Body shape

Whole-body composite phenotype dimensions: Heath-Carter somatotype, body composition pattern, proportions, frame size, musculature, posture, and lower-limb alignment. This category absorbs the original Height, Weight, Limb, and Knees atlas categories by treating them as composite-body measures rather than discrete body parts. Dimensions are drawn from sports-medicine, public-health, and anthropometric literature. Most dimensions require full-body framing to assess; height and weight require measurement and are flagged not_assessable from photographs.

Dimensions

• Endomorphy (Heath-Carter)

  photo-observable

  ordinal · heath_carter_1990_1_to_7

  Relative degree of fatness — the endomorphic component of the Heath-Carter somatotype. Higher values indicate greater subcutaneous fat envelope. Originally measured from skinfold sites; visual estimation from photograph correlates moderately.

  Carter JEL, Heath BH (1990). Somatotyping — Development and Applications. Cambridge University Press.

  Valid values (7)

  • 11 — very low— Minimal subcutaneous fat; bony landmarks prominent throughout the trunk and limbs.
  • 22
  • 33
  • 44 — moderate— Average subcutaneous fat envelope; soft-tissue coverage of skeletal landmarks.
  • 55
  • 66
  • 77 — very high— Pronounced subcutaneous fat envelope; bony landmarks substantially obscured.

• Mesomorphy (Heath-Carter)

  photo-observable

  ordinal · heath_carter_1990_1_to_7

  Relative musculoskeletal robustness — the mesomorphic component of the Heath-Carter somatotype. Higher values indicate greater muscle mass and skeletal robustness relative to height.

  Carter JEL, Heath BH (1990). Somatotyping — Development and Applications. Cambridge University Press.

  Valid values (7)

  • 11 — very low— Slight musculoskeletal development; narrow bone structure.
  • 22
  • 33
  • 44 — moderate— Average muscle mass and skeletal robustness.
  • 55
  • 66
  • 77 — very high— Pronounced muscle mass and robust skeletal frame.

• Ectomorphy (Heath-Carter)

  photo-observable

  ordinal · heath_carter_1990_1_to_7

  Relative linearity — the ectomorphic component of the Heath-Carter somatotype. Higher values indicate greater height-for-mass and a more linear physique.

  Carter JEL, Heath BH (1990). Somatotyping — Development and Applications. Cambridge University Press.

  Valid values (7)

  • 11 — very low— Compact, low height-for-mass.
  • 22
  • 33
  • 44 — moderate— Average linearity.
  • 55
  • 66
  • 77 — very high— Highly linear; long-limbed; high height-for-mass.

• Dominant somatotype class

  photo-observable

  categorical · heath_carter_13_class

  Single-label summary of Heath-Carter somatotype based on which component dominates. Derived from the three component scores; included as a discrete categorical for cross-group comparison.

  Carter JEL, Heath BH (1990). Somatotyping — Development and Applications. Cambridge University Press.

  Valid values (13)

  • centralCentral— All three components within one unit of each other; no single dominance.
  • balanced_endomorphBalanced endomorph— Endomorphy dominant; mesomorphy and ectomorphy approximately equal and lower.
  • mesomorphic_endomorphMesomorphic endomorph— Endomorphy dominant; mesomorphy second.
  • mesomorph_endomorphMesomorph-endomorph— Endomorphy and mesomorphy approximately equal and dominant; ectomorphy lower.
  • endomorphic_mesomorphEndomorphic mesomorph— Mesomorphy dominant; endomorphy second.
  • balanced_mesomorphBalanced mesomorph— Mesomorphy dominant; endomorphy and ectomorphy approximately equal and lower.
  • ectomorphic_mesomorphEctomorphic mesomorph— Mesomorphy dominant; ectomorphy second.
  • mesomorph_ectomorphMesomorph-ectomorph— Mesomorphy and ectomorphy approximately equal and dominant; endomorphy lower.
  • mesomorphic_ectomorphMesomorphic ectomorph— Ectomorphy dominant; mesomorphy second.
  • balanced_ectomorphBalanced ectomorph— Ectomorphy dominant; endomorphy and mesomorphy approximately equal and lower.
  • endomorphic_ectomorphEndomorphic ectomorph— Ectomorphy dominant; endomorphy second.
  • endomorph_ectomorphEndomorph-ectomorph— Endomorphy and ectomorphy approximately equal and dominant; mesomorphy lower.
  • ectomorphic_endomorphEctomorphic endomorph— Endomorphy dominant; ectomorphy second.

• Height (cm)

  not from photo

  numeric · metric_centimeters

  Stature in centimeters. Requires direct measurement; not derivable from a single photograph without a calibrated reference object. Included for structured-text use cases (clinical records, athlete databases) where measured values are available.

