The Relationship Between Body Composition And Y-balance Testing In D2 Collegiate Athletes

Abstract

Listen

Translate article

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to identify if and how body composition plays a role on dynamic balance in collegiate athletes. METHODS: 154 Division II collegiate athletes (mean ± SD; age = 19.81 ± 1.46 years; height = 171.8 ± 11.12 cm; weight = 71.64 ± 14.05 kg) completed paperwork including informed consent, a health history questionnaire, and PARQ. Participants completed a dynamic warm-up on a stationary bicycle followed by the Y-Balance testing. Participants completed a maximal reach (cm) in three directions; anterior (AR), posterior lateral (PLR), and posterior medial (PMR) for right (RL) and left (LL) legs. Participants maintained single leg balance while reaching far as possible with the other leg for three trials in each direction. The furthest reach for each direction was used for data analysis. Body composition was assessed using Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis (BIA). Participants gripped the BIA handles allowing transfer of electrical signal from the BIA to the participant. Measures included body fat percentage (BFP), body fat mass (BFM), and fat free mass (FFM). Using SPSS, Pearson R-correlations were used to analyze relationships between balance measures and body composition measures with a p-value set at p < 0.05. RESULTS: There was a negative, weak, significant correlation between RLAR and BFM. (p = .041, r = -.171). There were a negative, weak, significant correlation between RLPMR and BFP (p = .006, r = -.227) but a positive, weak, significant correlation between RLPR and fat free mass (p = .001, r = .267). There was a negative, weak, significant correlation between LLAR and BFM (p = .007, r = -.224) and a negative, weak, significant correlation between LLAR and BFP (p = .002, r = -.258). There was a negative, weak, significant correlation between LLPLR and BFP (p = .030, r = -.181) but a positive, small, significant correlation between LLPLR and FFM. (p = .024, r = .189). Lastly, there was a negative, weak, significant correlation between LLPMR and BFP (p = .010, r = -.213) but a positive, weak, significant correlation between LLPMR and FFM (p = .000, r = .288). There were no significant correlations between all other correlations. CONCLUSIONS: Overall higher body fat has detrimental influence on balance; however, further research should investigate the extent to which fat free mass could benefit balance.