4.6 Article

Cardiorespiratory fitness in adolescents before and after the COVID-19 confinement: a prospective cohort study

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PEDIATRICS
Volume 180, Issue 7, Pages 2287-2293

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00431-021-04029-8

Keywords

Maximal oxygen peak; Children; Physical fitness; Growth; Lockdown

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study found that COVID-19 confinement has a negative impact on the development of VO2 max in adolescents, especially in the subgroups of 14-year-old girls and 12-year-old boys. Measures are needed to address this concerning decline.
Long periods of fire-movement restrictions may negatively affect cardiorespiratory fitness and health. The present study investigated changes after the COVID-19 confinement in maximal oxygen intake (VO2 max) levels in a sample of 89 Spanish school children aged 12 and 14 years at baseline (49.8% girls). The 20-m shuttle run test served to estimate VO2 max before and after the COVID-19 confinement. Paired 1-tests estimated an overall difference of - 0.5 ml.kg(-1).min(-1) (SD 0.3) (p = 0.12), whereas the highest significant reductions were observed for girls aged 14 years (- 1.5 ml.kg(-1).min(-1) (SD 0.6) (p < 0.05)). Boys aged 14 years showed a slight increase (0.4 ml.kg(-1).min(-1) (SD 0.5) (p = 0.44)), whereas boys aged 12 years presented an important decrease (- 1.2 ml.kg(-1).min(-1) (SD 0.7) (p = 0.14)). Healthy Fitness Zone (HFZ) levels also experienced a decrease of- 3.4% as regards baseline levels over the examined period. All the examined subgroups showed lower levels in relation to a normal VO2 max rate development, although girls aged 14 and boys aged 12 years accounted for the highest part. Conclusion: The results indicate that COVID-19 confinement might delay the normal development of VO2 max in adolescents. Strategies to tackle this concerning decline are warranted.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available