| Literature DB >> 24453807 |
Bai Jingya1, He Ye1, Wang Jing2, Huanjiu Xi3, Hai Tao2.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To fully analyze and compare BMI among Han, Tibetan, and Uygur university students, to discuss the differences in their physical properties and physical health, and thus to provide some theoretical suggestions for the improvement of students' physical health.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2013 PMID: 24453807 PMCID: PMC3878595 DOI: 10.1155/2013/180863
Source DB: PubMed Journal: ScientificWorldJournal ISSN: 1537-744X
Population distributions of Han, Tibetan, and Uygur university students.
| Age | Han | Tibetan | Uygur | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Male | Female | Male | Female | Male | Female | |
| 20 | 988 | 1019 | 140 | 161 | 50 | 110 |
| 21 | 955 | 779 | 120 | 143 | 54 | 100 |
| 22 | 1140 | 886 | 150 | 175 | 60 | 113 |
| 23 | 880 | 597 | 130 | 139 | 50 | 104 |
| 24 | 456 | 237 | 102 | 116 | 53 | 96 |
|
| ||||||
| Total | 4419 | 3518 | 642 | 734 | 267 | 523 |
BMI distributions of Han, Tibetan, and Uygur university students.
| Nationalities | Gender |
| BMI (kg/m2) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| <18.5 | 18.5~23.9 | 24~27.9 | ≧28 | |||
| Han | Male | 4419 |
459 (10.39) | 3340 (75.58) | 493 (11.16) | 127 (2.87) |
| Female | 3518 | 466 (13.25)ΔΔ | 2771 (78.77)Δ,Δ | 248 (7.05)ΔΔ | 33 (0.94) | |
|
| ||||||
| Total | 7937 | 925 (11.65)** | 6111 (76.99)** | 741 (9.34)** | 160 (2.02) | |
|
| ||||||
| Tibetan | Male | 642 | 55 (8.57) | 496 (77.26) | 73 (11.37) | 18 (2.8) |
| Female | 734 | 71 (9.67) | 604 (82.29)ΔΔ | 52 (7.08)ΔΔ | 7 (0.95) | |
|
| ||||||
| Total | 1376 | 126 (9.16) | 1100 (79.94)** | 125 (9.08)* | 25 (1.82) | |
|
| ||||||
| Uygur | Male | 267 | 24 (8.99) | 196 (73.41) | 38 (14.23) | 9 (3.37) |
| Female | 523 | 69 (13.19) | 388 (74.19) | 61 (11.66) | 5 (0.96) | |
|
| ||||||
| Total | 790 | 93 (11.77) | 584 (73.92) | 99 (12.53) | 14 (1.77) | |
The comparison among Han, Tibetan, and Uygur University students: *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01. The female comparison among Han, Tibetan, and Uygur University students: Δ P < 0.05, ΔΔ P < 0.01. The comparison between males and females in the same nationality: ⋇ P < 0.05, ⋇⋇ P < 0.01.
BMI of male and female university students at different ages.
| Gender | Amount | Age | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | |||
| BMI | Male | 5328 | 21.20 ± 2.79 | 21.18 ± 2.74 | 21.36 ± 2.71 | 21.57 ± 2.76 | 21.74 ± 2.78 |
| Female | 4775 | 21.00 ± 2.45 | 20.81 ± 2.23 | 20.72 ± 2.18 | 20.83 ± 2.40 | 20.61 ± 2.08 | |
Comparison of BMI averages between Tibetan and Uygur university students and other nations in South China.
| Nationalities | Gender | Average BMI |
|---|---|---|
| Tibetan | male | 21.35 |
| female | 21 | |
| Uygur | male | 21.81 |
| female | 21.04 | |
| Ethnic minorities in Yunnan | male | 20.31 |
| female | 20.48 | |
| Yi nationality | male | 20.39 |
| female | 20.47 | |
| Sichuan Qiang | male | 20.76 |
| female | 19.31 |
Comparison among BMI, gender and age in Tibetan, Uygur and Han university students () Kg/m2.
| Age | Han | Tibetan | Uygur | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Male | Female | Male | Female | Male | Female | |
| 20 | 21.24 ± 2.70 | 20.82 ± 2.38 | 20.92 ± 2.29 | 21.26 ± 2.23 | 21.95 ± 3.89 | 21.05 ± 2.79 |
| 21 | 21.17 ± 2.78 | 20.71 ± 2.15 | 20.98 ± 2.59 | 21.02 ± 2.23 | 21.78 ± 2.32 | 21.15 ± 2.64 |
| 22 | 21.35 ± 2.72 | 20.67 ± 2.17 | 21.36 ± 2.55 | 20.90 ± 2.07 | 21.69 ± 2.93 | 20.90 ± 2.35 |
| 23 | 21.54 ± 2.76 | 20.80 ± 2.42 | 21.69 ± 2.79 | 20.67 ± 2.19 | 21.61 ± 2.68 | 21.17 ± 2.51 |
| 24 | 21.59 ± 2.73* | 20.49 ± 2.10 | 22.26 ± 2.93 | 21.08 ± 2.02 | 22.61 ± 2.85 | 20.52 ± 2.00 |
|
| ||||||
| Total | 21.34 ± 2.76** | 20.77 ± 2.29 | 21.35 ± 2.64* | 21.00 ± 2.20* | 21.81 ± 2.97 | 21.04 ± 2.53* |
*P < 0.05, **P < 0.01.