Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Heritability of somatotype components: a multivariate analysis

International Journal of Obesity volume 31, pages 1295–1301 (2007)Cite this article

Abstract

Objective:

To study the genetic and environmental determination of variation in Heath–Carter somatotype (ST) components (endomorphy, mesomorphy and ectomorphy).

Design:

Multivariate path analysis on twin data.

Subjects:

Eight hundred and three members of 424 adult Flemish twin pairs (18–34 years of age).

Results:

The results indicate the significance of sex differences and the significance of the covariation between the three ST components. After age-regression, variation of the population in ST components and their covariation is explained by additive genetic sources of variance (A), shared (familial) environment (C) and unique environment (E). In men, additive genetic sources of variance explain 28.0% (CI 8.7–50.8%), 86.3% (71.6–90.2%) and 66.5% (37.4–85.1%) for endomorphy, mesomorphy and ectomorphy, respectively. For women, corresponding values are 32.3% (8.9–55.6%), 82.0% (67.7–87.7%) and 70.1% (48.9–81.8%). For all components in men and women, more than 70% of the total variation was explained by sources of variance shared between the three components, emphasising the importance of analysing the ST in a multivariate way.

Conclusions:

The findings suggest that the high heritabilities for mesomorphy and ectomorphy reported in earlier twin studies in adolescence are maintained in adulthood. For endomorphy, which represents a relative measure of subcutaneous adipose tissue, however, the results suggest heritability may be considerably lower than most values reported in earlier studies on adolescent twins. The heritability is also lower than values reported for, for example, body mass index (BMI), which next to the weight of organs and adipose tissue also includes muscle and bone tissue. Considering the differences in heritability between musculoskeletal robustness (mesomorphy) and subcutaneous adipose tissue (endomorphy) it may be questioned whether studying the genetics of BMI will eventually lead to a better understanding of the genetics of fatness, obesity and overweight.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Get just this article for as long as you need it

$39.95

Learn more

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1
Figure 2

References

  1. Claessens AL, Beunen G, Malina RM . Anthropometry, physique, body composition and maturity. In: Armstrong N, van Mechelen W (eds). Paediatric Exercise Science and Medicine. Oxford University Press: New York, 2000, pp 11–22.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bailey SM . Human physique and susceptibility to noninfections disease. Yearb Phys Anthropol 1985; 28: 149–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Gordon E, Tobias PV, Mendelsohn D, Seftel H, Howson A . The relationship between somatotype and serum lipids in male and female young adults. Hum Biol 1987; 59: 459–465.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Katzmarzyk PT, Malina RM, Song TMK, Bouchard C . Somatotype and indicators of metabolic fitness in youth. Am J Hum Biol 1998; 10: 341–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Katzmarzyk PT, Malina RM, Song TM, Bouchard C . Physique, subcutaneous fat, adipose tissue distribution, and risk factors in the Quebec Family Study. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 1999; 23: 476–484.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Malina RM, Katzmarzyk PT, Song TMK, Thériault G, Bouchard C . Somatotype and cardiovascular risk factors in healthy adults. Am J Hum Biol 1997; 9: 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Carter JEL, Heath BH . Somatotyping – development and applications. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Heyward VH, Wagner DR . Applied Body Composition Assessment, 2nd ed. Human Kinetics: Champaign, IL, 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Chovanova E, Bergman P, Stukovsky R . Genetic aspects of somatotypes in twins. Anthropos (Brno) 1982; 22: 5–12.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Maes HH . Univariate and multivariate genetic analysis of physical characteristics of twins and parents. PhD thesis KU Leuven, 1992.