  Standard anthropometric stature measurement; standing height from sole to vertex.

• Weight (kg)

  not from photo

  numeric · metric_kilograms

  Body mass in kilograms. Requires direct measurement; not derivable from a photograph. Included for structured-text use cases.

  Standard anthropometric body-mass measurement.

• BMI category

  rarely from photo

  ordinal · who_bmi_with_asian_pacific_thresholds

  WHO BMI category, ordinal. Asian-Pacific population BMI thresholds are lower than the WHO universal thresholds because of higher body-fat percentage at equivalent BMI in those populations; the scale lists both anchor points where they differ.

  WHO (2000). Obesity: preventing and managing the global epidemic. WHO Technical Report Series 894. Asian-Pacific thresholds: WHO Expert Consultation (2004), The Lancet, 363(9403): 157-163.

  Valid values (7)

  • severe_underweightSevere underweight— BMI < 16.0 kg/m².
  • underweightUnderweight— BMI 16.0–18.4 kg/m².
  • normal_weightNormal weight— BMI 18.5–24.9 kg/m² (WHO universal); 18.5–22.9 kg/m² (Asian-Pacific).
  • overweightOverweight— BMI 25.0–29.9 kg/m² (WHO universal); 23.0–27.4 kg/m² (Asian-Pacific).
  • obese_class_1Obese class I— BMI 30.0–34.9 kg/m² (WHO universal); 27.5–32.4 kg/m² (Asian-Pacific).
  • obese_class_2Obese class II— BMI 35.0–39.9 kg/m² (WHO universal); 32.5–37.4 kg/m² (Asian-Pacific).
  • obese_class_3Obese class III— BMI ≥ 40.0 kg/m² (WHO universal); ≥ 37.5 kg/m² (Asian-Pacific).

• Waist-to-hip ratio (estimate)

  photo-observable

  ordinal · whr_qualitative

  Visual-estimate categorization of waist-to-hip ratio. Sex-specific clinical thresholds (≥0.85 women, ≥0.90 men) indicate elevated cardiometabolic risk; this scale is a qualitative-bucket equivalent for visual assessment.

  WHO (2008). Waist Circumference and Waist-Hip Ratio: Report of a WHO Expert Consultation. Singh D (1993). Adaptive significance of female physical attractiveness: role of waist-to-hip ratio. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(2): 293-307.

  Valid values (3)

  • lowLow (pronounced waist)— Waist substantially narrower than hips; hourglass-equivalent silhouette.
  • moderateModerate (defined waist)— Waist clearly narrower than hips but not pronounced.
  • highHigh (minimal waist definition)— Waist approximates or exceeds hip width; rectangular or apple-shaped silhouette.

• Hip-to-shoulder ratio

  photo-observable

  categorical · hip_shoulder_qualitative

  Relative breadth of the hips compared to the shoulders. A secondary sex characteristic that varies by ethnic group and sex.

  Anthropometric proportional reasoning; relative biacromial-to-biiliac breadth used in sports-medicine and aesthetic-anatomy contexts.

  Valid values (3)

  • narrow_hipsNarrow hips relative to shoulders— Inverted-triangle silhouette; biacromial breadth substantially exceeds biiliac breadth.
  • balancedBalanced— Approximately equal hip and shoulder breadth.
  • wide_hipsWide hips relative to shoulders— Pear-shaped silhouette; biiliac breadth approaches or exceeds biacromial breadth.

• Skeletal frame size

  partly photo-observable

  ordinal · frame_size_qualitative

  Skeletal frame size, qualitative bucket. Originally measured by elbow breadth or wrist circumference; visual estimation captures the silhouette correlate. Important when interpreting weight and BMI within a population.

  Frisancho AR (1984). New standards of weight and body composition by frame size and height for assessment of nutritional status of adults and the elderly. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 40(4): 808-819. Grant JP, DeHoog S (1985). Nutritional Assessment in Clinical Care.

  Valid values (3)

  • smallSmall— Narrow bone structure; slight wrist and elbow.
  • mediumMedium— Average bone structure.
  • largeLarge— Broad bone structure; thick wrist and elbow.

• Body composition pattern (fat distribution)

  photo-observable

  categorical · vague_1956_extended

  Pattern of body-fat distribution. Independent dimension from BMI — two individuals with the same BMI can have very different distributions, with different cardiometabolic risk profiles.

  Vague J (1956). The degree of masculine differentiation of obesities: a factor determining predisposition to diabetes, atherosclerosis, gout, and uric calculous disease. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 4(1): 20-34. Subsequent literature refined the gynoid/android distinction.

