4.5 Article

Associations between diet quality and physical activity measures among a southern Ontario regional sample of grade 6 students

期刊

APPLIED PHYSIOLOGY NUTRITION AND METABOLISM
卷 35, 期 6, 页码 826-833

出版社

CANADIAN SCIENCE PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1139/H10-085

关键词

diet quality; physical activity; Canadian youth; body weight status

资金

  1. Region of Waterloo Public Health (Waterloo, Ont.)
  2. Danone Institute of Canada

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The purpose of this study was to determine diet quality and physical activity behaviours of grade 6 students by sex and body weight status, and to determine the associations between diet quality and physical activity behaviours. The Web-based Food Behaviour Questionnaire, which included a 24-h diet recall and the modified Physical Activity Questionnaire for Older Children (PAQ-C), was administered to a cross-section of schools (n = 405 students from 15 schools). Measured height and weight were used to calculate body mass index and weight status (Cole et al. 2000). A Canadian version of the Healthy Eating Index (HEI-C) was used to describe overall diet quality. The mean HEI-C was 69.6 (13.2) with the majority (72%) falling into the needs improvement category. The overall mean physical activity score was 3.7 out of a maximum of 5, with obese subjects being less active compared with normal weight and overweight (p < 0.001). Ordinal logistic regression analysis (of HEI-C vs. all measures of the PAQ-C, sex, and weight status) revealed that HEI-C ratings were likely to be higher in students that walked to and from school 5 days per week (vs. 0 days per week; odds ratio 3.18, p = 0.010); and were active 1 evening per week (vs. none; odds ratio 3.48, p = 0.039). The positive association between diet quality and some aspects of physical activity suggests possible clustering of health behaviours. Future research should test the potential benefits of promoting 1 health behaviour (e. g., healthy eating) with another (e. g., physical activity).

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