2007, Piran, Slovenia
2007, Piran, Slovenia 2007, Piran, Slovenia
Environmental Ergonomics XII Igor B. Mekjavic, Stelios N. Kounalakis & Nigel A.S. Taylor (Eds.), © BIOMED, Ljubljana 2007 472 ASSESSMENT OF MALE ANTHROPOMETRIC TRENDS AND THE EFFECTS ON THERMAL REGULATORY MODELS Miyo Yokota, Gaston P Bathalon and Larry G Berglund U.S. Army Research Institute of Environmental Medicine, Natick, MA, USA Contact person: Miyo.Yokota@na.amedd.army.mil INTRODUCTION Over the past 20 years, the trend towards excessive body weight and obesity among adults has become epidemic in the United States (2). To combat this issue, the U.S. Army established incremental age categories for weight-for-height requirements for Soldiers (4). If a Soldier’s body weight exceeds the specified limits within his or her age category, body fat percentage (%BF) must be measured. Soldiers who exceed their %BF standard are enrolled in the Army Weight Control Program (3). Assessing the trends of body composition and dimensions in U.S. Army populations is important because body measurements affect Soldiers’ health, fitness, performance, and safety in the work place (8). This study investigates temporal differences of body dimensions in U.S. Army male Soldiers, by comparing 2004 and 1988 anthropometric databases (1,5). In addition, the effects of the anthropometric changes on individual thermal physiological responses to a heat stress were evaluated by a thermal regulatory model (9) METHODS The height, weight, and %BF of male volunteers with self-reported race/ethnicity from the 2004 database (n = 480) were compared with those from the 1988 database (n = 1773) (1,5). Trained anthropometrists measured volunteers consistent with Army Regulation (3). Body fat was estimated from neck and abdominal circumference measurements using the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) %BF equation (3). Anthropometric distributions in the two datasets were compared using analysis of variance and principal component analysis (PCA). PCA provides the best representations of multivariate data in simpler dimensions, by transforming linear orthogonal axes (eigenvectors) and maximizing variation (eigenvalues) of the data. The multivariate distribution using PCA was identified with two ellipses representing the majority 90% of the two populations. The influence of individual anthropometric variations on responses to heat stress predicted by a thermoregulatory model (9) were also addressed. The simulated heat stress challenges consisted of: non-acclimatized individuals, carrying a 12 kg load, wearing battle dress uniform (BDU) and body armor, having rested for 30 min, and walking at 3 mph for 70 min in 35ºC/50%rh. The anthropometric effects on core temperatures (Tcr) were predicted. RESULTS The anthropometric characteristics of the male Soldiers in the 1988 and 2004 databases are summarized in Table 1. The acceptance range of measurement errors according to interobserver error standards (6) is also included. On average, a 2.3 kg increase in weight was observed in the 2004 data. Small increases in height (0.6 cm), BMI (0.6 kg/m 2 ) and neck circumference (0.4 cm), and slight decreases in BF (0.8%) and abdominal circumference (0.4 cm) were observed. Although these changes were small, analysis of variance indicated the differences in height, BMI, body surface, and neck circumference between the 1988 and 2004 populations were significant. However, the small differences between the two populations were within the acceptance range of measurement error magnitudes (7).
Modelling Table 1. Descriptive summary of male anthropometrics and tolerance values of inter-observer errors based on 1988 and 2004 populations Anthropometric variables Database Inter-observer error range 1988 2004 n 1773 480 Age (yr) 29 (7) 28 (8) N/A Height (cm) 175.9 (6.6) 176.5 (7.3)* 1.1 Weight (kg) 79.3 (3.0) 81.6 (12.2)* 0.3 Body Mass Index 25.6 (3.0) 26.2 (3.6)* N/A Body fat (%) 18.5 (5.5) 17.7 (6) N/A Body surface (m 2 ) 1.95 (0.15) 1.98 (0.16)* N/A Neck circumference (cm) 38.1 (2.0) 38.5 (2.3)* 0.6 Abdominal circumference (cm) 87.6 (8.7) 87.2 (9.2) * 1.2 N/A: not available; anthropometric values: mean (standard deviation). *statistical difference between the 1988 and 2004 database at p
- Page 421 and 422: Acute and chronic heat exposure 30%
- Page 423 and 424: Acute and chronic heat exposure REF
- Page 425 and 426: RADIANT FLOW THROUGH BICYCLE HELMET
- Page 427 and 428: Figure 2. Difference in heat transf
- Page 429 and 430: Manikins DEVELOPMENT OF A LYING DOW
- Page 431 and 432: IT = 6.45( _ ,Tsk - _ ,Tair)/(Q/A)
- Page 433 and 434: Manikins cases. If the body is even
- Page 435 and 436: Heat balance components 100% 80% 60
- Page 437 and 438: Manikins clothing system. This effe
- Page 439 and 440: Manikins The coupled system was val
- Page 441 and 442: Manikins A NOVEL APPROACH TO MODEL-
- Page 443 and 444: Manikins THERMAL MANIKIN EVALUATION
- Page 445 and 446: SR (g/min) Figure 2. Predictive mod
- Page 447 and 448: ESTIMATION OF COOLING EFFECT OF ICE
- Page 449 and 450: Manikins Figure 3: Comparison among
- Page 451 and 452: Manikins EVALUATION OF THE ARMY BOO
- Page 453 and 454: Ty [Nm] 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 5 10
- Page 455 and 456: Manikins different black 100% cotto
- Page 457 and 458: Manikins REFERENCES Bogerd, C.P., H
- Page 459 and 460: Modelling RESULTS From this kind of
- Page 461 and 462: Modelling (T , T , V& , ) = 1. 0 +
- Page 463 and 464: NORMALIZED CVCL 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 M
- Page 465 and 466: Modelling illustrated in Figure 1.
