Table 1.
Comparison of body composition and assessment methods in professional and retired jockeysa
| Study (country) | Participants | Body composition | Assessment method | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number (sex) | Age | Body mass (kg) | Height (cm) | BMI (kg m−2) | Body fat % | Lean mass (kg) | Fat mass (kg) | ∑ of 7 (mm) | ||
| Leydon and Wall [20] (New Zealand) | 6 (m) and 14 (f) flat | 23.5 ± 4.3 (m); 24.5 ± 6.7 (f) | 52.8 ± 2.4 (m); 49.3 ± 3.4 (f) | 162.3 ± 4.4 (m); 156.2 ± 4.0 (f) | 20.1 ± 1.5 (m); 20.2 ± 1.5 (f) | 11.7 ± 2.9 (m); 23.6 ± 3.8 (f) | – | – | – | DXA |
| Wilson et al. [12] (UK) | 8 (m) and 8 (f) flat | 26.0 ± 5.0 (m); 29.0 ± 8.0 (f) | 57 ± 2.1 (m); 57.3 ± 3.5 (f) | 167.0 ± 4.0 (m); 163.0 ± 5.0 (f) | – | 12.5 ± 2.7 (m); 19.5 ± 2.5 (f) | 45.7 ± 1.2 (m), 42.0 ± 3.3 (f) | – | – | DXA |
| Jackson et al. [13] (UK) | 79 (m) and 37 (f) app; 69 (m) con |
18.5 ± 1.9 (m) 19.3 ± 2.0 (f) app; 20.7 ± 2.0 con (m) |
52.9 ± 2.9 (m) 51.6 ± 4.0 (f) app; 63.7 ± 3.6 con (m) |
167.0 ± 6.0 (m) 157.0 ± 5.0 (f) app; 176.0 ± 5.0 con (m) |
19.0 ± 1.4 (m) 20.8 ± 1.7 (f) app; 20.6 ± 1.3 con | 14.6 ± 2.3 (m) 24.4 ± 3.7 (f) app; 15.7 ± 2.7 con | 42.5 ± 2.6 (m), 36.4 ± 2.7 (f) app; 50.7 ± 3.1 con (m) | 7.6 ± 1.3 (m), 12.4 ± 2.4 (f) app; 9.9 ± 1.7 con (m) | – | DXA |
| Wilson et al. [21] (UK) | 32 (m) app | 19.0 ± 1.8 | 56.0 ± 2.9 | 169.0 ± 4.7 | – | – | 45.1 ± 2.6 | 7.2 ± 1.8 | – | DXA |
| Cullen et al. [22] (Ireland) | 18 (m) tra; 8 (m) app | 16.0 ± 1.0 tra; 18.0 ± 1.0 app | 55.7 ± 5.5 tra; 54.9 ± 2.9 app | 167.0 ± 5.0 tra; 169.0 ± 4.0 app | 19.9 ± 1.7 tra; 19.2 ± 1.1 app | 8.1 ± 1.7 tra 7.4 ± 1.3 app | – | – | 45.7 ± 7.5 tra; 42.0 ± 8.0 app |
Skinfold thickness Withers equation |
| Wilson et al. [23] (UK) | 17 (m) app; 14 (m) sen flat | 19.0 ± 2.0 app; 32.0 ± 7.0 sen | 56.2 ± 2.0 app; 56.4 ± 3.0 sen | 170.0 ± 5.0 app; 166.0 ± 5.0 sen | – | 13.7 ± 2.6 app; 12.5 ± 1.9 sen | 46.4 ± 2.0 app; 45.7 ± 3.1 sen | 7.5 ± 1.7 app; 6.8 ± 1.4 sen | – | DXA |
| Labadarios et al. [24] (South Africa) | 93 (m) flat and NH | 27.8 | 52.9 | 160.9 | – | 11.0 | – | – | – | Skinfold thickness |
