Débora Aparecida Knihs1, Bruno Monteiro de Moura1, Luiz Francisco Reis2. 1. Graduate Program in Physical Education, Federal University of Santa Catarina (Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina - UFSC) - Florianópolis (SC), Brazil. 2. Department of Physical Education, Regional University of Blumenau (Universidade Regional de Blumenau - FURB) -Blumenau (SC), Brazil.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Body composition is relevant for the health and work performance of firefighters. However, the behavior of these parameters has not been elucidated for groups of firefighters performing different tasks. OBJECTIVES: To compare the anthropometric profile of military firefighters who perform administrative (ADM) or operational work . METHODS: The sample comprised 121 (ADM = 50 and operational = 71) male military firefighters. Body mass (BM), body fat percentage (BFP), fat body mass, lean body mass, body mass index (BMI), waist circumference and somatotype were analyzed. RESULTS: Intergroup difference was found for body mass (ADM = 78.5 kg - operational = 84.6 kg), BMI (ADM = 25.8 - operational = 27.2) and lean body mass (ADM = 61.9 kg - operational = 66.2 kg). CONCLUSION: The groups exhibited differences in their anthropometric profile and BFP and BMI above the recommended range.
BACKGROUND: Body composition is relevant for the health and work performance of firefighters. However, the behavior of these parameters has not been elucidated for groups of firefighters performing different tasks. OBJECTIVES: To compare the anthropometric profile of military firefighters who perform administrative (ADM) or operational work . METHODS: The sample comprised 121 (ADM = 50 and operational = 71) male military firefighters. Body mass (BM), body fat percentage (BFP), fat body mass, lean body mass, body mass index (BMI), waist circumference and somatotype were analyzed. RESULTS: Intergroup difference was found for body mass (ADM = 78.5 kg - operational = 84.6 kg), BMI (ADM = 25.8 - operational = 27.2) and lean body mass (ADM = 61.9 kg - operational = 66.2 kg). CONCLUSION: The groups exhibited differences in their anthropometric profile and BFP and BMI above the recommended range.
Entities:
Keywords:
anthropometry; body composition; firefighters; health
Authors: Marcos A Michaelides; Koulla M Parpa; Leah J Henry; Gerald B Thompson; Barry S Brown Journal: J Strength Cond Res Date: 2011-04 Impact factor: 3.775
Authors: Elpidoforos S Soteriades; Russ Hauser; Ichiro Kawachi; David C Christiani; Stefanos N Kales Journal: Occup Med (Lond) Date: 2008-01-18 Impact factor: 1.611
Authors: Thomas W Storer; Brett A Dolezal; Marlon L Abrazado; Denise L Smith; Maxim A Batalin; Chi-Hong Tseng; Christopher B Cooper Journal: J Strength Cond Res Date: 2014-03 Impact factor: 3.775
Authors: Eugênio C Nogueira; Luiz Guilherme G Porto; Rozenkranz M Nogueira; Wagner R Martins; Romulo M C Fonseca; Claudia C Lunardi; Ricardo J de Oliveira Journal: J Strength Cond Res Date: 2016-01 Impact factor: 3.775
Authors: BongKyoo Choi; Dale Steiss; Javier Garcia-Rivas; Stacey Kojaku; Peter Schnall; Marnie Dobson; Dean Baker Journal: Int Arch Occup Environ Health Date: 2015-08-08 Impact factor: 3.015
Authors: Ryan Donovan; Tracy Nelson; Jennifer Peel; Tiffany Lipsey; Wyatt Voyles; Richard Gay Israel Journal: Occup Med (Lond) Date: 2009-07-03 Impact factor: 1.611
Authors: Antonios J Tsismenakis; Costas A Christophi; John W Burress; Aaron M Kinney; Min Kim; Stefanos N Kales Journal: Obesity (Silver Spring) Date: 2009-03-19 Impact factor: 5.002