50 > BMI more information > 24.99) according to WHO classification (WHO, 2004). Likewise, in case of weight/height indices, mean body fat percentage recorded in climbers was comparable to this observed in untrained students and amounted to 15.4%. However, when classified by Heath-Carter somatotype components, endomorphy component that reflects adiposity had the lowest contribution in climbers�� somatotype; the mean value being significantly (p<0.001) lower than that observed in untrained students (2.4 �� 0.79 vs. 3.6 �� 1.48, respectively). Regardless of comparable body height, climbers had significantly greater arm span and arm length (by about 6 and 2.5 cm, respectively) what was reflected in ape index and arm length index, the respective values being by about 1.5 (p<0.001) and 0.6 SD (p<0.

01) greater than observed in untrained students, respectively. Additionally, climbers exhibited significantly greater values in arm (32.7 �� 2.09 vs. 30.9 �� 2.52 cm) and forearm circumferences (28.3 �� 1.28 vs. 26.02 �� 1.80 cm) and in upper extremity girth index, while no differences were found for elbow width. On the other hand, climbers had by 1 SD (p<0.001) lesser knee width while no between-group differences were found for calf circumference. Moreover, climbers exhibited by about 1 SD less in pelvis-to-shoulder ratio comparing to untrained students. Likewise, for upper extremities climbers had significantly (p<0.05) longer lower limbs as expressed by the Manouvrier��s index. In order to reveal possible relationships between somatic indices and subjects�� climbing ability, Pearson��s correlation coefficients and partial correlations were calculated.

Apart from the obvious relations between the body fat and weight-to-height indices or between indices pertaining to the length of upper limb, significant negative correlations were found only for %FAT and ape index (?0.594; p<0,01) and for arm circumference index and BMI (r = ?0.497; p<0.05) or RI (r = ?0.587; p<0.01). Self-reported climbing ability significantly correlated with %FAT (r = ?0.614; p<0.01); besides that, no significant correlations with somatic indices were noted and none of the partial correlations proved significant. Only the ape index tended to correlate with the self-reported climbing ability (r = 0.397; p = 0.083). Discussion Despite the growing number of reports on rock climbing, those concerning anthropometric characteristics of climbers are rather scarce and inconsistent.

The results of this study do not support the view of Watts et al. (2003) that climbers are small in stature with low body mass as no differences between the climbers and untrained controls were found for basic Cilengitide somatic features and body size-related indices. Body height and body mass of climbers were rather average and amounted to 180.0 cm and 70.7 kg, respectively, what was in line with the observations of Billat et al. (1995) and Grant et al.