| Warrington et al. [2] (Ireland) | 17 (m) flat; 10 (m) NH | 26.7 ± 7.6 flat; 28.3 ± 5.3 NH | 53.1 ± 4.1 flat; 66.2 ± 2.9 NH | 160.0 ± 10.0 flat; 173.0 ± 10.0 NH | 19.9 ± 1.3 flat; 22.1 ± 0.8 NH |
DXA: 9.0 ± 2.5 flat; 10.4 ± 4.0 NH SK: 7.9 ± 1.7 flat; 9.9 ± 1.6 NH |
– | – | 44.3 ± 10.2 flat; 56.1 ± 9.4 NH |
DXA and Skinfolds Thickness Withers equation |
| Dolan et al. [1] (Ireland) | 17 (m) flat; 10 (m) NH | 26.7 ± 7.6 flat; 28.3 ± 5.3NH | 53.1 ± 4.1 flat; 66.2 ± 2.9 NH | 167.0 ± 10.0 flat; 173.0 ± 10.0 NH | 19.9 ± 1.3 flat; 22.1 ± 0.8 NH | 9 5 ± 2.5 flat; 10.4 ± 4.0 NH | 49.7 ± 6.2 flat and NH | – | – | DXA |
| Hitchens et al. [25] (Australia) | 7 (m) and 1 (f) app + sen | 28.8 ± 10.1 | 55.1 ± 5.9 | 163.4 ± 7.1 | 20.6 ± 1.6 | 14.0 ± 3.5b | – | – | – | DXA |
| Dolan et al. [11] (Ireland) | 20 (m) flat and NH | 26.0 ± 3.0 | 61.1 ± 5.4 | 170.0 ± 7.0 | 21.4 ± 1.8 | 11.4 ± 5.6 | 52.5 ± 5.2 | 6.8 ± 3.6 | – | DXA |
| Dolan et al. [26] (Ireland) | 14 (m) flat; 16 (m) NH | 25.0 ± 7.0 flat; 24.0 ± 4.0 NH | 54.6 ± 3.6 flat; 64.3 ± 3.3 NH | 165.0 ± 6.0 flat; 172.0 ± 5.0 NH | 20.2 ± 1.6 flat; 21.9 ± 1.2 NH | 8.3 ± 2.9 flat; 13.8 ± 6.0 NH | 49.4 ± 3.8 flat; 53.7 ± 4.3 NH | 4.4 ± 1.5 flat; 8.7 ± 3.9 NH | – | DXA |
| Wilson et al. [27]c (UK) | 9 (m) NH | 24.0 ± 3.1 | 63.2 ± 4.7 | 172.0 ± 5.2 | – | 11.3 ± 2.2 | 51.6 ± 3.7 | 6.9 ± 1.7 | – | DXA |
| Wilson et al. [3] (UK) | 19 (m) flat; 18 (m) NH | 27.0 ± 5.0 flat; 25.0 ± 5.0 NH | 56.1 ± 2.9 flat; 65.3 ± 2.5 NH | 167.0 ± 5.0 flat; 175.0 ± 5.0 NH | 20.3 ± 1.4 flat; 21.4 ± 1.3 NH | 13.0 ± 3.0 flat; 11.5 ± 3.3 NH | – | 7.4 ± 1.0 flat; 8.2 ± 2.1 NH | – | DXA |
| Dolan et al. [28] (Ireland) | 4 (m) flat; 5 (m) NH | 24.0 ± 7.0 flat and NH | 58.2 ± 5.3 flat and NH | 168.0 ± 5.0 flat and NH | 20.7 ± 1.7 flat and NH | 9.0 ± 1.4 flat and NH | – | – | 51.1 ± 8.0 flat and NH |
Skinfold thickness Withers equation |
| Wilson et al. [29]c (UK) | 10 (m and f) flat and NH | 32.0 ± 6.0 | 59.2 ± 4.6 | 167.0 ± 8.0 | – | 13.1 ± 5.9 | 47.1 ± 5.3 | 7.3 ± 3.5 | – | DXA |
| O’Reilly et al. [30] (Hong Kong) | 20 (m) flat | 29.3 ± 7.8 | 53.8 ± 3.3 | 162.0 ± 6.0 | 20.5 ± 1.5 | 5.8 ± 2.6 | 50.8 ± 2.5d | 3.2 ± 1.5d | 42.9 ± 11.8 |