  Valid values (4)

  • gynoidGynoid (pear)— Fat accumulation predominantly in hips, thighs, and buttocks; lower-body distribution.
  • androidAndroid (apple)— Fat accumulation predominantly in abdominal and visceral regions; upper-body distribution.
  • balancedBalanced— No strong upper-body or lower-body fat preference.
  • extremity_dominantExtremity-dominant— Fat accumulation predominantly in arms and legs rather than trunk.

• General musculature

  photo-observable

  ordinal · musculature_qualitative

  Visible musculature, ordinal. Captures training status and muscle hypertrophy as observable from photograph.

  Qualitative scale aligned with sports-medicine training-status descriptors (Untrained, Recreationally Active, Trained, Highly Trained, World-Class) — Mann TN, Lamberts RP, Lambert MI (2013). Sports Medicine, 43(7).

  Valid values (6)

  • untrainedUntrained— Soft musculature; no visible definition; no evident strength training.
  • lightLightly active— Slight musculature; some tone but no definition.
  • moderateModerate— Visible muscle tone in major groups; some definition under good lighting.
  • athleticAthletic— Clear definition in major muscle groups; visible separation between groups.
  • muscularMuscular— Pronounced muscle mass and definition; evidence of sustained strength training.
  • hypertrophiedHypertrophied— Bodybuilder-class muscle mass; substantial volumetric hypertrophy.

• Trunk-to-leg ratio

  photo-observable

  categorical · cormic_index_qualitative

  Relative length of trunk versus legs. Anthropologically meaningful — varies systematically across populations, with East Asian populations averaging higher cormic indices (longer trunk relative to legs) and Sub-Saharan African populations averaging lower.

  Cormic index = sitting height / standing height; population norms in Eveleth PB, Tanner JM (1990). Worldwide Variation in Human Growth, 2nd Edition. Cambridge University Press.

  Valid values (3)

  • long_trunk_short_legsLong trunk, shorter legs— Cormic index above population mean; trunk dominant.
  • balancedBalanced— Cormic index near population mean.
  • short_trunk_long_legsShort trunk, longer legs— Cormic index below population mean; legs dominant.

• Posture (sagittal alignment)

  partly photo-observable

  categorical · kendall_postural_classification

  Habitual sagittal-plane postural alignment as visible from a side-view photograph. Postural deviations are common and meaningful for body-shape assessment.

  Kendall FP, McCreary EK, Provance PG (2005). Muscles: Testing and Function with Posture and Pain, 5th Edition. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.

  Valid values (5)

  • idealIdeal alignment— Vertical line through ear, shoulder, hip, knee, and ankle in side view.
  • kyphotic_lordoticKyphotic-lordotic— Increased thoracic kyphosis and lumbar lordosis; head-forward posture.
  • flat_backFlat back— Reduced lumbar lordosis; flattened lower spine.
  • sway_backSway back— Pelvis shifted forward of plumb; thoracic spine compensates posteriorly.
  • forward_headForward head— Head positioned anterior to shoulders without other major deviations.

• Knee alignment (frontal plane)

  photo-observable

  categorical · tibiofemoral_alignment

  Tibiofemoral alignment in the frontal plane. Absorbed from the original Knees atlas category. Varus and valgus alignment have systematic ethnic-group variation in the orthopedic literature.

  Cooke TD, Sled EA, Scudamore RA (2007). Frontal plane knee alignment: a call for standardized measurement. Journal of Rheumatology, 34(9): 1796-1801.

  Valid values (4)

  • neutralNeutral— Tibiofemoral angle approximately 0° in the frontal plane (with normal physiologic valgus); knees and feet aligned.
  • genu_valgumGenu valgum (knock-knees)— Distal femur and proximal tibia angled medially; knees touch when feet apart.
  • genu_varumGenu varum (bow-legs)— Distal femur and proximal tibia angled laterally; gap between knees when feet together.
  • windsweptWindswept— Asymmetric — one valgus, one varus.

• Knee morphology

  partly photo-observable

  categorical · patellar_morphology_qualitative

  Visible morphology of the knee region as a soft-tissue silhouette.

  Qualitative descriptors for visible knee morphology; absorbed from the original Knees atlas category. No single canonical scale — descriptive vocabulary aligned with anatomic-anthropology usage.

  Valid values (4)

  • squareSquare— Wider, more boxy knee profile; pronounced patellar prominence within a broader soft-tissue envelope.
  • roundRound— Smoother, more rounded knee profile; less distinct patellar outline.
  • prominent_patellaProminent patella— Patella visible as a distinct elevated landmark even at rest.
  • asymmetricAsymmetric— Notable difference between left and right knee morphology.