| Literature DB >> 20573222 |
Jorge Mota1, Susana Vale, Clarice Martins, Anelise Gaya, Carla Moreira, Rute Santos, José C Ribeiro.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to examine the association between muscular fitness (MF), assessed by 2 components of Fitnessgram test battery, the Curl-Up and Push-Ups tests and the metabolic risk score among adolescent girls.Entities:
Year: 2010 PMID: 20573222 PMCID: PMC2903516 DOI: 10.1186/1758-5996-2-42
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Diabetol Metab Syndr ISSN: 1758-5996 Impact factor: 3.320
Descriptive characteristics of the participants
| MF0 | MF1 | MF2 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| (n = 37;16.2%) | (n = 90;39.3%) | (n = 102; 44.5%) | |
| Age, years | 13.9 ± 1.9 | 14.7 ± 1.9 | 13.8 ± 2.0 |
| Weight (kg) | 51.6 ± 9.8 | 55.0 ± 11.1 | 54.1 ± 9.6 |
| Height (cm) | 154. 3 ± 8.9 | 158.4 ± 6.5 | 160.1 ± 7.2* |
| BMI (kg/m²) | 21.7 ± 3.7 | 21.8 ± 3.6 | 20.9 ± 2,7* |
| WC (cm) | 76.6 ± 10.0 | 76.2 ± 8.6 | 73. ± 7.4* |
| SBP (mm Hg) | 119.1 ± 12.0 | 121.3 ± 13.2 | 124.5 ± 13.2 |
| DBP (mmHg) | 63.2 ± 7.5 | 64.9 ± 8.8 | 66.1 ± 9.2 |
| TC (mg/dl) | 157.5 ± 23.2 | 152.3 ± 26.7 | 151.1 ± 26.4* |
| HDL (mg/dl) | 43.8 ± 14.2 | 46.9 ± 10.1 | 46.7 ± 11.1 |
| LDL (mg/dl) | 100.3 ± 20.8 | 93.8 ± 24.5 | 89.7 ± 26.3 |
| TG (mg/dl) | 66.8 ± 26.2 | 59.9 ± 18.4 | 57.4 ± 17.8* |
| Glucose (mg/dl) | 83.1 ± 8.7 | 83.2 ± 6.5 | 84.6 ± 6.8 |
| MRS | 1.57 ± 4.2 | 0.13 ± 2.6 | -0.39 ± 3.2* |
| PAI | 9.8. ± 3.4 | 10.1 ± 3.7 | 11.6 ± 3.9* |
Data are means ± SD. ANCOVA's Test adjusted for age and maturation, with Bonferroni corrections: * p < 0.05 - significantly different from MF0. MF - muscular fitness; PAI, physical activity index; TC, total cholesterol; TG, Triglycerides,
Associations between MF and metabolic, anthropometric and physical activity, adjusted for age and maturation
| Variables* | Height | BMI | WC | TC | TG | LDL | PAI | MRS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
MF - Muscular Fitness; BMI - Body Mass Index; WC - Waist Circumference; TC - Total Cholesterol; TG, Triglycerides; PAI - Physical Activity Index; MRS - Metabolic Risk Score
* Only shown those that p ≤ 0.05
Logistic Regression Analysis showing estimating results with Muscular Fitness as independent variable and BMI (normal vs. Overweight/Obese), Physical Activity (Active vs. Low Active) and MRS (Yes or No) as dependent variables.
| B | OR | 95%CI | p | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BMI (model 1) | MFO - REF | 1 | |||
| MF1 | -0.63 | 0.53 | 0.24-1.19 | 0.13 | |
| MF2 | -1.29 | 0.27 | 0.12-0.64 | ||
| MRS (model 2) | MFO - ref | 1 | |||
| MF1 | -1.48 | 0.23 | 0.92-0.57 | ||
| MF2 | -1.33 | 0.26 | 0.11-0.63 | ||
| PAI (model 3) | MFO - ref | 1 | |||
| MF1 | -0.169 | 0.84 | 0.38-1.84 | 0.67 | |
| MF2 | 0.37 | 1.45 | 0.67-3.14 | 0.34 | |
BMI - Body Mass Index
MRS - Metabolic Risk Score
PAI - Physical Activity Index