4.5 Article

Association between phase angle and isolated and grouped physical fitness indicators in adolescents

期刊

PHYSIOLOGY & BEHAVIOR
卷 217, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2020.112825

关键词

Adolescent health; Cell membrane; Body composition; Physical fitness; Cardiorespiratory fitness

资金

  1. National Council for Scientific and Technological Development [CNpQ - 474184/2013-7]
  2. Brazilian Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Examine association between phase angle and isolated and grouped physical fitness indicators in adolescents. Methods: The sample consisted of 353 adolescents, aged 10-16 years. Phase angle was calculated based on crude resistance and reactance values (50 kHz frequency) obtained by tetrapole electrical bioimpedance (BIA). Fat mass and lean mass were estimated by means of anthropometric equations. Hydraulic dynamometer was used to measure handgrip strength and aerobic fitness was obtained by means of the 20-m back-and-forth test. The z-score for isolated and grouped physical fitness indicators was calculated. Covariates were age, habitual physical activity and screen time (obtained by questionnaire), and sexual maturation (self-reported). Results: For males, phase angle was directly associated with lean mass (beta = 0.02, p < 0.01), handgrip strength (beta = 0.03, p < 0.01), and aerobic fitness (beta = 0.01, p = 0.05), even adjusting for covariates. For females, phase angle was directly associated with lean mass (beta = 0.02; p = 0.04) after adjusting for covariates. Phase angle was directly associated with composite physical fitness z-score in both sexes (male, beta = 0.09, p < 0.01, female, beta = 0.03, p = 0.05), even adjusting for covariates. Conclusions: Phase angle was directly associated with isolated and grouped physical fitness indicators in adolescents. In this way, the phase angle can be used to monitor the health of adolescents.

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

4.5
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