Skinfold thickness D & W equation |
| Poon et al. [9] (Hong Kong) | 14 (m) flat | 29.1 ± 6.1 | 52.8 ± 3.7 | 161.0 ± 5.0 | 20.3 ± 1.6 | – | – | – | 42.4 ± 9.1 |
Skinfold thickness J & P equation |
| Jeon et al. [31] (Korea) | 10 (m) flat | 31.8 ± 3.7 | 50.6 ± 1.9 | 157.5 ± 4.5 | 20.5 ± 1.4 | 14.4 ± 2.3 | 43.3 ± 1.7 | 7.3 ± 1.2 | – | DXA |
| Dunne et al. [14] (Ireland) | 35 (m) flat; 37 (m) NH | 27.5 ± 9.6 flat; 27.5 ± 5.4 NH | 56.1 ± 3.2 flat; 65.5 ± 3.4 NH | 167.2 ± 5.5 flat; 175.6 ± 4.5 NH | – | 15.0 flat; 14.6 NH | – | – | 44.1 ± 10.2 flate; 47.7 ± 10.5 NHe | DXA and skinfold thickness |
| Dunne et al. [32] (Ireland) | 39 (m) flat; 46 (m) NH | 26.8 ± 9.6 flat; 27.7 ± 5.9 NH | 55.7 ± 3.2 flat; 65.7 ± 3.2 NH | 167.3 ± 5.4 flat; 174.6 ± 4.4 NH | 20.0 ± 1.3 flat; 21.6 ± 1.2 NH | 14.9 ± 3.0 flat; 15.3 ± 3.4 NH | 45.7 ± 3.1 flat; 53.4 ± 3.4 NH | 8.0 ± 1.7 flat; 9.6 ± 2.3 NH | – | DXA |
| Cullen et al. [33] (Ireland) | Retired: 7 (m) flat; 12 (m) NH; 9 (m) dual | 61.0 ± 6.0 flat; 59.0 ± 6.0 NH; 58.0 ± 7.0 dual | 65.6 ± 11.0 flat; 77.9 ± 11.4 NH; 74.5 ± 7.0 dual | 163.0 ± 5.0 flat; 167.0 ± 3.0 NH; 166.0 ± 3.0 dual | 24.8 ± 4.0 flat; 28.1 ± 4.1 NH; 27.0 ± 2.7 dual | 23.1 ± 6.8 flat; 27.1 ± 6.1 NH; 26.9 ± 7.3 dual | 42.5 ± 5.3 flat; 49.5 ± 5.2 NH; 47.9 ± 5.2 dual | 14.3 ± 7.0 flat; 20.7 ± 7.4 NH; 19.2 ± 6.2 dual | – | DXA |
| Mackinnon et al. [34] (UK) | Retired: 209 (m) all; 135 (m) 50+ | 56.1 ± 14.6 all; 64.7 ± 9.9 50+ | – | – | 24.5 ± 2.9 all; 25.0 ± 3.0 50+ | – | – | – | – | Retired Athletes Questionnaire |
Values presented as mean ± SD
f female, m male, NH national hunt, app apprentice, con conditional, sen senior, tra trainee, SK skinfold, dual flat and national hunt riding licence, D & W Durnin & Womersley, J & P Jackson and Pollock, all all jockeys recruited, 50+ jockeys ≥ 50 years of age
aTable is arranged based on sex and racing licence with studies of female jockeys first followed by male apprentice and conditional then senior and retired jockeys
bBased on 5 jockeys
cBaseline measurement of jockeys recruited for study intervention
dEstimated using skinfold prediction equations
eSum of 8 skinfold thickness