically significant differences (p<0.05) in almost all parameters with an increasing tendency.

As seen from Table 1, the powerlifting group (LS+HS) demonstrated significantly higher results (p<0.01) in all tests than the workout group (LS+HS). The comparative analysis of the body composition of the workout and powerlifting groups has not found any deviations from the norm in terms of all studied parameters, except for the body mass index in the powerlifters (the excess was registered in both low-skilled and highly-skilled athletes). In general, it can be said that workout practices, in addition to muscle mass gains, lead to a decrease in the body fat percentage, which indicates a well-developed body, which cannot be said about the powerlifting group, as with the muscle mass gain their body fat percentage increases, and the average body mass index equals 25.235±0.67 (kg/m²), which is deemed as overweight (pre-obesity). The analysis of the anthropometric measurements in the workout group revealed that, with the growth of their sport skills, both bicep relaxed and flexed girth increases (p<0.01), as well as the wrist strength and chest proportionality (p<0.05), but at the same time, their calf and thigh girth slightly change.

This is due to almost lacking leg-muscle-building exercises in street workouts. It should also be noted that waist girth and shoulder width do not change with the growth of sport skills in the workout group. The workout group has strong physique, and their strength improves significantly as their sport skills grow (p<0.05).

In the powerlifting group, the following indicators increased statistically significantly with the growth of sport skills: chest girth (p<0.05), bicep relaxed and flexed girth (p<0.001), left wrist strength (p<0.05). Powerlifters have a well-developed chest and their muscles develop significantly with the growth of their skills (p<0.05); they have a very strong physique, which also improves as their sport skills grow (p<0.01).

It was found that the LS powerlifters, in contrast to the LS and HS workouters, have statistically significant differences in the thigh girth (p<0.05) with an increasing tendency. It was also found that the HS powerlifters statistically significantly exceed the HS workouters in most anthropometric measurements: chest girth (p<0.05); bicep flexed girth (p<0.05); calf girth (p<0.001); thigh girth (p<0.001); waist girth (p<0.01); shoulder width (p<0.01); Erisman index (p<0.05); Pignet index (p<0.01); body-weight ratio (p<0.01). But at the same time, the HS powerlifters, as opposed to the HS workouters, are significantly inferior in terms of the right arm strength (p<0.05). As a whole, the powerlifting group surpasses the workout group in the majority of anthropometric measurements. However, the workout group has higher left and right hand strength rates (p<0.05).

The analysis of the level of harmonious muscular development in the workout group showed that bicep to chest, waist to chest girth (p<0.05), shoulder width to waist girth, bicep to thigh girth (p<0.001), bicep to waist girth (p<0.01) ratios are getting closer to the ideal shape with the growth of their sport skills. At the same time, due to underdeveloped calf muscles, the workout group does not have ideal calf to bicep girth (p<0,05), calf to thigh and calf to waist girth.

In the powerlifting group, the following body proportions are getting closer to the ideal shape with the growth of sport skills: bicep to chest girth, waist to chest girth (p<0.001), calf to bicep girth (p<0.01), bicep to waist girth (p<0.001), calf to waist girth ratios. But at the same time, as powerlifters’ skills grow, an insufficiently slim waist results in a disproportion in the shoulder width to waist  ratio (p<0.05) and thigh to waist girth ratio (p<0.01).

Note. Significance of differences in mean values: * – HS versus LS (p<0.05), ^ – LS (P) versus LS (W) (p<0.05), ^^ – HS (P) versus HS (W) (p<0.05), # – LS (P) versus HS (W) (p<0.05), ° – P versus W (LS+HS) (p<0.01).