| Literature DB >> 29662894 |
Adam Kantanista1,2, Agata Glapa1,2,3, Adrianna Banio2,4, Wiesław Firek2,5, Anna Ingarden2, Ewa Malchrowicz-Mośko2,6, Paweł Markiewicz2,7, Katarzyna Płoszaj2,8, Mateusz Ingarden2, Zuzanna Maćkowiak9.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of the study was to evaluate differences in body image across different types of sports in highly trained female athletes.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29662894 PMCID: PMC5831824 DOI: 10.1155/2018/6835751
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.411
Characteristics of female athletes representing different types of sport and differences between aesthetic and nonaesthetic sports.
| Age (years) | Weight (kg) | Height (cm) | BMI (kg/m2) | Training background (years) | Level of competition | Body image (points) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | |||||||
| M ± SD | % | M ± SD | ||||||
| Aesthetic sports | ||||||||
| Total | 17.6 ± 5.2 | 47.3 ± 12.0 | 160.3 ± 12.2 | 18.1 ± 2.7 | 8.2 ± 4.8 | 16.1 | 83.9 | 19.5 ± 3.9 |
| Gymnastics | 13.3 ± 0.5 | 31.9 ± 4.3 | 145.2 ± 6.5 | 15.1 ± 1.5 | 5.1 ± 1.0 | 40.0 | 60.0 | 18.0 ± 4.7 |
| Synchronized swimming | 14.5 ± 2.4 | 48.0 ± 8.5 | 161.7 ± 9.3 | 18.3 ± 2.3 | 4.9 ± 2.6 | 10.0 | 90.0 | 19.2 ± 3.8 |
| Dance sport | 23.2 ± 3.1 | 57.0 ± 5.7 | 169.5 ± 5.9 | 19.9 ± 1.8 | 13.2 ± 3.2 | 4.5 | 95.5 | 20.9 ± 3.0 |
|
| ||||||||
| Nonaesthetic sports | ||||||||
| Total | 21.7 ± 3.8 | 63.4 ± 10.8 | 170.8 ± 8.3 | 21.7 ± 3.8 | 9.2 ± 4.7 | 33.3 | 66.7 | 16.8 ± 4.9 |
| Floorball | 21.1 ± 2.6 | 64.7 ± 17.5 | 167.2 ± 7.1 | 23.4 ± 7.8 | 8.9 ± 3.3 | 39.4 | 60.6 | 14.2 ± 5.1 |
| Soccer | 20.4 ± 4.1 | 60.2 ± 5.7 | 168.3 ± 5.0 | 21.2 ± 1.6 | 10.2 ± 4.0 | 8.7 | 91.3 | 15.7 ± 6.1 |
| Volleyball | 17.2 ± 0.8 | 67.6 ± 6.8 | 178.9 ± 6.3 | 21.1 ± 1.3 | 6.1 ± 1.7 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 17.0 ± 4.7 |
| Basketball | 22.9 ± 3.9 | 64.6 ± 9.8 | 176.9 ± 9.8 | 20.6 ± 1.8 | 10.2 ± 4.1 | 63.2 | 36.8 | 19.5 ± 2.9 |
| Karate | 24.4 ± 3.2 | 58.5 ± 7.7 | 166.7 ± 7.0 | 21.0 ± 1.9 | 10.7 ± 4.6 | 33.3 | 66.7 | 17.5 ± 4.6 |
| Swimming | 22.4 ± 4.1 | 67.8 ± 11.6 | 178.7 ± 5.2 | 21.1 ± 2.7 | 14.1 ± 4.7 | 11.8 | 88.2 | 19.2 ± 5.4 |
| Field hockey | 21.8 ± 4.1 | 62.2 ± 7.8 | 166.9 ± 7.9 | 22.3 ± 1.9 | 10.9 ± 4.1 | 9.5 | 90.5 | 16.1 ± 4.0 |
| Athletics | 24.5 ± 2.5 | 59.1 ± 3.8 | 168.7 ± 4.6 | 20.8 ± 1.0 | 10.5 ± 3.1 | 18.2 | 81.8 | 18.5 ± 3.3 |
| Rugby | 23.4 ± 3.8 | 64.4 ± 9.8 | 168.5 ± 6.3 | 22.6 ± 2.5 | 2.6 ± 1.6 | 90.0 | 10.0 | 16.8 ± 4.4 |
|
| ||||||||
|
| <0.001 | 0.299 | <0.001 | <0.01 | 0.812 | 0.781 | 0.091 | <0.05 |
Level of competition: 1: national; 2: international.
Figure 1Body image perception of female athletes from different sport disciplines: GYM, gymnastics; SWI, swimming; SSWI, synchronized swimming; DAN, dance sport; HOC, field hockey; KAR, karate; BAS, basketball; SPR, athletics (sprint); SOC, soccer; VOL, volleyball; RUG, rugby; FLO, floorball. p ≤ 0.05, p ≤ 0.01, and p ≤ 0.001.
Stepwise forward selection regression analysis for variables predicting body image (N = 242).
| Steps | Variable |
| SE |
| SE |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Sport type (aesthetic/nonaesthetic) | −2.757 | 0.711 | −0.263 | 0.068 | −3.87 | <0.001 |
| 2 | Age | 0.363 | 0.088 | 0.341 | 0.083 | 4.10 | <0.001 |
| 3 | BMI | −0.285 | 0.080 | −0.230 | 0.064 | −3.55 | <0.001 |
| 4 | Level of competition | 1.613 | 0.721 | 0.153 | 0.068 | 2.23 | <0.05 |
| 5 | Training background | −0.104 | 0.087 | −0.101 | 0.084 | −1.20 | 0.231 |
Note. R2 = 0.071 in step 1, ΔR2 = 0.045 in step 2, ΔR2 = 0.036 in step 3, ΔR2 = 0.009 in step 4, and ΔR2 = 0.002 in step 5; sport type coded 0 = aesthetics and 1 = nonaesthetics; level of competition coded 0 = national and 1 = international.