The Physical Characteristics of Elite Female Rugby Union Players

• Main Authors: Logan Posthumus, Campbell Macgregor, Paul Winwood, Jamie Tout, Lillian Morton, Matthew Driller, Nicholas Gill
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: MDPI AG 2020-09-01
• Series: International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
• Subjects: bone mineral density; lean mass; fat mass; fat percentage; skinfolds
• Online Access: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/18/6457
• ISSN: 1661-7827; 1660-4601

This study explored the anthropometric and body composition characteristics of elite female rugby union players, comparing between and within different playing positions. Thirty elite female rugby union players (25.6 ± 4.3 y, 171.3 ± 7.7 cm, 83.5 ± 13.9 kg) from New Zealand participated in this study. Physical characteristics were assessed using anthropometric (height, body mass, skinfolds) and body composition (dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry) measures. Forwards were significantly taller (<i>p</i> < 0.01; <i>d</i> = 1.34), heavier (<i>p</i> < 0.01; <i>d</i> = 2.19), and possessed greater skinfolds (<i>p</i> < 0.01; <i>d</i> = 1.02) than backs. Forwards also possessed significantly greater total (<i>p</i> < 0.01; <i>d</i> = 1.83–2.25) and regional (<i>p</i> < 0.01; <i>d</i> = 1.50–2.50) body composition measures compared to backs. Healthy bone mineral density values were observed in both forwards and backs, with significantly greater values observed at the arm (<i>p</i> < 0.01; <i>d</i> = 0.92) and femoral neck (<i>p</i> = 0.04; <i>d</i> = 0.77) sites for forwards. Tight-five players were significantly heavier (<i>p</i> = 0.02; <i>d</i> = 1.41) and possessed significantly greater skinfolds (<i>p</i> < 0.01; <i>d</i> = 0.97) than loose-forwards. Tight-five also possessed significantly greater total body composition measures (<i>p</i> < 0.05; <i>d</i> = 0.97–1.77) and significantly greater trunk lean mass (<i>p</i> = 0.04; <i>d</i> = 1.14), trunk fat mass (<i>p</i> < 0.01; <i>d</i> = 1.84), and arm fat mass (<i>p</i> = 0.02; <i>d</i> = 1.35) compared to loose-forwards. Specific programming and monitoring for forwards and backs, particularly within forward positional groups, appear important due to such physical characteristic differences.