- Page 467 and 468: Modelling MODELLING PATIENT TEMPERA
- Page 469 and 470: Modelling Figure 1: Blood and mean
- Page 471: Modelling simulations the additiona
- Page 475 and 476: Modelling concomitant increase in b
- Page 477 and 478: Modelling REFERENCES 1. U.S. Depart
- Page 479 and 480: Modelling from the 1988 population.
- Page 481 and 482: Modelling somatotypes in multivaria
- Page 483 and 484: Modelling Each scan data was first
- Page 485 and 486: Modelling The line through the data
- Page 487 and 488: Hip( width) −Waist ( width ) HW
- Page 489 and 490: Modelling measurements are extracte
- Page 491 and 492: Measurement methods not included in
- Page 493 and 494: Measurement methods humidity. The o
- Page 495 and 496: Measurement methods DISCUSSION Base
- Page 497 and 498: Air film Skin surface Skin layer δ
- Page 499 and 500: Measurement methods and calculated
- Page 501 and 502: Rectal temperature ( o C) 39.5 39.0
- Page 503 and 504: Measurement methods work rates, and
- Page 505 and 506: Measurement methods HUMIDEX: CAN TH
- Page 507 and 508: Measurement methods highlighted. In
- Page 509 and 510: Invited presentation Universal Ther
- Page 511 and 512: Universal Thermal Climate Index dat
- Page 513 and 514: Universal Thermal Climate Index DYN
- Page 515 and 516: Universal Thermal Climate Index DIS
- Page 517 and 518: Universal Thermal Climate Index COM
- Page 519 and 520: Skin temperature (°C) Universal Th
- Page 521 and 522: Universal Thermal Climate Index PRO
Environmental Ergonomics XII<br />
Igor B. Mekjavic, Stelios N. Kounalakis & Nigel A.S. Taylor (Eds.), © BIOMED, Ljubljana <strong>2007</strong><br />
472<br />
ASSESSMENT OF MALE ANTHROPOMETRIC TRENDS AND THE<br />
EFFECTS ON THERMAL REGULATORY MODELS<br />
Miyo Yokota, Gaston P Bathalon and Larry G Berglund<br />
U.S. Army Research Institute of Environmental Medicine, Natick, MA, USA<br />
Contact person: Miyo.Yokota@na.amedd.army.mil<br />
INTRODUCTION<br />
Over the past 20 years, the trend towards excessive body weight and obesity among adults has<br />
become epidemic in the United States (2). To combat this issue, the U.S. Army established<br />
incremental age categories for weight-for-height requirements for Soldiers (4). If a Soldier’s<br />
body weight exceeds the specified limits within his or her age category, body fat percentage<br />
(%BF) must be measured. Soldiers who exceed their %BF standard are enrolled in the Army<br />
Weight Control Program (3). Assessing the trends of body composition and dimensions in<br />
U.S. Army populations is important because body measurements affect Soldiers’ health,<br />
fitness, performance, and safety in the work place (8). This study investigates temporal<br />
differences of body dimensions in U.S. Army male Soldiers, by comparing 2004 and 1988<br />
anthropometric databases (1,5). In addition, the effects of the anthropometric changes on<br />
individual thermal physiological responses to a heat stress were evaluated by a thermal<br />
regulatory model (9)<br />
METHODS<br />
The height, weight, and %BF of male volunteers with self-reported race/ethnicity from the<br />
2004 database (n = 480) were compared with those from the 1988 database (n = 1773) (1,5).<br />
Trained anthropometrists measured volunteers consistent with Army Regulation (3). Body fat<br />
was estimated from neck and abdominal circumference measurements using the U.S.<br />
Department of Defense (DOD) %BF equation (3). Anthropometric distributions in the two<br />
datasets were compared using analysis of variance and principal component analysis (PCA).<br />
PCA provides the best representations of multivariate data in simpler dimensions, by<br />
transforming linear orthogonal axes (eigenvectors) and maximizing variation (eigenvalues) of<br />
the data. The multivariate distribution using PCA was identified with two ellipses<br />
representing the majority 90% of the two populations. The influence of individual<br />
anthropometric variations on responses to heat stress predicted by a thermoregulatory model<br />
(9) were also addressed. The simulated heat stress challenges consisted of: non-acclimatized<br />
individuals, carrying a 12 kg load, wearing battle dress uniform (BDU) and body armor,<br />
having rested for 30 min, and walking at 3 mph for 70 min in 35ºC/50%rh. The<br />
anthropometric effects on core temperatures (Tcr) were predicted.<br />
RESULTS<br />
The anthropometric characteristics of the male Soldiers in the 1988 and 2004 databases are<br />
summarized in Table 1. The acceptance range of measurement errors according to interobserver<br />
error standards (6) is also included. On average, a 2.3 kg increase in weight was<br />
observed in the 2004 data. Small increases in height (0.6 cm), BMI (0.6 kg/m 2 ) and neck<br />
circumference (0.4 cm), and slight decreases in BF (0.8%) and abdominal circumference (0.4<br />
cm) were observed. Although these changes were small, analysis of variance indicated the<br />
differences in height, BMI, body surface, and neck circumference between the 1988 and 2004<br />
populations were significant. However, the small differences between the two populations<br />
were within the acceptance range of measurement error magnitudes (7).