4.6 Article

Screen-based sedentary behavior and associations with functional strength in 6-15 year-old children in the United States

期刊

BMC PUBLIC HEALTH
卷 16, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12889-016-2791-9

关键词

Children; Sedentary behavior; Screen time; Strength; Television; NHANES

资金

  1. Nestle Research Center

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Physical strength is associated with improved health outcomes in children. Heavier children tend to have lower functional strength and mobility. Physical activity can increase children's strength, but it is unknown how different types of electronic media use impact physical strength. Methods: Data from the NHANES National Youth Fitness Survey (NNYFS) from children ages 6-15 were analyzed in this study. Regression models were conducted to determine if screen-based sedentary behaviors (television viewing time, computer/video game time) were associated with strength measures (grip, leg extensions, modified pull-ups, plank) while controlling for potential confounders including child age, sex, BMI z-score, and days per week with 60+ minutes of physical activity. Grip strength and leg extensions divided by body weight were analyzed to provide measures of relative strength together with pull-ups and plank, which require lifting the body. Results: The results from the regression models showed the hypothesized inverse association between TV time and all strength measures. Computer time was only significantly inversely associated with the ability to do one or more pull-ups. Conclusions: This study shows that television viewing, but not computer/videogames, is inversely associated with measures of child strength while controlling for child characteristics and physical activity. These findings suggest that screen time may not be a unified construct with respect to strength outcomes and that further exploration of the potential benefits of reducing television time on children's strength and related mobility is needed.

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