4.6 Article

Relationship Between Obesity, Physical Activity, and Cardiorespiratory Fitness Levels in Children and Adolescents in Bosnia and Herzegovina: An Analysis of Gender Differences

期刊

FRONTIERS IN PHYSIOLOGY
卷 9, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fphys.2018.01734

关键词

BMI; overweight; shuttle run test; VO2max; waist circumference

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aimed to examine: (i) the level of physical activity (PA), obesity indices and cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) among boys and girls in primary school, and (ii) to determine the association of obesity indices and PA with CRF for the total number of participants, and then separately for boys and girls. 753 sixth to ninth grade girls and boys aged 10-14 years took part in this cross-sectional study. The PA was assessed by the Physical Activity Questionnaire - Children and CRF was assessed by the Maximal multistage a 20 m shuttle run test. Body mass index (BMI), waist circumferences (WC), and waist to height ratio (WHtR) were considered as obesity indices. Multiple linear regression analyses were performed to explore correlates of CRF. The results obtained showed the prevalence of general overweight and obesity was 25.5% in our sample which was lower than that in the regional estimate (e.g., similar to 28%) for Eastern Europe. Among all participants, CRF was associated with male sex, older age, a lower WC percentile, higher WHtR, and higher level of PA. The model accounted for 24% of the variance. CRF was associated with older age and higher level of PA among girls and boys. Lower WC percentile was a significant determinant of CRF among boys. In conclusion, general overweight/obesity was not independently associated with CRF. Those with better CRF were more likely to be male and older, had a higher level of PA and lower central adiposity. These findings emphasize the importance of supporting school age children to take a part in programmed physical activity regardless of their body composition.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据