  11. Orczykowska-Swiatkowska Z, Rogucka E, Welon Z . Genetic and environmental determinants of body components: a study of preadolescent twins. Stud Phys Anthropol 1978; 4: 11–19.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Orczykowska-Swiatkowska Z, Hulanicka B, Kotlarz K . Intrapair differences in somatotype in three phases of ontogenetic development in twins. Stud Phys Anthropol (Wroclaw) 1988; 9: 39–59.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Peeters MW, Thomis MA, Claessens AL, Loos RJ, Maes HH, Lysens R et al. Heritability of somatotype components from early adolescence into young adulthood: a multivariate analysis on a longitudinal twin study. Ann Hum Biol 2003; 30: 402–418.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Osborne RH, De George FV . Genetic Basis of Morphological Variation: An Evaluation and Application of the Twin Study Method. Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, 1959.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  15. Bouchard C, Demirjian A, Malina RM . Heritability estimates of somatotype components based upon familial data. Human Hered 1980; 30: 112–118.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Bouchard C, Demirjian A, Malina RM . Path analysis of family resemblance in physique. Stud Phys Anthropol 1980; 6: 61–70.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Katzmarzyk PT, Malina RM, Perusse L, Rice T, Province MA, Rao DC et al. Familial resemblance for physique: heritabilities for somatotype components. Ann Hum Biol 2000; 27: 467–477.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Perusse L, Leblanc C, Bouchard C . Inter-generation transmission of physical fitness in the Canadian population. Can J Sport Sci 1988; 13: 8–14.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Song TM, Perusse L, Malina RM, Bouchard C . Twin resemblance in somatotype and comparisons with other twin studies. Hum Biol 1994; 66: 453–464.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Loos RJ, Fagard R, Beunen G, Derom C, Vlietinck R . Birth weight and blood pressure in young adults: a prospective twin study. Circulation 2001; 104: 1633–1638.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Loos R, Derom C, Vlietinck R, Derom R . The East Flanders Prospective Twin Survey (Belgium): a population-based register. Twin Res 1998; 1: 167–175.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Neale MC, Cardon LR . Methodology for Genetic Studies of Twins and Families 1st edn. Kluwer: Dordrecht, 1992.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  23. Neale MC, Boker SM, Xie G, Maes HH . MX: Statistical Modeling 6th edn. (revised). Department of Psychiatry: Richmond, VA, 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Rebato E, Salces I, Rosique J, San Martin L, Susanne C . Analysis of sibling resemblance in anthropometric somatotype components. Ann Hum Biol 2000; 27: 149–161.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Sanchez-Andres A . Genetic and environmental influences on somatotype components: family study in a Spanish population. Hum Biol 1995; 67: 727–738.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Song TMK, Malina RM, Bouchard C . Familial resemblance in somatotype. Am J Hum Biol 1993; 5: 265–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Huygens W, Thomis MA, Peeters MW, Vlietinck RF, Beunen GP . Determinants and upper-limit heritabilities of skeletal muscle mass and strength. Can J Appl Physiol 2004; 29: 186–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Huygens W, Thomis MA, Peeters MW, Aerssens J, Vlietinck R, Beunen GP . Quantitative trait loci for human muscle strength: linkage analysis of myostatin pathway genes. Physiol Genomics 2005; 22: 390–397.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Maes HH, Neale MC, Eaves LJ . Genetic and environmental factors in relative body weight and human adiposity. Behav Genet 1997; 27: 325–351.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Rice T, Pérusse L, Bouchard C, Rao DC . Familial aggregation of body mass index and subcutaneous fat measures in the longitudinal Québec Family Study. Genet Epidemiol 1999; 16: 316–334.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Schousboe K, Visscher PM, Erbas B, Kyvik KO, Hopper JL, Henriksen JE et al. Twin study of genetic and environmental influences on adult body size, shape, and composition. Int J Obes 2004; 28: 39–48.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Katzmarzyk PT, Malina RM, Pérusse L, Rice T, Rao DC, Bouchard C . Familial resemblance in fatness and fat distribution. Am J Hum Biol 2000; 12: 395–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Song JK, Claessens AL, Lefevre J, Beunen G . The plasticity of human physique in adult men followed longitudinally from 18 to 35 years. Humanbiologia Budapestinensis 1994; 25: 419–424.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Claessens AL, Malina RM, Lefevre J, Beunen G, Stijnen V, Maes H et al. Growth and menarcheal status of elite female gymnasts. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1992; 24: 755–763.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The Prenatal Programming Twin Study was funded by a grant (no. 3.0269.97) from the National Fund for Scientific Research, Flanders (Belgium). Since its origin, the East Flanders Prospective Twin Survey has been partly supported by grants from the Fund of Scientific Research, Flanders (Belgium) and by the Association for Scientific Research in Multiple Births (Belgium). MWP was supported by Research Fund KU Leuven (PDM/05/260).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Biomedical Kinesiology, Faculty of Kinesiology and Rehabilitation Sciences, Research Center for Exercise and Health, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

    M W Peeters, M A Thomis, R J F Loos, A L Claessens & G P Beunen

  2. MRC Epidemiology Unit, Strangeways Research Laboratory, Cambridge, UK

    R J F Loos

  3. Department of Human Genetics, Faculty of Medicine, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

    C A Derom & R F Vlietinck

  4. Department of Cardiovascular Diseases, Division of Hypertension and Cardiovascular Revalidation, Faculty of Medicine, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

    R Fagard

Authors
  1. M W Peeters
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. M A Thomis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. R J F Loos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. C A Derom
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. R Fagard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. A L Claessens
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. R F Vlietinck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. G P Beunen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M W Peeters.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Peeters, M., Thomis, M., Loos, R. et al. Heritability of somatotype components: a multivariate analysis. Int J Obes 31, 1295–1301 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ijo.0803575

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ijo.0803575

Keywords

  • somatotype
  • heritability
  • twins
  • adults
  • path analysis

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links