4.3 Article

Distribution of cardiorespiratory fitness in children and adolescents at different latitudes

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF HUMAN BIOLOGY
卷 35, 期 9, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ajhb.23908

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The objective of this study was to explore the differences and characteristics of cardiorespiratory fitness in children and adolescents from regions with different latitudes in China. The results showed that children and adolescents at high latitudes had significantly lower VO2max compared to those at low and middle latitudes. Effective measures should be taken to improve cardiorespiratory fitness in children and adolescents at high latitudes.
ObjectiveTo explore the differences and characteristics of cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) among children and adolescents in regions with different latitudes in China. MethodsA total of 9892 children and adolescents aged 7-22 years were selected from seven administrative regions in China by the stratified cluster random sampling method. CRF was measured by performance on the 20 m shuttle run test (20mSRT) and estimated maximal oxygen consumption (VO2max). One-way ANOVA, one-way ANCOVA, and the Lambda Mu and Sigma methods were used to analyze the data. ResultsOverall, the VO2max of children and adolescents at high latitudes was significantly lower than that of children at low and middle latitudes. The P-10, P-50, and P-90 20mSRT values for children and adolescents of most age groups in high latitudes were less than those in low and middle latitudes. The 20mSRT-Z and VO2max-Z scores among children and adolescents aged 7-22 in high latitudes were lower than those in middle and low latitudes after adjusting for age, per capita gross domestic product (GDP), and per capita disposable income. ConclusionIn general, the CRF of children and adolescents at high latitudes was less than that at low and middle latitudes. Effective measures should be taken to improve CRF in children and adolescents at high latitudes.

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

4.3
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