| Literature DB >> 30018935 |
Jun-Youl Cha1, Yong-Seok Jee2.
Abstract
This study examined the differences of heart rate (HR) and body composition in elementary students who practiced two different styles of Wushu: Nanquan (NQ) and Changquan (CQ). A total of 40 subjects between the ages of 8 and 12 participated in this study who were grouped into NQ (n=20) and CQ (n=17). The results showed that the decreased body weight, increased basal metabolic rate, and higher physical efficiency index were due to the higher real-time HRs of NQ training compared with those of CQ training from 25 to 40 sec. Therefore, this study confirmed that Wushu NQ training can help to prevent obesity and improve heart function in elementary students.Entities:
Keywords: Basal metabolic rate; Changquan; Nanquan; Physi-cal efficiency index; Wushu
Year: 2018 PMID: 30018935 PMCID: PMC6028220 DOI: 10.12965/jer.1836238.119
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Exerc Rehabil ISSN: 2288-176X
Fig. 1Flow diagram participants (assessed for eligibility; n=40).
Physical characteristics of the subjects
| Characteristic | Group | Mann-Whitney | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| |||
| CQ (n=20) | NQ (n=17) | |||
| Age (yr) | 10.2±1.51 | 10.29±1.61 | −0.203 | 0.845 |
|
| ||||
| Height (cm) | 140.15±8.29 | 140.59±8.91 | −0.184 | 0.869 |
|
| ||||
| Weight (kg) | 37.84±8.13 | 38.66±8.4 | −0.32 | 0.752 |
Values are presented as mean±standard deviation.
CQ, Changquan; NQ, Nanquan.
Comparison of basic body composition between CQ and NQ
| Variable | Times | Group | Mann-Whitney | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| ||||
| CQ (n=20) | NQ (n=17) | ||||
| Weight (kg) | Pre | 37.84±8.13 | 38.66±8.4 | −0.32 | 0.752 |
| Post | 37.48±7.13 | 37.61±7.16 | −0.061 | 0.964 | |
|
| |||||
| Wilcoxon | −0.51±−0.61 | −2.397±−0.017 | |||
|
| |||||
| Muscle mass (kg) | Pre | 14.82±3.38 | 15.12±3.55 | −0.29 | 0.775 |
| post | 14.87±3.17 | 15.18±3.23 | −0.534 | 0.598 | |
|
| |||||
| Wilcoxon | −0.844±−0.398 | −0.595±−0.552 | |||
|
| |||||
| Lean mass (kg) | Pre | 28.4±5.62 | 28.91±5.92 | −0.29 | 0.775 |
| post | 28.61±5.3 | 29.3±5.77 | −0.427 | 0.684 | |
|
| |||||
| Wilcoxon | −1.173±−0.241 | −1.29±−0.197 | |||
|
| |||||
| Fat mass (kg) | Pre | 9.44±4.1 | 9.75±4.26 | −0.183 | 0.869 |
| post | 9.33±3.52 | 9.87±3.67 | −0.534 | 0.598 | |
|
| |||||
| Wilcoxon | −0.7±−0.484 | −0.716±−0.474 | |||
Values are presented as mean±standard deviation.
CQ, Changquan; NQ, Nanquan.
Comparison of body fatness levels between CQ and NQ
| Variable | Times | Group | Mann-Whitney | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| ||||
| CQ (n=20) | NQ (n=17) | ||||
| BMI (kg/m2) | Pre | 19.15±3.05 | 19.44±3.05 | −0.107 | 0.916 |
| Post | 19.03±2.76 | 19.44±3.05 | −0.076 | 0.94 | |
|
| |||||
| Wilcoxon | −0.736±0.462 | 0.002±0.889 | |||
|
| |||||
| Percent fat (%) | Pre | 24.31±6.91 | 24.63±7.13 | −0.046 | 0.964 |
| Post | 24.18±6.22 | 24.02±6.17 | −0.168 | 0.869 | |
|
| |||||
| Wilcoxon | −0.534±0.593 | −1.514±0.13 | |||
|
| |||||
| WHR | Pre | 0.83±0.06 | 0.83±0.06 | −0.199 | 0.845 |
| Post | 0.84±0.05 | 0.82±0.05 | −0.933 | 0.357 | |
|
| |||||
| Wilcoxon | −0.359±0.72 | −1.072±0.284 | |||
|
| |||||
| BMR (kcal) | Pre | 983.25±121.52 | 994.29±128.05 | −0.29 | 0.775 |
| Post | 1,016.45±123.33 | 1,056.71±122.31 | −1.326 | 0.187 | |
|
| |||||
| Wilcoxon | −1.481±0.139 | −2.429±0.015 | |||
Values are presented as mean±standard deviation.
CQ, Changquan; NQ, Nanquan; BMI, body mass index; WHR, waist/hip ratio; BMR, basal metabolic rate.
Fig. 2Differences and changes of basal metabolic rate during Chanquan (CQ) and Nanquan (NQ).
Fig. 3Differences and changes of physical efficiency index during Chanquan (CQ) and Nanquan (NQ).
Comparison of heart rate during the execution of Wushu
| Time | Group | Mann-Whitney | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| |||
| CQ | NQ | |||
| Resting 1 min | 97.85±9.59 | 95.2±9.63 | 1.865 | 0.083 |
|
| ||||
| Resting 2 min | 97.25±9.51 | 96.3±11.46 | 0.403 | 0.688 |
|
| ||||
| Resting 3 min | 95.85±12.45 | 93.4±11.79 | 0.904 | 0.369 |
|
| ||||
| 5 sec | 113.25±11.03 | 111.85±19.83 | 0.39 | 0.697 |
|
| ||||
| 10 sec | 127.9±12.66 | 132.15±16.26 | −1.304 | 0.196 |
|
| ||||
| 15 sec | 138±8.49 | 142.65±18.71 | −1.431 | 0.156 |
|
| ||||
| 20 sec | 150.05±9.56 | 150.6±8.61 | −0.27 | 0.788 |
|
| ||||
| 25 sec | 151.05±15.71 | 158.95±10.27 | −2.662 | 0.009 |
|
| ||||
| 30 sec | 156.4±13.45 | 162.52±9.34 | −2.283 | 0.026 |
|
| ||||
| 35 sec | 162.85±12.57 | 168.5±9.31 | −2.284 | 0.025 |
|
| ||||
| 40 sec | 166.2±17.47 | 174.3±11.02 | −2.48 | 0.015 |
|
| ||||
| Maximal HR | 209.8±1.49 | 209.8±1.49 | 0 | 1.000 |
Values are presented as mean±standard deviation.
CQ, Changquan; NQ, Nanquan.
Fig. 4Differences and changes of real-time heart rate during Chanquan (CQ) and Nanquan (NQ). *Comparative results of heart rate analyzed by Mann-Whitney U-test.